Protecting Farmers and Their Seed: Drivers and Constraints of an Open Source Seed Network in India

Report prepared by Andy Gorvetzian, Research Intern, Seattle University USA

Supervisors: G.V. Ramajaneyulu, Zakir Hussain, and G. Raja Shekar

Centre for Sustainable Agriculture, Hyderabad, Telangana

January-March 2015

Table of Contents:

I. Introduction…………………………………3II. Framework: Drivers and Constraints……....5III. Case Studies………………………………6

Table 1: Summary of Drivers And Constraints………………7

Case 1: Lok Chetna Manch……………8Case 2: Deepika, Pebble Garden………9Case 3: Seed Savers Workshop………..11Case 4: Naidu, Organic Farmer………..14Case 5: Nisargik Skhethi Beej

Producer Company……………16Case 6: R. Baskaran,

Save Our Rice Campaign……...18IV. Analysis and Reflection: Bringing Open Source Seed to the People……………19V. Policy Discussion and Way Forward………..23VI. References……………………………….....24

Acknowledgements I would first like to thank the Centre for Sustainable Agriculture for allowing me to use their facilities, employees, beneficiaries, and libraries in order to gather all the data used in this report. Specifically, I would like to thank Ramoo, Zakir, Raja Shekar, and Chandra Sekhar for all of their mentoring, guidance, and conversation relating to the many issues that small farmers in India face, and the good work that is going on to confront these issues. Beyond that, I thank them all for their contribution to my own personal growth as both a student and human being through my experiences here. Last of all, I would like to thank all of the small farmers, field workers, seed savers, and plant breeders who are maintaining the beautiful traditions and biodiversity in India.

AbstractSeed is the most crucial input for farmers. While the ethic of sharing seed in order to develop new crop varieties remains a crucial aspect of informal seed systems in India, it is increasingly under threat from outside proprietary forces that attempt to patent seed, restricting its use in the public domain in order to ensure private profits. Civil society organizations in India have recognized this trend and are using an innovation called the Open Source Seed Initiative to build a decentralized network of community seed banks that distribute and breed seed protected by a legal framework that facilitates the free exchange of seed. This paper assesses the drivers and constraints of such an initiative and concludes that while the cultural norm of seed sharing is a powerful driver, the language used to develop such a network must be cautious in striking a balance between using necessary legal jargon and accessible simple language, so that the farmers themselves can remain the rights holders in such an institutional framework.

2

I. Introduction Seed is one of the most crucial inputs for farmers. It is a living organism with traits that are the product of thousands of years of agricultural innovation and practice, safeguarded by farmers’ knowledge gathered in their fields. However, today’s globalized world leads to conflict of interest between traditional practice and modern commercial interests give way to complex issues that require innovative solutions. Agriculture provides a clear case of the tensions between traditional and corporate practices. This tension manifests prominently in the context of farmers’ access to seed. The clash engenders an unfortunate scenario in which those farmers’ practices that have existed for centuries find themselves under threat from proprietary forces that seek to patent those seeds (Shiva, 2012.)

Due to seed’s growing characterization as a commodity patented for the sake of profit by private agricultural organizations, the basic practice of exchanging seed and other germplasm can now be a criminal offense due to the legal enforcement of those patents by large multinational seed corporations. This leaves farmers vulnerable to harsh legal ramifications by virtue of doing what they have always done while curtailing their ability to maintain biodiversity that is crucial in sustainable agricultural practices.

In light of this pressing issue, the Centre for Sustainable Agriculture along with various other partners such as the Society for Agro-Ecology, Alliance for Sustainable and Holistic Agriculture (ASHA), Biodynamic Association of India and Agrobiodiversity Community (ABC) have taken steps towards building an Open Source Seed Network in India called Apna Beej. This network will protect farmers and their access to seed in the following ways:

▪ By allowing for physical and legal access to the seeds and yet prevent anyone getting exclusive rights.

▪ By exploring the practical issues with regard to registration of farmers’ varieties under any IPR legislation, apart from ideological dilemmas,

▪ By designing a system of Participatory Plant Breeding to evolve newer lines for adapting to the changing situations and needs

▪ By establishing a mechanism of collating data on Value for Cultivation and Use (VCU) of various lines by Participatory Varietal Selection (http://agroecology.in/oss/)

In order for the above goals to be met, various groups and individuals need to be mobilized. The tasks of such people will be as follows:

▪ People engaged in conservation and revival of traditional varieties, characterize and share with others

▪ Farmers and organizations which can develop Value for Cultivation and Use (VCU) data for the existing traditional/improved varieties in different agro-climatic and growing conditions using participatory varietal selection

▪ Farmers/breeders engaged in selection and development of newer varieties using participatory plant breeding principles

3

▪ Farmers institutions involved in production and marketing of seed to other farmers (G.V. Ramanjaneyulu, G. Raja Shekar 2014.)

The needs outlined above all aim to promote an ethic of seed sharing that the Open Source Seed Initiative started by Jack Kloppenburg and others in the United States has developed in their Open Source Pledge, which reads:

You have the freedom to use these OSSI seeds in any way you choose. In return, you pledge not to restrict others’ use of these seeds or their derivatives by patents, licenses or other means, and to include this pledge with any transfer of these seeds (http://osseeds.org/faqs/.)

However, the question remains: what does the scaling up of such a network look like? What are the principle drivers and constraints of the scaling up of Apna Beej in an attempt reach as many farmers and breeders as possible? The purpose of this report as it pertains to the Open Source Seed Network will be to assess the factors that drive the scaling up of an Open Source Seed Network as well as constraints to that process. These drivers and constraints are outcomes of the blending of formal institutions such as seed producer companies and informal institutions such as community seed banks in light of forces of globalization that affect agricultural practices. Informal seed networks that farmers have always utilized to procure seed must blend with formal intuitions that can ensure quality seed that is protected from proprietary forces. Such blending involves public, private, and civil society organizations, all of which must be engaged in order to construct an effective framework within which open access to seed is a concrete, institutionalized, and legally defensible reality.

The report ultimately concludes that while the cultural norm of sharing seed is a crucial driver in scaling up an initiative like Apna Beej, there is a significant gap between the many farmers whom the network attempts to protect and those who must navigate the complex legal and policy issues relating to the creation of an Open Source seed network. This gap stems from legal jargon necessary to provide legal protection of seed, but can be isolating to farmers and breeders who are skeptical of such language relating to practices they already undertake. This report serves as a means of addressing that gap in order to ensure that the power that drives the Open Source seed network remains in the hands of the farmers and breeders, despite the complexities of the legal and policy-related realities due to the encounter of traditional practices with a globalized world in which traditional knowledge comes under threat from proprietary corporate forces.

4

II. Framework: Drivers and Constraints This report will utilize the drivers and constraints framework as presented by Hussain (2015), illustrated in the graphic below.

