ABSTRACT
Management of seeds by the so-called bio-commons is assumed to maintain and further their diversity. In literature, the narrative of the bio-commons centres on smallholder seed systems of the South. There, accessibility to, and exchange of, the seeds is crucial; whereas exclusion, for instance, through exclusive property rights bears the risk of increasing uniformity.
Here two questions emerge: first, are such bio-commons also an option in industrialized countries? And if so, how do they work? What is their potential to achieve food security and preserve agricultural diversity? And second, as a basis to answer the first question, what exactly is understood under the term ‘bio-commons’?
This leads to a twofold investigation: in a first step, on the basis of the characterization of the ‘traditional’ bio-commons and by testing the application of Ostrom’s theories, a series of descriptors are defined. In a second step, three cases of potential bio-commons in Switzerland are described and their economic, political and socio-cultural environments analysed.
The study concludes that there are indeed institutions that correspond to the proposed criteria and can be described as bio-commons. Accessibility of the good genetic information is one positive factor. In addition, sociocultural elements play a favourable role. In turn, financing the public good ‘genetic diversity’ in a labour-divided value chain causes problems.
Ostrom’s theories can be used for the description of the seed commons to a certain degree. In particular, the emerging theories of the knowledge commons might contribute valuable elements. Yet, it became apparent that the commons theory is not apt to catch the sociocultural network also being part of the bio-commons in Switzerland. It is therefore proposed to complement the ‘commons’ approach with social network analysis.
