No, that was off your blog.
The first thing I'll point out is the fact that this move from UPOV previous to now, to the 1991 regime is not imposing plant breeders' rights that weren't there before. It's simply extending them from 18 to 25 years. So it's not as if the agricultural sector has not seen plant breeder protection. It's been in full operation under the current UPOV regime. This is simply extending it.
That's one of the reasons I don't quite understand why extending it by seven years all of a sudden could be perceived as a flashpoint. It's a dramatic change. To me, it's offering better protection to the plant breeder for the investments they're making to the ultimate benefit of farmers, because it's farmers who choose to buy or not buy that technology.
That actually leads to the crux of my question. The farmer still has the freedom to decide whether to buy that technology or not, to sign a contract or not. It rests with the farmer to decide what he wants to purchase, and if he wants to purchase anything at all. I don't find it exclusionary.
At the end, and what we're hearing from witnesses, is that by better protecting plant breeders' rights we're actually going to offer farmers more choice, not less. If a farmer chooses to not buy the technology or not pay the premiums or royalties, then so be it. Don't. Work with publicly available seed.
You've mentioned here that sometimes indigenous and local community farmers have also contributed to seed development, which I understand and respect. But sometimes it's not always marketable in a large marketable sense. In other words, it can be a community-type endeavour, but it doesn't necessarily mean that what they have discovered has been made marketable and sellable to farmers all across the country or to farmers in other countries, etc.
I'm just wondering if you can comment on these comments I've made.