Recovering res communis from res propia: how does open source seed contribute to farmers' seed rights and breeding for diversity?
Abstract
Recovering res communis from res propia: how does open source seed contribute to farmers’ seed rights and breeding for diversity?
Full text
Agriculture and Human Values (2025) 42:2773–2793 https://doi.org/10.1007/s10460-025-10777-2 MLM Multilateral Mechanism MLS Multilateral System MTA Material Transfer Agreement NP Nagoya Protocol OHM Organic Heterogeneous Material OSS Open source seed PGRFA Plant genetic resources for food and agriculture TK Traditional knowledge UNDROP United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Peasants UPOV Union for the Protection of New Varieties of Plants VCU Value of Cultivation and Use Abbreviations ABS AccessandBenefitSharing CBD Convention on Biological Diversity CSB Community Seed Bank CRISPR Clustered Regularly Interspaced Short Palindromic Repeats DSI Digital sequence information DUS Distinctness, Uniformity and Stability EU European Union FAO Food and Agriculture Organisation GESENI Gene Silencing based on ENcoded protein’s Intracellular localisation GOSSI Global Open Source Seed Initiatives IPR Intellectual property rights ITPGRFA International Treaty for Plant Genetic Resources for Food and Agriculture Extended author information available on the last page of the article Abstract The current complex seed governance framework, and the increasingly oligopolistic seed industry that has championed it, have created a series of seed enclosures that exclude farmers and many breeders from freely accessing, sharing and improving seed, and constraining their freedom to operate and cooperate. Opposing the resulting ongoing loss of both cultivated diversity and farmers’ seed rights, experimental initiatives applying open source models and copyleft principles tothedomainofseedhaveemerged.Thisarticlepresentssixinitiativesfromfivedifferentcontinentsapplyingopensource seed (OSS) models in very diverse cultural, policy and agronomic contexts: Bioleft in Argentina, Seed Savers Network in Kenya, MASIPAG in the Philippines, OpenSourceSeeds in Germany, Open Source Seed Initiative in the USA and Rete SemiRuraliinItaly.WeanalysethemechanismsbywhichOSSmodelsattempttoovercomelegal,knowledge,andfinancial enclosures by creating safe operating spaces in current governance frameworks, breeding for diversity and rebuilding bridges between farmers and breeders, while exploring innovative financial models to fund breeding for cultivated diversity.ThefindingsshowthatOSSemergesasasynergisticstrategytoamplifyseedrightsthroughthreedimensions: first,geographically,byconnectinglocalandinternationaleffortstoenhancecultivateddiversityandseedrights.Second, a temporal dimension, by acting now, within the current legal context, while contributing to the long term transformation of seed governance. Third, through its capacity to be applied in both physical and digital realms. Finally, further areas of research on OSS are proposed. Keywords Open source seed · Copyleft · Breeding · Commons · Biodiversity · Cultivated diversity · Farmers’ rights · Seed systems · res communis Accepted: 25 July 2025 / Published online: 24 September 2025 © The Author(s) 2025 Recovering res communis from res propia: how does open source seed contribute to farmers’ seed rights and breeding for diversity? RaquelAjates1,2 · RiccardoBocci3· ShaliniBhutani4· AlmendraCremaschi5,6· JackKloppenburg7,8· JohannesKotschi9· GeoriePitong10· PatrickVan Zwanenberg5,6· DanielWanjama11 1 3
R. Ajates et al. Introduction Porque sé que nadie puede sembrar con los puños cerrados. Para sembrar es necesario abrir las manos. Because I know no one who can plant seeds with closed fists. To sow we must open our hands. Adolfo Pérez Esquivel Nobel Peace Prize Acceptance Speech, 10 December 1980 In his speech accepting the award of the 1980 Nobel Peace Prize, the Argentinian human rights activist Adolfo Pérez Esquivel chose the metaphor of sowing seed to express his conviction that generosity and an open hand are the necessary path to the just and humane “new society” that he envisioned (Esquivel Pérez 1980). This poetic assertion can be read quite literally onto the contemporary circumstances of plant genetic resources for food and agriculture (PGRFA). Throughout most of agricultural history, cultivated plants and their seeds have been shared by farmers and breeders with an open hand as a form of res communis, things held in common due to its low excludability – such as the atmosphere, the high seas or outer space - overall free to save and share, with no legislative framework to regulate them until the first seed laws were introduced in the XIX century (Ku 1990; Fowler 2000; Brush 2004). Some authors have provided interesting historical accounts of the close links seed-as-grain still had in state developments and internationalpowerevenwithoutspecificseed-as-plantingmaterialpolicies.Thus,itisimportanttostatethedifference between seeds as “grain” and seeds as “planting material”. For example Scott (2017) has analysed the key role that cereal grains as legible, calculable, visible, commodity that could be stored – and, especially, taxed – as facilitators of state formation. In this case, the multifaceted seed is considered in its manifestation as consumable grain, not as planting material. Indeed, harvested grain has been res propia for most of agricultural history. But seed as planting material evolved from res communis, to res nullius, to increasingly res propia, originally freely shared and exchanged everywhere until the emergence of the commercial seed industry and associated intellectual property regulations and laws. Therefore, prior to the establishment of seed laws, individuals may have possessed plant varieties, but they did not hold legal ownership or exclusive rights to improve, reproduce, or commercialise them. Thus, though subject to traditional and customary arrangements for access and use, the broad sharing of plants and seeds among and between farmers and communities over time and space resulted in the rich and astoundingly diverse pool of crop genetic resources that has undergirded and still is critical to modern agricultural development and productivity (Scott 1999). The violent appropriation of plants - as well ashuman beings and land - was a hallmark of colonial expansion (Brockway 1979). The crops and landraces and seeds of farmers and indigenous peoples were taken with impunity as if they were res nullius. The legal term res nullius refers to something not owned by anyone but that can be claimed and appropriated. As modern plant breedingdeveloped,genebankswerefilledwithseedsthatwere collected by plant scientists from public and - increasingly - private organisations employing gentler collection methodsjustifiedbythenotionthatsuchgeneticresourceswere the “common heritage of humankind” (FAO 1983; Engels et al. 2011). This euphemism put a res communis gloss on what was still de facto res nullius, for collection entailed no respect for customary traditions of access or to any form of payment or reward. Fast forward to the 1970s, when an increasingly powerful private seed industry and its state allies started to engineer a qualitative shift in the common character of PGRFA. Seeds were reconstituted from the res communis into res propia, i.e. things that are privately owned and from which others may be excluded (Kluge 2005). The resulting formal seed system - supported and subsidised by the policies of national governments and philanthro-capitalist foundations - has eroded and widely replaced farmer-managed seed systems worldwide (Mushita and Thomnpson 2019). The subsequent replacement of landraces and locally adapted cultivars by genetically vulnerable hybrids and new commercial varieties (that must be distinct, uniform and stable - DUS) reduces social equity, cultivated diversity, and environmental resilience. Although the private takeover of seeds isstillincompleteanduneven,itisoftenalltooeffective at preventing farmers and breeders from accessing, sharing, and using PGRFAs freely and creatively. This increasingly aggressive corporate enclosure of the seed continues to be resisted by farmers, indigenous peoples, civil society organisations and by certain state actors in low and middle income countries, who work hard and persistently to limit the impact and spread of the privatisation of seed, such as La Via Campesina, ETC Group, European Coordination Let’s Liberate Diversity, and Navdanya amongst others (Kloppenburg and Kleinman 1987; Kloppenburg 1988 [2004]; No Patents on Seeds 2020; Shiva 2020; La Via Campesina 2024; ETC 2024; ECLLD 2024).Akeyresultoftheseresistanceeffortsisillustrated by how the International Treaty on Plant Genetic Resources for Food and Agriculture (ITPGRFA) established farmers’ rights to save and share seed as a principle – though not an operational element – of international law (FAO 2004). 1 3 2774
