ADVERTISEMENT
Publish report on 'consultations' over Bill - FSG to parliament
The group had argued that the Plant Breeders Bill currently before parliament is not in the best interest of local seed growers and farmers.
Parliament of Ghana
Recommended articles
Civil Society group, Food Sovereignty Ghana, who is making this call said "We are not claiming that we are the only group that petitioned Parliament that needed to be consulted. However, we see that almost all the groups that petitioned Parliament are still waiting to be ‘consulted. We wonder which groups actually were consulted? Why were most or all of the petitioners excluded? What was the basis of the petitions of any groups that may have been consulted, and on what grounds were they rejected by the Committee?"
According to the group as well other farmers in Ghana, mega transnational seed and fertiliser companies will take advantage of the bill to kill smallholder farms in Ghana.
ADVERTISEMENT
The Bill is expected to improve the seed industry by providing a legal framework for the protection of the rights of breeders of new plant varieties and to enable Ghana to be in full compliance with obligations under the Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPs) of the WTO while promoting and encouraging investment in the seed industry.
The speaker had ruled for further consultations on the Bill in November 11, 2014, the last time the Bill came up on the floor of the House at the Consideration Stage, a move the Legal and Constitutional Affairs of parliament, has said has been taken into consideration.
Food Sovereignty Ghana is therefore demanding a publication of the report on the consultations done by parliament, considering concerns by small-holder farmers and other groups that they were not consulted.
"It therefore behooves the Committee to produce an official report detailing the “consultations” they claim to have done for all to know why Parliament still refuses to heed the demands of Ghanaian civil society groups and Faith-based organisations which who have formally petitioned them. The minimum courtesy one expects is at least a report detailing why their objections were not taken into consideration," a statement signed Edwin Kweku Andoh Baffour, Communications Directorate, FSG has said in a statement.
Below are excerpts of the statement:
ADVERTISEMENT
We particularly demand responses to these fundamental objections to the Plant Breeders’ Bill. All of these objections apply equally to the ARIPO Arusha PVP Protocol, a treaty version of the exact same bill.
1. Ghana can protect plant breeder rights without necessarily opting for UPOV 91. The Bill is modelled on the International Convention for the Protection of New Varieties of Plants of 1991 (UPOV 1991) which is a rigid and an inflexible regime for plant variety protection (PVP). It is worth noting that today out of the 71 UPOV members, only a fraction – about 22 developing countries are members of UPOV. Most of these developing countries (e.g. Brazil, China, Argentina, South Africa) and even some developed countries (e.g. Norway) are not members of UPOV 1991 but rather UPOV 1978, which is a far more flexible regime.
Ghana has full flexibility under the World Trade Organization (WTO) to develop an effective “sui generis” system for plant variety protection, i.e. to develop a unique system that suits its needs. In view of this, it is truly unfortunate and even irrational that instead of designing a PVP regime that reflects the agricultural framework and realities of Ghana as some other countries have done (e.g. India, Thailand, Ethiopia), Ghana is choosing to adopt and be bound by UPOV 1991 without any concrete evidence or impact assessment of the necessity and impacts of adopting such a regime.
Ghana is a member of the World Trade Organization and the rights and obligations concerning intellectual property are governed by the WTO Agreement on Trade Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPS Agreement). According to Article 27.3(b) of the TRIPS Agreement, Ghana has to provide protection of plant varieties by an “effective sui generis” system. Sui generis means “unique” system of protection. This provision allows Ghana maximum flexibility in the design of plant variety protection (PVP). This is what many developing countries such as Thailand, Malaysia, India have done. The African Union Ministers have also recommended a unique Model Law for Plant Variety Protection. See: Ghana’s Plant Breeders Bill Lacks Legitimacy! It Must Be Revised!
The public has a right to know why our Parliament is insisting on the UPOV-91 model for Ghana!
ADVERTISEMENT
2. As a member of the International Treaty on Plant Genetic Resources (ITPGRFA) we expect Ghana to take steps to realise farmers’ rights to use, sell, save and exchange farm-saved seeds, to protect their traditional knowledge and to allow their participation in national decision-making.
