Seed Info

NEWS and VIEWS

News, views, comments and suggestions on varieties and seeds are included in this section. It is also a forum for discussion among professionals in the seed sector.

Seed Policy - a Widening Arena

This is the second article in a two-part series on seed policy- a widening arena. The first part focused on conceptual framework on the development of seed policy and regulatory environment arising from the three main functions of seed (i.e. technology transfer function, commercial (commodity) function, and carrier of genetic diversity function) and the increasing complexity of globalization of policies that have an impact on seed sector. In this second part we look into options for implementing seed policies.

Seed Policy-three basic options for implementation
Seed policies become more complex compared to several decades ago when a linear development of seed system was accepted with a strong public sector role in plant breeding, seed production and supply.

Since then many developments contributed to this complexity:

The uneven development of the commercial seed sector where some product-market combinations proved viable e.g. vegetable seed or hybrid seed of cereals compared to food legumes and small grain crops
The recognition of local seed system as major supplier of seed to large group of farmers that doesn't fit in the linear development paradigm
International agreements with direct or indirect effects on the seed sector taking into account national seed policies related to trade and intellectual property rights (WTO) and biodiversity (CBD and IT/GRFA)

When it comes to translating policies into practice (e.g. through legislation) the widening of the policy arena makes the process much more complex and subject to changing power relations (see Seed Info No. 24). Such developments require countries to determine the government strategy in diversifying the national seed sector. Basically, three options can be distinguished: Control, Competition and Cooperation. The choice among these three has major implications for the future direction of the seed sector development

Policies towards privatization-'three Cos'
Translating broad policy objectives into action depends to a very large extent on differing basic philosophies on the role of government in society. The three broad options are summarized in 'three Cos': Competition, Cooperation and Control. These options can be illustrated very well in terms of regulating the seed sector.

Control
Farmers (or seed buyers) are less likely to determine all quality aspects by looking at the seed. Therefore, governments have developed systems of consumer protection through seed quality control and certification. The level of government involvement is a very important distinguishing factor between countries.

In the past 50 years, most European countries (both west and east) had a policy best described with 'Control'. The seed regulatory framework provides the government with a strong influence in variety release and seed quality control. The system has been introduced to many developing countries under the influence of their historical relationships. Policies in Europe, however, tend to move towards the 'cooperation' model.

Apart from consumer protection this system is meant to create a level playing ground for seed enterprises to compete without undue competition from 'fly-by-night' seed suppliers.

Control options very often appear in the privatization of the seed industry in developing countries. When foreign companies show an interest in entering a seed market in a country, governments tend to interfere to protect the farming communities through seed controls. This in turn may prevent the entry of private investors, thus missing the opportunity to create a more competitive market.

Competition
The competition model fully relies on market forces. The philosophy is competition will be the only sustainable way for ensuring optimal seed quality in the market and thus guarantee consumer protection. This approach is not implemented in any western country even though the argument is widely used in discussing seed regulatory reforms especially by seed specialists from USA. The concept is straightforward where in a competitive seed industry suppliers will be fully responsible for all internal seed quality control operations and supplying poor quality seed will automatically result in complete loss of market shares.

This approach of no or voluntary regulations, assumes fair competition in fully transparent markets. In practice this is hardly ever the case in seed markets of developing countries. Seed markets in such countries are often too small for enough number of seed companies to operate and the access to information is skewed with suppliers and large-scale farmers having the advantage.

Even though economic policies in the United States (and lately those in the WTO) do have confidence in market forces, the first laws that were to control seed quality was enacted in the US in 1905 followed by a comprehensive Federal Seed Act in 1936.

Cooperation
The third option for a government is to design ways to cooperate with seed industry and to share tasks and responsibilities. The US approach fits within this general approach: the seed supplier is fully responsible for the quality of its products, both in terms of variety and seed quality. The government, however, has a strong control on the type of information that the seed dealer should provide on the label and on checking the truth-in-labeling (market enforcement). It considers farmers are sufficiently educated to determine which seed they want to buy and which suppliers are honest in their promotion. Moreover, different states have strong legislation on some aspects of seed quality with particular emphasis on contamination with noxious weed seeds.