The drivers and constraints identified in this report will be demonstrated by case studies derived from personal interviews and interactions that I had with organic farmers, activists, seed savers, and other people working towards seed sovereignty in India. The interactions will serve as raw data, which I will analyze with special attention paid to ethnographic details that will illustrate the context in which the interactions occurred. This analysis will highlight the drivers and constraints as experienced by the people themselves, ushering in a clearer view of what policy recommendations and other suggestions could be beneficial as Apna Beej continues onward in its mission to protect and empower small-farmers and their seed.

The need to identify drivers and constraints as they pertain to the scaling up of development interventions has been cited as a crucial step in scaling up development initiatives (Linn 2012, Hussain 2015.) Specifically relating to scaling up of agro-biodiversity, Hussain (2015) offers the requisite traits that a project should have in order to be deemed appropriate for scaling up. Those traits are as follows:

▪ Environmental friendliness ▪ Economic and financial viability ▪ Technical appropriateness▪ Social and cultural acceptance ▪ Building of viable institutions

Figure 1: Drivers and Constraints Framework, Hussain 2015

5

In addition to the above needs, Hussain (2015) notes that an agro-biodiversity initiative should “promote the accumulation of social capital through decentralization, participatory methods, and empowerment techniques.”

The scaling up pathway that an initiative such as Apna Beej will follow can be characterized as a vertical scaling up, which Linn (2012) describes as a process by which a local intervention is taken to a national level, requiring the development of institutions and policy framework within which the scaled up intervention will operate. Classified as such, the drivers and constraints that are identified relating to community seed banks and an Open Source Seed network must be tied to policy recommendations that aim to build strong and sustainable institutions that protect farmers’ rights. This combined with the fundamental conception of Apna Beej as an institution run by and for farmers requires that the voices and experiences of those farmers directly inform the development of policy.

However, for such scaling up to occur, there must be clear documentation of the drivers and constraints. Hussain (2015) and Kalamani (2007) both note that such documentation is lacking, thus the process of identifying and documenting best practices for scaling up becomes crucial. This report attempts to fill that gap with qualitative and ethnographic data from the voices of those whom the Open Source Seed Network will serve: the farmers and seed savers themselves. Through these voices, the drivers and constraints to the scaling up of an Open Source Seed Network that facilitates and protects the liberated breeding and distribution of seed in a decentralized, farmer and community driven framework will be highlighted and steps going forward suggested.

III. Case Studies:

The following section focuses on specific case studies that serve to highlight the benefits of community seed banks, organic farming, and seed sharing as they relate to the development of an Open Source Seed framework like Apna Beej. Each case study will illustrate both drivers and constraints relating to community seed banks, use of traditional knowledge, organic farming, and Open Source seed distribution. The intent of highlighting such case studies is to connect the human beings who are doing this work and the drivers and constraints they face with the policy framework that regulates an Open Source Seed movement in India. Such a connection is crucial, as the policy that regulates such a movement ultimately should be informed and influenced by the people themselves and their experiences.

6

Table 1: Summary of Drivers and Constraints

Case Drivers Constraints1. Lok Chetna Manch Community pride and

ownership; building of social capital; traditional knowledge and seed sharing

Lack of technology in order to increase yields

2. Pebble Garden Forest Willingness to try new ideas, strong beliefs, consumer appeal, local adaptability of seeds, capacity of local communities

Lack of awareness, social acceptance, conflicting signals

3. Seed Savers Workshop Community acceptance, empowerment, quantity of informal institutions

Lack of knowledge, lack of awareness, inefficiencies in informal systems

4. Naidu’s Farm Raising awareness, “champion” individual

Lack of government support, government interest, unfavorable policies, lack of consumer awareness

5. Nisargik Skhethi Beej Producer Company

Community ownership, locally produced seed, incentives

Social acceptance, lack of awareness of benefits, lack of government support

6. R. Baskaran Community acceptance, cultural norm of sharing

Lack of consumer awareness, lack of government support

Note: Lack of awareness as listed in constraints column relates to lack of consumer awareness of importance of biodiversity, lack of farmer awareness of policy-related issues, or lack of awareness of joining new initiatives like Apna Beej. These issues of awareness contribute to the primary constraint of language used in association with the development of an Open Source seed network in India. Conversley, cultural norms that contribute to community acceptance of seed banks relates to primary driver of entrenched cultural norm of sharing in informal systems.

7

Case 1: A Personal Interaction with NGO workers Nayan and ShelevkerOrganization: Lok Chetna Manch Location: Eastern HimalayasInterviewees: Nayan and Shelevker Drivers: Community pride and ownership; building of social capitalConstraints: Need for techniques to increase yields of commercially important crop

Lok Chetna Manch is an organization working in the Eastern Himalayas region. I met Nayan and Shelevker, two employees of the organization, at a Biodiversity Festival as part of the 5th Annual Organic Farming National Conference in Chandigarh, Punjab. They were eager to share the work that they were doing in rural communities in the region. As part of this work, Lok Chetna Manch has worked on a community seed bank initiative with a focus on large cardamom, a major commercial crop in the Darjeeling Hills.

In the mid 1990s and early 2000s, the large cardamom crop sustained heavy losses due to an epidemic outbreak in its original habitat. The outbreak caused crop losses of up to 80% and cast the community into a deep crisis. In light of the disaster, members of the community attempted to address the crisis with both traditional and scientific knowledge.

Farmers found a potential solution when they noticed that a specific cultivar called varlangay, which was growing in green houses and nurseries, was faring much better than the original cultivar. With that observation, they decided to plant varlangay away from the original fields where the outbreak occurred and practice techniques such as crop rotation and intercropping. This action relieved the damage from the epidemic relieved to a significant extent.

Crucial to the success of the innovation was the ability of farmers to share the vegetative part (the “suckers”) of promising cultivars with other farmers for propagation, a process facilitated by the existence of the community seed bank. This combination of traditional knowledge (the farmer’s ability to select promising varieties) and sharing among farmers allowed for a solution, which scientific attempts had failed to deliver in the region. Additionally, the sharing of germplasm among farmers reduced the need to seek inputs from external inputs, which decreased costs for farmers.

In my interaction with Nayan and Shevleker, they were very proud of the connection between the existence of the community seed bank and the development of social capital among the community members. They expressed that there was a powerful sense of community ownership of the seed bank, and recognition of its ability to help address the crisis. As outlined by Hussain (2015), community pride and ownership and the building of social capital mark two significant drivers for scaling up development interventions. Furthermore, the contribution of sharing the suckers to the solution stresses the virtue of germplasm sharing. However, it must be noted that this particular intervention, while mitigating the effects of the outbreak, did not lead to yield increases when compared to the original techniques. As such, a constraint is a lack of technology and methods that brings yields back to pre-epidemic levels.

