The tension between advancements in biotechnology led by mega-agri-businesses and small-scale farmers: raising an economic imbalance

A famous case law provides a good example of this tension: Monsanto Canada Inc. v. Schmeiser. Quoting Aoki (2010: 146), ‘Monsanto Canada Inc. v. Schmeiser established a troubling precedent, one that continues the North American legal trends commodifying seeds, plants and the genetic structures they con­tain, thereby favouring the interests of large agribusiness at farmers’ expense’.

[f]armers may also face additional economic hardships such as the loss of the custom designed seed that they have cultivated over time, the loss of organic certifications (if contamination via genetic modification appears in the plant or seed), and replacement costs for purchasing new seed and new soil. Under this patent-maximalist view, farmers who do not want to use a patented genetically engineered agricultural technology system should either switch to another line of business or sell their farms to those who will use those systems.

(Aoki, 2010: 159)

This section aims at explaining the economic disparity resulting from the imbal­ance in the recognition of these rights.

IPRs are closely related to advancements in biotechnology and have clearly contributed to the development of the current agricultural biotechnology busi­ness setting (Barton, 1999).

Farmers and breeders were once the same person. Today, breeding is a big busi­ness with high economic objectives. This massive industrialization changed the face of agriculture in developed and developing countries, propelling seeds to a purely economic value (Engels et al., 2011: 108; also see Charles, 2001a: 92-125). Thousands of family farms were turned into few immense monoculture farms (particularly in developed countries and specific countries in transition such as Brazil). The local hundreds of breeding businesses were swallowed by mega-agro­chemical companies (Herdt, 1999: 8). Aoki (2010: 113) cites Janet Hope saying that ‘the mergier-mania was driven primarily by the need to avoid high transaction costs associated with clearing multiple IPR, [...] and that most key enabling tech­nologies are now in the hands of only a handful of firms’. According to Herdt,

[t]he business plans of the mega-seed companies seem straightforward: control everything from genetic engineering of seeds to the selling of seeds to farmers, to marketing plant-grown drugs, modified foods, and industrial products.

(Herdt, 1999: 9)

This is confirmed by FAO data (FAO, 2001) showing that ‘270 patents related to genes of the soil bacterium Bacillus thuringiensis (Bt) granted from 1986 to 1997 in countries of the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Devel­opment (OECD), about 60% were owned by only six MNC [Multinational Companies]’. This trend takes away the autonomy of farmers, who become fully dependent upon these companies in every aspects of their work. An example is given with hybrid seeds, which farmers need to repurchase for every planting, as the lower quality of second-generation seeds diminish productivity and quality of the cropping.¹⁹ With regards to the seed industry specifically, Anvar (2008: 433) argues further that it is the unicity of the offer, rather than the limited number of enterprises selling seeds, which constitutes the monopolistic scheme. She concludes that ‘the sector proposes its products to customers, which tech­nical and legal constraints have progressively rendered captive’.²⁰ Under these circumstances, the social and environmental values of seeds and of farmers’ seed systems are overlooked,²¹ while the social, economic and environmental impacts are high, in developing countries in particular.²²

In developed countries, strong reactions (largely based on the fears about GMOs) occurred with the development of powerful civil society organizations (Mooney, 2011). Charles (2001a: 97; also see Charles, 2001b, 2001c) confirms that ‘[o]pposition to biotechnology became a way of opposing agribusiness and promoting an alternative vision to agriculture. The vision went by the name sustainable agriculture’. In his thesis, Brahy (2008: 134-136) clearly explains the public good problems related to the development chain in biotechnology (whether in the agricultural or pharmaceutical fields); i.e.

In response, global public policies attempt to reconcile the tension between advancements in biotechnology by multinational companies and small-scale farmers. For example, the 1996 World Food Summit takes into account a more social dimension into global public food policies.²⁶ By using the benefits of bio­technology for the poor,²⁷ the CGIAR also attempts to mitigate this gap, in par­ticular with the recent focus on the nutritional value of PGRFA²⁸ and the impact of climate change on local production (Bellon et al., 2011).

The first involves integration of crop specific research into a broader vision that includes sound management of natural resources, as well as the pro­ductivity and profitability of smallholder farming; promoting synergies among livestock, agroforestry, food and cash crop, [...] and recognition of the socioeconomic realities of farmers. The second shift is to harness the genetic revolution. Cutting-edge work associated with genetic mapping, molecular markers, and biotechnology must be focused on benefiting poor people and the environment. It is vital to realize the promise of this revolu­tion while avoiding the pitfalls.

(Serageldin, 1999: 387-388)

This section aimed at describing the gap, which grew wider and wider, between a few mega agrochemical companies controlling the agricultural market and a vast number of small-scale farmers around the world (and mainly in developing countries), who encounter increasing difficulties in producing their food. This gap contributes to strongly politicize the sphere of agricultural negotiations.