This thesis explores debates around seed governance in the context of Tanzania’s recent changes to its seed policies and laws, in order to critically examine the framings and discourses employed. Three narratives emerge, Seed Capitalism, Seed Pluralism, and Seed Sovereignty. Consistent with Westengen (2017), Seed Capitalism and Seed Sovereignty rely on, and are entrenched in, binary opposition, despite the complexity of the problems involved, and put forward singular solutions that risk harming smallholder resilience. Seed Capitalism portrays scientist-bred certified seed as superior to farmer varieties, and as optimal for smallholders, despite evidence to the contrary. Seed Sovereignty constructs rigid distinctions between peasant seeds and industrial seeds, failing to engage with the phenomenon of creolized seed, the intermixing of farmer varieties with scientist-bred varieties. Creolized seed presents a narrative threat to Seed Sovereignty’s rejection of industrial seed. Both Seed Capitalism and Seed Sovereignty narratives obscure evidence relating to seed quality and yield that is in tension with their underlying agendas. A third discourse, Seed Pluralism, not previously identified as such by the literature, resists binary framings and recommends a multiplicity of approaches informed by the nuance of relevant facts. Tanzania’s seed governance framework predominantly reflects the Seed Capitalism discourse. While Seed Pluralism has a small foothold in Tanzania’s seed governance, through the Quality Declared Seed (QDS) system, overall Tanzania’s seed laws are threatening smallholder resilience. Positive reform under Tanzania’s current political settlement is unlikely. Pro-poor donors should withdraw support for governance frameworks rooted in Seed Capitalism, and instead promote seed governance reforms grounded in Seed Pluralism, including eliminating restrictions on smallholder seed exchange in low income countries.

This thesis discusses the global regime complex concerning the management of plant genetic resources for food and agriculture, and how different regimes concerning these resources cooperate or stand in opposition to each other. Because of changes in US patent law and the establishment of TRIPS, patent claims over plant genetic resources has increased dramatically globally. This, amongst other things, in turn has lead to the development of CBD which in turn lead to the creation of access and benefit laws in many countries. To create a free flow of genetic resources for food and agriculture the ITPGRFA, with its multilateral system, were negotiated. The aim of this thesis is to investigate which consequences the regime complex concerning plant genetic resources for food and agriculture can have on the rights of small farmers, agricultural research and food security in the global South. The thesis shows how patents and strict access laws creates a situation where more and more actors has exclusive rights which excludes others from using these, for the global food security, essential resources. Further it is shown that there also are processes going on within the UPOV that risk to take away farmers right to save seeds, and thereby make them dependent on the more and more monopolistic global seed markets dominated by a few multinational corporations. It is established that ITPGRFAs multilateral system is an opening in this hyperownership of plant genetic resources for food and agriculture; but that the international community at the same time has to see to that the patent claims on plant genetic resources not violate farmers’ rights to their resources. / Denna uppsats behandlar det globala regimkomplexet för förvaltningen av växtgenetiska resurser för livsmedel och jordbruk, samt hur avtalen rörande dessa resurser samverkar eller står i motsättning till varandra. I och med förändringar i amerikansk patentlagstiftning och upprättandet av TRIPS har patentanspråk på växtgenetiska resurser ökat dramatiskt, vilket i sin tur påverkade tillkomsten av CBD vilken innefattar upprättandet av lagstiftning rörande tillträde till och den rättvisa fördelningen av nyttor härstammande från, genetiska resurser. För att möjliggöra ett relativt fritt flöde av växtgenetiska resurser har ITPGRFA med dess multilaterala system fram förhandlats. Syftet med denna uppsats är att undersöka vilka konsekvenser den nuvarande globala förvaltningen av växtgenetiska resurser för livsmedel och jordbruk kan få för jordbruksforskning, småbönders rättigheter och matsäkerhet i Syd. Uppsatsen visar på hur patent och tillträdeslagstiftningar skapar en situation där fler och fler parter innehar rättigheter att utestänga andra från att nyttja dessa, för den globala matsäkerheten, essentiella resurser. Vidare visas på hur det samtidigt pågår processer inom UPOV som riskerar att undanta bönder rätten att spara utsäde och därmed göra dem beroende av de i allt högre grad monopolartade frömarknaderna, vilka domineras av att fåtal multinationella företag. Här konstateras även att ITPGRFAs multilaterala system är en öppning i detta hyperägande, men att det internationella samfundet samtidigt måste försäkra att patentanspråk inte kränker bönders rättigheter till sina resurser.

What happens when resources get valuable and scarce? How is Intellectual Property dealing with market failures related to sub-patentable innovation or purely traditional knowledge with interesting applications? The protection of traditional knowledge and genetic resources (TKGR) has been one of the major modern challenges in international IP law. The entry into force of the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) and its implementation in national legislation has created more questions than the ones it answered. The objective of this dissertation is to assist in the evaluation of current national and regional implementation initiatives as well in the presentation and evaluation of different forms of entitlements that could be applicable in the case of TKGR. The dissertation has employed a theoretical framework for this evaluation, by combining the Coase Theorem and Rawls' theory of justice. The choice of these two theoretical models is not a random one. In order for the entitlement covering TKGR to be successful, it has to be efficient. It has to offer a stable and efficient marketplace where access to TKGR is possible without unnecessary frictions. However, efficiency could not be the only objective.  An entitlement focusing solely on efficiency would fall short of the needs and special considerations of TKGR trade. It would above all be counter to the objectives and major principles of the CBD, the “fair and equitable sharing of the benefits” and would certainly fail to address the very important North-South perspective.  Fairness is thus a necessary complement to the efficiency of the proposed entitlement. This dissertation proposes a thorough investigation of the special characteristics, of right-holders, subject-matter, market place as well as of the general expectations that an entitlement is supposed to fulfill. In parallel to that, it  looks into the meaning and scope of alternative entitlements in order to be able to propose the best alternative.