8

Case 2: Personal Interview with Deepika, a Seed Saver Organization: Pebble Garden Forest, “A Garden for Everyone”Location: Tamil Nadu Interviewee: DeepikaDrivers: Appeal of locally bred seed (she sold out of her product on first day), conviction that seed cannot be owned, willingness to use contract, local adaptability Constraints: Confusion relating to need to sell seeds with Open Source contract, lack of awareness relating to IPR and patent protection, lack of belief in need for rhetoric

Pebble Garden Forest caught my attention quickly when Deepika and I began speaking about her decision to sell her homebred seeds with a contract that morally bound the consumer to not restrict the sharing of the seed, as it was owned by no one. This act of selling seeds with such a contract marks a crucial initial step into building an institution that protects seed from being owned, but also serves to demonstrate the constraints relating to the scaling up of an Open source model. When I met someone who was implementing the Open source contract, I became quite eager to listen and learn about her experiences.

Deepika has been working for 20 years in Tamil Nadu restoring seven acres of land that had been greatly damaged by soil erosion. The regeneration process consisted of reviving ancient forest species, protecting natural fauna, creating better bodies of water, building up eroded soil with local organic inputs, creating a diverse garden, and finally conserving and sharing seeds of durable varieties that had been bred to grow well in non-ideal weather conditions. The drive behind this work is the belief that eroded soil can be regenerated with on-site inputs combined with a revitalization of traditional plant varieties and utilization of local skill. The work has led to an operation that covers 1,000 square meters of built up soil that supports 100 varieties of vegetables, herbs, and medicinal plants that have been bred to adapt well to less-than-ideal soil conditions.

The seeds that Deepika sells possess different characteristics than those produced for mass consumption. Her seeds possess characteristics such as quality taste, diversity in size, shape, and color, and a long duration of production. Furthermore, she seeks to protect endangered varieties. This contrasts with the characteristics that commercial seed producers seek which are primarily uniformity and ease of transport.

The divergent needs of local seed producers and commercial seed producers becomes apparent here, and clarifies the need for an institution that can protect the differing needs of small scale seed producers and breeders. In this regard, Deepika has already begun to take steps towards achieving the goals of an Open Source Seed Network by selling her seeds with a printed agreement that reads:

“I agree that traditional Plant Varieties, being the creation of generations of farmers, can be OWNED BY NO ONE. Respecting this, I promise to protect these varieties from registration/ownership by anyone and to promote their use in the public domain.”

9

The agreement above invokes an argument against the patenting of seeds using the concept of “Prior Art.” Prior Art can be used to prevent the patenting of an invention by demonstrating that an invention is already known (European Patent Office.) Deepika began selling her products with the agreement when she heard about the Open Source Seed Initiative of Jack Kloppenburg. She fashioned an agreement that highlighted the state of seed as an invention of generations of previous farmers, therefore making seed “Prior Art,” a notion in line with Open Source seed principles. While the contract has no legal mandate, it is symbolic of an attempt to raise public awareness of seeds as a product that cannot be owned.

However, in my conversation with Deepika about the contract and the principles of an Open Source network, she expressed confusion as to why she had to sell her seed with any sort of contract. To her, the idea of seeds being subjected to proprietary forces was inconceivable. But despite her confusion, there was also conviction in her belief. As I explained what purposes an Open Source network would serve—using jargon such as “seed producer company,” “Open Source Seed Initiative,” and “institutionalized framework for protecting seed”—she looked at me and said, “It is silly to have to do so much for something that’s been done for so long.”

This confusion as to why so much rhetoric must go into developing an idea that essentially allows farmers to continue doing what they have always done is not surprising. It is in part a result of the

clash of forces of globalization, commercialization, and privatization and the traditional practices they threaten. But the gap that this clash produces is a crucial one that must be reduced between farmers and those who are working towards building an Open Source Seed network in India. Small farmers should be able to do what they have always done with their seed. It should be available to exchange freely as it already is in most informal seed networks (Ravinder Reddy, et al., 2007.) However, the inevitable penetration of formal seed networks and the accompanying proprietary forces poses a real threat to these practices. Deepika’s case shows that small farmers hold the conviction that seed cannot be owned, but her confusion relating to why so much must be done in order to protect that is a crucial observation to note in scaling up an Open Source Seed model.

In line with the drivers and constraints framework (Hussain 2015) Deepika’s case demonstrates driving factors such as better adaptability of seeds, maintenance of traditional varieties, personal motivation, and capacity of local communities. In terms of constraints, Deepika’s confusion shows that factors such as lack of social acceptance and

Example of Pebble Garden Contract

10

awareness relating to an Open Source network must be considered. The lack of acceptance and ensuing skepticism could serve as significant obstacles to Apna Beej.

Case 3: An Ethnographic Description and Micro Case Studies from Seed Savers Workshop Organization: N/ALocation: Seed Savers Workshop, 5th Annual National Organic Farming Conference Interviewees: Participant observation Drivers: Quantity of community seed banks, women’s empowerment, community acceptance Constraints: Farmers’ knowledge of seed policy and IPR, quality of seeds in seed banks, inefficiencies of informal systems

The Seed Savers Workshop occurred on the second day of the National Organic Farming Conference, a day in which the threatening grey skies over Chandigarh let their full force fall upon the conference participants. The rain caused a change in venue for the workshop, and created chaos as people continuously poured into the formal conference room where the workshop was now taking place. The continuous coming and going of farmers caused the size to fluctuate between 80 and 100 farmers. The sample size allowed for crucial observations that shaped my understanding of the relationship between farmers and seed policy.

Jacob, an activist from Chhattisgarh, opened the workshop by asking the farmers (in both English and Hindi) present whether or not they knew anything about Intellectual Property Rights, The World Trade Organization, or Trade-Related Intellectual Property Rights. Out of the 80 or more farmers present at the time, a total of five raised their hands, while many farmers exchanged confused looks and blank stares. The uncertainty that the question provoked served as visual proof as to the gap between farmers, activists, and policy makers relating to seed policy and the threats to seed sovereignty. The farmers were there to hear the testimony of those who conducted seed saving practices in hopes of bringing such information to their own fields, where they are the experts. Policy matters are best left for activists and policy makers.

The rest of the workshop provided many opportunities for the seed savers present to share their experiences and the success and difficulties that they faced. The following micro-case studies briefly describe experiences, drivers, and constraints of seed saving initiatives from many states of India:

o Maharashtra - Community seed bank for sorghum, jowar, paddy, and maize 35 varieties registered Grow out test to ensure quality Drivers: Community acceptance of seed bank Constraint: Labor intensive documentation of process, tedious

certification process

11

o Orissa 1- Seed producer company Distribute seeds on 1:2 return basis- They give 1 KG of seeds,

farmer returns 2 KG Constraint: Lack of regulation in informal institutions-Problem

with returned seed being an entirely different variety (red rice came back as black rice)

o Orissa 2- Women-led community seed bank Spokeswoman asserts the ability and knowledge of women to be

able to discern which are high quality and low quality seeds Drivers: Traditional knowledge, women-led initiative

o George Anthony, Kerala- Organic farmer who has been continuing the work of saving

organic seeds from his father for over 20 years Focuses on special varieties and traits Participatory varietal selection300 varieties of seeds conserved Drivers: Continuing of family tradition, personal motivation

o Amaji, Andhra Pradesh- 20 years in tribal area Knowledge of conserving seed comes from farmers themselves Biggest problem was marketing of seeds/products from mountain

town Lobby for government support to facilitate daily transport from

village to marketplace Distribution measured in quintals, not Kilograms Distribute 1 kg of seed, expect 2 kg of seed in return After the cyclone in September 2014, government intervention

focused only on preserving paddy, ignoring the other varieties and types that needed protection. Amaji ensured that other traditional varieties received protection