Recovering res communis from res propia: how does open source seed contribute to farmers’ seed rights and… However, theseefforts haveso faronly managedto slow down, not reverse, the advance of the dominant, unjust and unsustainable, industrial seed system (Laird et al. 2020). Nevertheless, the formal seed sector seems to be arriving atacriticalinflectionpointthatisopeningspaceforserious change in thinking and policy. The exceptionally aggressive use of patenting by the largest of corporate seed actors over the last decade has produced a “patent thicket” in which no one – including competing companies – is sure of what is patented and by whom (USDA 2023), triggering a “tragedy of the anti-commons” (Heller 1998; Heller and Eisenberg 1998; Beck 2011; Kock 2021). Access to germplasm and “freedom to operate” is further constrained by multiple possibilities of encumbrance from contractual and administrative obligations. Furthermore, the rapid emergence and widening use of new genetic technologies - such as Clustered Regularly Interspaced Short Palindromic Repeats (CRISPR) - and the question of how Digital Sequence Information (DSI) will fit into the intellectual property (IP) framework further complicates matters (Aubry 2019; Wynberg et al. 2021; Aubry et al. 2021; Ambler et al. 2021; Ajates 2023). In a recent book, the former head of intellectual property rights (IPR) for one of the largest global seed firmsarguedthat“systemfailurecanonlybepreventedby a fundamental redesign of the IPR system for plant innovations” (Kock 2023:377). Similar appeals from government and academic actors are now common: e.g., for “a fundamental rethink” of seed system development (Norwegian MinistryofForeignAffairsetal.2021) and for privileging “commons over private ownership” as an agrifood system principle (Wirz et al. 2017; Mazé et al. 2021; McGreevy et al. 2022; Ajates 2023; Sandström et al. 2024). The brittle character of the existing IPR system for plant innovation has also been challenged by the United Nations with its 2018 United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Peasants and Other People working in Rural Areas (UNDROP), which explicitly recognises farmers’ rights as human rights (UN 2018; Fakhri 2022). In this unstable and malleable space, we interrogate the emergent potentialities of open-source seed (OSS) as a mechanism to convert seed into res communis, i.e. things held and owned in common (Kluge 2005). Drawing upon experiencesfromdifferentcontinents,weanalysetheimplementation of the OSS idea in practice with the aim of contributing to the recovery of seeds as common goods. We discuss empirical and theoretical arguments across three dimensionsofenclosure-legal,knowledge,andfinancial - facing PGRFA. We unpack how various initiatives across the world have developed and agreed upon a set of operationalprinciplestoguidetheireffortsindiversepolicyand geographical contexts and circumstances. Then, we identify both the opportunities and challenges facing OSS, and in doing so, address the key critiques that the OSS model has encountered (e.g. Tsioumani et al. 2016; Louwaars 2019; Kock 2023).WeprovideareflectiononhowOSSstrengthens the larger seed sovereignty movement, and our understanding of its compatibility with international agreements on farmers’ rights. Finally, we point to the abundance of future research topics relating to OSS that are becoming increasingly relevant as the climate and environmental crises and the digitalisation of nature and society unravel. Open source seed: a concept and a movement Although “farmers’ rights” are enshrined in international law through the ITPGRFA, these rights are largely rhetorical. In practice, farmers’ abilities to access, save, use, exchange, and sell seed have been progressively and radically restricted by a wide range of arrangements in national domestic laws and regulations. The principal mechanism by which the transformation of seed from de facto res nullius to res propia has been achieved, and continues to be, is the application of law. IP laws that extend patent rights to seed material have received much attention, as patents are normally the most restrictive form of IPR on other potential users. But patent law is quite uneven around the world. More ubiquitous are IPR laws providing for “plant breeders’ rights” (PBRs) that limit or exclude access to and use of the protected seed. The use of PBRs has been given global reach though a wide variety of international and regional treaties, agreements,andprotocols.Overthelastfivedecades,the International Union for the Protection of New Varieties of Plants (UPOV) has increasingly and very successfully lobbiedforPBRs.Areflectionofthewidespreadinternational imposition of their rules is the fact that adherence to UPOV is often made a condition of trade and foreign aid agreements (Peschard et al. 2023). Contract law provides an additional layer of control via material transfer agreements1 (MTAs) and related instruments. Virtually no genetic material now moves between formal public or private institutions without an accompanying MTA. Contractual arrangements appear in a variety of forms including licences, technology use agreements and bag tags (Kloppenburg 2014). TheefficacyofIPRandcontractlawinforeclosingfarmers’ access to seed and restricting or prohibiting further sharing or exchange is dependent on a country’s enforcement capacity and political will. Since many lower income countries lack robust enforcement arrangements, the circumscription of peasant and indigenous farmers’ access to and freedom to use seeds is being achieved less by IPR 1 MTAs are legally enforceable contracts specifying the conditions under which germplasm is provided from a supplier to a recipient. 1 3 2775
R. Ajates et al. The OSS concept has been enacted since 2013, and at the time of writing, is operational in different continents and contexts. In order to provide an international forum for mutual learning and support, organisations involved in exploring and promoting OS approaches to seed, formed the Global Open Source Seed Initiatives coalition in 2020, yet not legally incorporated (GOSSI 2024). GOSSI amalgamatestheeffortsofthefollowinginitiatives: ●Open Source Seed Initiative (OSSI), USA, h t t p s : / / o s s e e d s . o r g ●OpenSourceSeeds - Agrecol, Germany, h t t p s : / / o p e n s o u r c e s e e d s . o r g / e n ●Bioleft, Argentina, https://www.bioleft.org/en/ ●Rete Semi Rurali (RSR), Italy, https://rsr.bio ●Seed Savers Network, Kenya (SSNK), h t t p s : / / s e e d s a v e r s k e n y a . o r g ●MASIPAG, Philippines, https://masipag.org/ These groups have adopted a set of core principles that providebothconsistencyandflexibilityintheconstruction of its members’ operational arrangements in their diverse cultural, agricultural, legal, and political contexts (GOSSI 2024): 1. OSS are plant genetic materials subject to the expressed and explicit commitment – legal, ethical, or organisational – to maintain maximal freedom to use the seed and any of its derivatives. 2. Anyone may freely use OSS, that is, grow it, save it, propagate it, develop it further, use it for breeding, and sell it. 3. Recipients may not privatise the seed or its progeny through exclusive IPR or other use restrictions. 4. Recipients must assign the same rights and obligations to subsequent recipients. 5. The breeder(s) of OSS shall be recognised through attribution of credit. In this paper, we present an overview of these six diverse initiatives with data collected through two methods: first, observant participation (Seim 2024) by the authors, who have been involved in at least one of the GOSSI initiatives since the beginning of their formation and/or GOSSI, as well as seed system research. Second, GOSSI members and the wider RSR team ran a face-to-face two-day workshop in Florence in July 2023 to exchange the objectives and barriers faced by the OSS model and by each of the OSS initiatives, as well as the theoretical commonalities across them. The discussions from this workshop were transcribed by one of the authors and validated by all attendees, and then coded accordingly to the theoretical framework of seed and contract law than by administrative law and simple rulemaking (Borowiak 2004; Tripp et al. 2007; European Parliament 2017; Peschard 2023). Laws and administrative regulations create phytosanitary and varietal standards, marketing arrangements, and testing protocols that require skillsandfinancialresourcesthatmanysmallholderfarmers lack.Often,someformofofficial“registration”foravariety and/or the seller is required for sales of seed to be permitted in the market. In some cases, “national catalogues” of approved varieties are created, which, to be included, are required to comply with strict standards of distinctness, uniformity and stability (DUS), making illegal the sale or exchange of seed of varieties not listed (Chable et al. 2012; Christinck and Tvedt 2015; Sievers-Glotzbach et al. 2020; Batur et al. 2021; Sandström et al. 2024). Collectively, the legal,policy,andadministrativearrangementsaredifferent manifestations of the historical and ongoing enclosure of theseed.Thisenclosureofseedsaffectsnotonlyfarmers, but many other savers of seed, including university breeders,non-profitorganisationbreeders,independentbreeders, small company breeders, indigenous breeders, hobby seed savers, and gardeners. What is at stake in the struggle over access to seed is not simply the right to save and replant seed on the farm, but the right to breed, and locally adapt crops in an increasingly changing climate and depleted agrobiodiversity. The OSS concept arose from an ambition amongst several seed advocates to create a seed-sector analogue to the free and OS software sector’s use of copyright and contract law, which permits open access to original source codeandtoanysubsequentmodificationsandderivatives (Douthwaite 2002; Deibel 2006; Aoki 2008, 2009; Boyle 2008; Kloppenburg 2010). Established in 1992, the nonprofit social enterprise Cambia was the first to enact an operational OS modality in 2005 that could be applied to seeds and genetic information. Cambia made biotechnical innovations available under OS licensing arrangements that “democratise problem solving to enable diverse solutions through decentralised innovation” by ensuring “both freedom to operate and freedom to cooperate” (Cambia 2024). Building on those ambitions, the concept of OSS has been unfolding over the last decade, via initiatives that have sought to explore how OS ideas can be applied to crop plant germplasm (Aoki 2008; Kloppenburg 2010, 2014; Kotschi and Rapf 2016; Luby and Goldman 2016; Kotschi and Horneburg 2018; Kotschi 2020). Broadly, OSS are seeds whose distribution and/or sale are accompanied by a formal commitment to preserve the rights of farmers and breeders to freely use, save, replant, and improve them. Critically, this responsibility is extended to all of their progeny and derivatives. 1 3 2776
