Get 20M+ Full-Text Papers For Less Than $1.50/day. Start a 14-Day Trial for You or Your Team.

Learn More →

Introduction to the symposium: seed as a commons—exploring innovative concepts and practices of governing seed and varieties

Introduction to the symposium: seed as a commons—exploring innovative concepts and practices of... This Symposium explores how the theory of commons can be used to study, conceptualize and transform governance models for seed and plant varieties to counter ongoing trends towards agrobiodiversity loss and concentration of economic and political power in farming and food systems. Contributions to the Symposium present case studies from a range of geo- graphical and socio-cultural contexts from the Global North and South. They show how seed and varieties relate to various known commons categories, including natural resource commons, knowledge and cultural commons, and global commons. Elements of these categories need to be integrated to gain a deeper understanding of Seed Commons, including the specific challenges that arise from the fact that seed, although a biological asset, is at least partly shaped by human selection driven by values, knowledge and needs of users. Collective responsibility, sharing of knowledge and seed, protection from private enclosure, and distributed, polycentric governance are key features of Seed Commons. The notion of ‘commoning’ focuses on the social practices and processes that create and sustain commons. Conceptualizing Seed Commons in their complex- ity offers initial starting points for policies and legal frameworks conducive to releasing the transformative power of Seed Commons for advancing sustainable farming and food systems. Keywords Commons · Seed systems · Plant genetic resources · Intellectual property rights · Governance Introduction: Seed Commons—bringing and farming communities to effectively breed and manage together age‑old traditions and new visions seed. Schöley and Padmanabhan (2017) describe agrobio- diversity as “an evident outcome of a long-lasting human- Since the dawn of agriculture, people have saved, stored, and nature relationship”, or a “social-ecological artifact”. Seed shared seed of plants that were useful to them and sought of crops, with its genetic properties and survival in agro- to enhance their value. The inherent genetic properties of ecosytems dependent to a great extent on human manage- seeds, shaped by a mix of individual and collective human ment, thus differs from other ‘natural’ resources in important actions interacting with natural-selection forces at a given aspects. locality, determine their ‘usefulness’ in such aspects as yield With the emergence of ‘modern’ science-based plant and quality that impact human health and well-being. breeding, the relationship between humans and plants has The impressive variety of plants currently used to fulfill fundamentally changed. Seed delivery to farmers tends our various needs, including food, feed, fuel, fiber, and phar - to be conceived as an ‘industry’, where different steps, maceutics, is a living testimony of the abilities of farmers like breeding, seed production and dissemination, are performed by different but interdependent actors, hav - ing shared as well as diverging interests (Christinck et al. * Stefanie Sievers-Glotzbach 2014). Plant breeding in particular has become a highly stefanie.sievers-glotzbach@uol.de specialized activity, involving high financial investments— Department of Business Administration, Economics and risks. As a result, there has been ongoing pressure and Law, University of Oldenburg, Oldenburg, Germany towards horizontal as well as non-horizontal mergers and Seed4change Research & Communication, Gersfeld, alliances. Companies with activities in similar domains Germany are merging to benefit, for example, from different geo- German Institute for Tropical and Subtropical Agriculture graphic foci or larger product portfolios, whereas others (DITSL), Witzenhausen, Germany Vol.:(0123456789) 1 3 500 S. Sievers-Glotzbach, A. Christinck are exploiting complementarities arising from activities in In response to these concerns, a range of new social different domains, such as in seeds, GM technology and practices and bottom-up initiatives taken by peasant farm- agrochemicals (OECD 2018). Today, three internationally ers, NGOs and interested individuals have emerged in the operating companies control over 60% of the global com- Global North and South. They build on innovative forms of mercial seed market (Howard 2015; Bonny 2017). community governance of seeds and varieties to enhance The consolidation of seed markets, along with political food sovereignty, farmer empowerment and sustainable agri- influence of the few global ‘players’ on political agendas culture (e.g., Pautasso et al. 2013; Kloppenburg 2014; Girard and regulatory frameworks, has important consequences and Frison 2018). In many cases such initiatives explicitly for the sustainability of food and seed systems. The Inter- build on farmers’ age-old traditions of selecting, saving and national Panel of Experts IPES-Food, for example, raised exchanging seeds, as with community seed banks or seed attention to farmers’ increasing dependence on a hand- savers’ networks (Thomas et al. 2011; Pautasso et al. 2013; ful of suppliers, R&D efforts concentrated on only a few Vernooy et al. 2014; Coomes et al. 2015). Often these initia- crops of importance to global seed markets, and a more tives cooperate with public breeding and research institutes, limited range of varieties being developed (IPES Food e.g. in participatory plant breeding (Sperling et al. 2001; 2016,2017). The ongoing replacement of traditional crops Almekinders et al. 2007; Dawson et al. 2008). and varieties by a limited number of ‘modern’ ones has The growing movement of ‘open source’ seed (Aoki led to rapid genetic erosion (Pautasso et al. 2013; Bar- 2009; Kloppenburg 2014; Kotschi and Horneburg 2018; bieri and Bocchi 2015); losses of crop genetic diversity, Montenegro de Wit 2019) is another expression of the along with losses of associated species and degradation of above-mentioned concerns that makes reference to ‘open- related agroecosystems, also result in reductions in regu- source’ and ‘copy-left’ principles practiced by certain com- lating and cultural ecosystem services, such as resilience munities of computer software developers (Kotschi and Rapf to environmental changes and biological pest and disease 2016). Also, several organic breeding initiatives (Osman and control (Ficiciyan et al. 2018; FAO 2019). Chable 2009; Demeulenaere 2014; Wirz et al. 2017) have At the international level, global trends of biodiversity formed in reaction to the increasing commodification of loss, including that of cultivated plants, has led to inter- seeds and varieties and/or to address related societal chal- national agreements such as the Convention on Biologi- lenges, including negative effects on biodiversity, ecosystem cal Diversity (CBD) and the International Treaty on Plant services and human health (Lammerts van Bueren 2010; Genetic Resources for Food and Agriculture (ITPGRFA). Lammerts van Bueren et al. 2011). The ITPGRFA establishes, among the Contracting Parties, The perspective of Seed Commons challenges the domi- a system of collective governance for the genetic resources nant narrative that the best pathway towards food and nutri- of some of the world’s most important crops. It further tion security for the world’s growing population is to foster acknowledges the role of farmers regarding their past, pre- privately-owned biotechnical innovations, supported by sent and future contributions to the conservation and sustain- corresponding policy measures (see, for example, OECD able use of plant genetic resources for food and agriculture 2018). It addresses major political impasses in the present (PGRFA), which forms the basis of Farmers’ Rights (FAO international and national governance of varieties, seed and 2009). The ITPGRFA does not build on a concept of ‘own- PGRFA that are based on such narratives and tend to be ership’; it states that PGRFA are “a common concern of tailored towards the needs of private sector R&D, large- all countries” (FAO 2009), given the fact that all countries scale farms and ‘industrial’ food systems, hampering the nowadays depend on PGRFA that originated elsewhere. necessary transition of farming and food systems towards Therefore, the system has been described as a Global Com- more sustainable outcomes (IPES-Food 2016). By explor- mons (Halewood 2013). ing innovative governance models for seed, varieties and At the local level, growing concerns that concentration PGRFA, Seed Commons could thus provide opportunities of market power, private interests and influence of global to reconsider how innovation could be fostered in a way to ‘players’ on political agenda-setting undermine democratic better serve current and future needs of farmers and society. governance of food systems has given rise to worldwide social movements to ‘free’ seeds and reclaim global seed supply (see, for example, Schapiro 2018). Reservations con- Intention of the Symposium and approach cern both the use of certain molecular breeding techniques, taken with associated fears of negative impacts on human health and the environment, and the reliance of business model on The intention of the Symposium is to contribute to a deeper intellectual property rights (IPR) that give the holders of and more systematic understanding of material, knowledge, such rights the power to control who can make use of certain and cultural aspects of Seed Commons, including interac- plant varieties, single traits, or technologies. tions and interdependencies between those aspects. It further 1 3 Introduction to the symposium: seed as a commons—exploring innovative concepts and practices… 501 aims to explore the perspectives Seed Commons can offer, other environments as well, even far away from where they especially with a view to current debates on how to design originated. Such use may also include further breeding. governance systems for seed, varieties and PGRFA in a way The maintenance of Seed Commons depends strongly on that they support the necessary transformation of farming active management by humans (Wilkes 1988; Fowler and and food systems towards more sustainable and equitable Mooney 1990). Hence, the fundamental social dilemma outcomes. is not the over-use of seeds and varieties, but their under- We first explore the concept of Seed Commons with its provision, a typical feature of Knowledge Commons and various interacting ‘layers’ and depict a set of core criteria Global Commons. on which Seed Commons rely. Subsequently, key insights Knowledge Commons are defined as the “the institutional- from the research contributions selected for this Symposium ized community governance of the sharing and (…) creation, are presented. Finally, we draw conclusions regarding the of information, science, knowledge, data, and other types of potential contributions of Seed Commons to sustainable intellectual and cultural resources” (Frischmann et al. 2014). farming and food systems. The generation of knowledge, and its sharing among users or across various actor groups, play a major role in breed- ing and seed production as well as in any kind of collective Conceptualizing Seed Commons management of PGRFA. PGRFA as expressions and carriers of genetic informa- Commons as