Focus on women as primary custodians of seed Drivers: Focus on women, improvement in financial situation of

village Constraints: Marketing, access to local markets, geographical

constraints, lack of government interest and supporto Karnataka –

40+ farmers come together to form own seed bank Preserve 5-6 varieties of chickpea Domesticated a wild variety of green gram that was “very tasty” Conserve varieties but also set up organic foods bazaar that sells

organic produce on daily basis Drivers: Community ownership, improvement of financial

situation of community, connection to market

12

After the farmers had all presented their experience, the workshop became a space in which the Alliance for Holistic and Sustainable Agriculture (ASHA) announced the effort to create a common platform by which to bring seed saving into the mainstream discussion of sustainable agricultural techniques. ASHA is spearheading the movement called Bharat Beej Swaraj Manch (Indian Seed Sovereignty Forum), of which anyone can be a part. Bharat Beej Swaraj Manch encourages the Open Source principle of willingness to share germplasm so long as there is transparency about the uses derived from that sharing. The farmers welcomed the announcement with applause and cheers, suggesting support for such principles despite the aforementioned unawareness of the proprietary forces that Bharat Beej Swaraj Manch would act against. It is thus important to note that while many farmers may not know about IPRs and patenting of seeds, they do appear to support an initiative that helps bring seed saving practices into the mainstream conversation when the language used to explain the issues is clear and simple.

The Seed Savers Workshop and the ethnographic and qualitative data derived from it highlight numerous drivers and constraints of seed saving initiatives throughout India. The quantity of community seed banks and the number of states within which such initiatives are happening demonstrates the feasibility of the seed bank model as providing seeds through decentralized means that local farmers operate (Ravinder Reddy, et al. 2007; G.V. Ramanjeyulu and G. Raja Shekar 2014; P.V. Satheesh, 2000.) Additionally, decentralized seed banks serve as effective means by which women can take control of seed distribution systems, an indication of women’s empowerment (Braunschweig, et al., 2014.) The woman from Orissa confidently asserted that the women working in their seed bank could distinguish high quality seed from low quality. While rigorous testing to ensure quality of seed is necessary in any seed bank, that she did not hesitate to affirm the women’s ability to see quality seed is a positive sign of empowerment.

However, constraints such as the difficulty in regulating what seed is returned to the bank at the end of a season demonstrate the difficulties of ensuring quality in informal systems (Ravinder Reddy, et al. 2007; G.V. Ramajenyulu, G. Raja Shekar 2014.) Furthermore, the experiences showed that the government interests are economically driven as they attempt to further integrate into the global agricultural market and provide food security for the country by means of increasing yield of commercially viable crops (Morris, et al., 2006; Kuruganti, 2007.) These priorities do not line up with those of seed savers who focus on preserving diversity and traditional knowledge. The Amaji experience after the cyclone in northern Andhra Pradesh shows that while seed savers sought to protect variety and diversity, the government sought to protect only paddy, an economically viable crop.

While the economic viability of crops is important in aiding farmer income security, many researchers and activists have stressed the extreme importance of maintaining agro biodiversity in order to practice sustainable agriculture (P.V. Satheesh, 2000; Shiva, 1995; J. Venkateswarlu, 2015.) This divergence in priorities supports the need for decentralized networks that prioritize diversity maintenance over the economic viability of crops, a task that community seed banks can and should adequately fulfill. The role of

13

small farmers is absolutely crucial in these community seed banks, and thus need a strong voice in the policy that regulates a scaled-up community seed bank model working with an Open Source policy framework. However, the knowledge that small farmers have of policy issues is quite little as seen in the workshop. While there are farmers who do understand the complex policies that affect their access to seed, there needs to be more work done to close the gap between policy and the farmers that it tries to protect. When the announcement of Bharat Beej Swaraj Manch was made, the language was simple and accessible, and farmers accepted it with applause. The language used to present an Open Source Seed model is thus crucial in ensuring that farmers themselves become the rights holders of the institution.

Case 4: Visit to an Organic FarmOrganization: Individual organic farmer Location: Telangana Interviewee: NaiduDrivers: “Champion” individual, contribution to building awareness Constraints: Lack of government support, lack of incentive, financial status of individual farmer and farming communities

I met Naidu in the Centre for Sustainable Agriculture office, and our first interaction taught me a lot about his goals for organic farming and how he aims to achieve them. I quickly accepted the offer when he invited me to come and see the work that he is doing. He concluded the introduction by telling me that he loves working with young people because we, like young plants, can be shaped and molded profoundly by our experiences, unlike older folks or trees whose lives have made them hesitant to accept change.

Naidu shared many of his views with me as we basked in the shade of the many varieties of trees that populated his 12 acres of land outside of Hyderabad, where he and his workers maintain the farm. Naidu grows 15 or more

different vegetables, 15 different fruits (not including the 25 varieties of mango), 10 types of pulses, 3 spices, 35 varieties of flowers, 10 medicinal plants, and over 5 different types of wood, all with organic techniques. His techniques for paddy cultivation are so effective that he once held the national record for highest yield per acre of rice, and agricultural scientists from around the world traveled to his farm to take samples of the crop and soil.

Besides scientists, Naidu has welcomed thousands of other people to view his farm. While he enjoys giving tours to younger students primarily, he also hosts government officials, other farmers, and even received former United States President George W. Bush in 2006. His motivation in bringing so many people to his farm is an attempt to raise public awareness as to the benefits and possibilities of organic farming. He wants to

14

show as many people as possible that organic farming can provide food security for the country while also protecting the environment and safeguarding the health of the people. By bringing people to his farm, he hopes to inspire demand for organically grown products among consumers in order to improve the economic prospects of organic farming practices.

When discussing his motivations for working and showing his farm to as many people as possible, we began discussing the constraining factors that limited organic farming’s entrance into the mainstream of agricultural practices. Naidu responded that government unwillingness to provide financial support for organic practices in the form of subsidies was the primary constraint that held organic farming back. The government provides subsidies only for commercial crops such as sugarcane, wheat, and rice, which they argue lead to increased yield and thus contribute significantly to food security and economic growth (Satheesh, 2000.) In order for organic farming to become more common, there needs to be a shift in public perception but also support from government subsidies in order to incentivize the switch to organic farming.