Recovering res communis from res propia: how does open source seed contribute to farmers’ seed rights and… enclosures that we present below. As researchers with a collective long-standing engagement in seed governance, seed research and the OSS movement, our positionality inevitablyshapesbothouraccesstothefieldandourinterpretation of the data collected. This proximity has provided us with unique opportunities for deep active participant observation and the ability to gain insight into informal dynamics, organisational challenges, and underlying motivations within the OSS community. However, we also recognise that such closeness can introduce bias, particularly in framing or interpreting the OSS initiatives in a more favourable light. Thus, rather than striving for detachment, we acknowledge our embeddedness as a strength for uncovering nuanced, emic perspectives, while also being cautious of the need for analytical distance (Chavez 2008). In this light, we have actively sought to present both the promises and tensions inherent in the OSS model. To achieve this, we adopted a reflexiveapproach,criticallyreflectingonourdualrolesas researchers and participants, as well as carefully listening to other external colleagues’ critiques of the OSS concept, and revising the grey and academic literature for arguments questioning the application of open source mechanisms to seed. We collectively prepared and revised the format and content of a template to collate data across the same dimensions for each initiative. The templates were completed with data obtained from ongoing participation and meetings within each initiative, their strategy documents, their OSS contract/pledge text where applicable, and website content. Additionally, some of the authors collaborate with other OSS initiatives as well as the one they directly are membersof,offeringacomplementaryperspective.Twoofthe authors are members of GOSSI but not directly related to anyofthesixinitiativespresented,offeringawiderperspective and objectivity. To frame the findings, we apply the concept of seed enclosures. Ajates (2023) has analysed how logistical, legal, financial, social and technological enclosures of PGRFA have been evolving over the last century. As new technologies emerge, new digital enclosures, such as DSI, amplify older and well-established enclosures, determining reach and type of farmers’ rights and fair access to seed. We build on this work to assess these OSS initiatives’ attempts to overcome these challenges, applying a bifold analysis: first,weprovideanoverviewofeachinitiativeinTable1, reporting on the following categories: start date, number and type of members, policy context, use of OS and activities. Second, an adapted version of Ajates’ enclosure framework is applied to discuss empirical evidence relating to threetypesofenclosures:first,legalenclosures,withtheir underlying epistemological and governance frameworks; second, knowledge enclosures across breeders, farmers and researchers, including the challenges and opportunities of new genome editing techniques and digital technologies;andthird,financeenclosures,unpackingtheneedfor innovativefinancialmodelsthatcansupportresilientseed systems and cultivated diversity. The paper does not aim to compare the OSS initiatives – which are presented as illustrative and exemplary cases (Yin 2014) – but to illustrate the richness and diversity in which OSS models can be developed and implemented. Nevertheless, comparisons will emerge to highlight specific factors relating to the socioeconomic, agronomic and policy context of the initiatives that shape - and in some cases determine - their objectives, activities and use of OSS. Findings and discussion Table 1 provides a summary of the key aspects and activities of the six Open Source Seeds Initiatives members of GOSSI. Drawing on our experience developing, participating in and researching the initiatives presented above, this section discussesthefindingsasempiricalevidencetoanalysehow the OSS model and movement is implemented in practice, while also addressing key challenges and critiques. To provide a comprehensive analysis, we consider the findings acrossthreedimensions,inrelationtothreedifferentlevels of seed enclosures that determine farmers’ rights and fair access to seed (Ajates 2023):legal,knowledgeandfinance enclosures. In doing so, we aim to also identify overlaps with other movements working towards seed rights and cultivateddiversityinordertofindfurthersynergiesformutual support. Overcoming legal enclosures: creating new spaces in current governance frameworks The six OSS initiatives illustrate how there are two principal forms of operationalising OS ideas for seeds: a licence (OpenSourceSeeds and Bioleft), and a pledge (OSSI and Rete Semi Rurali). MASIPAG and SSNK are still considering the most appropriate form for their large network of members. The licences consist of a contract stipulating that the receiver of OSS seeds is allowed to do whatever they wish with the seeds, the only constraint being that they must grant the same freedoms to others when making further transfers of the seed and any future derivatives. Generally, the licences take the form of an MTA contract between two parties that can be enforced by law (Fredriksson 2021). In the case of Argentina, as a compromise to engage more diverse types of breeders, Bioleft has developed three licences, two of which - in the absence, for now, of alternative mechanisms for revenue generation - restrict 1 3 2777
R. Ajates et al. Initiative Open Source Seed Initiative (OSSI) OpenSourceSeeds - Agrecol Rete Semi Rurali (RSR) Bioleft Seed Savers Network Kenya MASIPAG Country United States Germany Italy Argentina Kenya Philippines Start date 2012 2012 2007 2018 2017 1985 Members 50 breeders and 72 seed companies, as well as a seven-person Board of Directors. 63 members and a sevenperson Board of Directors. Target groups are organic plant breeders, seed producers within the EU and other stakeholders of the food value chain, including consumers and the general public. 40 members, includingnonprofitandprofit organisations dealing with dynamic management of agrobiodiversity. Public sector plant breeders, agricultural extension workers, farmer-breeders, urban/ peri-urban market gardeners, an IP lawyer, and an interdisciplinary group of researchers. More than 2,500 farmer groups with approximately 58,000 members, the majority of whom are women. Over 500 farmer organisations, 48 NGO partners, 20 church-based development organisations, 35 scientistspartners. MASIPAG is active in 49 of the country’s 80 provinces, reaching more than 40,000 farmers. Policy context The US has no strict regulations on plant breeding/ seed sales, which has enabled a dynamic community of independent farmer-breeders who freely develop, market and sell new cultivars, often through their own small seed companies. New varieties can be protected by PBRs and utility patents; US follows UPOV 1991. IntheEU,varietiesmustbelistedinanofficialcatalogue to be sold in the market legally. Agricultural species are also subject to VCU testing. The EU distinguishes four categories of varieties: 1) commercial varieties (which must comply with DUS criteria); 2) conservation varieties 3) amateur varieties; and 4) populations (OHM). Allareincludedintheofficialcatalogue.PVPcanonly be given to commercial varieties, and it is optional. Alternatively, all four categories – including commercial varieties - could be protected by an OSS Licence. The EU system follows UPOV 1991, with strong enforcement and regional harmonisation. In Argentina, varieties must be listedinanofficialcatalogue to be legally marketed, and havetofulfilDUScriteria. Agricultural species must also be tested for their VCU. New varieties can be protected by PBRs, and genetically modifiedDNAsequencescanbe patented; the country follows UPOV 1978. In Kenya, varieties must belistedinanofficial catalogue to be legally marketed,andmustfulfil DUS criteria. Agricultural species must also be tested for their VCU. New varieties can be protected by PBRs; follows UPOV 1991. Sharing or sale of farmers’ varieties is illegal. In the Philippines, varieties mustbelistedinanofficial catalogue to be legally marketed,andmustfulfilDUS criteria. PVP can be implemented for commercial varieties. The country is still not a UPOV member. There is to some extent legal protection for traditional farmer practices. Seed corporations calling for stronger proprietary rights. Table 1 Open Source Seeds Initiatives members of GOSSI 1 3 2778
Recovering res communis from res propia: how does open source seed contribute to farmers’ seed rights and… Initiative Open Source Seed Initiative (OSSI) OpenSourceSeeds - Agrecol Rete Semi Rurali (RSR) Bioleft Seed Savers Network Kenya MASIPAG Use of Open Source OSSI’s OSS tool is the Pledge which must accompany all distributions of seed of its Pledged varieties, along with the text: “You have the freedom to use these OSSI-Pledged seeds in any way you choose. In return, you pledge not to restrict others’ use of these seeds or their derivatives by patents or other means, and to include this Pledge with any transfer of these seeds or their derivatives.” The strategy is to protect newly released varieties with an open-source licence, which is an MTA under civil law. So far, varieties of various crops have been licensed. Abeneficiaryclauseallows the licence holder, namely, Agrecol, to pursue licence infringements of any seed transaction. Thereby copyleft can be legally enforced, since the same protection applies for any progeny of the OSS variety. RSS started using OSS in 2017. RSR has developed diverse populations through EU projects Solibam and Diversifood, now marketed under a copyleft pledge similar to OSSI’s. Seed packets include information on origin, breeding process, and use conditions. RSR aims to extend the OSS model across the food value chain by labelling products made from these populations. It also uses the ITPGRFA framework to manage seed access through its Community Seed Bank. Bioleft uses a copyleft licence attached as a clause to an MTA for novel seed transfers. It has developed three licence versions, all requiring that seeds and derivatives remain freely available for breeding and own use. Two versions restrict commercial multiplication, accommodating public breeders needing exclusivity for funding and farmer-breeders wanting to prevent third-party sales. This compromise enables diverse participation while exploring alternative revenue models for open-source breeding. Unregistered local cultivars of various crops have been described and thereby given an identity. Farmers are managing such cultivars as open source by exchange of seed. A system to register farmer varieties as open source is in preparation. MASIPAG has developed its own Seed Policy and Declaration of Farmers’ Rights, supporting the OSS