[Mb-civic] IRAQ'S NEW PATENT LAW: A DECLARATION OF WAR AGAINST FARMERS

[ean at sbcglobal.net]

This article from an Iraqi website provides a glimpse into the economic 
occupation of Iraq that is not talked about but almost more aggregious than 
the military occupation...


IRAQ'S NEW PATENT LAW: A DECLARATION OF WAR AGAINST 
FARMERS
Focus on the Global South and GRAIN

October 2004 

www.uruknet.info?p=6382

When former Coalition Provisional Authority (CPA) administrator L. Paul 
Bremer III left Baghdad after the so-called "transfer of sovereignty" in June 
2004, he left behind the 100 orders he enacted as chief of the occupation 
authority in Iraq. Among them is Order 81 on "Patent, Industrial Design, 
Undisclosed Information, Integrated Circuits and Plant Variety." [1] This order 
amends Iraq's original patent law of 1970 and unless and until it is revised or 
repealed by a new Iraqi government, it now has the status and force of a 
binding law. [2] With important implications for farmers and the future of 
agriculture in Iraq, this order is yet another important component in the 
United States' attempts to radically transform Iraq's economy. 

WHO GAINS? 

For generations, small farmers in Iraq operated in an essentially unregulated, 
informal seed supply system. Farm-saved seed and the free innovation with 
and exchange of planting materials among farming communities has long 
been the basis of agricultural practice. This has been made illegal under the 
new law. The seeds farmers are now allowed to plant - "protected" crop 
varieties brought into Iraq by transnational corporations in the name of 
agricultural reconstruction - will be the property of the corporations. While 
historically the Iraqi constitution prohibited private ownership of biological 
resources, the new US-imposed patent law introduces a system of monopoly 
rights over seeds. Inserted into Iraq's previous patent law is a whole new 
chapter on Plant Variety Protection (PVP) that provides for the "protection of 
new varieties of plants." PVP is an intellectual property right (IPR) or a kind of 
patent for plant varieties which gives an exclusive monopoly right on planting 
material to a plant breeder who claims to have discovered or developed a 
new variety. So the "protection" in PVP has nothing to do with conservation, 
but refers to safeguarding of the commercial interests of private breeders 
(usually large corporations) claiming to have created the new plants. 

To qualify for PVP, plant varieties must comply with the standards of the 
UPOV [3] Convention, which requires them be new, distinct, uniform and 
stable. Farmers' seeds cannot meet these criteria, making PVP-protected 
seeds the exclusive domain of corporations. The rights granted to plant 
breeders in this scheme include the exclusive right to produce, reproduce, 
sell, export, import and store the protected varieties. These rights extend to 
harvested material, including whole plants and parts of plants obtained from 
the use of a protected variety. This kind of PVP system is often the first step 
towards allowing the full-fledged patenting of life forms. Indeed, in this case 
the rest of the law does not rule out the patenting of plants or animals. 

The term of the monopoly is 20 years for crop varieties and 25 for trees and 
vines. During this time the protected variety de facto becomes the property of 
the breeder, and nobody can plant or otherwise use this variety without 
compensating the breeder. This new law means that Iraqi farmers can 
neither freely legally plant nor save for re-planting seeds of any plant variety 
registered under the plant variety provisions of the new patent law. [4] This 
deprives farmers what they and many others worldwide claim as their 
inherent right to save and replant seeds. 

CORPORATE CONTROL 

The new law is presented as being necessary to ensure the supply of good 
quality seeds in Iraq and to facilitate Iraq's accession to the WTO [5]. What it 
will actually do is facilitate the penetration of Iraqi agriculture by the likes of 
Monsanto, Syngenta, Bayer and Dow Chemical - the corporate giants that 
control seed trade across the globe. Eliminating competition from farmers is 
a prerequisite for these companies to open up operations in Iraq, which the 
new law has achieved. Taking over the first step in the food chain is their 
next move. 

The new patent law also explicitly promotes the commercialisation of 
genetically modified (GM) seeds in Iraq. Despite serious resistance from 
farmers and consumers around the world, these same companies are 
pushing GM crops on farmers around the world for their own profit. Contrary 
to what the industry is asserting, GM seeds do not reduce the use of 
pesticides, but they pose a threat to the environment and to people's health 
while they increase farmers dependency on agribusiness. In some countries 
like India, the 'accidental' release of GM crops is deliberately manipulated [6], 
since physical segregation of GM and GM-free crops is not feasible. Once 
introduced into the agro-ecological cycle there is no possible recall or 
cleanup from genetic pollution [7]. 

As to the WTO argument, Iraq legally has a number of options for complying 
with the organisation's rules on intellectual property but the US simply 
decided that Iraq should not enjoy or explore them. 