such is a complex term that entails the rela- tion and essential input to every breeding process have also tionships, forms of organization and interactions between been described as a Global Commons (Dedeurwaerdere humans and material or immaterial resources that are useful 2013; Halewood 2013). Global Commons refer to arrange- to them. The practices and processes through which a group ments of global collective action in international, suprana- of people interacts with a resource is a constitutive ele- tional and global resource domains, such as the atmosphere ment of a commons (Linebaugh 2008; Helfrich et al. 2009). or the deep sea (Joyner 2001; Mudiwa 2002). Whenever Typically, the user community itself establishes rules defin- PGRFA, varieties and related knowledge are shared with a ing their interactions with each other and with the object/ global user community, breeding and conservation efforts resource in question, whereby these rules necessarily vary, contribute to the maintenance and/or continual improvement depending on the users’ individual and collective values, of PGRFA as a Global Commons. purposes and needs, and the characteristics of the resource. The concept of Commoning refers to commons as self- The complex nature of seed and the fact that its gov- organized and needs-oriented social processes of peers ernance takes place at various levels, from local to global, (Euler 2018), shifting the focus from the management of require that various commons categories be considered specific resources to the social processes of community together to conceptualize Seed Commons (Sievers-Glotz- building. In this regard, relationships and values within bach et al. 2020). The collective management of the bio- Seed Commons communities and their social functions, physical seed relates to the concept of traditional Natural such as democratic participation and autonomy or their Resource Commons (Ostrom 1990, 2005), the collective potential for creating viable alternatives to privatization sharing of the associated knowledge to Knowledge Com- and commodification, are assessed (Euler 2018; Vivero- mons (Hess and Ostrom 2007; Frischmann et al. 2014), and Pol et al. 2018). Collectively designed rules and norms are the conservation and sustainable use of PGRFA to Global particularly important in the local management of seed and Commons (Joyner 2001; Mudiwa 2002). The social func- varieties, such as seed exchange networks, community seed tions of local Seed Commons initiatives have been captured banks and collaborative breeding initiatives. Tensions may by recent conceptions of Commoning (Vivero-Pol 2017; arise if such local Seed Commons are negatively affected Euler 2018). by national legal frameworks or international agreements Traditional Natural Resource Commons center on bio- (Santilli 2011). physical common-pool resources like fishing grounds, for - Seed Commons are thus recognized to be highly complex, ests or grazing lands and their common-property regimes with diverse organizational forms, institutional settings, (Ostrom 1990; 2005). Seed Commons differ from those agroecological as well as socio-cultural contexts in which resources in various aspects. For example, as seed can they are embedded. Nevertheless, all Seed Commons have be multiplied, varieties and seeds are considered to be been found to share four core features (Sievers-Glotzbach ‘non-subtractable’ (Halewood 2013); use by one person et al. 2020): (1) collective responsibility; (2) protection from does thus not limit others’ possibilities of using seed of private enclosure; (3) collective, polycentric management a specific variety, if necessary after further multiplica- of seeds; and (4) sharing of knowledge and practical skills tion. While Seed Commons are related to certain agroeco- relating to breeding, seed management as well as cultivation logical conditions, they can be transferred to and used in and use (Fig. 1). 1 3 502 S. Sievers-Glotzbach, A. Christinck Fig. 1 Core criteria of Seed Commons (Sievers-Glotzbach et al. 2020) Collective responsibility for the protection, provision and along with detailed descriptions of the variety in question development of seeds and crop diversity has been recognized (see examples presented by Halewood 2016). This type of at the international level by the Contracting Parties to the documentation makes appropriation by third parties more ITPGRFA for some of the world’s most important food and difficult. Open-source seed models are also discussed and fodder crops (FAO 2009; Halewood 2013; Dedeurwaerdere implemented as a specific instrument to protect varieties 2013; Frison 2018). Other agricultural species fall under the against future enclosure (Kloppenburg 2014; Kotschi and Convention on Biological Biodiversity (CBD) and related Horneburg 2018; Montenegro de Wit 2019). protocols, e.g. the Nagoya Protocol on Access and Benefit- Collective, polycentric management characterizes the sharing. National governments as well as regional organiza- organizational structure of rule-making in Seed Com- tions implement such commitments based on national laws, mons. While key goals, guiding principles and values may action plans and related programs for their implementation. be agreed upon collectively, e.g. at the level of an associa- At the local scale, Seed Commons such as community seed tion, the operational management of seed and varieties is banks, seed exchange networks or collaborative breeding organized in multiple substructures which hold independ- initiatives take on collective responsibility, e.g. for maintain- ent decision-making power in many aspects. This form of ing traditional landraces of relevance to them, or for jointly organization strengthens grassroots democratic processes developing new varieties. Such initiatives may also be con- and re-distributes power in a way that needs of the respective nected via national, regional or international associations user community are considered. Such decentralized network or networks. structures allow, for example, for regionally adapted breed- Seed Commons tend to reject private enclosure of prod- ing, need-oriented seed production, or for collective in-situ ucts, such as plant variety protection and patents, as well conservation of varieties that are perceived as valuable in as bio-technical methods that limit seed saving, exchange specific contexts. and use by farmers. Protection from private enclosure may The sharing of knowledge plays a central role for the func- secure the legal status of such products, e.g. against appro- tioning of Seed Commons and includes scientific knowledge, priation by others. For example, establishing local seed reg- e.g. on breeding methods, as well as practical knowledge istries (Gómez César et al. 2017) or registerring varieties in and skills (Sievers-Glotzbach et al. 2020). The latter may national or regional seed catalogues in the name of a farmer include, for example, practical methods for assessing varie- organization or not-for-profit organization have been used as ties or breeding lines, or for the multiplication and manage- instruments to document collective ‘ownership’ of PGRFA, ment of seed and planting material. Knowledge sharing in 1 3 Introduction to the symposium: seed as a commons—exploring innovative concepts and practices… 503 Seed Commons is often a corollary to the sharing of physi- Sievers-Glotzbach et al. (“Beyond the material: knowl- cal seed, in which such practical knowledge (e.g. selection edge aspects in seed commoning”) compare the ways that skills of individual farmers or breeders) may be embedded. knowledge is managed and exchanged by Seed Commons at Knowledge may be shared within Seed Commons commu- the international and local levels. The Multilateral System nities as well as beyond, e.g. through field visits, seed fairs, (MLS) of the ITPGRFA and associations of farmer-breeders exhibitions etc. that are open to the general public. in Germany (Kultursaat e.V.) and the Philippines (MASI- PAG) are taken as examples. While seed samples made available via the MLS easily cross levels and boundaries Seed Commons in this Symposium between communities of actors operating at different levels, the exchange and flow of knowledge between those groups The organization of a Symposium to focus on Seed Com- is limited by various factors, with important implications mons was initiated in the spring of 2019 by calling for papers for the distribution of benefits and potential contributions to explore Seed Commons from various perspectives. Con- to sustainable farming and food systems. tributions were invited from diverse disciplines and schools Halewood et  al. (“Enhancing farmers’ agency in the of thought in order to address conceptual aspects of Seed global crop commons through use of biocultural community Commons, specifically from a ‘New Commons’ perspec- protocols”) present bio-cultural community protocols, devel- tive; policy and governance aspects, including current and oped with farming communities in Benin and Madagascar. emerging forms of collaboration, governance, and institu- These protocols establish the communities’ self-determined tions; philosophical and normative perspectives; and agroe- rules for interactions with outsiders relating to PGRFA and/ cological or socioeconomic outcomes and societal impacts. or associated knowledge and are linked to the national legal Individual contributions were selected that combine vari- systems of Access and Benefit-sharing. At the same time, ous perspectives and address challenges arising from the the communities’ access to PGRFA available from the MLS complex nature and multi-level governance of Seed Com- was facilitated through national genebanks and research mons, as described above. Two articles focus on cross-cut- organizations. Such activities contribute to strengthening the ting issues, namely knowledge (Sievers-Glotzbach et al.) and position of farming communities within the multi-layered innovation (Beumer et al.), and how they are related with local-to-global governance system of Seed Commons and governance and organizational structures of Seed Commons. have a potential to increase benefits for farmers from their All selected contributions are based on case studies, with countries’ international commitments. both the Global-North (France, Netherlands, Germany) and Mazé et al. (“Commoning the seeds: alternative mod- South (Mali, Benin, Madagascar, Philippines) being rep- els of collective action and open innovation for recreating resented. Diverse forms of Seed Commons were studied local knowledge commons in France”) study and compare regarding their organizational structures and/or contributions the organizational rules and procedures for breeding and to sustainable farming and food systems. The cases exam- seed exchange of two local groups in the farmer seed-net- ined include organic and farmer-led breeding organizations, work, Réseau Semences Paysannes (RSP), in France. RSP networks of farmer seed-cooperatives with public breeding emerged as an act of resistance to the ongoing commodifica- programs, forms of cooperation between public and private tion and private enclosure of agricultural seeds and varieties, actors in the development of new varieties and breeding with feared negative consequences for farmers and society, technologies, and activities of local farming communities. including loss of agricultural biodiversity and challenges The Symposium thus begins to examine Seed Commons for food sovereignty. The work of RSP is strongly based on in their organizational and geographical diversity. By apply- ethical principles and values such as trust, reciprocity and ing various theoretical approaches and frameworks, includ- mutual assistance. The governance rules developed by the ing Elinor Ostrom’s (1990) ‘design principles’, Institutional farmer groups are investigated by using recent theoretical Analysis and Development (IAD) and Social-Ecological and analytical developments for Seed Commons (e.g. relat- Systems (SES) frameworks (Ostrom 2009; Ostrom and Cox ing to the IAD/SES framework, mentioned above). 