model as a means to strengthen farmers’ seed rights through seed commons. Although it has not yet implemented an OSS pledge or licence, MASIPAG is actively exploring this path. This interest has intensifiedinresponsetoa proposed amendment to the SIDA, which could bring farmers’ seed systems under formal regulatory control. Activities OSSI partners with breeders who commit to distributing at least one variety under the OSSI Pledge. These breeders include the pledge in their catalogues and marketing. OSSI only pledges new varieties, ensuring traceability and monitoring of use. Its website features pledged varieties, breeder recognition, and seed partner links. OSSI also raises awareness about the value of “freed seed” through education and outreach to farmers, gardeners and the general public. OpenSourceSeeds provides advisory support to plant breeders, seed producers and other stakeholders of the food value chain. It does lobbying and public relations. In addition,thefinancingofopensource plant breeding has been a key area of research for this initiative. Since 2020, Agrecol also cooperates with Seed Savers Network Kenya to adapt the open-source strategy to the Kenyan context; thereby, Agrecol contributes to testing the OSS model as an avenue to enhance Farmers’ Rightsindifferentcontinents (Kotschi 2020). RSR fosters dialogue, collaboration, and knowledge-sharing among actors who value agricultural diversity. It supports collective management of agrobiodiversity, promoting diversifiedsystemsfrom seeds to diets, including processing and distribution. RSR began by advocating for conservation varieties, seeking their legal recognition based on their value to organic farmers. The network’seffortsaimto “release diversity” by strengthening seed systems and food practices rooted in ecological and cultural richness. Bioleft is building an alternative seed system through collaborative breeding, production, and distribution, focusing on maize and tomato. It links public breeders with farmers and market gardeners. A key strategy is a co-designed digital platform that maps seed networks and facilitates exchange, traceability, and knowledge sharing. The platform also collects performance data from diverse sites to support participatory breeding through monitoring, evaluation, and distributed learning. SSNK strengthens farmer-managed seed systems and Farmers’ Rights through capacity building, support for seed enterprises, and community seed banks. It is developing an online platform featuring 65 farmer cultivars, protected as commons to ensure free access for breeding. Its work includes identifying and documenting local varieties, supporting informal seed exchange and marketing, and promoting open-source strategies. SSNK also trains farmers and engages in advocacy, targeting diverse stakeholders including government and NGOs. MASIPAG was founded as a response to the Green Revolution’s negative impacts in the Philippines, promoting a “people beforeprofit”philosophy. Accordingly, the network promotes farmers’ rights by collecting, conserving, and evaluating indigenous, heirloom, and local seeds of rice, maize, vegetables, and tubers. It coordinates seed exchanges and farmer-led rice breeding. Communitymanaged trial farms and seed banks serve as training hubs and spaces for knowledge exchange between farmers and researchers each year. Source: Own elaboration Table 1 (continued) 1 3 2779
R. Ajates et al. mechanism - complementary to the ITPGRFA Multilateral System (MLS) that excludes a large portion of commercially available PGRFA - to secure seed rights in the current legal context created by the ITPGRFA, creating spaces tooperatewhileglobaleffortstoimprovetheinternational legal framework continue. For example, at the time of writing, OSSI in the US had a portfolio of over 550 OSSI-pledged varieties and additional cultivars continue to be added. In Europe, RSR and OpenSourceSeeds have protected various grain varieties with a pledge and a licence respectively. OSS in Germany has developed two rye and two wheat populations. In turn, RSR started a project on evolutionary populations in 2010 in collaboration with other EU organic organisations aiming to breed for diversity and challenging the uniformity paradigm in breeding and agriculture (Bocci et al. 2025). This movement succeeded in opening a novel legal space in the European Union, thanks to the European Commission’s decision to create a temporary experiment for marketing the seeds of these populations. In 2017, one organic farmer from RSR’s networkcertifiedthefirstnon-uniformseedsintheEU.This idea of using non-DUS varieties found a new permanent space within the 2018 Organic Regulation, which created a new category of varieties: Organic Heterogeneous Material (OHM), based on this previous work on populations. Moreover,theregulationdefinedorganicvarietiesasvarietiesspecificallybredfororganicfarmingandnotjustconventionalvarietiescertifiedasorganic.RSRhasdeveloped three organic populations (barley, durum and soft wheat). It is too early to see the value chain impact of the OHM pledge, although an early success is that all the diverse actors involved support its rationale and aim. RSR’s ongoing work on diversity has been recognised at the European level in the seed marketing regulation proposed by the EU Commission in 2023. This text contained many new derogations for allowing diversity into the seed market, such as the firstreferencetothedynamicmanagementofdiversityby farmers and participatory plant breeding (European Commission 2023, 2024). The viral nature of OS models contributes to opening resourcesandcooperatingwithothereffortstoprotectfarmers’ seed rights. OpenSourceSeed in Germany and Bioleft in Argentina have shared their licences online, enabling others to use them and adapt them to their contexts (OpenSourceSeed 2016; Bioleft 2024a). OSSI in the US and RSR in Italy have done so with their pledge text (RSR 2022). In the US, the Indigenous Seed Keepers Network has used a revised version of the OSSI Pledge on some seed packets of native cultivars that they distribute. In Oaxaca (Mexico), the Espacio Estatal en Defensa del Maíz Nativo de Oaxaca has publicised the OSSI Pledge and has recommended its use recipients from multiplying seeds for sale (Bioleft 2024a). In other cases, these exchanges often take the form of non-contractual, symbolic agreements through the pledge, largely because of practical and political challenges to use a legal licence in some jurisdictions. Whether in the form of a copyleft licence or pledge, the ambition of these initiatives is to create an expanding pool of germplasm available to all who agree to share seed as res communis, in perpetuity. A key issue is the ability to dissuade or impede others from infringing OSS copyleft rules. To be enforced, a licence must be able to be read, understood and formally agreed to, and this must happen with every transfer of seed or planting material. Due to its low excludability, it is very easy for PGRFA to be transferred without a formal agreement (Halewood 2013), in which case licensing agreements cannot be enforced. Furthermore, whilst a licence is, in principle, legally enforceable, a pledge is not (Sievers-Glotzbach et al. 2020), although it “is intended to create a moral obligation” (Kock 2021:271) to comply. Even though not equally enforceable, an OSS pledge is likely to deter companies from using pledged OSS because institutional IPR officestypicallywishtoavoidanycomplicationsoruncertainties about who owns what. Infringement of copyleft rules on OSS is thus, not an issue of “unauthorised use” of OSS material (since anyone can use OSS for whatever purpose)butrather,itwouldrefertoeffortsbyfirmstoprivatise OS germplasm, or its derivatives, and so prevent those who developed and use that material from continuing to breed from and use it. Since seeds represent a unique type of commons that has co-evolved through millennia of collective human-natural selection practices (Halewood 2013; Tschersich 2021; Sandström et al. 2024), the OSS ‘copyleft’ feature safeguards seed as ‘protected biocultural commons’ (Montenegro de Wit 2019; Cambia 2024); ensuring their availability for unrestricted use and countering corporate attempts at privatisation. The ITPGRFA was introduced as a way of creating a semi-commons for seeds, where states can make accessible PGRFA over which they exercise sovereignty. A frequent misunderstanding of the OSS model is that some critics point out that PGRFA are already OS, when referring to the “facilitated access” granted to the material under theTreaty.ThedifferencewiththeOSSmodelisthatthe access granted by the Treaty only applies to a generation of material, leaving future derivatives vulnerable to misappropriation and privatisation. The OSS copyleft mechanism applied by these initiatives, by contrast, is a departure from the existing legal and governance framework because it converts seeds into a viral modality of res communis, and is, so far, the closest existing mechanism in the current global context to ensure collective ownership in perpetuity. The strength of the OSS model is that it provides a proactive 1 3 2780
