WORLD estimates suggest that small farms make up 85% of all farms, globally.
Additionally, smallholder farmers make up the majority of the world’s rural poor. Most of the smallholder farmers are in developing countries, although they are still predominant in developed economies as well.
As recent as 2012, 80% of farm land in sub-Saharan Africa and Asia, was managed by smallholder farmers (working on up to 10 hectares).
In the European Union, smallholder farmers also make up the majority of the region’s 10 million farms.
Considering the aforementioned details, it would be nearly impossible to bring about inclusive global economic prosperity, without improving the condition of smallholder farmers around the world.
This article discusses issues, which are threatening the sustainability of smallholder farmers and offers suggestions on how to resolve them.
Challenges, threats
As of 2022, only three companies — EW Group, Hendrix Genetics and Tyson Foods, controlled 100% of commercial poultry genetics.
- Time to decolinise procurement processes
- Who should quantify opportunities and risks for smallholder food producers?
- Put smallholder farmers in the climate info service framework
- Why the elite should stop imposing their expectations on smallholder farmers
Keep Reading
Only four firms — Archer Daniel's, Bunge, Cargill and Louis Dreyfuss, controlled 90% of the global grain trade. Just four companies — Sygenta, Bayer (formerly Monsanto), BASF and Corteva, controlled 62% of the global agrochemicals market.
A mere four firms controlled 61% of the global animal pharmaceuticals market. Lastly, only two companies — Sygenta Group and Bayer (formerly Monsanto) controlled 40% of the world’s commercial seed market.
Privatisation of seeds and animal genetics through plant breeders rights (PBRs) and other intellectual property rights (IPRs), are emerging as a problem for some smallholder farmers.
The UPOV is an example of an international provision on the privatisation and protection of genetic resources.
The convention (UPOV) is often criticised for the commodification and privatisation of seeds. It is accused of limiting access to seeds and food by granting patent-like exclusive intellectual property rights (IPRs) over seeds.
Specific to Africa, there are the Arusha Protocol, East African Community (EAC) Seed and Plant Varieties Bill and African Continental Free Trade Area Intellectual Property Rights (AfCFTA IPR) Protocol (this one is currently being negotiated), among others.
The aforementioned African mechanisms have also promoted the extension of UPOV 1991, which effectively diminishes smallholder farmers’ rights over seeds and genetic diversity.
Plant breeders’ rights enable commercial seed companies to claim exclusive rights to seed varieties for up to 20 to 25 years, imposing royalties or other payments from farmers for each generation of seeds that they use.
This is apparently justified by the need to recoup their investment in research towards developing the seeds, many of which are touted as high yielding, pest and drought resistant varieties.
In order to use commercial seeds, farmers, therefore, have to regularly buy them from the manufacturer or official distributor, each season.
If they attempt to use commercial seeds from their own harvest of the previous season, they are liable to royalty payments to the seed company which developed them.
In other countries such as Kenya (UPOV member since 1999) for example, due to laws, which promote industrial agriculture, the saving, sharing, exchanging or selling of uncertified and unregistered seeds is criminalised.
Kenyan farmers face up to two years in prison and fines of up to one million Kenyan shillings (approximately US$7 500) for non-compliance.
In the United States of America, by 2013, Monsanto (now Bayer) had managed to sue hundreds of American farmers for patent infringement, including the replanting of one's own harvest from the previous season.
As of 2013, Monsanto (now Bayer) had won more than US$23 million from farmers that it had successfully sued.
Farmer Managed Seed Systems (FMSS) in Africa are responsible for 80% of available seeds for cultivated crops. Criminalising them would, therefore, be inconsistent with the continent’s developmental aspirations.
On the other hand, Intellectual Property Rights, which support private breeders, tend to promote uniformity in seeds, because it is only a few smallholder farmers, who can afford to get their bona fide seeds certified, so that they can legally plant them.
That means the few corporates, who can get their seeds certified will end up dominating agricultural value chains, including reducing a country’s seed diversity.
Eventually, such a practice also encourages uniformity in food supply, thereby eroding both seed and food diversity.
Although plant breeders rights (PBRs) seem appropriate from a commercial and business premise, they leave smallholder farmers vulnerable.
Since a number of them are already poor, small-scale farmers tend to rely on saved and shared seeds (within the community), in times when they cannot afford to purchase certified seed from producers.
Additionally, if seed production is concentrated in a few corporates, this reduces the food sovereignty and security of nations.
Market concentration creates greater room for seed companies to raise their prices or limit access to their products, if they deem fit. This leaves smallholder farmers and food consumers in an unfavourable position.