2010; McGinnis and Ostrom 2014), it provides diverse entry Rattunde et al. (“Transforming a traditional commons- points for exploring Seed Commons. Many of the contri- based seed system through collaborative networks of farmer butions in this Symposium also refer to the more current cooperatives and public breeding programs: The case of understanding of Commoning as a social practice (Kostakis sorghum in Mali”) present recent developments in seed and Bauwens 2014; Euler 2018). systems of sorghum, a traditional staple food crop in Mali. Sorghum seed in Mali has been traditionally managed as a commons by individual farmers and farming communities, 1 with a strong notion that farm-saved seed, or seed received https ://www .r ight seeds .de/wp-conte nt/uploa ds/2019/05/Call-for- based on trusted relationships, best ensures food security. contr ibuti ons_Seed-Commo ns_final .pdf (4 July 2020). 1 3 504 S. Sievers-Glotzbach, A. Christinck However, the development of new varieties to cope with resilience in agricultural systems (Sievers-Glotzbach et al. rapidly changing environments and market-opportunities 2020). and organizing access to seed of these new varieties, espe- If local Seed Commons are embedded in strategic col- cially beyond one’s village and close family circles, required laborations between government, civil society and farmer/ new organizational arrangements. The authors demonstrate breeding communities, they can also serve a range of sus- how a decentralized system of variety testing, seed multi- tainability objectives in international food and biodiversity plication and dissemination was established that builds on policies, and serve as a “political tool and horizon” (Vivero- farmer cooperatives as key actors. Respecting the farmers’ Pol et al. 2018) for a larger social-ecological transformation own (commons-based) approaches and building on them was in agricultural and food systems. the basis for success. Even in settings where the private sector is involved in The fact that innovation may challenge and transform breeding and seed marketing, elements of Seed Commons existing governance structures is also addressed by Beumer can be relevant. The pooling of resources and capacities et al. (“Innovation and the commons: lessons from the gov- needed to achieve shared goals, including use of diverse ernance of genetic resources in potato breeding”). The PGRFA in breeding as discussed by Beumer et al. in this authors highlight the issue that innovation can be facilitated issue, is an example. Their observations on the interrela- by certain commons-based governance structures, while tion between commons and innovation represent a timely at the same time having an impact on or challenging such contribution, especially since innovation is often associated structures, causing re-arrangements. This study is based on with private ‘entrepreneurship’, rather than collective action the example of diploid hybrid potato breeding in the Neth- (Allen and Potts 2016). erlands, a new breeding technology with potentially far- Major challenges arise from the integration of local Seed reaching impact on breeding approaches that have existed Commons into global governance structures for PGRFA so far, and the respective governance structures. The authors (see Sievers-Glotzbach et al. and Halewood et al. in this thus draw attention to the different ways in which innovation, issue), partly due to difficulties or objections to share knowl- commons and its governance interact, and suggest that such edge across different actor groups. Publicly funded national socio-technical constellations are continuously co-produced. research organizations, breeding programs or genebanks can play a constructive role as intermediaries in this regard, par- ticularly if there is a willingness to address and shift power Conclusions and significance balances in the local-to-global governance system. Among the presented works, the case of bio-cultural community The contributions to this Symposium base their scientific protocols in Benin and Madagascar (Halewood et al. in this analyses on various known frameworks for analyzing com- issue) is exceptional in that such efforts have been acknowl- mons and integrate several aspects of commons that are rel- edged in the countries’ legal systems. evant for understanding the specific features of seed, varie- In-depth studies of policy impacts on the development of ties and PGRFA, including the fact that human knowledge Seed Commons are still rare. Chable et al. (2020) highlight and values are ‘embedded’ in a biological asset (the seed), the central role of seed laws for creating an enabling external which is as such mobile and reproducible and can also be environment, stating that “current seed laws and policies are used for further breeding. not designed to promote diversity in agricultural systems”. The possibility for farmers to share seed, along with prac- Supportive policies, conducive to Seed Commons and tical skills and breeding knowledge, is a core element of related social practices, are therefore particularly needed. seed and food sovereignty. It is therefore not surprising that The Seed Commons framework with its four elements such practices were found to be typical for Seed Commons (see Fig. 1) could provide the foundation for the design of in many countries (see case studies presented by Sievers- such policies. Specific policy elements supportive of Seed Glotzbach et al., Mazé et al. and Rattunde et al. in this issue), Commons include: Recognition of collective responsibility and can even become an expression of resistance if such for seed and variety development, possibly including options activities are restricted by law or private enclosure (see for funding such activities for ‘the greater public good’; Mazé et al. in this issue). Legal pathways for the protection of varieties from private By shifting decision-making power to the local level, enclosure and seed laws supporting the exchange of material Seed Commons are particularly oriented to fulfilling the among and between Seed Commons; Support for polycen- needs of specific user communities, e.g. farmers and con- tric, collective management structures, such as locally based sumers, as they evolve. Hence, taking responsibility for the breeding initiatives with linkages between actors operating protection, provision and development of crop diversity, in different areas or at different levels, and; Support for combined with the collective governance of seeds and vari- effective knowledge-sharing activities in Seed Commons eties in polycentric structures, can support social-ecological that cross boundaries between ‘science’ and ‘practice’. 1 3 Introduction to the symposium: seed as a commons—exploring innovative concepts and practices… 505 Acknowledgements We thank the journal’s former and current editors- Contribution to Agriculture? Four Common Misconceptions. in-chief, Prof. Harvey S. James Jr. and Prof. Matthew Sanderson, for Food Policy 56: 41–50. the trustful cooperation over the time the Symposium evolved from an Dawson, Julie C., Kevin M. Murphy, and Stephen S. Jones. 2008. initial idea to the published issue. It has been elaborated as part of the Decentralized Selection and Participatory Approaches in Plant research project ‘Right Seeds? Common-based rights on seeds and seed Breeding for Low-Input Systems. Euphytica 160 (2): 143–154. varieties for a social-ecological transformation of plant cultivation’, Dedeurwaerdere, Tom. 2013. Institutionalizing Global Genetic funded by the German Federal Ministry of Education and Research Resource Commons for Food and Agriculture. In Crop Genetic (BMBF) under the program ‘Research for sustainable development Resources as a Global Commons: Challenges in International (FONA)’, funding reference: 01UU1602A/C. Law and Governance, ed. Michael Halewood, Isabel López Noriega, and Selim Louafi, 368–391. Abingdon, New York: Routledge. Funding Open Access funding enabled and organized by Projekt Demeulenaere, Elise. 2014. A Political Ontology of Seeds: The Trans- DEAL. formative Frictions of a Farmers’ Movement in Europe. Journal of Global and Historical Anthropology 69: 45–61. Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attri- Euler, Johannes. 2018. Conceptualizing the Commons: Moving Beyond bution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adapta- the Goods-Based Definition by Introducing the Social Practices tion, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long of Commoning as Vital Determinant. Ecological Economics 143: as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, 10–16. provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes FAO. 2009. International Treaty on Plant Genetic Resources for were made. The images or other third party material in this article are Food and Agriculture. Rome: Food and Agriculture Organiza- included in the article’s Creative Commons licence, unless indicated tion of the United Nations (FAO). otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in FAO. 2019. The State of the World’s Biodiversity for Food and Agri- the article’s Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not culture. FAO Commission on Genetic Resources for Food and permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will Agriculture Assessments. Rome: Food and Agriculture Organi- need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a zation of the United Nations (FAO). copy of this licence, visit http://creativ ecommons .or g/licenses/b y/4.0/. César, Gómez., Ronnie Vernooy Montserrat, and Bhuwon Sthapit. 2017. Safeguarding Local Crop Knowledge: The Use of Com- munity Biodiversity Registers. Rome: Bioversity International. Helfrich, Silke, Rainer Kuhlen, Wolfgang Sachs, and Christian Siefkes. 2009. Gemeingüter—Wohlstand Durch Teilen. Berlin: References Heinrich Böll-Stiftung. Ficiciyan, Anoush, Jacqueline Loos, Stefanie Sievers-Glotzbach, and Allen, Darcy W.E.., and Jason Potts. 2016. How Innovation Commons Teja Tscharntke. 2018. More than Yield: Ecosystem Services of Contribute to Discovering and Developing New Technologies. Traditional Versus Modern Crop Varieties Revisited. Sustain- International Journal of the Commons 10 (2): 1035–1054. ability 10: 2834. Almekinders, Conny J. M., Graham Thiele, and Daniel L. Danial. 2007. Fowler, Cary, and Pat Mooney. 1990. Shattering: Food, Politics, and Can Cultivars from Participatory Plant Breeding Improve Seed the Loss of Genetic Diversity. Tucson: University of Arizona Provision to Small-Scale Farmers? Euphytica 153 (3): 363–372. Press. Aoki, Keith. 2009. ‘Free Seeds, Not Free Beer’: Participatory Plant Frischmann, Brett M., Michael J. Madison, and Katherine Jo Strand- Breeding, Open Source Seeds, and Acknowledging User Innova- burg (eds.). 