Recovering res communis from res propia: how does open source seed contribute to farmers’ seed rights and… Seeds are naturally a non-rivalrous good, since their use by one person does not diminish their availability to others (Halewood 2013). Unlike private goods, seeds can be saved, replanted, and shared without being consumed in the process. However, IPR and other legal restrictions have artificiallytransformedseedintorivalrousgoods.OSSenables seeds to be reclaimed as natural non-rivalrous common goods. Furthermore, many indigenous people and other communities embedded in farmers’ seed systems already have to operate within the current global seed governance model,seedmarketingrules,certificationschemes,breeding policies and phytosanitary rules (Nishikawa and Pimbert 2022; La Via Campesina 2024). Within this space, OSS offersanovel,proactivemechanismforcreatingfavourable legal spaces in which the unencumbered sharing, use and improvement of seed at the local level can be practised. In fact, the analysis of OSS mechanisms and initiatives reveals how these are not in competition with, but rather complementary to, ongoing struggles and legal tools at the global level such as the ITPGRFA, CBD, NP and UNDROP. The preambular paragraphs of UNDROP are an illustration of this alignment, in which it is recognised that access to land, water, seeds and other natural resources is an increasing challenge for rural people, and stressing the importance of improving access to productive resources and investment in appropriate rural development. Article 19 of UNDROP elaborates seed rights, while also reiterating that states shall ensure that seed policies, plant variety protection and other intellectual property laws, certification schemes and seed marketing laws respect and take into account the rights, needs and realities of peasants and other people working in rural areas. OSS aligns and contributes to implementing those rights by generating and maintaining copyleft PGRFA and breeding for diversity. As we have found in the initiatives presented in Table 1, OSS also helps catalyse debate about, and raise public awareness of seed issues. Additionally, OSS contributes to solutions to overcome current legal enclosures - at least partially - through the creation of new favourable legal spaces at the local, national and regional level, such as the EU’s new OHM legislation. It is important tohighlightthatOHMsare,bydefinitionandlegalrequirement, non-uniform. Consequently, they are intentionally exempt from complying with DUS requirements and therefore do not qualify for protection under conventional intellectual property rights. OHMs are legally in the public domain and are well aligned to the OSS principles. Another critique of OSS is that the model can be seen as enabling seed characterisation and registration, which in some contexts with farmer-led seed systems can be a precursortointroducingfarmers’varietiesintoofficialrestrictive systems, along with the associated Western epistemology of having a protective rather than a sharing approach to seeds when indigenous seed is sold or gifted to strangers (Espacio Estatal 2021). The use of OS and copyleft ideas to release seed material has occasionally received some concerned critiques fordifferentreasons.OneofthemisthatOSisaconcept that has not arisen from struggles over natural resources, but is instead associated with digital and IPR frameworks with roots in Western contract law (Kloppenburg 2014; Conti 2023). This critique overlooks the broader contexts and grassroots character of some of these OSS initiatives, as well as the ways they intersect with resource-related struggles over seeds. Furthermore, OSS initiatives’ inspiration from the digital commons and open-source software is not really an alien link, as these digital social movements in turn build on the idea of the commons and the cooperative movement that originated in alternative food systems nearly two centuries ago (Ajates 2017; Ajates González 2017). Another critique is that the copyleft imposition could also be seen as an “ownership” claim since it is claiming “dispositional authority” (the right to determine the rules of access) over a variety. Furthermore, by ruling out any restrictions on seeds in perpetuity, OSS could also be considered absolutist - i.e. overreaching and with no time termination date - even potentially destructive of customary arrangements, and contradicting the commons (Louwaars 2019; Kloppenburg 2014). These OSS initiatives’ way of operating suggests that in practice, OSS models do not in fact impose any obligation, other than keeping seed accessible. Similarly, Demeulenaere has argued that the fact that OSS is based on property regimes and laws might make it cumbersome for small farmers, suggesting that a more promising strategy would be to continue to pursue farmers’ rights at national and international levels (Demeulenaere 2014, 2018). While this is a valid and relevant aim, unfortunately,decadesofactivisteffortshavenothaltedtheerosion of cultivated diversity and farmers’ rights. Over the last century, humanity has lost 75–90 percent of vegetable and fruit crop varieties (FAO 2010; Montenegro de Wit 2016; FAO 2019a). Additionally, the funds arising from the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) and Nagoya Protocol(NP)arenotactuallymeanttobespecificallyallocated to PGRFA but to biodiversity at large, nevertheless, only smallamountsoffinanceforbiodiversityprojectshavebeen raisedbytheAccessandBenefitSharing(ABS)systemof the CBD, as well as from the ITPGRFA Benefit Sharing Fund (Rabitz 2017; FAO 2019b). Thus, the current governance system might be facilitating access to PGRFA but is notbeingeffectiveatpreservingandpromotingcultivated diversity, securing farmers’ rights, nor is it fostering fair innovation. OSS provides a new space for resistance in an area where few channels and tools exist to provide an alternative to the privatisation of PGRFA. 1 3 2781
R. Ajates et al. if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article’s Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article’s Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit h t t p : / / c r e a t i v e c o m m o n s . o r g / l i c e n s e s / b y / 4 . 0 /. References Agrecol. 2022. Submission to FAO on best practices and measures of implementing Article 9 of the International Treaty. h t t p s : / / o p e n k n o w l e d g e . f a o . o r g / s e r v e r / a p i / c o r e / b i t s t r e a m s / 4 e c 2 5 6 2 a - c 8 0 a - 4 5 5 3 - b b 8 2 - 9 8 1 6 3 f 2 8 1 a f e / c o n t e n t Ajates, R. 2017. Going back to go forwards? From multi-stakeholder cooperatives to Open Cooperatives in food and farming. Journal of Rural Studies 53:278–290. Ajates González, R. 2017. The solution cannot be conventionalized: Protecting the alterity of fairer and more sustainable food networks. In Sustainable food futures, 145–160. Routledge. Ajates, R. 2023. From land enclosures to lab enclosures: Digital sequence information, cultivated biodiversity and the movement for open source seed systems. The Journal of Peasant Studies 50(3):1056–1084. Ajates, R., P. Benyei, H. Avery, E. Butkeviciene, A. Czeglédi, D. Desclaux, G. Hager, B. Heinisch, P.N. Hoebe, T.C. van Noordwijk, and M. Barzman. 2025. Navigating the participatory turn in agricultural and food research: Best practice from citizen science. Ambio 1–12. Ambler, J., A. A. Diallo, P. K. Dearden, P. Wilcox, M. Hudson, and N. Tiffin. 2021. Including digital sequence data in the Nagoya Protocol can promote data sharing. Trends in Biotechnology 39(2):116–125. Aoki, K. 2008. Seed wars: controversies and cases on plant genetic resources and intellectual property. Durham, NC: Carolina Academic Press. Aoki, K. 2009. “Free Seeds, Not Free Beer”: Participatory plant breeding, open source seeds, and acknowledging user innovation in agriculture. Fordham Law Review 77(5):2275–2310. Aubry, S. 2019. The future of digital sequence information for plant genetic resources for food and agriculture. Frontiers in Plant Science 10:1046. h t t p s : / / d o i . o r g / 1 0 . 3 3 8 9 / f p l s . 2 0 1 9 . 0 1 0 4 6. Aubry, S., C. Frison, J. C. Medaglia, E. Frison, M. Jaspars, M. Rabone, etal.2021.Bringingaccessandbenefitsharingintothedigital age. People Plants Planet 1–8. h t t p s : / / d o i . o r g / 1 0 . 1 0 0 2 / p p p 3 . 1 0 1 8 6. Batur, F., R. Bocci, and B. Bartha. 2021. Marketing farmers’ varieties in Europe: Encouraging pathways with missing links for the recognition and support of farmer seed systems. Agronomy 11:2159. h t t p s : / / d o i . o r g / 1 0 . 3 3 9 0 / a g r o n o m y 1 1 1 1 2 1 5 9. Beck, R. 2011. Farmers’ rights and open source licensing. Arizona Journal of Environmental Law and Policy 1:168. h t t p s : / / r e p o s i t o r y . a r i z o n a . e d u / h a n d l e / 1 0 1 5 0 / 6 7 5 0 9 0. Bioleft. 2024a. Licencias. h t t p s : / / w w w . b i o l e f t . o r g / e s / l i c e n c i a s /. Bioleft. 2024b. Experimentos de mejoramiento participativo y colaborativo. h t t p s : / / w w w . b i o l e f t . o r g / e s / m e j o r a m i e n t o - p a r t i c i p a t i v o /. Bocci, R., B. Bartha, H. Maierhofer, M. Arndorfer, and M. Salvan. 2025. Community seedbanks in Europe: Their role between ex situ and on-farm conservation. Genetic Resources S2:147–161. h t t p s : / / d o i . o r g / 1 0 . 4 6 2 6 5 / g e n r e s j . O H N K 3 1 7 9. Borowiak, C. 2004. Farmers’ rights: intellectual property regimes and the struggle over seeds. International Political Science Review 25(4):365–379. on Sustainable Use of Plant Genetic Resources). In the legal realm, many opportunities arise for exploring collective licences for varieties bred and stewarded by communities, as well as developing the compatibility and interoperability of licences and pledges across countries and policy contexts. Agronomically, as the climate crisis exacerbates extreme growing conditions and crop pests, research on crop diversity, such as OSS OHM, as well as on biosafety, seed-borne diseases and the spread of so-called alien species is becoming more urgent. These challenges trigger complex and stimulating questions around how OSS models can manage seed quality and make disease-resistant varieties moreeasilyavailable.Fromafinancialperspective,revenue channels for OSS farmers and breeders, and exploring new models for public breeding also require further research and policy will. With regards to digitalisation, the links between OS, DSI and democratic big data governance urgently need to be further developed. In summary, the evidence and analysis presented show how OSS is emerging as a synergistic strategy full of potentialtoamplifyseedrightsthroughthreedimensions:first, geographically,byconnectinglocalandinternationalefforts to enhance cultivated diversity and seed rights. Second, through a temporal dimension, by acting now within the current legal context, while contributing to the long-term transformation of seed governance. Third, through its capacity to be applied in both physical and digital realms, a key aspect in the era of DSI. We have argued how the notion of seed as res communiscallsattentiontotheneedfordifferentkinds of institutions, logics, and ways of thinking and working with PGRFA. Further research is required to pave the way to recovering the human and cultivated diversity required to face the challenges ahead. Over 40 years of proposals for seed enclosures from the industry side - to capitalise on them - and from the civil society side - to protect them - have shown that seeds are hard to control. It makes environmental and social justice sense to return their status of common goods that do not need enclosing, but stewarding. OSS opens two connected pathways: to create commons and to protect the commons. The underlying social denominator to all OSS initiatives is working with communities of growers, farmer-breeders and citizens to not only free seeds, but free mindsets from the seed as res propia discourse into seed as res communis. Acknowledgements Riccardo Bocci’s contribution to this article was possible thanks to the European project LIVESEEDING GA101059872. Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate 1 3 2788
