|
|
 
|
Canada: Seed Sector Review report pushes for changes
by Paul Beingessner
(Thursday, May 13, 2004 -- CropChoice guest commentary) -- Most farmers will not be familiar with the Seed Sector Review that issued its final report last week. The review looked at the entire production and regulatory system for the seeds farmers plant. It did not
attempt to involve farmers and farm groups in the discussions, other
than to post a couple of internet surveys that received little response.
Rather, the discussion was aimed at seed growers, plant breeders and
private companies involved in the seed business.
Because the results of the review will impact farmers, both directly and
indirectly, it is too bad that farm organizations, other than the Grain
Growers of Canada, were not involved. The GGC, because of their
philosophical perspective, bring only one set of opinions to bear on the
issues. Nor does the GGC represent many farmers in western Canada.
Western member groups consist of the small Alberta-based Western Barley
Growers, the Alberta Barley Commission (appointed by the Alberta
government), and the Canadian Canola Growers. The review had scant
participation from Saskatchewan, thought the province plants 56 percent
of the wheat acres in Canada, 50 percent of canola, 75 percent of peas,
99 percent of lentils, 70 percent of flax and so on.
The review seemed based on several premises: the idea that rules are
outdated and preventing "innovation"; that investment in research is not
sufficient and bound to get worse unless we change the rules; and that
more money for all this has to come from farmers through the seed
system. The final report put forward an odd view of agriculture when it
claimed that "in today's modern economy, large corporate farms are the
order of the day."
The report is a lot to wade through. The language is bureaucratic and
full of jargon and not at all accessible to the average farmer. However
the issues are important, and if the average farmer will not read the
report, farm groups should take a leadership role in looking at it.
Several themes emerge strongly. One is the desire to move away from
Kernel Visual Distinguishability in wheat. The report claims this is
hampering plant breeding. However, it recognizes that no system is in
place to replace KVD yet.
Another theme is the idea that the current system does not sufficiently
reward plant breeders and hence is not fostering enough innovation. In
truth though, most plant breeding is still done in the public sector,
despite dire warnings about the end of public breeding. Only in canola
is private breeding significant. While public money for breeding
programs like those at universities and government research stations has
diminished, farmers have picked up much of the slack through checkoffs.
The report also promoted the idea that merit assessment should not play
such a major role in seed variety registration. Merit assessment refers
to the principle that new varieties should be better than old ones, or
at least as good as them. The rationale for doing away with it is poorly
explained. It might be good for companies, since they could more easily
register anything, but farmers would be much the poorer for it.
The report is also concerned greatly with the "need" to increase the use
of certified seed. This is seen as the vehicle for getting more money
into the hands of seed growers, seed companies and seed breeders. (Money
that would come from farmers, I might add.) The report claims that more
use of certified seed would mean "more uniform and higher yielding
crops, increased traceability and decreased liability concerns, and
improved intellectual property protection (and royalty collection)."
The report presents no evidence to support these assertions, and few
farmers believe the claim of higher yields because of certified seed.
The report laments that for wheat and barley in western Canada, "the
percentage of acreage planted with pedigreed seed is low" because they
"are self-pollinated and therefore they lend themselves to farmers
saving seed."
The fact farmers can save seed from these crops represents a tremendous
benefit. In 2001, Saskatchewan farmers planted 15 million of Canada's 26
million acres of wheat. If 90% of these acres were planted with farm
saved seed, (today's CWB estimated price is $4.25 per bushel net to the
farmer, compared to a certified seed price of $7 per bushel for Barrie)
farmers kept nearly $47 million dollars in their pockets, compared to
buying certified seed. That is a saving of almost $1,400 per farm for
the 33,000 Saskatchewan farms that grew wheat.
The seed sector review raises many issues, some real, some contrived.
Simplistically, farmers need research to provide better varieties and
they need access to reasonably priced seed. For the second part, there
are lots of seed growers to multiply and sell seed, and they seem mostly
to be doing okay. For the first part, farmers have to choose if they
want to control research, most of which they fund through checkoffs or
if they want to turn their money and the control over to others. When
you cut through all the verbiage, this is what it comes down to.
The Saskatchewan Pulse Growers provide a successful model. They use a
grower checkoff to fund research at the University of Saskatchewan. It
has turned out dozens of successful varieties. The Pulse Growers do not
seek Plant Breeders Rights protection of these. Farmers benefit, farmers
remain in control. Cereal growers could stand to take a lesson from this.
(c) Paul Beingessner (306) 868-4734 phone 868-2009 fax | |