2014. Governing Knowledge Commons. Oxford, tion in Agriculture. Fordham Law Review 77 (5): 2275–2310. New York: Oxford University Press. Barbieri, Pietro, and Stefano Bocchi. 2015. Analysis of the Alterna- Frison, Christine. 2018. Planting the Commons: Towards Redesign- tive Agriculture’s Seeds Market Sector: History and Develop- ing an Equitable Global Seed Exchange. In The Commons, Plant ment. Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics 28 (4): Breeding and Agricultural Research: Challenges for Food Secu- 789–801. rity and Agrobiodiversity, ed. Fabien Girard and Christine Fri- Chable, Véronique., Edwin Nuijten, Ambrogio Costanzo, Isabelle Gol- son, 272–290. New York: Routledge. dringer, Ricardo Bocci, Bernadette Oehen, Frédéric. Rey, Diony- Girard, Fabien, and Christine Frison (eds.). 2018. The Commons, sia Fasoula, Judith Feher, Marjo Keskitalo, Beate Koller, Michalis Plant Breeding and Agricultural Research: Challenges for Food Omirou, Pedro Mendes-Moreira, Gaëlle. van Frank, Abdel Kader Security and Agrobiodiversity. New York: Routledge. Neino. Jika, Mathieu Thomas, and Adanella Rossi. 2020. Embed- Halewood, Michael. 2013. What Kind of Goods are Plant Genetic ding Cultivated Diversity in Society for Agro-Ecological Transi- Resources for Food and Agriculture? Towards the Identification tion. Sustainability 12 (3): 784. and Development of a New Global Commons. International Christinck, Anja, Marthe Diarra, and Gottfried Horneber. 2014. Inno- Journal of the Commons 7: 278–312. vations in Seed Systems: Lessons from the CCRP-Funded Project Halewood, Michael (ed.). 2016. Farmers’ Crop Varieties and Farm- ‘Sustaining Farmer-Managed Seed Initiatives in Mali, Niger, and ers’ Rights. Challenges in Taxonomy and Law. Abingdon/New Burkina Faso’. Minneapolis: The McKnight Foundation. www. York: Routledge. mcknight .org/system/a sset/ document /850/original /CCRP_SeedS Hess, Charlotte, and Elinor Ostrom (eds.). 2007. Understanding ystem s_Nov20 14.pdf. Accessed 28 July 2020. Knowledge as a Commons: From Theory to Practice. Cam- Bonny, Sylvie. 2017. Corporate Concentration and Technological bridge: Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT) Press. Change in the Global Seed Industry. Sustainability 9: 1632. Howard, Philip H. 2015. Intellectual Property and Consolidation Coomes, Oliver T., J. Shawn, Eric Garine McGuire, Sophie Caillon, in the Seed Industry. Crop Science. http s ://do i.or g/1 0.2135/ Doyle McKey, Elise Demeulenaere, Devra Jarvis, Guntra Aistara, CROPS CI201 4.09.0669. Adeline Barnaud, Pascal Clouvel, Laure Emperaire, Selim Louafi, IPES-Food. 2016. From Uniformity to Diversity: A Paradigm Shift Pierre Martin, François Massol, Marco Pautasso, Chloé Violon, from Industrial Agriculture to Diversified Agroecological Sys- and Jean Wencelius. 2015. Farmer Seed Networks Make a Limited tems. Brussels: International Panel of Experts on Sustainable Food Systems (IPES-Food). https ://www.ipes-food.org/_img/ 1 3 506 S. Sievers-Glotzbach, A. Christinck uploa d/files /Unifo rmity ToDiv ersit y_FULL.pdf. Accessed 27 Pautasso, Marco, Guntra Aistara, Adeline Barnaud, Sophie Caillon, Pas- July 2020. cal Clouvel, Oliver T. Coomes, Marc Delêtre, Elise Demeulenaere, IPES-Food. 2017. Too Big to Feed: Exploring the Impacts of Mega- Paola De Santis, Thomas Döring, Ludivine Eloy, Laure Emperaire, Mergers, Consolidation and Concentration of Power in the Eric Garine, Isabelle Goldringer, Devra Jarvis, Hélène. I. Joly, Agri-Food Sector. Brussels: International Panel of Experts on Christian Leclerc, Selim Louafi, Pierre Martin, François Massol, Sustainable Food Systems (IPES-Food). https://www .ipes-food. Shawn McGuire, Doyle McKey, Christine Padoch, Clélia. Soler, org/_img/upload/files /Conce ntr ation_F ullRepor t.pdf . Accessed Mathieu Thomas, and Sara Tramontini. 2013. Seed Exchange Net- 27 July 2020. works for Agrobiodiversity Conservation A Review. Agronomy for Joyner, Christopher C. 2001. Global Commons: The Oceans, Ant- Sustainable Development 33 (1): 151–175. arctica, the Atmosphere, and Outer Space. In Managing Global Santilli, Juliana. 2011. Agrobiodiversity and the Law. Regulating Genetic Issues: Lessons Learned, ed. Peter J. Simmonds, and Chantal de Resources, Food Security and Cultural Diversity. Abingdon/New Jonge Oudraat, 354–391. Washington D.C.: Carnegie Endow- York: Routledge. ment for International Peace. Schapiro, Mark. 2018. Seeds of Resistance. The Fight to Save our Food Kloppenburg, Jack. 2014. Re-Purposing the Master’s Tools: The Supply. New York: Skyhorse Publishing. Open Source Seed Initiative and the Struggle for Seed Sover- Schöley, Michaela, and Martina Padmanabhan. 2017. Formal and Infor- eignty. Journal of Peasant Studies 41 (6): 1225–1246. mal Relations to Rice Seed Systems in Kerala, India: Agrobiodi- Kostakis, Vasilis, and Michel Bauwens. 2014. Network Society and Future versity as a Gendered Social-Ecological Artifact. Agriculture and Scenarios for a Collaborative Economy. Basingstoke/New York: Human Values 34: 969–982. Palgrave Pivot Palgrave Macmillan. Sievers-Glotzbach, Stefanie, Julia Tschersich, Nina Gmeiner, Lea Kliem, Kotschi, Johannes, and Bernd Horneburg. 2018. The Open Source Seed and Anoush Ficiciyan. 2020. Diverse Seeds—Shared Practices: Licence: A Novel Approach to Safeguarding Access to Plant Germ- Conceptualizing Seed Commons. International Journal of the Com- plasm. PLoS Biology. https://doi.or g/10.1371/journal.pbio.30000 23 . mons. https ://doi.org/10.5334/ijc.1043. Kotschi, Johannes, and Klaus Rapf. 2016. Liberating Seeds with an Open Sperling, Louise, A. Ashby. Jacqueline, Margaret E. Smith, Eva Weltz- Source Seed Licence. Association for AgriCulture and Ecology ien, and Shawn McGuire. 2001. A Framework for Analyzing Par- (AGRECOL). https ://www.opens ource seeds .org/sites /defau lt/lfies ticipatory Plant Breeding Approaches and Results. Euphytica 122: /downl oads/Liber ating _seeds _with_an_Open_Sourc e_Seed_licen 439–450. ce.pdf. Accessed 28 July 2020. Thomas, Mathieu, Julie C. Dawson, Isabelle Goldringer, and Christophe Lammerts van Bueren, Edith. 2010. Ethics of Plant Breeding: The Bonneuil. 2011. Seed Exchanges, A Key to Analyze Crop Diversity IFOAM Basic Principles as a Guide for the Evolution of Organic Dynamics in Farmer-led on-Farm Conservation. Genetic Resources Plant Breeding. Ecology and Farming 2010 (February): 7–10. and Crop Evolution 58 (3): 321–338. Lammerts van Bueren, Edith T, Sam S. Jones, Lucius Tamm, and Kevin Vernooy, Ronnie, Bhuwon Sthapit, Gea Galluzzi, and Pitambar Shrestha. Murphy. 2011. The Need to Breed Crop Varieties Suitable for 2014. The Multiple Functions and Services of Community Seed- Organic Farming, Using Wheat, Tomato and Broccoli as Examples: banks. Resources 3: 636–656. A Review. NJAS Wageningen Journal of Life Sciences 58: 193–205. Vivero-Pol, José Luis. 2017. Food as Commons or Commodity? Explor- Linebaugh, Peter. 2008. The Magna Carta Manifesto: Liberties and ing the Links Between Normative Valuations and Agency in Food Commons for All. Berkeley/Los Angeles/London: University of Transition. Sustainability 9 (3): 442. California Press. Vivero-Pol, José Luis, Tomaso Ferrando, Olivier De Schutter, and McGinnis, Michael D., and Elinor Ostrom. 2014. Social-Ecological Sys- Ugo Mattei. 2018. Introduction—The Food Commons Are Com- tem Framework: Initial Changes and Continuing Challenges. Ecol- ing... In Routledge Handbook of Food as a Commons: Expanding ogy and Society 19 (2): 30. Approaches, ed. José Luis Vivero-Pol, Tomaso Ferrando, Olivier De Montenegro de Wit, Maywa. 2019. Beating the Bounds: How Does ‘Open Schutter, and Ugo Mattei, 1–22. Abingdon/New York: Routledge. Source’ Become a Seed Commons? Journal of Peasant Studies 46 Wilkes, H. Garrison. 1988. Plant Genetic Resources Over Ten Thousand (1): 44–79. Years: From a Handful of Seed to the Crop Specific Mega Gen- Mudiwa, Morris. 2002. Global Commons: The Case of Indigenous ebank. In Seeds and Sovereignty: The Use and Control of Plant Knowledge, Intellectual Property Rights and Biodiversity. The Com- Genetic Resources, ed. J.R. Kloppenburg, 67–89. Durham: Duke mons in an Age of Globalisation, the Ninth Biennial Conference of University Press. the International Association for the Study of Common Property. Wirz, Johannes, Peter Kunz, and Ueli Hurter. 2017. Saatgut—Gemeingut, https ://hdl.handl e.net/10535 /428. Accessed 27 July 2020. Züchtung als Quelle von Realwirtschaft, Recht und Kultur. Dornach: OECD. 2018. Concentration in Seed Markets: Potential Effects and Verlag am Goetheanum. Policy Responses. Paris: Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) Publishing. https ://www.oecd.org/publi Publisher’s Note Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to ca tio ns /con ce ntr at ion -in- see d-ma rke ts -978 92 64 308 3 67-e n.ht m. jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations. Accessed 27 July 2020. Osman, Aart M., and Veronique Chable. 2009. Breeding Initiatives of Seeds of Landraces, Amateur Varieties and Conservation Varieties: An Inventory and Case Studies. Driebergen: Louis Bolk Instituut. Stefanie Sievers‑Glotzbach is junior professor at the University of https ://edepo t.wur.nl/51434 . Acessed 28 July 2020. Oldenburg, Department of Business Administration, Economics and Ostrom, Elinor. 1990. Governing the Commons: The Evolution of Institu- Law, and leads the research group RightSeeds, funded by the German tions for Collective Action. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Federal Ministry of Education and Research (BMBF). She holds a Ostrom, Elinor (ed.). 2005. Understanding Institutional Diversity. Prince- Ph.D. in Sustainability Sciences and a Diploma degree in Environ- ton: Princeton University Press. mental Sciences, both from Leuphana University, Lüneburg. She was a Ostrom, Elinor. 2009. A General Framework for Analyzing Sustainability researcher in the Ecological Economics group at Oldenburg University of Social-Ecological Systems. Science 325: 419–422. from 2012 to 2015, and the academic advisor of the master program Ostrom, Elinor, and Michael Cox. 2010. Moving Beyond Panaceas: A ‘Sustainability Economics and Management’. Her research interests Multi-tiered Diagnostic Approach for Social-Ecological Analysis. include ecological, institutional and sustainability economics, sustaina- Environmental Conservation 37 (4): 451–463. ble development, environmental justice, and socio-ecological resilience 1 3 Introduction to the symposium: seed as a commons—exploring innovative concepts and practices… 507 research. Her present research focusses on commons as a governance of international development-oriented agricultural research. She con- model and its potential for social-ecological transformation. tributes to scientific policy advice on issues relating to intellectual property rights for plant varieties and seeds, human rights and rights of Anja Christinck (Ph.D.) is an agronomist with specialization in agri- farmers through consultancies to the German Federal Parliament, vari- cultural social sciences and communication. Her scientific work ous ministries, international donor organizations and FAO. Besides her focusses on participatory and transdisciplinary research on agrobio- thematic expertise, she has lengthy experience as an author, reviewer diversity, plant breeding and seed system development in the context and editor of publications, conference proceedings and books. 1 3 http://www.deepdyve.com/assets/images/DeepDyve-Logo-lg.png Agriculture and Human Values Springer Journals