Recovering res communis from res propia: how does open source seed contribute to farmers’ seed rights and… Douthwaite, B. 2002. Enabling innovation: A practical guide to understanding and fostering technical change. Boston, MA: Zed Books. ECLLD. 2024. Vision and mission. h t t p s : / / l i b e r a t e d i v e r s i t y . o r g / w p - c o n t e n t / u p l o a d s / 2 0 2 0 / 0 8 / E C L L D _ V i s i o n _ M i s s i o n . p d f Engels, J. M. M., H. Dempewolf, and V. Henson Apollonio. 2011. Ethical considerations in agro-biodiversity research, collecting, and use. Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics 24:107–126. h t t p s : / / w w w . r e s e a r c h g a t e . n e t / p u b l i c a t i o n / 2 2 6 1 1 9 5 7 8 _ E t h i c a l _ C o n s i d e r a t i o n s _ i n _ A g r o - b i o d i v e r s i t y _ R e s e a r c h _ C o l l e c t i n g _ a n d _ U s e. Espacio Estatal. Espacio Estatal en Defensa del Maíz Nativo de Oaxaca (State Space for the Defense of Oaxaca’s Native Corn, 2021. Folleto sobre propiedad intelectual. Esquivel Pérez, A., 1980. Nobel prize acceptance speech. h t t p s : / / w w w . n o b e l p r i z e . o r g / p r i z e s / p e a c e / 1 9 8 0 / e s q u i v e l / 2 6 1 2 7 - a d o l f o - p e r e z - e s q u i v e l - a c c e p t a n c e - s p e e c h - 1 9 8 0 / # : % 7 E : t e x t = M e % 2 0 s i e n t o % 2 0 e m o c i o n a d o % 2 0 y % 2 0 a % 2 0 l a , e s % 2 0 l a % 2 0 f u e r z a % 2 0 d e % 2 0 A m o r. European Commission. 2023. Proposal for a REGULATION OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND OF THE COUNCIL on the production and marketing of plant reproductive material in the Union. h t t p s : / / f o o d . e c . e u r o p a . e u / s y s t e m / fi l e s / 2 0 2 3 - 0 7 / p r m _ l e g _ f u t u r e _ r e g _ p r m . p d f. European Commission. 2024. Plant reproductive material. Briefing - EU Legislation in progress. h t t p s : / / w w w . e u r o p a r l . e u r o p a . e u / R e g D a t a / e t u d e s / B R I E / 2 0 2 3 / 7 5 4 6 4 5 / E P R S _ B R I 2 0 2 3 7 5 4 6 4 5 _ E N . p d f. European Parliament. 2017. Intellectual property rights on genetic resourcesandthefightagainstpoverty. European Parliament. 2025. Plants produced by certain new genomic techniques. h t t p s : / / w w w . e u r o p a r l . e u r o p a . e u / l e g i s l a t i v e - t r a i n / s p o t l i g h t - J D % 2 0 2 3 - 2 4 / fi l e - p l a n t s - p r o d u c e d - b y - c e r t a i n - n e w - g e n o m i c - t e c h n i q u e s. ETC. 2024. Seeds & genetic diversity. h t t p s : / / w w w . e t c g r o u p . o r g / i s s u e s / s e e d s - g e n e t i c - d i v e r s i t y. FAO. 1983. Proposal for the establishment of an international genebank and the preparation of a draft international convention for plant genetic resources (Conference Resolution 6/81). Document C 83/LIM/2, Rome: FAO. h t t p s : / / h d l . h a n d l e . n e t / 1 0 9 4 7 / 9 7 0. FAO. 2004. International treaty on plant genetic resources for agriculture. h t t p s : / / w w w . f a o . o r g / p l a n t - t r e a t y / o v e r v i e w / t e x t s - t r e a t y / e n /. FAO. 2010. The second report on the state of the world’s plant genetic resources for food and agriculture. Commission on Genetic Resources for Food and Agriculture of the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, Rome. Rome, Italy: FAO. h t t p : / / w w w . f a o . o r g / d o c r e p / 0 1 3 / i 1 5 0 0 e / i 1 5 0 0 e 0 0 . h t m. FAO. 2019a. The state of the World’s biodiversity for food and agriculture. In FAO commission on genetic resources for food and agriculture assessments, eds. J Bélanger and D. Pilling, 572 pp. Rome. h t t p : / / w w w . f a o . o r g / 3 / C A 3 1 2 9 E N / C A 3 1 2 9 E N . p d f. FAO. 2019b. Comisión de Recursos Genéticos para la Alimentación y la Agricultura. Información Digital sobre Secuencias “De Recursos Genéticos para la Alimentación y para la Agricultura y su Importancia para la Seguridad Alimentaria”. h t t p : / / w w w . f a o . o r g / 3 / m y 5 8 8 e s / m y 5 8 8 e s . p d f. Fakhri, M. 2022. The food system summit’s disconnection from people’s real needs. Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics 35(3):16. Fowler, C. 2000. The Plant Patent Act of 1930: A sociological history of its creation. Journal of the Patent and Trademark Office Society 82:621. Fredriksson, M. 2021. Open source seeds and the revitalization of local knowledge. Sustainability 13(21):12270. GOSSI. 2024. About. Global coalition of open source seed initiatives website. www.gossi.net. Boyle, J. 2008. The public domain: enclosing the commons of the mind. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press. Brockway, L. H. 1979. Science and colonial expansion: The role of the british royal botanic gardens. New York: NY: Academic Press. Brush, S. B. 2004. Farmers’ bounty: The survival of crop diversity in the modern World. Yale University Press. BusinessWire.2024.Profluentsuccessfullyeditshumangenomewith OpenCRISPR-1, the World’s First AI-Created and open-source gene editor. h t t p s : / / w w w . b u s i n e s s w i r e . c o m / n e w s / h o m e / 2 0 2 4 0 4 2 2 3 9 9 4 8 2 / e n / P r o fl u e n t - S u c c e s s f u l l y - E d i t s - H u m a n - G e n o m e - w i t h - O p e n C R I S P R - 1 - t h e - W o r l d % E 2 % 8 0 % 9 9 s - F i r s t - A I - C r e a t e d - a n d - O p e n - S o u r c e - G e n e - E d i t o r ? u t m _ s o u r c e = s u b s t a c k % 2 6 u t m _ m e d i u m = e m a i l Calvet-Mir, L., P. Benyei, A. Porcuna-Ferrer, L. Aceituno-Mata, A. Braga Junqueira, G. Mattalia, S. Miñarro, V. Reyes-García, A. Schlingmann, J. Vieira da Cunha Ávila, and V. Labeyrie. 2025. Landraces and climate change: Global trends through the lens of political agroecology. Agriculture & Human Values 1–15. Cambia. 2024. Innovation support from Cambia - Cambia. BiOS Licenses. h t t p s : / / c a m b i a . o r g / b i o s - l a n d i n g / b i o s - b i o l o g i c a l - o p e n - s o u r c e - l i c e n s e s - a n d - m t a s /. CBD.2024.Decision16/2:Mechanismforbenefit-sharingfromthe use of digital sequence information on genetic resources. Convention on Biological Diversity. h t t p s : / / w w w . c b d . i n t / a r t i c l e / c a l i - f u n d - l a u n c h - 2 0 2 5. Ceccarelli,S.2015.Efficiencyofplantbreeding.Crop Science 55(January-February):87–97. h t t p s : / / d o i . o r g / 1 0 . 2 1 3 5 / c r o p s c i 2 0 1 4 . 0 2 . 0 1 4 8. Chable, V., N. Louwaars, K. Hubbard, B. Baker, and R. Bocci. 2012. Plant breeding, variety release, and seed commercialization: Laws and policies applied to the organic sector. Organic Crop Breeding 139–159. Chavez, C. 2008. Conceptualizing from the inside: Advantages, complications, and demands on insider positionality. The Qualitative Report 13(3):474–494. Christinck, A. and M.W. Tvedt. 2015. The UPOV Convention, farmers’ rights and human rights. An integrated assessment of potentiallyconflictinglegalframeworks. Colley,M.R.,W.F.Tracy,E.T.LammertsvanBueren,M.Diffley, and C. J. Almekinders. 2022. How the seed of participatory plant breeding found its way in the world through adaptive management. Sustainability 14(4):2132. Conti, M. 2023. Open source seeds, digital sequencing information and new breeding techniques: IPR versus collective rights. Seville: International Agroecology Congress 2023. Cremaschi, A. and P. van Zwanenberg. 2020. Bioleft: Open source seeds for low-input farming systems. Journal of Fair Trade 2:39– 44. h t t p s : / / d o i . o r g / 1 0 . 1 3 1 6 9 / j f a i r t r a d e . 2 . 1 . 0 0 3 9. De Jonge, B., B. Dey, and B. Visser. 2025. Developing a registration system for farmers’ varieties. Agricultural Systems 222:104183. Deibel, E. 2006. Common genomes: Open source in biotechnology and the return of the commons. Tailoring Biotechnologies 2(2):49–84. Demeulenaere, E. 2014. A political ontology of seeds: The transformative frictions of a farmers’ movement in Europe. Focaal 2014(69):45–61. Demeulenaere, É. 2018. Free our seeds!’ Strategies of farmers’ movements to reappropriate seeds. In The commons, plant breeding and agricultural research: Challenges for food security and agrobiodiversity, eds. F Girard and C. Frison, 210–225, Routledge (Earthscan Food and Agriculture. Deppe, C. S. 2021. Freelance plant breeding. Plant Breeding Reviews 44:113–186. DORA. 2024. San Francisco declaration on research assessment. https://sfdora.org/. 1 3 2789