In the current agricultural model, many farmers seeking income security will plant paddy or wheat or cotton because there are government subsidies that encourage the sowing of these cash crops (Satheesh, 2000.) Thus, there is little financial incentive to diversify or practice organic farming. A small farmer entirely dependent on the income from his or her farm must take a risk in switching to organic farming when the government provides subsidies for conventional hybrid seeds and other inputs that focus on maximum output of commercially viable crops. Zimdahl (2006) ties this fear of risk taking to the inherent uncertainty in agriculture that compels farmer to seek out certainty whenever possible. Furthermore, governments tend to support policies that increase production without taking into account moral or ethical factors such as preserving traditional practice and biodiversity (Zimdahl, 2006.) So, when the government provides subsidies for commercially viable crops, that would appear to reduce uncertainty for a struggling farmer, thus providing an incentive to take advantage of that subsidy and use high-yielding variety and hybrid seeds and chemical fertilizers. However, it neglects other important cultural and environmental issues connected to farming such as preservation of biodiversity.

Naidu’s case is crucial in many aspects regarding an Open Source Seed network and decentralized seed distribution systems that enforce the ethic of sharing and protecting biodiversity. As Ravinder Reddy, et al. (2007) point out, formal seed distribution systems are limited in what varieties of seeds they can produce, for they are ultimately profit driven bodies that will seek profit above all else. As such, formal distribution systems will not be able to meet the diversity needs of small farmers as private seed companies will seek to develop high value crops that lead to high profit margins instead of a maintenance of diversity (Ravinder Reddy, et al. 2007.) Without informal distribution systems protected by the principle of Open Source seed sharing, the possibility of scaling up organic practices such as Naidu’s becomes bleak. The biodiversity present on Naidu’s farm is a crucial factor to his success in farming, and if seed policy does not protect biodiversity that underpins Naidu’s success then the possibility of fruitful organic

15

farming practices reaching the wider farming population of India becomes significantly diminished.

Nevertheless, a case like Naidu’s encapsulates what Linn (2012) describes as a champion individual in scaling up. The recognition of his efforts on national and international levels and his willingness to share his practices provides him with significant influence for thousands of farmers and consumers. With Naidu, there is a physical example of organic farming’s potential of organic farming and the necessity for biodiversity in order to attain such success. Such biodiversity can be made possible by an Open source model that institutionalizes the sharing and exchange of germplasm. Furthermore, Zimdahl (2006) highlights the importance of local systems, adapted to specific circumstances, and a respect for the traditional knowledge of those who have worked the land for generations. Naidu, and his 92-year-old mother who works the farm every day, are evidence of such qualities.

Case 5: A Field Visit to a Farmer Owned Seed Producer Company Organization: Nisargik Skhethi Beej Producer Company Pvt. Ltd.Location: Maharashtra Interviewees: Vikas and Chandrashekhar Drivers: Community ownership, locally produced seed Constraints: Lack of government support, lack of awareness, social acceptance

My visit to Wardha, Maharashtra allowed me the opportunity to visit Nisargik Skhethi Beej Producer Company, an initiative that Centre for Sustainable Agriculture (CSA) started as a farmer-owned seed producer company. My two tour guides were Vikas, a CSA employee in the Wardha field office, and Chandrasekhar, the CEO of Nisargik Skhethi Beej. Over two days, these two men showed me the infrastructure that allows the seed producer company to create high quality seed and discuss drivers and constraints to the development of the company.

Seed producing machinery

The company was founded in 2011 after surveys identified the need for a seed producer company that produced the highest quality seed possible. The board consisted of five people who all contributed 20,000 rupees each in order to have 1 lakh rupees of starting

16

capital for the company. The farmer membership began with village facilitators who pledged 1,000 rupees each in order to become a member. The company sought to procure seed from agricultural universities, which would then be given to local seed producers who multiplied the seed under guidance and training of best practices from CSA. The process of multiplying and producing seeds was done under strict supervision from seed inspectors to ensure that the purity and quality of the seed was being maintained throughout the entire breeding process. The rigorous supervision processes that the company undertakes are to ensure that they are indeed producing the highest quality seed possible that will germinate and grow properly in local conditions. Ravinder Reddy (2007) notes a crucial drawback of informal seed systems is the lack of quality checks. The rigorous quality assurance practice of Nisargik Skhethi Beej is a case of how the quality assurance of formal systems can be blended with the advantages of informal systems, which include utilization of farmer’s knowledge in selecting varieties and local management and diffusion of seed (Braunschweig, et al. 2014.)

A discussion with Vikas revealed the primary drivers and constraints relating to the development and maintenance of a farmer-owned seed producer company. The most crucial constraint was climate change, and the difficulties that an erratic climate poses to the business operations of a seed producer company. It presents a large obstacle to the already difficult task of producing seeds that are responsive to changes in climate, high in quality, and economically competitive against the products that better-established private seed producer companies produce. The difficulties stemming from competing with other, better-established seed producing entities corroborates the constraints that Naidu (Case 5) assessed in terms of subsidies. One kilogram of seed that Nisargik Skhethi Beej Producer Company costs 40 rupees, whereas government subsidized seed costs 25 rupees/kg, and this discrepancy poses a significant obstacle for a farmer-owned company to be competitive. What is the incentive for a farmer to buy more expensive seed?

The hesitance of a farmer to buy more expensive seed must be considered beyond economic reasons, as multiple explanations for this hesitance could hinder the development an Open Source seed network. Kloppenburg (2010) discusses the idea of “indigenous skepticism” in relation to an Open Source seed network driven by the ethic of sharing. Indigenous skepticism results from previous (Western) interventions that “would ask them to share more widely” even though “when what sharing they have previously undertaken – voluntary or imposed – almost always resulted in asymmetric extraction.” (Kloppenburg, 2010.) This skepticism serves as a legitimate constraint to the development of an Open Source network when analyzed through the experience of Nisargik Skhethi Beej, and the potential future experiences of a larger network of Open Source producer companies. In the absence of government subsidies, why would a farmer pay more for seed? Who benefits from the purchasing of more expensive seed? Why should a farmer pay more for seed that he or she buys with the knowledge that this seed should be freely exchanged? Furthermore, as Deepika (Case 2) demonstrated, why is there a need for complex legal language relating to Open Source seed, when the majority of farmers already share their seed? What is the purpose of the confusing jargon that accompanies the higher prices?

17

All of these questions must be considered when assessing the scaling up of an Open Source model in the context of seed producer companies. Granted, much of this skepticism could be curtailed in the event that government policies switch priorities from supporting conventional agricultural techniques to organic farming techniques. But in the meantime, Vikas stated the importance of making farmers aware that Nisargik Skhethi Beej is a farmer-owned company that produces high quality organic seeds. The importance could be underscored by the benefits that farmers gain from joining the company, which Vikas noted include access to quality seed, organic farming practices training, access to bio fertilizer and other organic inputs, etc. An important driver of scaling up a practice is the incentives that are offered. The incentives of joining a farmer-owned seed producer company that operates within an Open Source policy framework must be developed and presented clearly in order to move forward with the scaling up of such an initiative.

