Biosafety Legislation All GURT systems under development are genetically modified organisms.

GURT products therefore are governed by biosafety regulations that prescribe certain procedures before they can be released into the environment (environmental safety), or when they are to be used in food production (food-safety). Such regulations are not developed to scrutinise the ethical or other objections Seed Policy 97 against a certain technology. V-GURTs systems in insect-pollinated crops may be considered not environmentally safe because of the risks of viability reduction in farm saved seed in neighbouring fields, but the advantages of GURT restricting gene transfer into the environment will definitely be considered superior. Similar to IPR, biosafety laws cannot be easily used to avoid the introduction of GURT when the technology itself does not offer particular environmental or food risks. Seed Legislation Conventional seed laws can be used to ban GURTs when they include a compulsory variety testing for value for cultivation and use (VCU). The Variety Release Committee may decide that the inability to reproduce seed (V-GURTs) or to reproduce vital values in the variety (T-GURTs) poses a serious value-reduction, thus turning the variety unacceptable. This must be considered a rather political move by the committee, especially when hybrids have not been subject to any such deliberations. Secondly, many countries have dispensed with this type of compulsory VCU-testing or maintained it only for certain crops. Regulating the Technology

Existing or new regulatory instruments may address important concerns that surround the technology. Concern Small enterprises and public breeding programmes will face problems accessing new characteristics (e.g., disease resistances) when these are protected by (V or T) GURT. Option Similar to Intellectual Property Rights, where a temporary protection is granted in return for publication, a regulator may wish to oblige the GURTowner to release non-GURT-protected variants with the same important characteristics available for further breeding to both public and private breeders after a period of gracesay 5 years. In case a breeder will need several years of conventional breeding to introduce the characteristic into his new variety, the GURT-owner will have had enough time to get his return on investment. Such a regulation would return a kind of breeders exemption that will stimulate competition in breeding. 98 Seed Policy, Legislation and Law: Widening a Narrow Focus Concern The commercial breeding effort triggered by GURT will be directed towards commercial seed markets. Less endowed farmers loose access to new materials through lateral spread. The widespread use of GURT in breeding will increase the technology gap between the commercial farmers and the less endowed ones. Option The main option seems implying a strengthening of public agricultural research and readjustment of its focus to those sectors that do not benefit from

the commercial seed companies. This should mitigate negative consequences for the welfare of resource-poor farmers. This option contradicts the current trend of reduced public expenditure and privatisation, and it assumes that sufficient benefits can be generated for good researchers to choose for employment in the public service rather than loosing all the top-scientists to the private sector. This entails both national and international public research. Concern Farmers who produce their non-GURT crops adjacent to large areas of V-GURT fields of the same crop will face viability problems when using their own seed, especially in insect pollinated crops like sunflower and canola. Option The rule that the polluter pays may be applied here. The farmer using GURT may have to observe a certain isolation distance from neighbouring fields from which seed will be harvested. He may however strike a deal with his neighbours, compensating them for the probable viability losses. A regulator may require such neighbours to have a written agreement signed before the season. In many countries however, such an option is likely not feasible. In areas of a country where an important genetic diversity of the crop (and wild relatives) are maintained, the use of GURT in such cross-fertilising species may be prohibited when their use creates problems to maintain local varieties. The question remains then whether such more commercial farmers should be compensated this question relates to other forms of museum-farmers to conserve agro-biodiversity, which proves unsustainable in most cases in the long run. Concern Formal plant breeding leads to the development of uniform varieties that can be used by many farmers. Where GURT-protected (uniform) varieties re-

Seed Policy 99 place genetically diverse landraces, genetic erosion in the farmers fields will be the result. Option When uniform varieties are better for farmers than their diverse landraces, it will not be possible to force them to produce landrace varieties. The main option is then to conserve the diversity in genebanks. Diversity can be supported, however through well-targeted programmes of breeding for diversity (Cooper et al., 2001). This requires a significant public investment (see above). Concern Farmers using GURT technology become completely dependent on seed suppliers, which is particularly risky in monopolistic seed markets. GURTs may well reinforce the concentration and integration trends in the seed industry and invite misuse of monopoly power. Option Very important in the current trends of concentration in the seed industry are effective antitrust legislation and antitrust institutions in developing countries and at the international level. This concern also warrants an active stimulus to create small-scale seed enterprises. Antitrust regulations may be very difficult to implement, especially in small developing countries. Experiences in seed enterprise development in such countries, on the other hand, are increasing (Kugbei et al., 2000). Concern Pronounced seed security risks can be expected for poor farmers who depend on the grain market for a large share of their seed needs, or those who are forced to use food-aid as seed.

Option Where such risks are significant it may be necessary to allow GURT-protected materials only in closed chains, i.e., where the seed is supplied to farmers with a guarantee that all the produce is collected by one buyer, who works under a certification system that guarantees proper labelling. A less elaborate system may be to release GURT-varieties for use in particular geographical areas within the country where commercial farming prevails and where the produce is not likely to reach the grain market for (near) subsistence farmers. 100 Seed Policy, Legislation and Law: Widening a Narrow Focus Finally, relief agencies have to be well aware of the dangers of GURT-protected food aid. They should either make sure that they supply conventional food, or they should offer both emergency food and emergency seed supplies in well-marked packages. Even in the latter case it is strongly advised to refrain from food grain that may be GURT-protected.