How to equitably reward small-holder farmers for their role as stewards of agro-biodiversity has long been a topic of research and debate. Rather than viewing small-holder contributions as static, this work used a dynamic approach by reframing the contribution as sustainable seed innovation. Sustainable seed innovation entails both in situ conservation and the innovation of new plant varieties by small-holder farmers following the traditional practices of seed saving and exchange. The research used an iterative process of stakeholder engagement to understand how to promote sustainable seed innovation within the context of India. A broad conception of intellectual property informed culturally appropriate means to encourage sustainable innovations and enhanced an evolutionary economics approach to understanding the development of innovative systems.
The work found that within the India context sustainable innovation receives support and encouragement primarily from non-profit community groups that favour an open-source and community-based system. Currently, the primary incentive for farmers to sustainably innovate arises from intrinsic motivations to be environmentally and morally responsible. However, farmers deemed the development of markets through appropriate use of intellectual property necessary to support innovative systems and to attract additional innovators. India’s Protection of Plant Varieties and Farmers’ Rights Act made remarkable attempts to balance the rights of plant breeders and farmers within a legal framework. Furthermore, as evident in the number of registration applications received from individual farmers, great strides have been made to educate farmers about registering plant varieties. Nevertheless, farmers registering plant varieties have not yet received any benefit from obtaining plant variety protection (PVP) and some farming groups are even encouraging farmers not to register varieties. Moreover, a holistic analysis that extended beyond the legal framework revealed a system that incentivizes formal private innovations at the expense of farmer-level sustainable innovations. For instance, wider agricultural policies promote seed replacement, disseminate information about new formally improved varieties, and encourage the use of agricultural inputs such as purchased seed, chemical fertilizers and pesticides. The benefits of cultivating traditional and farmer-improved local varieties with fewer or even no costly inputs have not received equivalent consideration. This bias is further reinforced by an underlying discourse where farmers following potentially unsustainable practices are called ‘progressive’ along with the connotation that ‘traditional’ equates to ‘backwards’ rather than sustainably innovative.