Introduction to the symposium: seed as a commons—exploring innovative concepts and practices of governing seed and varieties

Download PDF
9 pages

Loading next page...
 
/lp/springer-journals/introduction-to-the-symposium-seed-as-a-commons-exploring-innovative-Fo0IXPtcvZ

References (64)

Publisher
Springer Journals
Copyright
Copyright © The Author(s) 2020
ISSN
0889-048X
eISSN
1572-8366
DOI
10.1007/s10460-020-10166-x
Publisher site
See Article on Publisher Site

Abstract

This Symposium explores how the theory of commons can be used to study, conceptualize and transform governance models for seed and plant varieties to counter ongoing trends towards agrobiodiversity loss and concentration of economic and political power in farming and food systems. Contributions to the Symposium present case studies from a range of geo- graphical and socio-cultural contexts from the Global North and South. They show how seed and varieties relate to various known commons categories, including natural resource commons, knowledge and cultural commons, and global commons. Elements of these categories need to be integrated to gain a deeper understanding of Seed Commons, including the specific challenges that arise from the fact that seed, although a biological asset, is at least partly shaped by human selection driven by values, knowledge and needs of users. Collective responsibility, sharing of knowledge and seed, protection from private enclosure, and distributed, polycentric governance are key features of Seed Commons. The notion of ‘commoning’ focuses on the social practices and processes that create and sustain commons. Conceptualizing Seed Commons in their complex- ity offers initial starting points for policies and legal frameworks conducive to releasing the transformative power of Seed Commons for advancing sustainable farming and food systems. Keywords Commons · Seed systems · Plant genetic resources · Intellectual property rights · Governance Introduction: Seed Commons—bringing and farming communities to effectively breed and manage together age‑old traditions and new visions seed. Schöley and Padmanabhan (2017) describe agrobio- diversity as “an evident outcome of a long-lasting human- Since the dawn of agriculture, people have saved, stored, and nature relationship”, or a “social-ecological artifact”. Seed shared seed of plants that were useful to them and sought of crops, with its genetic properties and survival in agro- to enhance their value. The inherent genetic properties of ecosytems dependent to a great extent on human manage- seeds, shaped by a mix of individual and collective human ment, thus differs from other ‘natural’ resources in important actions interacting with natural-selection forces at a given aspects. locality, determine their ‘usefulness’ in such aspects as yield With the emergence of ‘modern’ science-based plant and quality that impact human health and well-being. breeding, the relationship between humans and plants has The impressive variety of plants currently used to fulfill fundamentally changed. Seed delivery to farmers tends our various needs, including food, feed, fuel, fiber, and phar - to be conceived as an ‘industry’, where different steps, maceutics, is a living testimony of the abilities of farmers like breeding, seed production and dissemination, are performed by different but interdependent actors, hav - ing shared as well as diverging interests (Christinck et al. * Stefanie Sievers-Glotzbach 2014). Plant breeding in particular has become a highly stefanie.sievers-glotzbach@uol.de specialized activity, involving high financial investments— Department of Business Administration, Economics and risks. As a result, there has been ongoing pressure and Law, University of Oldenburg, Oldenburg, Germany towards horizontal as well as non-horizontal mergers and Seed4change Research & Communication, Gersfeld, alliances. Companies with activities in similar domains Germany are merging to benefit, for example, from different geo- German Institute for Tropical and Subtropical Agriculture graphic foci or larger product portfolios, whereas others (DITSL), Witzenhausen, Germany Vol.:(0123456789) 1 3 500 S. Sievers-Glotzbach, A. Christinck are exploiting complementarities arising from activities in In response to these concerns, a range of new social different domains, such as in seeds, GM technology and practices and bottom-up initiatives taken by peasant farm- agrochemicals (OECD 2018). Today, three internationally ers, NGOs and interested individuals have emerged in the operating companies control over 60% of the global com- Global North and South. They build on innovative forms of mercial seed market (Howard 2015; Bonny 2017). community governance of seeds and varieties to enhance The consolidation of seed markets, along with political food sovereignty, farmer empowerment and sustainable agri- influence of the few global ‘players’ on political agendas culture (e.g., Pautasso et al. 2013; Kloppenburg 2014; Girard and regulatory frameworks, has important consequences and Frison 2018). In many cases such initiatives explicitly for the sustainability of food and seed systems. The Inter- build on farmers’ age-old traditions of selecting, saving and national Panel of Experts IPES-Food, for example, raised exchanging seeds, as with community seed banks or seed attention to farmers’ increasing dependence on a hand- savers’ networks (Thomas et al. 2011; Pautasso et al. 2013; ful of suppliers, R&D efforts concentrated on only a few Vernooy et al. 2014; Coomes et al. 2015). Often these initia- crops of importance to global seed markets, and a more tives cooperate with public breeding and research institutes, limited range of varieties being developed (IPES Food e.g. in participatory plant breeding (Sperling et al. 2001; 2016,2017). The ongoing replacement of traditional crops Almekinders et al. 2007; Dawson et al. 2008). and varieties by a limited number of ‘modern’ ones has The growing movement of ‘open source’ seed (Aoki led to rapid genetic erosion (Pautasso et al. 2013; Bar- 2009; Kloppenburg 2014; Kotschi and Horneburg 2018; bieri and Bocchi 2015); losses of crop genetic diversity, Montenegro de Wit 2019) is another expression of the along with losses of associated species and degradation of above-mentioned concerns that makes reference to ‘open- related agroecosystems, also result in reductions in regu- source’ and ‘copy-left’ principles practiced by certain com- lating and cultural ecosystem services, such as resilience munities of computer software developers (Kotschi and Rapf to environmental changes and biological pest and disease 2016). Also, several organic breeding initiatives (Osman and control (Ficiciyan et al. 2018; FAO 2019). Chable 2009; Demeulenaere 2014; Wirz et al. 2017) have At the international level, global trends of biodiversity formed in reaction to the increasing commodification of loss, including that of cultivated plants, has led to inter- seeds and varieties and/or to address related societal chal- national agreements such as the Convention on Biologi- lenges, including negative effects on biodiversity, ecosystem cal Diversity (CBD) and the International Treaty on Plant services and human health (Lammerts van Bueren 2010; Genetic Resources for Food and Agriculture (ITPGRFA). Lammerts van Bueren et al. 2011). The ITPGRFA establishes, among the Contracting Parties, The perspective of Seed Commons challenges the domi- a system of collective governance for the genetic resources nant narrative that the best pathway towards food and nutri- of some of the world’s most important crops. It further tion security for the world’s growing population is to foster acknowledges the role of farmers regarding their past, pre- privately-owned biotechnical innovations, supported by sent and future contributions to the conservation and sustain- corresponding policy measures (see, for example, OECD able use of plant genetic resources for food and agriculture 2018). It addresses major political impasses in the present (PGRFA), which forms the basis of Farmers’ Rights (FAO international and national governance of varieties, seed and 2009). The ITPGRFA does not build on a concept of ‘own- PGRFA that are based on such narratives and tend to be ership’; it states that PGRFA are “a common concern of tailored towards the needs of private sector R&D, large- all countries” (FAO 2009), given the fact that all countries scale farms and ‘industrial’ food systems, hampering the nowadays depend on PGRFA that originated elsewhere. necessary transition of farming and food systems towards Therefore, the system has been described as a Global Com- more sustainable outcomes (IPES-Food 2016). By explor- mons (Halewood 2013). ing innovative governance models for seed, varieties and At the local level, growing concerns that concentration PGRFA, Seed Commons could thus provide opportunities of market power, private interests and influence of global to reconsider how innovation could be fostered in a way to ‘players’ on political agenda-setting undermine democratic better serve current and future needs of farmers and society. governance of food systems has given rise to worldwide social movements to ‘free’ seeds and reclaim global seed supply (see, for example, Schapiro 2018). Reservations con- Intention of the Symposium and approach cern both the use of certain molecular breeding techniques, taken with associated fears of negative impacts on human health and the environment, and the reliance of business model on The intention of the Symposium is to contribute to a deeper intellectual property rights (IPR) that give the holders of and more systematic understanding of material, knowledge, such rights the power to control who can make use of certain and cultural aspects of Seed Commons, including interac- plant varieties, single traits, or technologies. tions and interdependencies between those aspects. It further 1 3 Introduction to the symposium: seed as a commons—exploring innovative concepts and practices… 501 aims to explore the perspectives Seed Commons can offer, other environments as well, even far away from where they especially with a view to current debates on how to design originated. Such use may also include further breeding. governance systems for seed, varieties and PGRFA in a way The maintenance of Seed Commons depends strongly on that they support the necessary transformation of farming active management by humans (Wilkes 1988; Fowler and and food systems towards more sustainable and equitable Mooney 1990). Hence, the fundamental social dilemma outcomes. is not the over-use of seeds and varieties, but their under- We first explore the concept of Seed Commons with its provision, a typical feature of Knowledge Commons and various interacting ‘layers’ and depict a set of core criteria Global Commons. on which Seed Commons rely. Subsequently, key insights Knowledge Commons are defined as the “the institutional- from the research contributions selected for this Symposium ized community governance of the sharing and (…) creation, are presented. Finally, we draw conclusions regarding the of information, science, knowledge, data, and other types of potential contributions of Seed Commons to sustainable intellectual and cultural resources” (Frischmann et al. 2014). farming and food systems. The generation of knowledge, and its sharing among users or across various actor groups, play a major role in breed- ing and seed production as well as in any kind of collective Conceptualizing