Case 6: A Personal Interview with R. Baskaran, a Seed Saver Organization: Individual farmer associated with Save Our Rice Campaign Location: Tamil NaduInterviewee: R. BaskaranDrivers: Willingness of farmers to share seeds, success at scale Constraints: Lack of consumer awareness, government unwillingness to support organic techniques

I interacted with Baskaran at the Biodiversity and Seed Festival at the 5th Annual National Organic Farming conference in Chandigarh, separated by a table that contained dozens of different samples of the varieties of paddy he and other farmers from Tamil Nadu had been saving for the past decade. Baskaran has spent the past 10 years saving different varieties of rice alongside 30,000 other farmers from various states of India who comprise the Save Our Rice Campaign.

The Save Our Rice Campaign has so far found, cultivated, and shared 1,345 varieties of rice, which have been shared in the states of Karnataka, Kerala, Tamil Nadu, and West Bengal via the development of 20 community seed banks. A crucial aspect of the campaign consists of farmers like Baskaran who will plant the various varieties in their respective fields in order to determine how samples fare in different soil types, geographical settings, and varying periods of time. Baskaran underscored the importance of encouraging farmers to trust their own instincts in attempting to identify the best samples of paddy in the various settings. These practices all align with the objectives of the campaign, which are (1) conserving rice ecosystems, (2) sustaining rice

culture and diversity, (3) protecting traditional community wisdom, (4) preventing GMOs and toxins, (5) ensuring safe and nutritious food to all. Baskaran told me that for those who are participating in the campaign, diversity would always be more important than yield.

18

Baskaran’s case is useful in assessing the implementation of an Open Source system in myriad ways. The previous case of Nisargik Skhethi Beej highlighted the concern of indigenous skepticism relating to an imposed ethic of sharing inherent to the Open Source model. However, Baskaran adamantly stated that there was no conflict whatsoever relating to the sharing of seed within these networks. The apparent lack of conflict when considering the size of the campaign is a positive indication that due to the ingrained practice of sharing seeds in informal systems, the possibility of resistance to sharing due to indigenous skepticism may not pose as significant of a constraint. However, it is important to note that the skepticism can be curtailed depending on the language that is used. The language must be one that farmers can understand and connect to.

Baskaran did share the major constraints to their campaign, which echo the sentiments that previous case studies have exhibited. These constraints relate to a lack of consumer education relating to the importance of maintaining diversity as well as a lack of government support for organic farming practices.

IV. Analysis and Reflection: Bringing Open Source Seed to the People

The case studies as outlined above demonstrate many positive examples of driving factors that can facilitate the development and scaling up of a decentralized seed distribution network that functions with an Open Source policy framework like Apna Beej. According to the framework outlined by Hussain (2015), the work that is currently going on in many regions of India exemplifies numerous drivers as well as constraints for scaling up, presented in Table 1. Besides the building of social capital, community ownership, and empowerment among others, the primary driver is the well-entrenched cultural norm of sharing seed in informal systems. This driver is a major factor that will contribute to the scaling up of a decentralized network of community seed banks that freely exchange seed within a legally enforceable institutional framework of sharing.

However, tensions present when comparing the experiences above reveal crucial constraints that must be considered. The experience with Deepika (Case 2) and her confusion as to why she needed to make people sign a contract in order to ensure that seed is owned by no one combined with the ethnographic details of the Seed Savers (Case 3) in which the farmers present revealed their lack of knowledge of IPRs, TRIPs and patenting of seeds exhibits a potentially significant gap between the various stakeholders of Apna Beej. As G.V. Ramanjaneyulu (2014) points out, Apna Beej is in part reliant upon “the farmer cooperatives [and] individual entrepreneurs who are interested in producing and marketing the open source licensed seed.” In order to enlist the services of these individuals, it requires the “establishment of Community managed seed banks at village level which can be federated with an effective decentralized production, procurement, storage, distribution and marketing network in which ‘Community Based Organizations’ at village level plays the key role.” (G.V. Ramanjaneyulu and G. Raja Shekar, 2014.) The participation of farmers and breeders on

19

the local level is crucial to the implementation and maintenance of an Open Source seed network.

This crucial participation faces a significant constraint of language associated with an Open Source seed movement. While there are many policy makers, farmers, and activists who are fully aware of the dangers that proprietary forces pose to small farmers and seed savers everywhere, the language relating to the Open Source model is full of legal jargon and new terminology that borrows much from the software movement as well as legal textbooks such as “BioLinux,” “copyleft,” and “material transfer agreement,” (G.V. Ramajaneyulu and G. Raja Shekar 2014; Kloppenburg 2008, 2010, 2013.) My discussion with Deepika and my use of this type of language was what prompted her response as to the silliness of so much rhetoric in order to let farmers keep doing what they have already done. This reaction revealed to me the most crucial constraint of scaling up an Open Source model: the language used to explain its purpose to the farmers who must be the rights holders within an Open Source seed framework. As the activist Jacob (Case 3) said, caution must be heeded at drawing parallels between open source seed and open source software; seed is a natural, living entity that is the work of thousands of years of cultivation and practice. While software and seed share some parallels relating to Open Source terminology, software developers and farmers come from very different historical, cultural, and practical backgrounds. The language of Apna Beej must reflect these differences while also ensuring legal protection to farmers.

The strengths and weaknesses of the Open Source seed model lie in this language and the creative solution of applying software jargon to seed. The strengths come from the desire to push against the trends of corporatization and consumerism that Lessig (2013) believes engenders a paradigm in which consumers who are no longer creative are consuming creativity. While Lessig (2013) presents this idea in the context of creative content online, Morris, et al. (2006) outlines global trends that usher in a similar trend in global plant breeding. Forces of globalization have led to the commercialization of agriculture, piquing private interest in plant breeding as a means of making profit. This trend combined with the attempt of governments to integrate the agricultural sector into larger global markets leads to a situation in which the private sector contributes a much larger quantity of seeds to markets (Morris, et al. 2006.) While a growing formal seed distribution system allows for advantages such as seed quality testing, better marketing, and better storage facilities, it also can turn farmers who should be creative contributors to the seed breeding process into passive consumers (Braunschweig, et al. 2014; G.V. Ramanjaneyulu and G. Raja Shekar, 2014.)

The following table indicates that these trends have affected small and marginal farmers in the Andhra-Pradesh region of India. Between 1995 and 2010, farmers’ source of seed has dramatically changed to reflect a blending of formal and informal distribution systems.

20

Table 2: Sources of Farmers’ SeedsFarmer Type Year Formal Systems Informal

SystemsBoth

Marginal 1995 33.61% 63.93% 2.46%2010 32.78% 31.97% 35.23%

Small 1995 31.08% 66.89% 2.03%2010 30.40% 20.95% 48.65%

G. Raja Shekar, 2015

The dramatic increases in small and marginal farmers obtaining seeds from both formal and informal seed systems is indicative of the larger trends of globalization and seed production affecting small farmers in India. In light of this trend, the development of an institution like Apna Beej that protects farmers as contributors to the creative seed breeding process while taking advantage of the benefits of formal seed systems becomes ever more crucial. The experience presented in Case Study 5 with Nisargik Skhethi Beej highlights the difficulties in achieving a sustainable balance between formal and informal seed distribution systems that ensure quality while also maintaining farmers as creative contributors to the seed breeding process. This becomes especially difficult when farmers are hesitant to buy seed that is more expensive when the benefits are not made clear, corroborated by Kloppenburg’s (2010) recognition of “indigenous skepticism” relating to initiatives that encourage sharing. These problems become magnified when the jargon of the Open Source seed model causes confusion and uncertainty for farmers, seed savers, and breeders.

