The OSSI is a mechanism to facilitate the privatization of the world’s agricultural biodiversity. It’s no different from what the US Seed Savers Exchange and similar organizations have become. It’s a tool of the wealthy and powerful families who use it as a way to promote division in those who work with biodiversity, and then to spread fake news to replace reality. It’s an extension of the vision some social studies academics have, and it’s purpose is a place for us to occupy in the future they’ve designed for us.
In the US OSSI takes the form of a fairly innocent pledge, but elsewhere in the world it’s a legally binding contract with wide ranging consequences.
Nothing to do with Open Source
As someone who has a number of years experience working with Open Source software, let me be clear that OSSI is something completely different.
First of all there is no source with open source seeds. This is a really important difference. Seeds are not software.
Open source software can be modified and sold, and the programmer can retain the rights over their own enhancements. The legally binding version of OSSI in Europe is all encompassing, and also applies to all enhancements or future developments. Any plant breeder who works with OSSI material looses rights of control over their own material.
Open source software is available to anyone, even those to don’t agree with or accept the licensing terms. OSSI seeds cannot be legally transfered without a binding contract, and those who do not accept the contract may not legally use the seeds.
Open source software exists in an environment where downloads are always free over the Internet. This is not the case with seeds, which require physical ownership, and are not always free. This means not everyone necessarily has access to the material for a reasonable price.
The philosophy of Open Source software concerns what you are allowed to do. Pretty much the only thing you aren’t allowed to do is claim ownership over it. The philosophy behind the legally binding OSSI is that you must share it, and don’t have the right to keep it privately in your own garden if you choose. This is perverted and wrong.
The Real Purpose of OSSI
The worlds genetic resources are being privatized, with some falling into private hands. This can create a situation where some of it is not usable, or possibly not usable by everyone. For example, maybe a plant breeder has discovered a gene that no one else has, and decides to only let a small number of farmers grow it. Suddenly this could be a major marketing advantage compared to a company like Monsanto-Bayer. The purpose of OSSI is to legally require all genetic material be available to the larger agricultural companies.
Under the terms of the CBD and the Nagoya Protocol, genetic material generally has to be transfered from one party to another by means of a legally binding contract. Unless you have access to fairly extensive legal advice, developing these contracts is beyond the means of most people. In addition, maintaining the administration and business aspects is generally beyond the means of a single farmer or plant breeder, and mostly has to be done within organizations and cooperatives.
For many people, legally speaking, the best option is to simply collect biodiversity and not share it with anyone, barring a few exceptions. OSSI undermines this option.
The Social Studies Angle
It seems strange this issue would come down to social studies academics. Most of us have no contact with this discipline. Most of us were unaware while they were busy writing and implementing the CBD, and it’s now been adopted by almost every country on the planet.
Jack Kloppenburg, the founder of OSSI, has a sociology background which is part of social studies.
I don’t think the world or the seed movement needs our future planned and laid out by any one or any group. I don’t think many people would willingly participate.
What Can We Do?
This isn’t an easy question to answer. Certainly some of us are employed by OSSI or other social studies initiatives. Everyone needs an income to survive.
Starting an independent initiative is increasingly difficult. It’s not possible to start something like the Seed Savers Exchange Kent Whealy and his wife Diane did in their living room in 1975. You are immediately up against a great deal of money and people who want to maintain control over the situation. The reality is we need to get used to doing our own thing, under the radar of these organizations.
Certainly an important part of working with biodiversity is being very careful about accepting (shrink-wrapped) contracts and terms and conditions with seeds. These are becoming increasingly important.
I think this is going to be a topic of discussion for a long time. I welcome any comments anyone has, either as a public comment here or privately via the contact link on this blog.
