Honoured as the agriculture king, the late King Bhumibol Adulyadej strove to develop Thailand's agriculture sector to improve the livelihoods of farmers, especially through rice cultivation methods and farming experiments which are evident in many royally initiated projects. But our own agriculture authorities seem to be doing the opposite with their latest push to revise the law on plant varieties.
Thailand is situated in a region of the world that is rich in biodiversity. The land is blessed with a variety of food crops. Since time immemorial, the livelihoods of the majority of the Thai people have largely been based on cultivation, thriving on the abundance on land, in the seas, and in the rivers.
King Rama IX was aware of this fact. He advised a self-reliant lifestyle for everyone. Under his guidance, farmers were to able to feed themselves, starting off with growing rice and following this with cultivating other crops.
Soonruth Bunyamanee is Deputy Editor, Bangkok Post..
Rice was one of the first agricultural crops studied at the late King's Chitralada Palace. The research aimed to explore the best cultivation methods and recommend them to farmers.
King Bhumibol asked that different strains of seeds be gathered from all over Thailand for testing. He provided support to the Thai Rice Foundation and the International Rice Research Institute, and also offered funding to the Department of Rice each year for research.
Then, improved rice varieties and seeds under the royal initiatives were distributed to rice farmers so they could cultivate more valuable rice and stand on their own feet in a more sustainable manner.
Unfortunately, certain authorities recently seem to be doing things that contradict the late King's principles. This month, the Department of Agriculture (DOA) appeared to push for an amendment of the 1999 Plant Varieties Protection Act during the period when Thai people are mourning the late King ahead of the royal cremation ceremony. The amendment effort is also being criticised for favouring giant seed companies, enabling them to monopolise the ownership of certain "patented" plant varieties they developed from local plants and seeds. Accordingly, it will make it difficult for farmers to be self-reliant.
The law amendment effort is seen to be aligned with the International Union for the Protection of New Varieties of Plants (UPOV) Convention of 1991. For decades, big transnational corporations, particularly giant seed companies, have put pressure on Thailand to accept the 1991 UPOV Convention.
Biothai, a non-profit organisation working for the protection of Thailand's biodiversity, issued a warning several years ago that several international free trade agreements (FTAs), particularly the Thai-US FTA and the Asean-Europe FTA, would force Thailand to change its laws to comply with the convention. And now it is actually happening.
The DOA's proposed amendment to the law has been accused of jettisoning farmers' rights to save commercial seeds and regrow them. Violators risk facing criminal charges in which the punishment is a jail term or a fine or both.
However, the DOA has denied the allegation, saying that, under the proposed bill, small-scale farmers can still keep seeds for replanting, while plant variety study and innovation research will be expanded to create new strains that will bolster exports of agricultural products.
The department insists the new law aims to encourage innovation in breeding and research of plant varieties. The current law, it says, has failed to encourage innovation as it zeroes in on the registration of novel and local plant varieties, protection of intellectual property rights and permission to use plant seeds for academic and research purposes.
Still, it is stipulated in Section 35 of the bill that replanting must be carried out for the purpose of plant variety breeding and it must receive approval from a committee authorised to designate which plant varieties will be restricted or banned from replanting.
In layman's terms, farmers will not be allowed to save commercial crop seeds and regrow them to make a living and feed their families. What they can do is buy new seeds from companies for new cultivation.
In Thailand, only four or five large seed companies, both local and foreign ones, dominate the market. Under this circumstance, the proposed law will benefit them, not the farmers who make up the majority of the people.
I agree that intellectual property and innovation rights for the breeding and development of plant varieties should be protected. But there are other laws which cover this aspect.
Instead of pushing for this new law, which is seen as favouring a handful of seed firms and limiting the rights of millions of farmers, the department should have followed the late King's valuable example. It should develop and innovate plant breeding methods and offer them as alternatives for farmers in the same way the late King did.
Biothai also raised other concerns over the bill. These include patents for sub-varieties of new plants. The duration of a patent on new varieties can be extended from 12-17 years to 20-25 years.
The proposed law would also increase support for biopiracy, by not requiring the companies to identify the source of genetic materials of plant varieties they are seeking patents for.
The amended law will also redefine the term "native plants". This means companies will no longer be required to share benefits with local communities when they use local breeds to develop new qualities to patent them. The seed firms will only be required to undergo a process of "improving the genetics of native plants" prior to being allowed to use and own the genetically improved varieties.
Prime Minister Prayut Chan-o-cha has not responded to the issue. He seemed to be very happy after his meeting with US President Donald Trump earlier this month, reflecting upon it as a meeting with another "sincere friend" who said sweet things.
I hope that Gen Prayut has not drowned in the sea of Mr Trump's sugar-coated words and "sincerity" and forgotten to protect local farmers' rights and benefits.
Moreover, as a tribute to the late King Bhumibol, this government should follow his principles and "New Theory" on land and water management which underlines the self-reliance of farmers as the ultimate goal.
In the wake of public criticism against its rush to push for the new law, the DOA has extended the deadline for online public hearings on the bill to one more month, from Friday to Nov 20. Now is the last chance for members of the public to express their views and concerns before it's too late.