Moreover, if genetically-modified (GMO) seeds eventually displace indigenous varieties, which are locally-adapted, this can further infringe on seed and food sovereignty of the affected countries, through increasing dependency on external sources.
Furthermore, by adopting seed systems, which exclude small-scale farmers, the world can potentially become more unequal, while food systems are rendered unsustainable.
Seeds developed by industrial agriculture are less diverse and in other cases, less resilient than organic FMSS, which have been acclimatised to their respective natural environments for thousands of years, or longer.
Thus, criminalising Farmer Managed Seed Systems threatens to reduce biodiversity, while increasing food and other agricultural risks by concentrating production in the hands of corporates.
A case in point is when Monsanto’s genetically-modified BT cotton was introduced in Burkina Faso, in 2008. The GMO BT cotton was introduced with the aim of improving yields and crop quality.
Unfortunately, “the cotton produced shorter fibre lengths and lower cotton fibre efficiency than conventional varieties”, and had to be discontinued some seven years later, in 2015.
Such consequences can be extremely calamitous when they involve food, on which lives depend. Consolidating seed production in the control of a few companies can also be ruinous if there are seed shortages, causing farmers to plant late or to fail to plant crops in season, at all.
Proposed areas for change
For economic growth to be inclusive, it is critical to ensure that the national and international treatment of farmers is characterised by distinguished (extra) support to smallholder farmers.
This is essential, so that they do not lose out to commercial agriculture, which has become increasingly concentrated.
Since smallholder farmers are the majority, intellectual property pertaining to plant breeders rights should prioritise farmer managed seed systems and seed sovereignty.
If that is not done, any further liberalisation of global agricultural trade will mostly benefit the corporate oligopolies, which already have an upper hand in mainstream food systems and agriculture.
If corporate control increases its concentration, the world risks impoverishing smallholder farmers who will be displaced as a result.
This will, in-turn, imply greater inequalities and perhaps stunted global economic growth, since inequalities are associated with lower economic growth.
The ultimate mission should be to encourage coherence between intellectual property rights of commercial breeders and socio-economic development. Balancing private and public interests will be critical.
Although UPOV itself has made allowances for a “suis generis system”, which aims to balance farmers’ rights and plant breeders’ rights (PBRs), its opponents argue that this is just a cosmetic (theoretical) claim.
They insist that for there to be a truly “suis generis system” there must be a standalone Annex (attachment) to UPOV, which explicitly defends Farmers’ Rights, FMSS and Seed Sovereignty.
If such an Annex is not added, critics posit that smallholder farmers’ rights will continue to be effectively subject to commercial plant breeders rights.
The whole idea of intellectual property laws, which promote the systematic commodification of seeds, may also need to be brought into re-consideration.
In essence, the suggestion is that intellectual property pertaining to food should be development-oriented. For example, the lawful acquisition of genetic material used by private breeders should be facilitated for smallholder farmers, at little or zero cost.
Historically, industrialised countries developed through using flexible or non-existent IPR. During their developmental periods, Switzerland, United States, Germany, and others, acquired foreign intellectual property without making adequate compensation for it.
The US’s protection of intellectual property rights only began in 1790 and did not grant protections to foreign inventions, some of which it violated — including the copying and adapting of the British power loom, one of the most impactful inventions of the 19th century.
Throughout the 19th century, the pirating (clandestine imitation) of intellectual property played a vital role in the US’s ascent up the developmental ladder, a process that was deliberately aided by relatively weak domestic protections for IP (Intellectual property).
Emerging economic powerhouse, China, has also made significant strides in improving IP protections but in 2019 it was mentioned among 36 other state violators of IP in the Special 301 Report by the Office of the US Trade Representative (USTR).
Sadly, the same countries are now pressuring poorer and developing economies to strengthen IP protections to unprecedented levels, through strong restrictions on smallholder farmer seed systems, among other things.
Since, in Africa, smallholder farmers control 80% of the seeds used for cultivation, a misguided implementation of Intellectual Property protections is likely to negatively impact their productive activities.
Adequate biosecurity measures should also be in place in countries where GMO seeds are cultivated, so that they neither displace nor contaminate Farmer Managed Seed Systems.
The subjection of indigenous seeds, which are inherently compatible with their respective natural environments, to GMO contamination may lead to their displacement, thereby, diminishing food sovereignty and increasing external dependence.
Seed quality controls, which acknowledge other valid measures besides formal certification alone, will be equally important. Certification is a relatively expensive exercise, particularly, for smallholder farmers.
For example, in Kenya, small-scale farmers need as much as Kshs 200 000 (about US$1 302) to register and get certification for a seed variety.
Tutani is a political economy analyst. —[email protected].