In light of such concerns, it should be noted that the critical part of the implementation of an Open Source Seed Network is that farmers themselves be the ones who clearly support the implementation and enforcement of the policy. This policy consists of a “licensing system, which prevents misuse, abuse and misappropriation of Traditional Knowledge” that activists, legal experts, and NGO workers develop alongside policymakers (G.V. Ramanjaneyulu and G. Raja Shekar, 2014.) But if the voices of small farmers become lost in the legal and business aspects of Open Source seed, the heart of the effort will be lost. Farmers must be engaged in such a way that they become active rights holders and defenders of an Open Source seed model.

G.V. Ramajaneyulu (2015) recognizes the need of farmers in fulfilling this role. He writes that the enforcement of a germplasm exchange mechanism (General Public License) that allows for seed sharing to occur is a difficult task moving forward. He suggests that a tool be used to raise public awareness about the dangers of bioprospecting and the threat presented to small-scale farmers. In the same vein, the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations offers, “Under a right to food framework, those who would normally endure inappropriate policies become rights holders or rights claimants. They are empowered and can hold their government accountable for violations and omissions, seek redress and can motivate duty bearers to act in positive ways.”

21

(Braunschweig, et al., 2014.) Apna Beej can facilitate the process of farmers becoming the rights holders.

The tools by which to rally the support, raise public awareness, and allow farmers to become rights holders lies not in the legal jargon that the Open source Seed Initiative engages in discussing legal matters; rather, it lies in simple language that can be most easily understood by all farmers. Fancy terminology is not the best way to access a population like marginal farmers of whom upwards of 62.22% are illiterate (G. Raja Shekar, 2015.) It should be simple language that clearly explains how Apna Beej is an attempt to allow them to continue sharing seed as they have always done, but with legal protections that ensure their practices will not be threatened by proprietary forces. While a protected commons with a legal mandate to enforce sharing and exchange of germlasm must be developed, the enforcement and acceptance of something like Apna Beej must come from the small farmers in India. Complex language will color the actual legal framework, but simple language must reach the farmers who enforce it in their communities.

In order to raise awareness as to the threats of proprietary forces to the traditional practices of small farmers in India, the language must be one that is easily understood. It must come from experiences of farmers and breeders themselves. My discussion with Deepika in which I used phrases like “institutional framework” and “Open Source sharing” elicited a strong reaction of both confusion and conviction. Confusion as to why the legal jargon was necessary combined, with a conviction that sharing is what they have always done. This conviction must be tapped and the confusion mitigated. The challenge is farmers’ apparent aversion to policy matters when it comes at the expense of practical knowledge they can use in their fields. During the National Organic Farming Conference, rain forced a workshop on organic practices and farmers’ experiences in the fields to be curtailed in favor of a workshop discussing seed policy. Half of the auditorium (primarily farmers) left angrily, some yelling that they don’t care about policy. This event demonstrates one of the largest constraints that the Open Source seed movement faces in India: a disconnect between farmers and policy. Farmers care about what happens in the field, not in a legislature or business boardroom. But the events in these seemingly isolated places are becoming increasingly interlinked and it is the farmers and their creativity of traditional practices that assume the most risk. The language used to explain Apna Beej, then, must be very intentional in highlighting the increasing connection between farmers’ fields and business peoples’ commercial interests.

Fortunately, as Jacob said of Indian farmers, “We are already open source.” The fundamental principles of an Open Source seed distribution model are already present and have been for generations. The challenge is working with farmers to increase awareness that our globalized world calls for innovative solutions so that they may continue to do what they already do. Apna Beej and the Open Source Seed Initiative model present a viable way of ensuring that small farmers can protect their traditional practices and knowledge with the strength of an institution that resists harmful proprietary forces. The key is to make sure that farmers are aware of these issues and can thus take ownership of that institution. As Dr. Debel Deb, a seed saver who is working on

22

protecting hundreds of varieties of rice and their unique characteristics from biopiracy, told me, one positive benefit of globalization is the globalization of resistance. Such resistance must find its voice within the farmers themselves.

V. Policy Recommendations and Way Forward

What does this mean going forward? What are the next steps, mindful of the need to balance appropriate legal and business jargon with a language that can rally support from the farmers? A discussion with Ramoo, Executive Director of CSA, revealed to me a paradoxical characteristic of small farmers in India. The paradox lies in that both the strength and the weakness of farmers is their diversity. Diversity allows for countless varieties of paddy, vegetables, fruits, and pulses to grow, but prevents their being able to unify on a common platform in order to enact larger-scale change in policy. Apna Beej serves as an opportunity to develop a concrete institution that blends the benefits of formal and informal seed systems with the potential of uniting many diverse farmers under the ethic of sharing germplasm in order to protect their traditional knowledge and right to share seed. Tools that enforce this collective ethic are very important in this context as Horton (2013) warns of an incorporation of norms such as individualism, competition, and consumption as a by-product of globalization. In a country like India with strong communal values and a rich and complex diversity of languages, perhaps simplicity of language is a possible means of reaching the greatest number in ensuring that farmers’ collective mindset can best adapt to the forces of globalization.

The following suggestions are attempts to bridge the gap between farmers and their work in the fields and the policy makers and civil society workers who and their work in developing a legally defensible institutional framework of sharing. The goal is to ensure that the Open Source seed legal framework has the legal power to defend its rights holder while remaining accessible to and enforced by the farmers themselves:

1. Ensure that a simple, easily understandable language is used in the “Seed Exchange” that explains the reasons for an Open Source Seed model like Apna Beej to farmers and breeders

a. Emphasis on sharing of germplasm 2. Exercise caution when using terminology like “copyleft,” “General Public

License,” “Material Transfer Agreement,” and other jargon from the Open Source Seed Initiative when presenting the idea of Apna Beej to farmers.

a. Ensure that use of terms comes with clear definition of each term and the need for it, wary of the fact that these terms sound more like means of restriction of use rather than sharing

3. Reinforce idea that Apna Beej allows farmers to continue doing what they already do, but also allows them to improve and legally protect their inputs through blending of formal and informal seed distribution systems

4. Develop a tool that allows for enforcement of Open Source sharing ethic from farmers themselves

23

a. This could be a publication that highlights individual cases of farmers or breeders who achieved an innovation from sharing or exchanging germplasm

b. Publication could be part of “Seed Exchange” that will explain in clear terms the legal jargon

c. Connect legal jargon with actual cases of farmers in the field 5. Utilize testimony about importance of sharing germplasm as means of lobbying

government to subsidize organic farming practices a. Connection between Apna Beej, farmers experience in the field, and

policymakers that enforces the idea that Apna Beej responds directly to needs and experiences of farmers

6. Combine quantitative data collected in Value for Cultivation and Use (VCU) with qualitative data of farmers experiences with using these seeds to connect Open Source seed with farmer experience

Ultimately, Apna Beej faces a tough struggle ahead. Attempting to navigate the complex international and national treaties, conventions, and rules of the global trade game while keeping the needs of small farmers and their traditional knowledge as a highest priority will be difficult. However, the ethic of sharing seed is strong among farmers, and the determination to protect that right is very much present. The diversity of farmers in India is both an obstacle and a powerful tool. But by focusing on the policy issues that protect the ethic of sharing seed while mindful of the people whom that policy aims to protect, establishing an Open Source seed network in India can one day become a reality.

