Some parties argue that seed production procedures which can only be fulfilled by rich companies are justifiable. Using the Act No. 12/1992 on Crop Cultivation System and the Act No. 22/2000 on Crop Variety Protection, the companies have won most of legal actions against farmers in the court. This is the strongest argument they ever maintain. It is claimed that illegal actions, termed piracy of seeds, have found in particular areas as a company’s staff witnessed in the court. However, it is not fair for farmers. They, as main seed producers, hold the basic rights to produce seeds as their prime livelihoods. According to Universal Declaration of Human Rights, every human being has the right to have an adequate standard of living including food, clothing, and shelter. This right belongs to social rights. In addition, the government of Indonesia has ratified International Covenant on Economic, Social, and Cultural Rights through Law No. 11/2005. It is a strong legal basis for farmers to get their rights to produce seeds besides 1945 Basic Law. In fact, legal flaws have happened. Laws and regulations of seed affair are contradictory in both textual and contextual understanding. Their implementation leads to monopoly in seed business which denies seed farmers’ role. It has been proven from corn seed cases in Kediri and its surrounding. Small-scale farmers have been defeated in court whereas several reputable expertises in law stated that the judges have made improper decisions. One of them is Prof. Dr. Agus Sardjono, an expert in economic law from University of Indonesia. Basically, the moral of those legal products is to assure a long period of prosperity of seed farmers as Indonesian citizens.
Supporters of big companies also claim that the only party who is capable to commit an agreement with the government to run national program of seed subsidy is the big companies. They are appointed due to their competency in seed business. To a certain extent they are right. However, it is unjustifiable when they can enjoy such privilege from the government. The program has brought many benefits to the companies while small-scale seed farmers have not enjoyed many. The program has altered from its initial objective which is to bring prosperity to farmers. If this policy keeps on being implemented, it will disturb seed farmers’ livelihood. Moreover, the fact shows that some seed farmers in Kediri and its surrounding have left their activity to produce seeds since the seed case happened in 2004. Thus, the situation between the two seed producers can be counted as monopoly, and it breaks the Act No. 5/1999 on the Prohibition of Monopoly and Unfair Trade Competition.
It is the contention of multinational coorporations that they can afford high technology to produce large amounts and high quality of seeds. They bound to yield increased profits. They put forward this idea because they has amplitude of capital to make improvements in seed technology. They also claim that they have relations to accomplished professionals from all over the world who can be hired to innovate advanced technology. Contrary to those ideas, seeds produced from high technology result more negative impacts than seeds from natural and conventional processes. Hi-tech seeds, as hybrid and transgenic seeds, are scientifically proven to induce genetic diseases and ecological imbalance. NGO Coalition for Bio and Food Security collected incidents and scientific inventions proving that transgenic food and forage mostly resulted bad implications in the form of organ damage to death. Afterwards, the Coalition demanded some actions of bio and food security to the government. The second impact was shown by a case in Canada that transgenic seeds caused the destruction of plants in the surrounding fields by increasing pests and diseases and polluting the pollination process. Additionally, both hybrid and transgenic seeds highly require a huge amount of chemicals causing infertile soil and environmental degradation.
Opponents of farmers go on to assert that by having plenty of capital and facilities, big companies are capable to fulfill seeds demand in Indonesia, even to export them. They assume farmers are lack of money and skill. In contrast, this position sets the domination of company’s products on the seed market. This is definitely a monopoly act. Indeed, consumers do not have many alternatives to select various types of seeds because there are only a few kinds of seeds provided in the market. This can be a violation dealing with the Act No. 8/1999 on Consumer Protection. Furthermore, the law in agricultural aspect obligates the government to facilitate seed farmers with those sorts of assets rather than to rich companies through seed subsidy project. Although there is no support from the government, hundreds of farmers in Kediri and its surrounding mastered seed production independently. They are good at conventional methods of seed production that are plant breeding and propagation. After seeing this reality, there is no way to agree with the arguments from the opponents.
Considering documentary and scientific evidence about the big corporations power on seeds business, they should not be trusted to a thriving agriculture. Farmers, chiefly small-scale ones, have to be the lead actor in seed production. The government must be aware of the practice of monopoly in their cooperation with big corporations. For the sake of farmer wealth, there must be a basic transformation in agricultural policy, especially concerning farmer’s knowledge in seeds. Indonesia’s nature is blessed with the richest biodiversity evolved from various kinds of indigenous germ plasma inside the seeds. It will be meaningless if the government still depend on one or two corporations in developing seed sector.