Seed Commons management of PGRFA. PGRFA as expressions and carriers of genetic informa- Commons as such is a complex term that entails the rela- tion and essential input to every breeding process have also tionships, forms of organization and interactions between been described as a Global Commons (Dedeurwaerdere humans and material or immaterial resources that are useful 2013; Halewood 2013). Global Commons refer to arrange- to them. The practices and processes through which a group ments of global collective action in international, suprana- of people interacts with a resource is a constitutive ele- tional and global resource domains, such as the atmosphere ment of a commons (Linebaugh 2008; Helfrich et al. 2009). or the deep sea (Joyner 2001; Mudiwa 2002). Whenever Typically, the user community itself establishes rules defin- PGRFA, varieties and related knowledge are shared with a ing their interactions with each other and with the object/ global user community, breeding and conservation efforts resource in question, whereby these rules necessarily vary, contribute to the maintenance and/or continual improvement depending on the users’ individual and collective values, of PGRFA as a Global Commons. purposes and needs, and the characteristics of the resource. The concept of Commoning refers to commons as self- The complex nature of seed and the fact that its gov- organized and needs-oriented social processes of peers ernance takes place at various levels, from local to global, (Euler 2018), shifting the focus from the management of require that various commons categories be considered specific resources to the social processes of community together to conceptualize Seed Commons (Sievers-Glotz- building. In this regard, relationships and values within bach et al. 2020). The collective management of the bio- Seed Commons communities and their social functions, physical seed relates to the concept of traditional Natural such as democratic participation and autonomy or their Resource Commons (Ostrom 1990, 2005), the collective potential for creating viable alternatives to privatization sharing of the associated knowledge to Knowledge Com- and commodification, are assessed (Euler 2018; Vivero- mons (Hess and Ostrom 2007; Frischmann et al. 2014), and Pol et al. 2018). Collectively designed rules and norms are the conservation and sustainable use of PGRFA to Global particularly important in the local management of seed and Commons (Joyner 2001; Mudiwa 2002). The social func- varieties, such as seed exchange networks, community seed tions of local Seed Commons initiatives have been captured banks and collaborative breeding initiatives. Tensions may by recent conceptions of Commoning (Vivero-Pol 2017; arise if such local Seed Commons are negatively affected Euler 2018). by national legal frameworks or international agreements Traditional Natural Resource Commons center on bio- (Santilli 2011). physical common-pool resources like fishing grounds, for - Seed Commons are thus recognized to be highly complex, ests or grazing lands and their common-property regimes with diverse organizational forms, institutional settings, (Ostrom 1990; 2005). Seed Commons differ from those agroecological as well as socio-cultural contexts in which resources in various aspects. For example, as seed can they are embedded. Nevertheless, all Seed Commons have be multiplied, varieties and seeds are considered to be been found to share four core features (Sievers-Glotzbach ‘non-subtractable’ (Halewood 2013); use by one person et al. 2020): (1) collective responsibility; (2) protection from does thus not limit others’ possibilities of using seed of private enclosure; (3) collective, polycentric management a specific variety, if necessary after further multiplica- of seeds; and (4) sharing of knowledge and practical skills tion. While Seed Commons are related to certain agroeco- relating to breeding, seed management as well as cultivation logical conditions, they can be transferred to and used in and use (Fig. 1). 1 3 502 S. Sievers-Glotzbach, A. Christinck Fig. 1 Core criteria of Seed Commons (Sievers-Glotzbach et al. 2020) Collective responsibility for the protection, provision and along with detailed descriptions of the variety in question development of seeds and crop diversity has been recognized (see examples presented by Halewood 2016). This type of at the international level by the Contracting Parties to the documentation makes appropriation by third parties more ITPGRFA for some of the world’s most important food and difficult. Open-source seed models are also discussed and fodder crops (FAO 2009; Halewood 2013; Dedeurwaerdere implemented as a specific instrument to protect varieties 2013; Frison 2018). Other agricultural species fall under the against future enclosure (Kloppenburg 2014; Kotschi and Convention on Biological Biodiversity (CBD) and related Horneburg 2018; Montenegro de Wit 2019). protocols, e.g. the Nagoya Protocol on Access and Benefit- Collective, polycentric management characterizes the sharing. National governments as well as regional organiza- organizational structure of rule-making in Seed Com- tions implement such commitments based on national laws, mons. While key goals, guiding principles and values may action plans and related programs for their implementation. be agreed upon collectively, e.g. at the level of an associa- At the local scale, Seed Commons such as community seed tion, the operational management of seed and varieties is banks, seed exchange networks or collaborative breeding organized in multiple substructures which hold independ- initiatives take on collective responsibility, e.g. for maintain- ent decision-making power in many aspects. This form of ing traditional landraces of relevance to them, or for jointly organization strengthens grassroots democratic processes developing new varieties. Such initiatives may also be con- and re-distributes power in a way that needs of the respective nected via national, regional or international associations user community are considered. Such decentralized network or networks. structures allow, for example, for regionally adapted breed- Seed Commons tend to reject private enclosure of prod- ing, need-oriented seed production, or for collective in-situ ucts, such as plant variety protection and patents, as well conservation of varieties that are perceived as valuable in as bio-technical methods that limit seed saving, exchange specific contexts. and use by farmers. Protection from private enclosure may The sharing of knowledge plays a central role for the func- secure the legal status of such products, e.g. against appro- tioning of Seed Commons and includes scientific knowledge, priation by others. For example, establishing local seed reg- e.g. on breeding methods, as well as practical knowledge istries (Gómez César et al. 2017) or registerring varieties in and skills (Sievers-Glotzbach et al. 2020). The latter may national or regional seed catalogues in the name of a farmer include, for example, practical methods for assessing varie- organization or not-for-profit organization have been used as ties or breeding lines, or for the multiplication and manage- instruments to document collective ‘ownership’ of PGRFA, ment of seed and planting material. Knowledge sharing in 1 3 Introduction to the symposium: seed as a commons—exploring innovative concepts and practices… 503 Seed Commons is often a corollary to the sharing of physi- Sievers-Glotzbach et al. (“Beyond the material: knowl- cal seed, in which such practical knowledge (e.g. selection edge aspects in seed commoning”) compare the ways that skills of individual farmers or breeders) may be embedded. knowledge is managed and exchanged by Seed Commons at Knowledge may be shared within Seed Commons commu- the international and local levels. The Multilateral System nities as well as beyond, e.g. through field visits, seed fairs, (MLS) of the ITPGRFA and associations of farmer-breeders exhibitions etc. that are open to the general public. in Germany (Kultursaat e.V.) and the Philippines (MASI- PAG) are taken as examples. While seed samples made available via the MLS easily cross levels and boundaries Seed Commons in this Symposium between communities of actors operating at different levels, the exchange and flow of knowledge between those groups The organization of a Symposium to focus on Seed Com- is limited by various factors, with important implications mons was initiated in the spring of 2019 by calling for papers for the distribution of benefits and potential contributions to explore Seed Commons from various perspectives. Con- to sustainable farming and food systems. tributions were invited from diverse disciplines and schools Halewood et  al. (“Enhancing farmers’ agency in the of thought in order to address conceptual aspects of Seed global crop commons through use of biocultural community Commons, specifically from a ‘New Commons’ perspec- protocols”) present bio-cultural community protocols, devel- tive; policy and governance aspects, including current and oped with farming communities in Benin and Madagascar. emerging forms of collaboration, governance, and institu- These protocols establish the communities’ self-determined tions; philosophical and normative perspectives; and agroe- rules for interactions with outsiders relating to PGRFA and/ cological or socioeconomic outcomes and societal impacts. or associated knowledge and are linked to the national legal Individual contributions were selected that combine vari- systems of Access and Benefit-sharing. At the same time, ous perspectives and address challenges arising from the the communities’ access to PGRFA available from the MLS complex nature and multi-level governance of Seed Com- was facilitated through national genebanks and research mons, as described above. Two articles focus on cross-cut- organizations. Such activities contribute to strengthening the ting issues, namely knowledge (Sievers-Glotzbach et al.) and position of farming communities within the multi-layered innovation (Beumer et al.), and how they are related with local-to-global governance system of Seed Commons and governance and organizational structures of Seed Commons. have a potential to increase benefits for farmers from their All selected contributions are based on case studies, with countries’ international commitments. both the Global-North (France, Netherlands, Germany) and Mazé et al. (“Commoning the seeds: alternative mod- South (Mali, Benin, Madagascar, Philippines) being rep- els of collective action and open innovation for recreating resented. Diverse forms of Seed Commons were studied local knowledge commons in France”) study and compare regarding their organizational structures and/or contributions the organizational rules and procedures for breeding and to sustainable farming and food systems. The cases exam- seed exchange of two local groups in the farmer seed-net- ined include organic and farmer-led breeding organizations, work, Réseau Semences Paysannes (RSP), in France. RSP networks of farmer seed-cooperatives with public breeding emerged as an act of resistance to the ongoing commodifica- programs, forms of cooperation between public and private tion and private enclosure of agricultural seeds and varieties, actors in the development of new varieties and breeding with feared negative consequences for farmers and society, technologies, and activities of local farming communities. including loss of agricultural biodiversity and challenges The Symposium thus begins to examine Seed Commons for food sovereignty. The work of RSP is strongly based on in their organizational and geographical diversity. By apply- ethical principles and values such as trust, reciprocity and ing various theoretical approaches and frameworks, includ- mutual assistance. The governance rules developed by the ing Elinor Ostrom’s (1990) ‘design principles’, Institutional farmer groups are investigated by using recent theoretical Analysis and Development (IAD) and Social-Ecological and analytical developments for Seed Commons (e.g. relat- Systems (SES) frameworks (Ostrom 2009; Ostrom and Cox ing to the IAD/SES framework, mentioned above). 