It is thus extremely disappointing to see that the Bill is heavily tilted in favour of commercial breeders and undermines farmers’ rights. The Bill does not allow farmers to sell and exchange seeds. A farmer’s use of farm-saved seeds on his own holdings is limited to “personal use” and regulation by the Minister and may be subject to payment of royalties.
3. The Bill also contains a “presumption” whereby a plant breeder is considered to be entitled to intellectual property protection in the absence of proof to the contrary. Usually the onus is on the applicant to prove that he or she has complied with the necessary requirements and is thus entitled to protection. But in this case there is a presumption in favour of the plant breeder. This “presumption” provision and the lack of an explicit provision that calls for the disclosure of origin of the genetic material used in the development of the variety including information of any contribution made by any Ghanaian farmer or community in the development of the variety creates opportunities for breeders to misappropriate Ghana’s genetic resources using the PVP system and to exploit smallholder farmers. Ghana’s farmers must not be criminalized by Ghana’s laws for practising traditional farming.
It is important to note that Ghana is a member of the International Treaty on Plant Genetic Resources for Food and Agriculture (ITPGRFA) and the Convention on Biological Diversity and both these instruments champion fair and equitable sharing of benefits arising from the utilization of genetic resources. Including a disclosure of origin provision in the Bill is critical as it is widely recognized as an important tool to safeguard against biopiracy. Several countries have included such a provision in its their PVP legislation and there is no reason why Ghana should not do the same.
4. The Bill also lacks provisions that will ensure that intellectual property protection will not be granted to varieties that adversely affect public interests.
ADVERTISEMENT
5. Amend or repeal Clause 23! The offending clause reads:
“23 Measures regulating commerce.A plant breeder right shall be independent of any measure taken by the Republic to regulate within Ghana the production, certification and marketing of material of a variety or the importation or exportation of the material.”
FSG’s position on this is that it is important for the Bill to be coherent with Ghana’s sovereignty plus other legislation and national interests such as the protection of the environment, health, prevention of misappropriation of genetic resources etc.
The inclusion of Clause 23 hinders the ability to achieve such coherence as it views the grant of PBR as being independent from all other regulations. In certain cases it may be important to refuse to grant PBR over a variety, particularly where national interests are at stake. Such situations include not granting PBR on varieties that are injurious to public health, environment etc or where the application does not disclose the origin of the genetic material.
There is a huge difference between “plant breeder right shall be INDEPENDENT OF any measure taken by the Republic to regulate within Ghana the production, certification and marketing…” and “plant breeder right shall be SUBJECT TO any measure taken by the Republic to regulate within Ghana the production, certification and marketing of material of a variety or the importation or exportation of the material”! The language must be amended to: plant breeder right shall be SUBJECT TO any measure taken by the Republic to regulate within Ghana the production, certification and marketing of material of a variety or the importation or exportation of the material.
ADVERTISEMENT
6. Any PVP law in Ghana must protect Ghana from biopiracy. We recommend language such that: any entity or individual who provides germplasm resources to any foreign entity, organisation or individual in cooperation to conduct research, shall make an application and submit a national benefit-sharing plan.
Why do our elected representatives ignore these points, at least according to the Hon George Loh. Why do our MPs reject these suggestions that would truly protect Ghana’s agriculture and make our lives more sustainable and our agriculture more profitable for all Ghanaians.
For Life, the Environment, and Social Justice!
Edwin Kweku Andoh BaffourCommunications Directorate, FSG
JOIN OUR PULSE COMMUNITY!
ADVERTISEMENT
Eyewitness? Submit your stories now via social or:
Email: eyewitness@pulse.com.gh
Recommended articles
609 Ghanaians died in first 3 months of 2024 through road crashes - NRSA reveals
Stay in your parents' house while you do your NSS - Sammy Gyamfi advises graduates
Joseph Addo files nomination to contest as NPP Parliamentary aspirant for La Dadekotopon
Dumsor: ECG board members reject PURC GH¢5.8m fine
Woman who claims to have been taken to another world by dwarfs shares experience
Organised Labour threatens to strike May 2 over Tier-2 pension arrears
Nana Addo assures he will prioritize the welfare of cocoa farmers
Truck driver arrested for allegedly causing train accident on Tema-Mpakadan railway line