A wide range of seed certification and seed quality control agencies exist in the US that originate from farmers' or seed growers associations. They
perform the same function as their counterparts in Europe, but the legal basis of their operation is weaker compared to their colleagues across the Atlantic.

The control-oriented seed legislation can also be developed into cooperation to increase the effectiveness and efficiency of the control systems. Seed quality control and certification agencies in Europe may be run by the Government (Germany) or by an independent foundation (The Netherlands) that originates from farmers' or seed associations. In the latter option, some levels of bureaucracy can be avoided. Within their operation, certification agencies may perform a full control or they may concentrate on certifying the internal quality control operations of the seed companies, rather than certifying each and every seed lot throughout the seed production-marketing-user chain. This option can be found in Europe especially in the horticultural seed sector, where the market is much more volatile than the more stable agricultural crops sector. In variety testing for VCU and/or DUS (Plant Variety Protection), there is a growing trend to use the facilities and the data of the applicant in assessing the value of varieties. The policies in the European Union tend to move towards this cooperation model. N.P. Louwaars, Wageningen UR, P.O. Box 16, 6700 AA Wageningen, The Nethelands; E-mail: niels. louwaars@wur.nl

Expert Consultation on 'Quality Declared Seed'

In 1993, the Seed and Plant Genetic Resources Service of FAO published a document on 'Quality Declared Seed' and proposed its adoption as an alternative seed quality control mechanism in countries where human and physical resources for quality control are limited. The 'Quality Declared Seed' system makes use of resources already available in seed producing organizations and was designed to provide quality control with less demand on government resources than comprehensive seed certification schemes.

The purpose of the expert consultation was to review and update this publication in the light of current changes taking place in the seed industry of developing countries. A panel of experts from different parts of the world reviewed the document and made comments, suggestions and proposals for updating. These written contributions were further discussed during the meeting at FAO headquarters from 5-7 May 2003.

The new edition of 'Quality Declared Seed' will be published in the near future and the most important changes to be included/changed/addressed are:

Since the publication of the first edition of the QDS guidelines, there is increasing recognition of the value of genetic diversity and the role of the informal seed system. The first edition mainly addressed seed production of varieties developed through conventional plant breeding approaches. Local varieties were mentioned, but these varieties had difficulty to be eligible for production of QDS seed, because of the very strict requirements for testing (for VCU and DUS) and varietal purity. It is recognized that in particular local/traditional/farmers' varieties may offer benefits to farmers.
In the new edition of QDS not only land races, but also 'varieties' developed through participatory plant breeding approaches can be eligible for the production of QDS seed. The requirements for formal varieties remain similar, but testing and varietal purity requirements have now been relaxed for local varieties and 'varieties' developed through PPB which is the most important change that has been made to the system.
A large number of new crops have been added to be eligible for the production of QDS. For ICARDA, the addition of barley was relevant.
GMOs have been discussed, but it was decided that at this stage there was no need to address this issue, since its relevance to seed production is rather limited and mainly concerns safety measures, isolation, zoning, etc.
The maximum field size for field inspection has been reduced for a large number of crops (often from 50 ha to 10 ha).

It was recommended that FAO promote the adoption of the QDS system. Moreover, it was suggested that an expert consultation be convened to address similar issues in asexually propagated crops. A.J.G. van Gastel, Seed Unit, ICARDA, Aleppo, Syria; E-mail: a.vangastel@ cgiar.org

What is ISTA Accreditation?

The International Seed Testing Association (ISTA) was founded in 1924 with the aim to develop and publish standard procedures in seed testing. For more than 75 years, ISTA stood for uniformity in seed testing. With the idea of uniformity came the establishment of the ISTA Accreditation Program. ISTA has always stood for competence and quality, and therefore reliability and comparability are guaranteed by using the validated ISTA tests methods and procedures.

Reliability in testing results is crucial, especially in international seed trade. ISTA pursues sector specific approach to accreditation, by accrediting seed testing laboratories throughout the world.

The accreditation process not only verify the competence of the laboratory according to the ISTA International Rules for Seed Testing, but the audit report will list any deficiency giving the laboratory an opportunity to rectify these deficiencies and ensure the uniformity and quality of the seed testing results.

