Where’s a Treaty lawyer when you need one? SciDev.net reports that a joint USAID/Monsanto project to introduce farmers in Nepal to the benefits of hybrid maize varieties has run into a brick wall because civil society organizations in Nepal say it:
“could replace local varieties, increase Nepal’s dependence on imported seed and pave the way for the introduction of genetically modified (GM) crops later because of weak biotechnology regulation.”
As a result of a meeting in November, neither USAID nor the Government of Nepal will say whether the project is to go ahead. Fair enough, I reckon. Countries should be free to refuse “aid” if it doesn’t suit their other policy goals. But here’s the bit that doesn’t make sense, a quote from Hari Dahal, a spokesman for the Nepal Ministry of Agriculture.
“Mass importation of hybrid seed goes against our obligations under the International Treaty on Plant Genetic Resources for Food and Agriculture,” he told SciDev.Net. “If the partnership seeks to improve our own hybrid seeds, then an agreement is possible.”
A senior ministry official told SciDev.Net on the condition of anonymity: “If we import hybrid seed our local varieties will disappear. The rights of the farmers will be in the hands of private companies.”
Can that be right, that importing hybrid seeds goes against International Treaty obligations by putting the rights of the farmers “in the hands of private companies”? Or is that just a face-saving reason to turn down the generosity of USAID and Monsanto? I wish SciDev.net had asked someone.
