l Changing the system from within: participatory plant breeding and ABS in China 87
Ongoing policy dialogue has created a
platform where local-level PPB and ABS
innovations can be discussed and assessed.
This dialogue has borne fruit: at a policy
workshop organised by CCAP in 2002,
PPB was considered as an alternative and
complementary methodology for crop
improvement and agrobiodiversity
management for the first time. In 2004,
the MoA agreed to include PPB working
methods in its national extension reform
pilot programme; and from 2008 onward,
a national maize breeding programme led
by CAAS has collaborated with the CCAP
team on one of its sub-objectives: conserving maize genetic resources and developing
participatory maize breeding in southwest
China.
The dialogue has also raised awareness
of the existing barriers in policy and law
that prevent farmers from benefiting from
PPB, and promoted understanding of the
need for changes in policy and law to
remove these barriers. This has important
implications for scaling-up the approaches.
Clashes between new approaches and
established laws can foster change in the
government regime. And change is further
stimulated by the vacuum in national ABS
legislation, which means that policy makers
are actively looking for solutions at this point
in time. With the implementation of the
Nagoya ABS Protocol, CBD member countries are expected to formulate and enact
national ABS legislation in the coming years.
But the absence of ABS law in China has
created a regulatory vacuum for PPB practitioners. There is no formal way for farmers’
contributions to seed improvement and
development to be recognised under PBR.
The PPB programme has demonstrated an
alternative approach in the form of ABS
contracts between project participants.
However, we also need to continue exploring
ABS options within the legal system. China
has already ratified and implemented the
Convention of Biological Diversity (CBD)
and is currently preparing to become a
signatory to the International Treaty on
Plant Genetic Resources (ITPGRFA), which
aims to promote the conservation and
sustainable use of plant genetic resources for
food and agriculture, and fair and equitable
sharing of benefits derived from their use, in
harmony with the CBD. 5 China is now
exploring a two-track policy framework for
access and benefit-sharing relating to plant
genetic resources, in order to balance the
needs of commercially-driven IP protection
regimes for a limited list of high value plants
(such as ornamentals) and commercially
important commodities (such as hybrid
maize as a foodstuff for the pig industry),
and the protection of farmers’ rights.
Conclusion
In a context where farmers face significant
legal barriers to securing their rights and
benefits, this experience shows how a
local-level experimental project, involving
formal breeding institutes directly, can
demonstrate a new way of doing things. By
systematically feeding back the results to
government departments, the project has
started to change attitudes, practices and
policy debates, paving the way for changes
in policy and law. It has also strengthened
the legitimacy of farmers’ claim to share
benefits from the use of plant genetic
resources. Although concrete changes in
law have yet to come, these achievements
are significant, and show how positive
change can be achieved by working within
the system. The ABS agreements could
serve as the basis for further exploring
appropriate PIC principles and protocols
in China (Li and Song, 2010; Song et al.,
2012). Although ABS legislation in China
is not yet adequately formulated, ABS can
still be addressed in local practice in terms
of procedural approaches, such as ABS
contracts, because the legal basis for these
mechanisms already exists (Li et al., forthcoming, a).
5 The International Treaty on Plant Genetic Resources for Food and Agriculture entered into
force in 2004. See: www.planttreaty.org for details.