R. Ajates et al. Laird, S. A., R. P. Wynberg, A. Iranzadeh, and A. S. Kooser. 2018. Fact-finding and scoping study on digital sequence information on genetic resources in the context of the convention on biological diversity and the Nagoya Protocol. Ad hoc technical expert group on digital sequence information on genetic resources. CBD/DSI/ AHTEG/2018/1/3, Issue. CBD. h t t p s : / / w w w . c b d . i n t / d o c / c / e 9 5 a / 4 d d d / 4 b a e a 2 e c 7 7 2 b e 2 8 e d c d 1 0 3 5 8 / d s i - a h t e g - 2 0 1 8 - 0 1 - 0 3 - e n . p d f. Laird, S., R. Wynberg, M. Rourke, F. Humphries, M. R. Muller, and C. Lawson.2020.Rethinktheexpansionofaccessandbenefitsharing. Science 367(6483):1200–1202. LIVESEEDING. 2024. WP6– Market and society supported organic breeding. h t t p s : / / l i v e s e e d i n g . e u / w p 6 - m a r k e t - a n d - s o c i e t y - s u p p o r t e d - o r g a n i c - b r e e d i n g /. Louwaars, N. 2019. Open source seed, a revolution in breeding or yet another attack on the breeder’s exemption? Frontiers in Plant Science 1127. Luby, C. H. and I. L. Goldman. 2016. Freeing crop genetics through the open source seed initiative. PLoS Biology 14:e1002441. Marin, A. and P. Van Zwanenberg. 2024. A dialogue between innovation studies of economic development and transition studies: An illustration from Argentina’s agriculture sector. Innovation and Development 14(2):337–356. MASIPAG. 2024. About. h t t p s : / / m a s i p a g . o r g / a b o u t - m a s i p a g /. Mastretta-Yanes, A., D. Tobin, M. R. Bellon, E. von Wettberg, A. Cibrián-Jaramillo, A. Wegier, A.S. Monroy-Sais, N. GálvezReyes, J. Ruiz-Arocjho, and Y.H. Chen. 2024. Human management of ongoing evolutionary processes in agroecosystems. Plants, People, Planet 1–17. h t t p s : / / d o i . o r g / 1 0 . 1 0 0 2 / p p p 3 . 1 0 5 2 1. Mazé, A., A. Calabuig Domenech, and I. Goldringer. 2021. Commoning the seeds: Alternative models of collective action and open innovation within French peasant seed groups for recreating local knowledge commons. Agriculture & Human Values 38(2):541–559. McGreevy, S. R, C. D. D. Rupprecht, D. Niles, et al. 2022. Sustainable agrifood systems for a post-growth world. Nature Sustainability. h t t p s : / / d o i . o r g / 1 0 . 1 0 3 8 / s 4 1 8 9 3 - 0 2 2 - 0 0 9 3 3 - 5. Montenegro de Wit, M. 2016. Are we losing diversity? Navigating ecological, political, and epistemic dimensions of agrobiodiversity conservation. Agriculture & Human Values 33:625–640. Montenegro de Wit, M. 2019. Beating the bounds: How does ‘Open Source’ become a commons for seed? Journal of Peasant Studies 46(1):44–79. Mushita, A. and C. Thomnpson. 2019. Farmers’ seed systems in southern Africa: Alternatives to philanthrocapitalism. Agrarian South: Journal of Political Economy 8(3):391–413. h t t p s : / / d o i . o r g / 1 0 . 1 1 7 7 / 2 2 7 7 9 7 6 0 1 9 8 7 2 3 2 7. Nehring, R. 2022. Digitising biopiracy? The global governance of plant genetic resources in the age of digital sequencing information. Third World Quarterly 43(8):1970–1987. Nishikawa, Y. and M. Pimbert. 2022. Agroecology and endogenous development, seeds for diversity and inclusion. Palgrave Macmillan. h t t p s : / / l i n k . s p r i n g e r . c o m / b o o k / 1 0 . 1 0 0 7 / 9 7 8 - 3 - 0 3 0 - 8 9 4 0 5 - 4. No Patents on Seeds. 2020. 2020 annual report. h t t p s : / / w w w . n o - p a t e n t s - o n - s e e d s . o r g / s i t e s / d e f a u l t / fi l e s / n e w s / 2 0 2 0 % 2 0 A n n u a l % 2 0 r e p o r t % 2 0 N o % 2 0 p a t e n t s % 2 0 o n % 2 0 s e e d s _ 0 . p d f. Norwegian Ministry of ForeignAffairs, Norwegian Farmers Union, Development Fund Norway, Caritas Norway, and staff at the research institutions Fridtjof Nansen Institute and the Norwegian University of Life Sciences. 2021. Put farmers’ access to crop diversityfirstinseedpolicyandpractice.United Nations Food Systems Summit 2021. h t t p s : / / w w w . g m o n e t t v e r k e t . n o / w p - c o n t e n t / u p l o a d s / 2 0 2 1 / 0 7 / N o r w a y - S e e d G a m e C h a n g e r _ E N G . p d f OpenSourceSeed. 2016. Open-source licence for seeds licence agreement. h t t p s : / / w w w . o p e n s o u r c e s e e d s . o r g / s i t e s / d e f a u l t / fi l e s / d o w n l o a d s / L i c e n c e _ t e x t _ E N . p d f. OSSI. 2025. https://osseeds.org/about/. Hale, C. 2024. Profluent combines LLMs and CRISPR for opensource AI gene editing project. Fiercebiotech. h t t p s : / / w w w . fi e r c e b i o t e c h . c o m / m e d t e c h / p r o fl u e n t - c o m b i n e s - l l m s - a n d - c r i s p r - o p e n - s o u r c e - g e n e - e d i t i n g - p r o j e c t. Halewood, M. 2013. What kind of goods are plant genetic resources forfoodandagriculture?Towardstheidentificationanddevelopment of a new global commons. International Journal of the Commons 7(2). Heller, M. A. 1998. The tragedy of the anticommons: Property in the transition from marx to markets. Harvard Law Review 111:622. Heller, M. A. and R. S. Eisenberg. 1998. Can patents deter innovation? The anticommons in biomedical research. Science 280(5364):698–701. Jones, S. 2004. Breeding resistance to special interests. Organic Farming Research Foundation Information Bulletin 14(Fall):4–7. Kasveista. 2022. Open source varieties for vertical farming. h t t p s : / / k a s v e i s t a . c o m / . Kloppenburg, J. and D. L. Kleinman. 1987. The plant germplasm controversy. Bioscience 37(3):190–198. Kloppenburg, J. R. 1988 [2004]. First the seed: The political economy of plant biotechnology, 14922000. 2nd ed. Madison, WI: University of Wisconsin Press. Kloppenburg, J. 2010. Impeding dispossession, enabling repossession: Biological open source and the recovery of seed sovereignty. Journal of Agrarian Change 10:367–388. Kloppenburg, J. 2014. Re-purposing the master’s tools: The open source seed initiative and the struggle for seed sovereignty. The Journal of Peasant Studies 41(6):1225–1246. h t t p s : / / d o i . o r g / 1 0 . 1 0 8 0 / 0 3 0 6 6 1 5 0 . 2 0 1 3 . 8 7 5 8 9 7. Kloppenburg, J., 2024. Kenyan farmers challenge the constitutionality of seed law. Defending Peasants’ Rights. h t t p s : / / d e f e n d i n g p e a s a n t s r i g h t s . o r g / e n / k e n y a n - f a r m e r s - c h a l l e n g e - t h e - c o n s t i t u t i o n a l i t y - o f - s e e d - l a w /. Kluge, E. H. W. 2005. Res nullius, res communis and res propria: Patenting genes and patenting life-forms. JRE 13:543. Kock, M. A. 2021. Open intellectual property models for plant innovations in the context of new breeding technologies. Agronomy 11(6):1218. Kock, M.A. 2023. Intellectual property protection for plant related innovation: Fit for future? Springer Cham. Kotschi,J.andJ.Wirz.2015.Whopaysforseeds?Thoughtsonfinancing organic plant breeding. Working Paper. AGRECOL Association and Section for Agriculture. Marburg and Dornach. h t t p s : / / w w w . o p e n s o u r c e s e e d s . o r g / s i t e s / d e f a u l t / fi l e s / d o w n l o a d s / W h o _ p a y s _ f o r _ s e e d s . p d f. Kotschi, J and K. Rapf. 2016. Liberating seeds with an Open Source Seed Licence. Working Paper. Agrecol Asscociation. Guggenhausen. Germany. h t t p s : / / o p e n s o u r c e s e e d s . o r g / s i t e s / d e f a u l t / fi l e s / d o w n l o a d s / L i b e r a t i n g _ s e e d s _ w i t h _ a n _ O p e n _ S o u r c e _ S e e d _ l i c e n c e . p d f. Kotschi, J. and B. Horneburg. 2018. The Open Source Seed Licence: A novel approach to safeguarding access to plant germplasm. PLOS Biology 16(10). h t t p s : / / d o i . o r g / 1 0 . 1 3 7 1 / j o u r n a l . p b i o . 3 0 0 0 0 2 3. Kotschi, J. 2020. Open source: An opportunity to strengthen farmer’s seed systems– Nine propositions. Discussion Paper. Agrecol Association. Guggenhausen. Germany. h t t p s : / / o p e n s o u r c e s e e d s . o r g / s i t e s / d e f a u l t / fi l e s / b i l d e r / G O S S I / P D F s / N i n e _ p r o p o s i t i o n s . p d f . Kotschi, J., B Schrimpf, A Waters-Bayer, and B. Horneburg. 2022. Financing organic plant breeding– New economic models for seed as commons. Sustainability 14:10023. h t t p s : / / k o b r a . u n i - k a s s e l . d e / b i t s t r e a m / h a n d l e / 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 / 1 4 0 8 4 / s u s t a i n a b i l i t y _ 1 4 _ 1 0 0 2 3 _ v 2 . p d f ? s e q u e n c e = 1. Ku, C. 1990. The concept of res communis in international law. History of European Ideas 12(4):459–477. La Via Campesina. 2024. Peasant seeds. h t t p s : / / v i a c a m p e s i n a . o r g / e n / t a g / p e a s a n t - s e e d s /. 1 3 2790
Recovering res communis from res propia: how does open source seed contribute to farmers’ seed rights and… UN. 2018. United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Peasants and Other People Working in Rural Areas. A/RES/73/165. h t t p s : / / d i g i t a l l i b r a r y . u n . o r g / r e c o r d / 1 6 6 1 5 6 0 / fi l e s / A _ R E S _ 7 3 _ 1 6 5 - E N . p d f . USDA. 2023. More and better choices for farmers: Promoting fair competition and innovation in seeds and other agricultural inputs. United States Department of Agriculture’s Agricultural Marketing Service. h t t p s : / / w w w . a m s . u s d a . g o v / s i t e s / d e f a u l t / fi l e s / m e d i a / S e e d s R e p o r t . p d f Wattnem,T.2016.Seedlaws,certificationandstandardization:Outlawing informal seed systems in the Global South. The Journal of Peasant Studies 43(4):850–867. Wehn, U., R. Ajates, C. Mandeville, L. Somerwill, G. Kragh, and M. Haklay. 2024. Opening science to society: How to progress societal engagement into (open) science policies. Royal Society Open Science 11(5):231309. h t t p s : / / d o i . o r g / 1 0 . 1 0 9 8 / r s o s . 2 3 1 3 0 9. Wirz, J., P. Kunz, and U. Hurter. 2017. Seed as a Commons, Breeding as a source for real economy, law and culture. Dornach, Feldbach, Switzerland: Goetheanum and Fund for Crop Development. Wynberg, R., R. Andersen, S. Laird, K. Kusena, C. Prip, and O.T. Westengen. 2021. Farmers’ rights and digital sequence information: Crisis or opportunity to reclaim stewardship over agrobiodiversity? Frontiers in Plant Science 12:1–16. h t t p s : / / d o i . o r g / 1 0 . 3 3 8 9 / f p l s . 2 0 2 1 . 6 8 6 7 2 8. Yin, R. K. 2014. Case study research: Design and methods. 