2010; McGinnis and Ostrom 2014), it provides diverse entry Rattunde et al. (“Transforming a traditional commons- points for exploring Seed Commons. Many of the contri- based seed system through collaborative networks of farmer butions in this Symposium also refer to the more current cooperatives and public breeding programs: The case of understanding of Commoning as a social practice (Kostakis sorghum in Mali”) present recent developments in seed and Bauwens 2014; Euler 2018). systems of sorghum, a traditional staple food crop in Mali. Sorghum seed in Mali has been traditionally managed as a commons by individual farmers and farming communities, 1 with a strong notion that farm-saved seed, or seed received https ://www .r ight seeds .de/wp-conte nt/uploa ds/2019/05/Call-for- based on trusted relationships, best ensures food security. contr ibuti ons_Seed-Commo ns_final .pdf (4 July 2020). 1 3 504 S. Sievers-Glotzbach, A. Christinck However, the development of new varieties to cope with resilience in agricultural systems (Sievers-Glotzbach et al. rapidly changing environments and market-opportunities 2020). and organizing access to seed of these new varieties, espe- If local Seed Commons are embedded in strategic col- cially beyond one’s village and close family circles, required laborations between government, civil society and farmer/ new organizational arrangements. The authors demonstrate breeding communities, they can also serve a range of sus- how a decentralized system of variety testing, seed multi- tainability objectives in international food and biodiversity plication and dissemination was established that builds on policies, and serve as a “political tool and horizon” (Vivero- farmer cooperatives as key actors. Respecting the farmers’ Pol et al. 2018) for a larger social-ecological transformation own (commons-based) approaches and building on them was in agricultural and food systems. the basis for success. Even in settings where the private sector is involved in The fact that innovation may challenge and transform breeding and seed marketing, elements of Seed Commons existing governance structures is also addressed by Beumer can be relevant. The pooling of resources and capacities et al. (“Innovation and the commons: lessons from the gov- needed to achieve shared goals, including use of diverse ernance of genetic resources in potato breeding”). The PGRFA in breeding as discussed by Beumer et al. in this authors highlight the issue that innovation can be facilitated issue, is an example. Their observations on the interrela- by certain commons-based governance structures, while tion between commons and innovation represent a timely at the same time having an impact on or challenging such contribution, especially since innovation is often associated structures, causing re-arrangements. This study is based on with private ‘entrepreneurship’, rather than collective action the example of diploid hybrid potato breeding in the Neth- (Allen and Potts 2016). erlands, a new breeding technology with potentially far- Major challenges arise from the integration of local Seed reaching impact on breeding approaches that have existed Commons into global governance structures for PGRFA so far, and the respective governance structures. The authors (see Sievers-Glotzbach et al. and Halewood et al. in this thus draw attention to the different ways in which innovation, issue), partly due to difficulties or objections to share knowl- commons and its governance interact, and suggest that such edge across different actor groups. Publicly funded national socio-technical constellations are continuously co-produced. research organizations, breeding programs or genebanks can play a constructive role as intermediaries in this regard, par- ticularly if there is a willingness to address and shift power Conclusions and significance balances in the local-to-global governance system. Among the presented works, the case of bio-cultural community The contributions to this Symposium base their scientific protocols in Benin and Madagascar (Halewood et al. in this analyses on various known frameworks for analyzing com- issue) is exceptional in that such efforts have been acknowl- mons and integrate several aspects of commons that are rel- edged in the countries’ legal systems. evant for understanding the specific features of seed, varie- In-depth studies of policy impacts on the development of ties and PGRFA, including the fact that human knowledge Seed Commons are still rare. Chable et al. (2020) highlight and values are ‘embedded’ in a biological asset (the seed), the central role of seed laws for creating an enabling external which is as such mobile and reproducible and can also be environment, stating that “current seed laws and policies are used for further breeding. not designed to promote diversity in agricultural systems”. The possibility for farmers to share seed, along with prac- Supportive policies, conducive to Seed Commons and tical skills and breeding knowledge, is a core element of related social practices, are therefore particularly needed. seed and food sovereignty. It is therefore not surprising that The Seed Commons framework with its four elements such practices were found to be typical for Seed Commons (see Fig. 1) could provide the foundation for the design of in many countries (see case studies presented by Sievers- such policies. Specific policy elements supportive of Seed Glotzbach et al., Mazé et al. and Rattunde et al. in this issue), Commons include: Recognition of collective responsibility and can even become an expression of resistance if such for seed and variety development, possibly including options activities are restricted by law or private enclosure (see for funding such activities for ‘the greater public good’; Mazé et al. in this issue). Legal pathways for the protection of varieties from private By shifting decision-making power to the local level, enclosure and seed laws supporting the exchange of material Seed Commons are particularly oriented to fulfilling the among and between Seed Commons; Support for polycen- needs of specific user communities, e.g. farmers and con- tric, collective management structures, such as locally based sumers, as they evolve. Hence, taking responsibility for the breeding initiatives with linkages between actors operating protection, provision and development of crop diversity, in different areas or at different levels, and; Support for combined with the collective governance of seeds and vari- effective knowledge-sharing activities in Seed Commons eties in polycentric structures, can support social-ecological that cross boundaries between ‘science’ and ‘practice’. 1 3 Introduction to the symposium: seed as a commons—exploring innovative concepts and practices… 505 Acknowledgements We thank the journal’s former and current editors- Contribution to Agriculture? Four Common Misconceptions. in-chief, Prof. Harvey S. James Jr. and Prof. Matthew Sanderson, for Food Policy 56: 41–50. the trustful cooperation over the time the Symposium evolved from an Dawson, Julie C., Kevin M. Murphy, and Stephen S. Jones. 2008. initial idea to the published issue. It has been elaborated as part of the Decentralized Selection and Participatory Approaches in Plant research project ‘Right Seeds? Common-based rights on seeds and seed Breeding for Low-Input Systems. Euphytica 160 (2): 143–154. varieties for a social-ecological transformation of plant cultivation’, Dedeurwaerdere, Tom. 2013. Institutionalizing Global Genetic funded by the German Federal Ministry of Education and Research Resource Commons for Food and Agriculture. In Crop Genetic (BMBF) under the program ‘Research for sustainable development Resources as a Global Commons: Challenges in International (FONA)’, funding reference: 01UU1602A/C. Law and Governance, ed. Michael Halewood, Isabel López Noriega, and Selim Louafi, 368–391. Abingdon, New York: Routledge. Funding Open Access funding enabled and organized by Projekt Demeulenaere, Elise. 2014. A Political Ontology of Seeds: The Trans- DEAL. formative Frictions of a Farmers’ Movement in Europe. Journal of Global and Historical Anthropology 69: 45–61. Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attri- Euler, Johannes. 2018. Conceptualizing the Commons: Moving Beyond bution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adapta- the Goods-Based Definition by Introducing the Social Practices tion, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long of Commoning as Vital Determinant. Ecological Economics 143: as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, 10–16. provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes FAO. 2009. International Treaty on Plant Genetic Resources for were made. The images or other third party material in this article are Food and Agriculture. Rome: Food and Agriculture Organiza- included in the article’s Creative Commons licence, unless indicated tion of the United Nations (FAO). otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in FAO. 2019. The State of the World’s Biodiversity for Food and Agri- the article’s Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not culture. FAO Commission on Genetic Resources for Food and permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will Agriculture Assessments. Rome: Food and Agriculture Organi- need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a zation of the United Nations (FAO). copy of this licence, visit http://creativ ecommons .or g/licenses/b y/4.0/. César, Gómez., Ronnie Vernooy Montserrat, and Bhuwon Sthapit. 2017. Safeguarding Local Crop Knowledge: The Use of Com- munity Biodiversity Registers. Rome: Bioversity International. Helfrich, Silke, Rainer Kuhlen, Wolfgang Sachs, and Christian Siefkes. 2009. Gemeingüter—Wohlstand Durch Teilen. Berlin: References Heinrich Böll-Stiftung. Ficiciyan, Anoush, Jacqueline Loos, Stefanie Sievers-Glotzbach, and Allen, Darcy W.E.., and Jason Potts. 2016. How Innovation Commons Teja Tscharntke. 2018. More than Yield: Ecosystem Services of Contribute to Discovering and Developing New Technologies. Traditional Versus Modern Crop Varieties Revisited. Sustain- International Journal of the Commons 10 (2): 1035–1054. ability 10: 2834. Almekinders, Conny J. M., Graham Thiele, and Daniel L. Danial. 2007. Fowler, Cary, and Pat Mooney. 1990. Shattering: Food, Politics, and Can Cultivars from Participatory Plant Breeding Improve Seed the Loss of Genetic Diversity. Tucson: University of Arizona Provision to Small-Scale Farmers? Euphytica 153 (3): 363–372. Press. Aoki, Keith. 2009. ‘Free Seeds, Not Free Beer’: Participatory Plant Frischmann, Brett M., Michael J. Madison, and Katherine Jo Strand- Breeding, Open Source Seeds, and Acknowledging User Innova- burg (eds.). 