EUROPEAN-SEED.COM I EUROPEAN SEED I 15 CLOUD SEEDING Data Genomics Data Precision Farming AGCO DUPONT DOW BAYER MONSANTO BASF SYNGENTA CHEMCHINA DEERE CNH was sympathetic to the debate, but most unexpectedly, Australia and Canada were also sympathetic along with Iceland (whose delegate is vice-chair to the com- mittee). The US and France were flatly against changing the agenda. France, with a penchant for protocol, was afraid of setting a precedent that could frac- ture the political but surprisingly col- legial style of the CFS. The US argued that governments were “unprepared” for an emergency debate. The argu- ment was ill advised. The CFS arose out of the food crisis of the mid-1970s that forced the world’s first-ever emergency World Food Conference in 1974, where heavy weight political actors like Henry Kissinger flew to Rome to intervene in the crisis. Recognizing that food short- ages had caught governments off guard, Kissinger and others pressed for a series of institutional changes, including the formation of the Committee. In other words, the CFS – with an unusually open mandate and annual sessions – was to be the UN’s early warning mechanism on issues of food security. Blocking the debate imperilled the CFS’s mandate and threatened the precedent France wished to avoid. Nevertheless, the US and France prevailed, and the emergency debate devolved into a side event for delegations in the Malaysia room. The debate’s pro- ponents were still encouraged that the meeting was jammed with delegations – including the CFS chair and vice chair – and governments appear to recognize that the CFS would fail its mandate if it didn’t create space for such debates in the future. CHEMGEN INDUSTRY So, why the fuss? If all three proposed deals go through without significant divestitures, the three companies left standing, together, will control more than two thirds of the global commercial market for seeds and pesticides com- bined. If we add BASF – the most likely beneficiary of any divestitures – then four companies will have more than 75 per cent of the combined seed/pesticide market. ETC Group argues that comple- tion of these three deals confirms that the global commercial seed and pesti- cide markets have merged into one - best described as the ChemGen industry. Concentration along these first links of the industrial food chain should trig- ger anti-competition concerns around the world. The merged entities ring the alarm bells for regulators using the Herfindahl- Hirschman Index (HHI) as well as those using the CR4 standard (where the four-company market control exceeds 60 per cent or, sometimes, two thirds). The application of either standard should be sufficient to stop the deals. While it is the global power of the companies that is most concerning, the crop-by-crop measure- ment is also alarming. Whether it is canola in Canada or maize, soybeans or cotton in the US, the three leading ChemGens break the rules. Indeed, but the only way policy- makers can admit the deals is by changing the measuring stick – going to CR2 (CR3’s ship has already sailed). Because we are not talking about widgets but world food security, not only should the deals be blocked, the whole issue of corporate concentration the industrial food chain should be on the table for debate. Specifically, this October’s meeting of the Committee on World Food Security should have this issue squarely on its agenda and be pre- pared to initiate a study by its High-Level Panel of Experts. Likewise, UNCTAD (the United Nations Conference on Trade and Development) should be encouraged to accelerate its research on anti-competi- tion policies including the option to estab- lish a UN Treaty on Competition Policy. When the UN’s Science and Technology for Innovation (STI) Forum convenes in May this year, its review of the Sustainable Development Goals for agri- culture should include consideration of mega-mergers in the industry. Later this year, when the FAO Seed Treaty convenes in Rwanda, it would be a dereliction of duty for governments not to consider the implications of these mergers for plant genetic resources. The merging companies can, of course, argue that their share of the global market is actually modest and, sadly may not have any direct advantage or disadvantage for so-called smallholder producers. Peasants – the smallholder farmers who feed 70 per cent of the world’s people – source 80-90 per cent of the world’s annual seed supply out- side regulated commerce – from their own bins, those of their neighbours, or via barter in local markets – far from Bayer/Monsanto, Syngenta/Chem China, or Dow/DuPont. Likewise, peasants either don’t want – or can’t afford – pes- ticides. As the fertilizer industry keeps telling us, half of the world’s food is pro- duced without their product. Thus, some might argue, most of the world’s critical food supply could be untouched by the mega-mergers. INFLUENCING THE POLICIES Intentionally or not (and it is usually intentional), big companies have a dis- proportionate influence over national and