To maintain ISTA accredited status, seed testing laboratories must participate in the Proficiency Testing Program organized by the association. An overall performance evaluation is made over several proficiency rounds, to ensure that the performance of the laboratory is at an acceptable level. Participation in proficiency testing by non-accredited member laboratories is voluntary. However, the Proficiency Testing Program is an invaluable, non-partial tool to both accredited and non-accredited member laboratories alike. With three Proficiency test rounds per year, specified to the laboratories specialty in seed testing, it provides the laboratories an opportunity to either maintain their level of competency, if accredited, or for those laboratories aspiring to become ISTA accredited, the opportunity to bench mark themselves.

ISTA accredited laboratories may also, depending on their respective governments approval, issue ISTA International Seed Lot Certificates, which can be seen as a passport for international seed trade. Sarah Meier, ISTA, Zürichstrasse 50, P.O. Box 308, 8303 Bassersdorf, Switzerland;
E-mail: ista.office@ista.ch; http//: www.seedtest.org

A Seed Pathology Center for Asia?

The Danish Government Institute of Seed Pathology for Developing Countries (DGISP) was established with the main objective of improving the health of seed through training, with ultimate goal of increasing and improving food production. The institute located on the campus of the Royal Veterinary and Agricultural University in Denmark has trained agricultural scientists and technologists from all over the world. The trainees come from universities, research institutes, seed production companies or seed certification agencies.

Dr S. B. Mathur is responsible for establishing a seed pathology research and training center at the University of Mysore. The university is receiving both professional and technical support from DGISP for over 25 years. At present DANIDA is upgrading research and training facilities at the university. It is anticipated that the center will eventually become a Seed Pathology Center for training scientists and technicians from different countries in Asia.

The contribution of Dr S. B. Mathur has been recognized through the award of Gold Medal on 2 December 2002 instituted by the university in memory of Professor K.M. Safeeulla who had significant contributions in research on plant pathology particularly downy mildew of millets. Dr Mathur was awarded for his expertise in seed-borne fungal diseases of tropical and subtropical crops and his knowledge of technological developments in seed health. At present Dr Mathur is the head of DGISP in Denmark. H.S. Prakesh, University of Mysore, Mysore 570 006, India;
E-mail: appbot @sancharnet.in.

Policy Framework for Biosafety Regulations

A new regulatory framework that can help developing countries safely deploy genetically modified plants and animals is now available for use by national agricultural and regulatory agencies. The framework was developed by the International Service for National Agricultural Research (ISNAR) in collaboration with NARS and the FAO.

The Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety, an international convention that seeks to protect the environment from risks posed by GMOs calls on governments to have a biosafety program in place before agreeing to import living genetically modified organisms, either for agriculture or as food aid. Under its provisions, 103 signatory nations are required to establish a functional biosafety system within Ministry of Environment.

The original ISNAR biosafety framework builds knowledge based on the experiences of developing country such as Argentina and Egypt both of which have used the framework to establish their biosafety programs. The intention is to facilitate decision-making by helping policymakers examine choices among different policy options, and evaluate both the
scientific and social dimensions of those options. For more information about biosafety issues and the ISNAR-FAO decision toolbox and framework, visit: http://www.isnar.cgiar.org/ibs/biosafety/index.htm. Source: Future Harvest News

Egypt Established a Biotechnology Information Center

The Ministry of Agriculture and Land Reclamation, and the International Service for the Acquisition of Agri-Biotech Applications (ISAAA) has jointly established an Egyptian Biotechnology Information Center (EBIC). EBIC is located at the Agricultural Genetic Engineering Research Institute of the Agricultural Research Center. The mission of EBIC is to inform and promote the public awareness about biotechnology and genetic engineering applications. Moreover, EBIC will play a major role in clarifying the benefits and potential risks of biotechnology through reasonable and transparent discussions. For more information contact: M.A. Moniem, Director, EBIC, 9 Gamaa St, AGERI, ARC, Giza 12619, Egypt; Telefax: ++20-2-5721582;
E-mail: ebic_mz@ageri. sci.eg; Website: http://www.egyptbic.com