2014. Governing Knowledge Commons. Oxford, tion in Agriculture. Fordham Law Review 77 (5): 2275–2310. New York: Oxford University Press. Barbieri, Pietro, and Stefano Bocchi. 2015. Analysis of the Alterna- Frison, Christine. 2018. Planting the Commons: Towards Redesign- tive Agriculture’s Seeds Market Sector: History and Develop- ing an Equitable Global Seed Exchange. In The Commons, Plant ment. Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics 28 (4): Breeding and Agricultural Research: Challenges for Food Secu- 789–801. rity and Agrobiodiversity, ed. Fabien Girard and Christine Fri- Chable, Véronique., Edwin Nuijten, Ambrogio Costanzo, Isabelle Gol- son, 272–290. New York: Routledge. dringer, Ricardo Bocci, Bernadette Oehen, Frédéric. Rey, Diony- Girard, Fabien, and Christine Frison (eds.). 2018. The Commons, sia Fasoula, Judith Feher, Marjo Keskitalo, Beate Koller, Michalis Plant Breeding and Agricultural Research: Challenges for Food Omirou, Pedro Mendes-Moreira, Gaëlle. van Frank, Abdel Kader Security and Agrobiodiversity. New York: Routledge. Neino. Jika, Mathieu Thomas, and Adanella Rossi. 2020. Embed- Halewood, Michael. 2013. What Kind of Goods are Plant Genetic ding Cultivated Diversity in Society for Agro-Ecological Transi- Resources for Food and Agriculture? Towards the Identification tion. Sustainability 12 (3): 784. and Development of a New Global Commons. International Christinck, Anja, Marthe Diarra, and Gottfried Horneber. 2014. Inno- Journal of the Commons 7: 278–312. vations in Seed Systems: Lessons from the CCRP-Funded Project Halewood, Michael (ed.). 2016. Farmers’ Crop Varieties and Farm- ‘Sustaining Farmer-Managed Seed Initiatives in Mali, Niger, and ers’ Rights. Challenges in Taxonomy and Law. Abingdon/New Burkina Faso’. Minneapolis: The McKnight Foundation. www. York: Routledge. mcknight .org/system/a sset/ document /850/original /CCRP_SeedS Hess, Charlotte, and Elinor Ostrom (eds.). 2007. Understanding ystem s_Nov20 14.pdf. Accessed 28 July 2020. Knowledge as a Commons: From Theory to Practice. Cam- Bonny, Sylvie. 2017. Corporate Concentration and Technological bridge: Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT) Press. Change in the Global Seed Industry. Sustainability 9: 1632. Howard, Philip H. 2015. Intellectual Property and Consolidation Coomes, Oliver T., J. Shawn, Eric Garine McGuire, Sophie Caillon, in the Seed Industry. Crop Science. http s ://do i.or g/1 0.2135/ Doyle McKey, Elise Demeulenaere, Devra Jarvis, Guntra Aistara, CROPS CI201 4.09.0669. Adeline Barnaud, Pascal Clouvel, Laure Emperaire, Selim Louafi, IPES-Food. 2016. From Uniformity to Diversity: A Paradigm Shift Pierre Martin, François Massol, Marco Pautasso, Chloé Violon, from Industrial Agriculture to Diversified Agroecological Sys- and Jean Wencelius. 2015. Farmer Seed Networks Make a Limited tems. Brussels: International Panel of Experts on Sustainable Food Systems (IPES-Food). https ://www.ipes-food.org/_img/ 1 3 506 S. Sievers-Glotzbach, A. Christinck uploa d/files /Unifo rmity ToDiv ersit y_FULL.pdf. Accessed 27 Pautasso, Marco, Guntra Aistara, Adeline Barnaud, Sophie Caillon, Pas- July 2020. cal Clouvel, Oliver T. Coomes, Marc Delêtre, Elise Demeulenaere, IPES-Food. 2017. Too Big to Feed: Exploring the Impacts of Mega- Paola De Santis, Thomas Döring, Ludivine Eloy, Laure Emperaire, Mergers, Consolidation and Concentration of Power in the Eric Garine, Isabelle Goldringer, Devra Jarvis, Hélène. I. Joly, Agri-Food Sector. Brussels: International Panel of Experts on Christian Leclerc, Selim Louafi, Pierre Martin, François Massol, Sustainable Food Systems (IPES-Food). https://www .ipes-food. Shawn McGuire, Doyle McKey, Christine Padoch, Clélia. Soler, org/_img/upload/files /Conce ntr ation_F ullRepor t.pdf . Accessed Mathieu Thomas, and Sara Tramontini. 2013. Seed Exchange Net- 27 July 2020. works for Agrobiodiversity Conservation A Review. Agronomy for Joyner, Christopher C. 2001. Global Commons: The Oceans, Ant- Sustainable Development 33 (1): 151–175. arctica, the Atmosphere, and Outer Space. In Managing Global Santilli, Juliana. 2011. Agrobiodiversity and the Law. Regulating Genetic Issues: Lessons Learned, ed. Peter J. Simmonds, and Chantal de Resources, Food Security and Cultural Diversity. Abingdon/New Jonge Oudraat, 354–391. Washington D.C.: Carnegie Endow- York: Routledge. ment for International Peace. Schapiro, Mark. 2018. Seeds of Resistance. The Fight to Save our Food Kloppenburg, Jack. 2014. Re-Purposing the Master’s Tools: The Supply. New York: Skyhorse Publishing. Open Source Seed Initiative and the Struggle for Seed Sover- Schöley, Michaela, and Martina Padmanabhan. 2017. Formal and Infor- eignty. Journal of Peasant Studies 41 (6): 1225–1246. mal Relations to Rice Seed Systems in Kerala, India: Agrobiodi- Kostakis, Vasilis, and Michel Bauwens. 2014. Network Society and Future versity as a Gendered Social-Ecological Artifact. Agriculture and Scenarios for a Collaborative Economy. Basingstoke/New York: Human Values 34: 969–982. Palgrave Pivot Palgrave Macmillan. Sievers-Glotzbach, Stefanie, Julia Tschersich, Nina Gmeiner, Lea Kliem, Kotschi, Johannes, and Bernd Horneburg. 2018. The Open Source Seed and Anoush Ficiciyan. 2020. Diverse Seeds—Shared Practices: Licence: A Novel Approach to Safeguarding Access to Plant Germ- Conceptualizing Seed Commons. International Journal of the Com- plasm. PLoS Biology. https://doi.or g/10.1371/journal.pbio.30000 23 . mons. https ://doi.org/10.5334/ijc.1043. Kotschi, Johannes, and Klaus Rapf. 2016. Liberating Seeds with an Open Sperling, Louise, A. Ashby. Jacqueline, Margaret E. Smith, Eva Weltz- Source Seed Licence. Association for AgriCulture and Ecology ien, and Shawn McGuire. 2001. A Framework for Analyzing Par- (AGRECOL). https ://www.opens ource seeds .org/sites /defau lt/lfies ticipatory Plant Breeding Approaches and Results. Euphytica 122: /downl oads/Liber ating _seeds _with_an_Open_Sourc e_Seed_licen 439–450. ce.pdf. Accessed 28 July 2020. Thomas, Mathieu, Julie C. Dawson, Isabelle Goldringer, and Christophe Lammerts van Bueren, Edith. 2010. Ethics of Plant Breeding: The Bonneuil. 2011. Seed Exchanges, A Key to Analyze Crop Diversity IFOAM Basic Principles as a Guide for the Evolution of Organic Dynamics in Farmer-led on-Farm Conservation. Genetic Resources Plant Breeding. Ecology and Farming 2010 (February): 7–10. and Crop Evolution 58 (3): 321–338. Lammerts van Bueren, Edith T, Sam S. Jones, Lucius Tamm, and Kevin Vernooy, Ronnie, Bhuwon Sthapit, Gea Galluzzi, and Pitambar Shrestha. Murphy. 2011. The Need to Breed Crop Varieties Suitable for 2014. The Multiple Functions and Services of Community Seed- Organic Farming, Using Wheat, Tomato and Broccoli as Examples: banks. Resources 3: 636–656. A Review. NJAS Wageningen Journal of Life Sciences 58: 193–205. Vivero-Pol, José Luis. 2017. Food as Commons or Commodity? Explor- Linebaugh, Peter. 2008. The Magna Carta Manifesto: Liberties and ing the Links Between Normative Valuations and Agency in Food Commons for All. Berkeley/Los Angeles/London: University of Transition. Sustainability 9 (3): 442. California Press. Vivero-Pol, José Luis, Tomaso Ferrando, Olivier De Schutter, and McGinnis, Michael D., and Elinor Ostrom. 2014. Social-Ecological Sys- Ugo Mattei. 2018. Introduction—The Food Commons Are Com- tem Framework: Initial Changes and Continuing Challenges. Ecol- ing... In Routledge Handbook of Food as a Commons: Expanding ogy and Society 19 (2): 30. Approaches, ed. José Luis Vivero-Pol, Tomaso Ferrando, Olivier De Montenegro de Wit, Maywa. 2019. Beating the Bounds: How Does ‘Open Schutter, and Ugo Mattei, 1–22. Abingdon/New York: Routledge. Source’ Become a Seed Commons? Journal of Peasant Studies 46 Wilkes, H. Garrison. 1988. Plant Genetic Resources Over Ten Thousand (1): 44–79. Years: From a Handful of Seed to the Crop Specific Mega Gen- Mudiwa, Morris. 2002. Global Commons: The Case of Indigenous ebank. In Seeds and Sovereignty: The Use and Control of Plant Knowledge, Intellectual Property Rights and Biodiversity. The Com- Genetic Resources, ed. J.R. Kloppenburg, 67–89. Durham: Duke mons in an Age of Globalisation, the Ninth Biennial Conference of University Press. the International Association for the Study of Common Property. Wirz, Johannes, Peter Kunz, and Ueli Hurter. 2017. Saatgut—Gemeingut, https ://hdl.handl e.net/10535 /428. Accessed 27 July 2020. Züchtung als Quelle von Realwirtschaft, Recht und Kultur. Dornach: OECD. 2018. Concentration in Seed Markets: Potential Effects and Verlag am Goetheanum. Policy Responses. Paris: Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) Publishing. https ://www.oecd.org/publi Publisher’s Note Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to ca tio ns /con ce ntr at ion -in- see d-ma rke ts -978 92 64 308 3 67-e n.ht m. jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations. Accessed 27 July 2020. Osman, Aart M., and Veronique Chable. 2009. Breeding Initiatives of Seeds of Landraces, Amateur Varieties and Conservation Varieties: An Inventory and Case Studies. Driebergen: Louis Bolk Instituut. Stefanie Sievers‑Glotzbach is junior professor at the University of https ://edepo t.wur.nl/51434 . Acessed 28 July 2020. Oldenburg, Department of Business Administration, Economics and Ostrom, Elinor. 1990. Governing the Commons: The Evolution of Institu- Law, and leads the research group RightSeeds, funded by the German tions for Collective Action. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Federal Ministry of Education and Research (BMBF). She holds a Ostrom, Elinor (ed.). 2005. Understanding Institutional Diversity. Prince- Ph.D. in Sustainability Sciences and a Diploma degree in Environ- ton: Princeton University Press. mental Sciences, both from Leuphana University, Lüneburg. She was a Ostrom, Elinor. 2009. A General Framework for Analyzing Sustainability researcher in the Ecological Economics group at Oldenburg University of Social-Ecological Systems. Science 325: 419–422. from 2012 to 2015, and the academic advisor of the master program Ostrom, Elinor, and Michael Cox. 2010. Moving Beyond Panaceas: A ‘Sustainability Economics and Management’. Her research interests Multi-tiered Diagnostic Approach for Social-Ecological Analysis. include ecological, institutional and sustainability economics, sustaina- Environmental Conservation 37 (4): 451–463. ble development, environmental justice, and socio-ecological resilience 1 3 Introduction to the symposium: seed as a commons—exploring innovative concepts and practices… 507 research. Her present research focusses on commons as a governance of international development-oriented agricultural research. She con- model and its potential for social-ecological transformation. tributes to scientific policy advice on issues relating to intellectual property rights for plant varieties and seeds, human rights and rights of Anja Christinck (Ph.D.) is an agronomist with specialization in agri- farmers through consultancies to the German Federal Parliament, vari- cultural social sciences and communication. Her scientific work ous ministries, international donor organizations and FAO. Besides her focusses on participatory and transdisciplinary research on agrobio- thematic expertise, she has lengthy experience as an author, reviewer diversity, plant breeding and seed system development in the context and editor of publications, conference proceedings and books. 1 3

Journal

Agriculture and Human Values – Springer Journals

Published: Oct 20, 2020

There are no references for this article.