TRUAX, Saskatchewan,
Canada, December 17, 2004: The cat is
out of the bag as far as Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada (AAFC)
is concerned. The department's plans to cut research into crop varieties
and agronomy and turn that type of research over to the private
sector has created a furor in farm circles, and across the prairies.
Denials are quick to come, with AAFC ordering its spokespersons
to say that no decisions have been made.
Unfortunately for the spin-doctors at AAFC, the slide show they
went around presenting to their own department is now floating around
in public. It clearly says the federal government is planning to
discontinue crop varietal development. This is what it said: "Over
the next decade, AAFC will shift funding from lower to higher priority
by discontinuing research programs through normal attrition. For
example: Plant breeding - discontinue crop variety development research."
Sounds an awful lot like a decision to me.
AAFC also made it clear that it sees the future as consisting of
partnerships with industry. Even scientists paid by AAFC might find
themselves working in (and for the benefit of) a private company.
AAFC blames this situation partly on the deteriorating state of
its research facilities. It ranks two of these on the prairies,
at Swift Current and Winnipeg, as being in poor condition - "Building
is beyond its critical life cycle..."
The AAFC slide show also makes it clear there will be fewer research
scientists on the government payroll - 500 compared to the present
600, with only 350 of these working directly in AAFC facilities.
While it is contemplating this, AAFC confirmed that it supplied
47 percent of all agriculture research and development money in
2000, with all Canadian governments accounting for 83 percent of
agriculture research and development.
Let's be clear. AAFC does intend to do this. Now it is just reacting
to a furor it no doubt expected to eventually come.
It is very important that farmers don't miss the connection between
this news leaking from AAFC and the changes being proposed to Plant
Breeders Rights. One of those would eliminate the sale of "common"
seed. Another would allow seed companies to claim both Plant Breeders
Rights and patent protection for a variety, thus strengthening the
hammerlock the company has over the variety.
Along with these measures will come AAFC's plan to limit itself
to "genetic enhancement" and then turn this basic research
over to the Monsantos and Cargills of the world so they can finish
off the variety and claim sole and complete ownership of it. They
will then tie up the use of new varieties in contracts that prohibit
seed saving and demand a royalty on every seed planted.
Many farmers are distraught over this attempt to wrench yet more
dollars out of their pockets. In the criticism leveled at the Seed
Sector Review, the industry task force that pushed for greater powers
for seed companies, farmers clearly have said they want the right
to save seed.
The Canadian Seed Trade Association (CSTA) says it wants that too.
"We have always advocated for a balance of farmers' and breeders'
rights under the legislation," said Bill Leask, executive vp
for CSTA. This is in contrast to Mr. Leask's earlier quoted statement
where he said farmers never had such a right.
Farmers need to read between the lines. A guarantee of a farmers'
"privilege" will mean nothing in the future AAFC envisions.
When all varieties are produced by private companies and protected
by PBRs, those companies will make farmers sign contracts saying
they will not save their own seed, and will pay a royalty on every
seed they sow. It will be just like it is with the new Hard White
Spring Wheats or Navigator durum. The CSTA would like you to believe
the changes to the act will actually benefit farmers.
What this is really all about is taking public money now put into
producing new varieties, and turning it over to the private sector
by giving them the basic research. Then private companies will dip
into your pocket for every seed you plant. Quite simply, it is about
the privatization of a resource that has been public for 15,000
years.
Just how much more of this does the government think we can stand?
© Paul Beingessner, beingessner@sasktel.net
. The author is a columnist, transportation consultant and third-generation
farmer in Truax, Saskatchewan.
|