VI. References

Braunschweig, Thomas; Meienberg, François; Pionetti, Carine ; and Shashikant. Sangeeta “Owning Seeds, Accessing Food: A human Rights impact assessment of UPOV 1991 Based on case studies in Kenya, Peru, and the Phillipines.” Berne Declaration, October 2014.

de la Perierre, Robert Ali; and Seuret, Franck. Brave New Seeds: The Threat of GM Crops to Farmers. London: Zed Books. 2000.

G. Raja Shekar and N. Sandhya Shenoy. “Paradigm Shift in Livelihood Patternof Small and Marginal Farmers in Andhra Pradesh”, from Agricultural Risk Management eds. J. Devi Prasad, B. Gangaiah, K. Suman Chandra, published by Centre for Good Governance and BS Publications, Hyderabad. 2015.

G.N. Kulkarni. Principles of Seed Technology. Kalyani Publishers: Dehli, 2004.

G.V. Ramanjaneyulu and G. Raja Shekar. “Building Open Source Seed Systems.” Centre for Sustainable Agriculture. 2014.

G.V. Ramanjaneyulu. “Non-Pesticidal Management: Scaling Up Experiences in Andhra-Pradesh.” National Workshop on Policy Matters: Insights from Civil Society

24

Engaging with Science and Technology. Proceedings and Papers. August 2007, School of Social Sciences, University of Hyderabad.

Hamilton, Lisa M. “Linux for Lettuce.” Virginia Quarterly Review. Summer 2014. http://www.vqronline.org/reporting-articles/2014/05/linux-lettuce

Horton, Lynn R. “From Collectivism to Capitalism: Neoliberalism and Rural Mobilization in Nicaragua.” Latin American Politics and Society. University of Miami, 2013.

Hussain, Zakir. “Defining Good Practice for the Conservation, Use, and Enhancement of Agricultural Biodiversity for More Resilient Farming Systems.” Working paper. 2015.

J. Venkateswarlu and G.V. Ramanjaneyulu. Wisdom in Traditional Farming Systems. Centre for Sustainable Agriculture Development Dialogue. 2015.

Kloppenburg, Jack. “Re-purposing the master’s tools: The open source seed initiative and the Struggle for Seed Sovereignty.” Program in Agrarian Studies, Yale University. The Journal of Peasant Studies Conference Paper #56 at Food Sovereignty: A Critical Dialogue September 13-14 2013.

Kloppenburg, J. “Seed, Sovereignty, and the Vía Campesina: Plants, Property, and the Promise of Open Source Biology.” Conference paper presented for Workshop on Food Sovereignty: theory, Praxis, and Power. November 17-18, 2008.

Kloppenburg, Jack. “Open Sources, Open Minds: Open Source Biology and the Struggle for Organic Seed Sovereignty.” Collected Papers of the 1st IFOAM International Conference on Organic Animal and Plant Breeding.

Kloppenburg, Jack. “Free as in Speech. Not as in Beer: The Open Source Seed Initiative.” Paper prepared for the Organic Seed Grower’s Conference, Corvallis, OR. February 2013.

Kloppenburg, Jack. “Impeding Dispossession, Enabling Repossession: Biological Open Source and the Recovery of Seed Sovereignty.” Journal of Agrarian Change, Volume 10 (3), July 2010.

Kloppenburg, Jack. “The unexpected Outcome of the Open Source Seed Initiative’s Licensing Debate.” RedHat. June 2014. http://opensource.com/law/14/5/legal-issues-open-source-seed-initiative

Kurugathi, Kavitha. “Government’s Agri-research Set Up is Undemocratic.” National Workshop on Policy Matters: Insights from Civil Society Engaging with Science and Technology. Proceedings and Papers. August 2007, School of Social Sciences, University of Hyderabad.

25

Lessig, Lawrence. “Laws that Choke Creativity.”TED presentation, March 2007. http://www.ted.com/talks/larry_lessig_says_the_law_is_strangling_creativity?language=en

Linn, Johannes F. (ed.) “Scaling Up in Agriculture, Rural Development, and Nutrition.” Publication of the International Food Policy Research Institute. June 2012.

Linn, Johannes F. “Scaling Up Development Interventions: A Review of UNDP’s Country Program in Tajikistan.” Global Economy and Development at Brookings Institution, Working Paper 50. February 2012.

Morris, Michael, Edmeades, Greg, and Eija Pehu. “The Global Need for Plant Building Capacity: What Roles for the Public and Private Sector?” HortScience Vol. 41(1) February 2006.

N.K. Sanghi. Structural Refinement in CBOs for Self-Reliant Development- Emerging Options.” National Workshop on Policy Matters: Insights from Civil Society Engaging with Science and Technology. Proceedings and Papers. August 2007, School of Social Sciences, University of Hyderabad.

No author. “What is Prior Art?” European Patent Office. https://www.epo.org/learning-events/materials/inventors-handbook/novelty/prior-art.html

P.V. Satheesh. Deccan Development Society. “Crops of Truth: Farmer’s Perception of Agrobiodiversity in the Deccan Region of South India.” Booksline Publishing, Hyderabad. (2000)

Ramabrahmam. “Some Considerations on the Politics of Policy-making.” National Workshop on Policy Matters: Insights from Civil Society Engaging with Science and Technology. Proceedings and Papers. August 2007, School of Social Sciences, University of Hyderabad.

Ravinder Reddy Ch, Tonapi VA, Bezkorowajnyj PG, Navi SS and Seetherama N. 2007. “Seed System Innovations in the Semi-Arid Tropics of Andhra-Pradesh.” International Livestock Research Institute (ILRI), ICRISAT, Patancheru, Andhra Pradesh.

Shiva, Vandana; Ramprasad, Venaja; Hegde, Pandurang; Kirshnan, Omkar; and Holla-Bhar, Radha. The Seed Keepers. Navdanya Indraprashtra Press: Delhi. 1995.

Shiva, Vandana. “The Seed Emergency: The Threat to Food And Democracy.” Aljazeera Englihs Online. February 6, 2012. Accessed January 25, 2015. http://www.aljazeera.com/indepth/opinion/2012/02/201224152439941847.html

Zimdahl, Robert L. Agriculture’s Ethical Horizons. Elsevier: Burlington, MA, 2006.

26

27