Niels P. Louwaars

Seed regulation: choices on the road to reform

Major changes in national seed systems, including the rapid development of commercial seed enterprises, the growth of non-governmental organization (NGO) seed projects, and the concomitant decline of public sector seed provision, call for a re-examination of seed regulatory frameworks in developing countries. Privatization and deregulation are often presented as logical partners, but the nature of seed system change and the complexities of regulatory responsibility make seed regulatory reform less straightforward than it first appears. Challenges include the limited opportunities for commercial seed development, the need to provide guidance to seed systems in transition, the international pressures for plant variety protection (PVP), and significant differences among various national regulatory approaches. Problems with the conduct of current seed regulations include significant inefficiency, the use of inappropriate standards, inadequate opportunities for the participation of new entrants to the seed system, and a lack of transparency. Specific guidelines are offered for: reorganizing variety registration and performance testing; providing a balanced opportunity for PVP; and broadening participation in seed quality control. National seed regulatory agencies will see their role shift from the direct supervision of seed production towards technical and policy support for the development of a wider range of seed provision options.

Policy Response to Technological Developments: The Case of GURTs

Abstract Technological developments may require a policy response when the potential effects of such technology contribute to unwanted or unpredictable changes. The introduction of genetic modification triggered policy makers to design a framework for risk assessment and release procedures that may be linked to conventional variety release systems (Traynor & Komen, this volume). Often, technological change reaches the policy level only when problems appear after introduction. In some cases, however, discussions can start even before the technology is ready for the market. A good example of the latter is the Genetic Use Restriction Technology (GURT), which triggered a very intense debate because of its possible use in the production of ‘sterile seeds.’ This application was dubbed “terminator technology” in the popular press. GURT is thus an interesting case to analyse the link between technology and policy development. This paper heavily draws upon a study that was prepared by FAO (Visser et al., 2001). This case illustrates that a wide range of concerns and options are linked with one technological development, and that arguments arise from different policy fields. Analysis thus needs a thorough understanding of the individual opportunities and concerns as well as the linked arguments. GURT has received an extremely bad name in the international public debate. Very few, however, have seriously thought about possible policy responses and the tools that are available to the policy makers to implement their decisions. This paper intends to clarify both the complexity of such technological developments and it gives some suggestions about dealing with different concerns in the GURTs case.