RECONSTRUCTION FAÇADE 

Iraq is one more arena in a global drive for the adoption of seed patent laws 
protecting the monopoly rights of multinational corporations at the expense of 
local farmers. Over the past decade, many countries of the South have been 
compelled [8] to adopt seed patent laws through bilateral treaties [9]. The US 
has pushed for UPOV-styled plant protection laws beyond the IPR standards 
of the WTO in bilateral trade through agreements for example with Sri Lanka 
[10] and Cambodia [11]. Likewise, post-conflict countries have been 
especially targeted. For instance, as part of its reconstruction package the 
US has recently signed a Trade and Investment Framework Agreement with 
Afghanistan [12], which would also include IPR-related issues. 

Iraq is a special case in that the adoption of the patent law was not part of 
negotiations between sovereign countries. Nor did a sovereign law-making 
body enact it as reflecting the will of the Iraqi people. In Iraq, the patent law is 
just one more component in the comprehensive and radical transformation of 
the occupied country's economy along neo-liberal lines by the occupying 
powers. This transformation would entail not just the adoption of favoured 
laws but also the establishment of institutions that are most conducive to a 
free market regime. 

Order 81 is just one of 100 Orders left behind by Bremer and among the 
more notable of these laws is the controversial Order 39 which effectively 
lays down the over-all legal framework for Iraq's economy by giving foreign 
investors rights equal to Iraqis in exploiting Iraq's domestic market. Taken 
together, all these laws, which cover virtually all aspects of the economy - 
including Iraq's trade regime, the mandate of the Central Bank, regulations 
on trade union activities, etc. - lay the bases for the US' bigger objective of 
building a neo-liberal regime in Iraq. Order 81 explicitly states that its 
provisions are consistent with Iraq's "transition from a non-transparent 
centrally planned economy to a free market economy characterised by 
sustainable economic growth through the establishment of a dynamic private 
sector, and the need to enact institutional and legal reforms to give it effect." 
Pushing for these "reforms" in Iraq has been the US Agency for International 
Development, which has been implementing an Agricultural Reconstruction 
and Development Program for Iraq (ARDI) since October 2003. To carry it 
out, a one-year US$5 million contract was granted to the US consulting firm 
Development Alternatives, Inc. [13] with the Texas A&M University [14] as an 
implementing partner. Part of the work has been sub-contracted to Sagric 
International [15] of Australia. The goal of ARDI in the name of rebuilding the 
farming sector is to develop the agribusiness opportunities and thus provide 
markets for agricultural products and services from overseas. 

Reconstruction work, thus, is not necessarily about rebuilding domestic 
economies and capacities, but about helping corporations approved by the 
occupying forces to capitalise on market opportunities in Iraq. The legal 
framework laid down by Bremer ensures that although US troops may leave 
Iraq in the conceivable future, US domination of Iraq's economy is here to 
stay. 

FOOD SOVEREIGNTY 

Food sovereignty is the right of people to define their own food and 
agriculture policies, to protect and regulate domestic agricultural production 
and trade, to decide the way food should be produced, what should be grown 
locally and what should be imported. The demand for food sovereignty and 
the opposition to the patenting of seeds has been central to the small 
farmers' struggle all over the world over the past decade. By fundamentally 
altering the IPR regime, the US has ensured that Iraq's agricultural system 
will remain under "occupation" in Iraq. 

Iraq has the potential to feed itself. But instead of developing this capacity, 
the US has shaped the future of Iraq's food and farming to serve the interests 
of US corporations. The new IPR regime pays scant respect to Iraqi farmers' 
contributions to the development of important crops like wheat, barley, date 
and pulses. Samples of such farmers' varieties were starting to be saved in 
the 1970s in the country's national gene bank in Abu Ghraib outside 
Baghdad. It is feared that all these have been lost in the long years of 
conflict. However, the Syria-based Consultative Group on International 
Agricultural Research (CGIAR) [17] centre - International Centre for 
Agricultural Research in Dry Areas (ICARDA) still holds accessions of 
several Iraqi varieties. These collections that are evidence of the Iraqi 
farmers' knowledge are supposed to be held in trust by the centre. These 
comprise the agricultural heritage of Iraq belonging to the Iraqi farmers that 
ought now to be repatriated. There have been situations where germplasm 
held by an international agricultural research centre has been "leaked out" for 
research and development to Northern scientists [18]. Such kind of 
"biopiracy" is fuelled by an IPR regime that ignores the prior art of the farmer 
and grants rights to a breeder who claims to have created something new 
from the material and knowledge of the very farmer. 

While political sovereignty remains an illusion, food sovereignty for the Iraqi 
people has already been made near impossible by these new regulations. 
Iraq's freedom and sovereignty will remain questionable for as long as Iraqis 
do not have control over what they sow, grow, reap and eat. 

 


-- 
You are currently on Mha Atma's Earth Action Network email list, option D 
(up to 3 emails/day).  To be removed, or to switch options (option A - 
1x/week, option B - 3/wk, option C - up to 1x/day, option D - up to 3x/day) 
please reply and let us know!  If someone forwarded you this email and you 
want to be on our list, send an email to ean at sbcglobal.net and tell us which 
option you'd like.



Action is the antidote to despair.  ----Joan Baez
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.islandlists.com/pipermail/mb-civic/attachments/20041020/9178a82c/attachment.html