To 30th April, 2010
Hon’ble Prime Minister
Government of India
Ref: Seed Bill, 2010
Subject: Seeking amendments to Seed Bill, 2010, given the experience with seed regulation in the last six years
Dear Sir/Madam,
As you are aware, Andhra Pradesh is considered as the Seed Capital of India which has concentration of Seed Companies and most of the seed is produced in the State. AP has large area under commercial crops and most of the farmers are dependent on the companies for seed. As the Seed Bill 1966 was inadequate to address the issues and problems faced by the farmers, Government earlier has introduced a Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) system. However it was questioned for its legal status. To overcome this problem, the current Government has introduced a draft ‘AP Seed Bill 2004’ which was not approved by the Centre as ‘Seed Bill 2004’ proposed by it was pending at that time. In the absence of a regulatory Act, farmers in the State, and Farmers Organisations have been facing several problems with regard to the Seed Quality, Seed Prices and adequate Compensation for the losses caused by bad quality seeds.
In the last five years, even the AP State Government has faced serious problems with the Seed Companies in regulating the Seed sale in the state in fulfilling its objective of helping farmers to have timely access to good quality seed in adequate quantities.
1. In 2005, after establishment of large scale cotton seed failure in Warangal dist, State government asked Mahyco to pay compensation. This company refused to pay and moved to AP high court on paying compensation saying state govt is harassing them. AP High court orders also were in favour of Mahyco and till date the company has not paid the compensation
2. In 2006, after MRTP commission’s ruling to reduce the bt cotton seed price, AP government reduced the cotton seed prices to Rs. 650 and Rs. 750 for bollgard I and II. Challenging this, MMB moved to Delhi high court on this issue.
3. In 2007, when Agriculture officers in Warangal district found that Mahyco Bt hybrids are being sold in Warangal market, they raided and seized the shop. Mahyco challenged that cotton seed was removed from Essential Commodities Act, hence Seed control order which draws powers from EC Act does not apply to cotton. At this juncture, AP government made a new act to regulate transgenic cotton seed in AP. However, all these Acts, including Seed control order, will be repealed once the 2010 bill is passed, there by taking away the rights of the farmers and also the powers of the State government.
4. In 2010, Monsanto filed case in AP High Court requesting to stop state govt from reducing the royalty arguing that it does not have any power to do so. The case is still pending in the court.
In many other situations, including the above mentioned four issues, it is clear that in the existing legal framework, State governments have no powers and they are finding it difficult to regulate the prices (and/or royalty) and get adequate compensation be paid to farmers when crop fails. Unfortunately, in Seed Bill 2010, powers to State governments are inadequate - almost nothing.
In this situation, we (representatives of farmer wings of different political parties, independent farmer organisations and NGOs working with farmers) had a series of discussions, wherein a consensus emerged that the Seed Bill, 2010, requires a few important changes. We seek the following amendments to the Seed Bill 2004 in addition to some of the very useful Amendments suggested by Hon’ble Minister for Agriculture Shri. Sharad Pawar:
States should have powers to regulate seed prices and royalties, evolve a simple mechanism to pay adequate compensation (on the crop loss rather than just the seed price) and award punishment for offenses with adequate fine (in proportion to the damage caused, rather than just blanket 30,000 as mentioned in the bill).
Please find enclosed Clause-wise amendments sought in the Seed Bill 2004.
With best Regards
Yours Truly
For AP Farmers Unions and NGOs Coordination Committee
Represented byFarmers Unions
Andhra Pradesh Kisan and Mazdoor Congress
Telugu Rythu
Andhra Pradesh Rytu Sangam (CPM)
Andhra Pradesh Rytu Sangam (CPI)
Bharatiya Kisan Morcha
Others
Sri. Vadde Shobanadreeswara Rao
Former Minister for Agriculture, AP,
and Former Member of Parliament
Sri. Yerneni Nagendranath
Rytanga Samakya
Independent Organisations working with Farmers
Centre for Sustainable Agriculture
Chetana Society
RAJYA SABHA
AMENDMENTS SOUGHT IN THE SEEDS BILL, 2004
CLAUSE 5
1. That at page 5, line after line 38 the following be inserted
‘ba) procedure for fixing the seed prices and royalty over proprietary technologies’
CLAUSE 11
2. That at page 6, line 43 new line be inserted;
‘aa) to collect data, review and fix prices of seeds registered and sold after their approval’.
CLAUSE 20
1. That at page 9, for lines 5 to l0, the following be substituted, namely,-
“20. (1) Where the seed of a registered kind or variety is sold to the farmer, the producer, distributor or vendor, as the case may be, shall disclose the expected performance of such kind or variety to the farmer under given conditions and if. Such registered seed fails to provide the expected performance. Under such given conditions, the farmer may claim such compensation from such producer, dealer, distributor or vendor as may be determined by a Compensation Committee.
20. (2) The Central Government may prescribe;
a) the composition and experience of the members of the Compensation Committee;
b) the procedure to be followed by such Compensation Committee;
c) the manner of giving compensation by such Compensation Committee to the farmer;
d) the time within which the compensation so determined shall be paid to the farmer.
e) establishment of a state and district level compensation committees their composition and procedure for determining compensation.
f) roles for Panchayats in certifying failures or losses
20. (3) Any compensation determined by the Compensation Committee under sub-section (1) if not paid to the concerned farmer, shall be recovered as an arrear of land revenue.
20. (4) Any farmer aggrieved from the decision of the Compensation Committee may prefer an appeal to the prescribed authority which shall dispose off the appeal within such time and in such manner as may be prescribed.
CLAUSE 36
3. That at page 13, line 30, for the words “‘multi-locational trials", the words “multi-locational trials conducted in India and" be substituted.
CLAUSE 38
4. That at page 14, line 12 after ‘be punishable with’ the following be substituted
‘a fine in proportion to the damage caused, quantity of seed supplied or stocked with malicious/negligent intent and therefore, X-times the real loss or potential loss incurred by farmers’.
CLAUSE 46
5. That at page 16, after line 4, the following be inserted, namely,-
"(ja) the composition and experience of the members of the Compensation Committee, the procedure to be followed by it to make adequate, the manner of giving compensation and the time within which the compensation so determined is to be paid to the farmer under sub-section (2) of section 20;
(jb) the authority to whom appeal may be preferred and time and manner for making appeal under sub-section (4) of section 20;"