5th ed. Los Angeles, CA: Sage. Publisher’s Note Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictionalclaimsinpublishedmapsandinstitutionalaffiliations. Raquel Ajates is a Research Fellow at Universidad Nacional de Educación a Distancia (Spain) and Research Associate at University of Dundee (UK), working at the crossroads of food policy, citizen science, and science and technology studies. Previously, Dr. Ajates was a Research Fellow at University of Dundee, and a Teaching Fellow at the Centre for Food Policy at City St George’s University of London. Her research interests include pathways to sustainable food and seed systems, cooperatives, agroecology, food policy and participatory science. She is a Steering Committee member of the Global Coalition of Open Source Seed Initiatives and a member of the European Citizen Science Association Agrifood Working Group. Riccardo Bocci is the executive director of the Italian farmers’ seed network Rete Semi Rurali. He has worked on the following H2020 EU projects: FARM SEED OPPORTUNITIES, SOLIBAM, DIVERSIFOOD, DYNAVERSITY, LIVESEED, CERERE. He has been one ofthefiveEuropeanexpertsintheAdHocTechnicalExpertGroupon Farmers’ Rights and vice chair of the Ad Hoc Technical Committee on Sustainable Use under the International Treaty on Plant Genetic Resources for Food and Agriculture. He has participated in the working group that delivered the Italian Guidelines for the Conservation of PGRFA, coordinated by the Ministry of Agriculture. Shalini Bhutani is an independent legal researcher and policy analyst working in the Asia region, while being based in New Delhi, India. She has been associated with several NGOs and INGOs working on agriculture and biodiversity. Her areas of expertise range from seed laws and trade rules to intellectual property. She is currently on consultancy assignments, including with the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations. Peschard, I. 2023. Seed activism: patent politics and litigation in the Global South. Journal of Peasant Studies 50(1):1–24. Peschard, K., C. Golay, and L. Araya 2023. The right to seeds in Africa. Geneva Academy Briefing No. 22. h t t p s : / / w w w . g e n e v a - a c a d e m y . c h / j o o m l a t o o l s - fi l e s / d o c m a n - fi l e s / B r i e fi n g % 2 0 2 2 _ w e b . p d f . Rabitz,F.2017.Accesswithoutbenefit-sharing:Design,effectiveness and reform of the FAO seed treaty. International Journal of the Commons 11(2):621–640. RDA. 2019. Research data alliance international indigenous data sovereignty interest group, CARE principles for indigenous data governance. The Global Indigenous Data Alliance. GIDA-global. org. Available at gida-global.org/care. RSR. 2022. Evolutionary wheat mixture for climate change adaptation. h t t p s : / / r s r . b i o / p r o g e t t o / m i x w h e a t /. Sandström, E., T. Ortman, C. A. Watson, J. Bengtsson, C. Gustafsson, and G. Bergkvist. 2024. Saving, sharing and shaping landrace seeds in commons: Unravelling seed commoning norms for furthering agrobiodiversity. Agriculture & Human Values 1–16. Scott, J. C. 1999. Seeing like a state: How certain schemes to improve the human condition have failed. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press. Scott, J. C. 2017. Against the grain: A deep history of the earliest states. Yale University Press. SSNK. 2024. Seed Savers Network Kenya, About. h t t p s : / / s e e d s a v e r s k e n y a . o r g . SeedWorld. 2024. Ssshh! A quiet and unexpected transgene mystery is happening in plant sperm cells. SeedWorld: h t t p s : / / w w w . s e e d w o r l d . c o m / u s / 2 0 2 4 / 0 2 / 0 5 / s s s h h - a - q u i e t - a n d - u n e x p e c t e d - t r a n s g e n e - m y s t e r y - i s - h a p p e n i n g - i n - p l a n t - s p e r m - c e l l s /. Seim, J. 2024. Participant observation, observant participation, and hybrid ethnography. Sociological Methods & Research 53(1):121–152. Shelton, A. C. and W. F. Tracy. 2017. Cultivar development in the U.S. public sector. Crop Science 57:1–13. h t t p s : / / d o i . o r g / 1 0 . 2 1 3 5 / c r o p s c i 2 0 1 6 . 1 1 . 0 9 6 1. Shiva, V. 2020. Reclaiming the commons: biodiversity, indigenous knowledge, and the rights of mother Earth. Synergetic Press. Sievers-Glotzbach, S., J. Tschersich, N. Gmeiner, L. Kliem, and A. Ficiciyan. 2020. Diverse seeds–Shared practices: Conceptualizing seed commons. International Journal of the Commons 14(1):418–438. Sievers-Glotzbach, S. and A. Christinck. 2021. Introduction to the symposium: Seed as a commons—exploring innovative concepts and practices of governing seed and varieties. Agriculture & Human Values 38(2):499–507. Swiderska, K. 2018. Why indigenous seed-saving women are the stewards of biodiversity. IIED. h t t p s : / / w w w . i i e d . o r g / q a - w h y - i n d i g e n o u s - s e e d - s a v i n g w o m e n - a r e - s t e w a r d s - b i o d i v e r s i t y. Tripp, R., N. Louwaars, and D. Eaton. 2007. Intellectual property rights for plant breeding and rural development: Challenges for agricultural policymakers. Overseas Development Institute. (No. 12-2006). International Bank for Reconstruction and Development. Tschersich,J.2021.Normconflictsasgovernancechallengesforseed commons: Comparing cases from Germany and the Philippines. Earth System Governance 7:100097. Tsioumani, E., M. Muzurakis, Y. Ieropoulos, and A. Tsioumanis. 2016. Following the open source trail outside the digital world: Open source applications in agricultural research and development. tripleC 14(1):145–162. TWN. 2025. Info service on biodiversity and traditional knowledge (Apr25/02). h t t p s : / / t w n . m y / t i t l e 2 / b i o t k / 2 0 2 5 / b t k 2 5 0 4 0 2 . h t m. 1 3 2791
R. Ajates et al. Georita G. Pitong is the Regional Coordinator of the MASIPAG network in the Visayas Region or the Central Philippines. Her academic background in agriculture and business administration is substantiated by her four decades of rich field experience working with Filipino small farmers. Working directly with their communities has empowered her to further the network’s advocacy of empowering small farmers to assert their rights over their seeds, land, and technology. Patrick van Zwanenberg is a researcher in science and technology policy studies with a background in natural sciences. He is employed by the Argentinean National Research Council and is based at the Centro de Investigación para la Transformación, University of San Martín, Argentina. His work has focused on the themes of social and technological innovation for sustainability, the regulation of technological risk, and the politics of knowledge and expertise in science-based policy-making. Daniel Wanjama is the founder and coordinator of Seed Savers Network in Kenya. Daniel grew up in rural Kenya with his family practicing subsistence farming. First-hand experience with hunger motivated himtoworkinthecivilserviceasanagriculturalofficer.However,he soon realised that the approaches and policies informed by the green revolution for the industrialisation of agriculture were not working for small-scale farmers. He noted that the increased use of hybrid seeds, fertilizers and pesticides was neither improving farmers’ income nor enablingsmall-scalefarmerstofeedthemselveswithsafeandsufficient food. In 2009, he founded Seed Savers Network to address food and nutritional insecurity, with seeds as an entry point. The network has now grown to the extent that farmers are conducting campaigns and reaching out to other smallholder farmers across the country. Almendra Cremaschi is an Argentine researcher specializing in sustainability in the seed sector. She is an Associate Professor of Sustainable Development at the University of San Martín, a Postdoctoral Fellow at the National Scientific and Technical Research Council (CONICET), and a consultant for the Biodiversity Alliance–CIAT. Cremaschi is also a co-founder of Bioleft, a community laboratory that harnesses collective intelligence and open knowledge to tackle sustainability challenges in seed systems. Her work explores the intersection of open knowledge, citizen science and participatory plant breeding. Jack Kloppenburg is Professor Emeritus in the Department of Community and Environmental Sociology at the University of WisconsinMadison. He received his Ph.D. in 1985 from Cornell University. His research has involved study of the social impacts of biotechnology, the emergence of managed grazing networks in Wisconsin’s dairy industry, and the global controversy over access to and control over geneticresources.HeistheauthoroftheinfluentialFirst the Seed: The Political Economy of Plant Biotechnology, 1492-2000. He is currently excited by the potential of the growing movement for “food sovereignty” and by the possibilities of applying “open source” principles in the biosciences. He is a founder and board member of the Open Source Seed Initiative and of the Global Coalition of Open Source Seed Initiatives. Johannes Kotschi is an agricultural scientist in rural development. He advises governmental, non-governmental and international organisations. His focus is on issues of sustainable and organic agriculture. Soil fertility management and agrobiodiversity development in the Global South are main areas of expertise. Johannes Kotschi has a PhD in agroecology and organic agriculture, is a founding member of Agrecol, the Association for AgriCulture and Ecology and lives in Marburg, Germany. 1 3 2792
Recovering res communis from res propia: how does open source seed contribute to farmers’ seed rights and… Authors and Affiliations RaquelAjates1,2 · RiccardoBocci3· ShaliniBhutani4· AlmendraCremaschi5,6· JackKloppenburg7,8· JohannesKotschi9· GeoriePitong10· PatrickVan Zwanenberg5,6· DanielWanjama11 Raquel Ajates [email protected] Riccardo Bocci [email protected] Shalini Bhutani [email protected] Almendra Cremaschi [email protected] Jack Kloppenburg [email protected] Johannes Kotschi [email protected] Georie Pitong [email protected] Patrick Van Zwanenberg [email protected] Daniel Wanjama [email protected] 1 Sociology Department, Universidad Nacional de Educación a Distancia, Calle Obispo Trejo, nº2, Madrid 28040, España 2 Social-Digital Department, University of Dundee, Nethergate, Dundee DD1 4HN, UK 3 Rete Semi Rurali ETS, Piazza Brunelleschi 8, Scandicci 50018, Italy 4 Independent Law Researcher and Policy Analyst, Delhi, India 5 Centro de Investigaciones para la Transformación, Escuela de Economía y Negocios, Universidad Nacional de San Martín (CENIT-EEyN-UNSAM), Campus Miguelete, San Martín CP 1650, Argentina 6 ConsejoNacionaldeInvestigacionesCientíficasyTécnicas (CONICET); Bioleft, Campus Miguelete, San Martín CP 1650, Argentina 7 Department of Community and Environmental Sociology, University of Wisconsin-Madison, 1450 Linden Drive, Msdison, WI 53706, USA 8 Open Source Seed Initiative, P.O. Box 5664, Madison, WI 53705, USA 9 Agrecol, Association for AgriCulture and Ecology (Germany) and OpenSourceSeeds, Johannes-Acker-Str. 6, 35041 Marburg, Germany 10 MASIPAG, 2611 Carbern Ville, Los Banos, Laguna 4030, Philippines 11 SeedSaversNetwork,Diatomite,OffNakuru–Nairobi Highway, Gilgil, Kenya 1 3 2793