Cultivating practices: saving seed as green citizenship?

Abstract

In this article it is asserted that saving seed is a political practice. This understanding stands in contrast to dominant constructions of seed saving as anachronistic and/or private and therefore not of political concern. While seed savers engage in the more accepted ways of being political in our society such as deputations and letter writing campaigns; they also pursue more direct, local, embodied engagements--by actually saving seeds and sharing them with others. Through their practices, seed savers push the boundaries of what is understood as political action and help create alternative views and realities of socio-natural processes, including those involving food systems. As part of this effort to better understand the political character of seed saving practices, theoretical (re)formulations of green citizenship are examined for their applicability to the practices of seed savers. More specifically, the stewardship and eco-deliberative versions of green citizenship serve as focal theorisations. The theoretical examination in this paper is grounded through an analysis of the experiences and perceptions of seed savers, as expressed through their own reflections about saving seed. This examination is particularly timely as recently proposed changes to Canadian legislation regarding seeds, combined with intensified seed industry lobbying, have raised the profile of seed issues in Canada and provoked questions about who should control seed production, distribution, and use. In large part these questions relate to whether growers should be allowed to save seed from year to year and exchange it with others (what are often referred to as 'farmers' rights').

On fait valoir dans cet article que la conservation des semences est une pratique a caractere politique. Cette comprehension affiche un contraste marque avec les interpretations predominantes voulant que la conservation des semences soit anachronique et du domaine prive, n'etant par consequent par du ressort politique. Bien que les personnes pratiquant la conservation des semences font de l'action politique d'une maniere davantage admise dans notre societe, comme les delegations et les campagnes de lettres, ils militent egalement pour leur cause d'une maniere plus locale, plus directe et plus concrete en conservant les semences et en les partageant avec d'autres. Par ces pratiques, les conservateurs de semences repoussent les frontieres de ce que l'on considere action politique et contribuent a nourrir des points de vue et des realites differents relativement aux processus sociaux et naturels, y compris ceux qui touchent aux systemes lies a l'alimentation. Dans le cadre de cet effort pour mieux comprendre le caractere politique des pratiques de conservation des semences, on analyse les formulations theoriques sur la citoyennete ecologique pour determiner si elles sont applicables aux pratiques des conservateurs de semences. Plus particulierement, les versions d'intendance et d' <> de la citoyennete ecologique servent de pivot a l'elaboration des theories. L'examen theorique presente dans cet article se fonde sur l'analyse des experiences et des perceptions des conservateurs de semences, exprimees par leurs propres reflexions sur la conservation des semences. Cet examen est particulierement opportun, puisque les modifications aux lois canadiennes proposees recemment en matiere de semences, conjuguees aux efforts redoubles de lobbying du secteur de production des semences, ont permis de mieux faire connaitre ces enjeux au Canada et ont souleve des questions quant au controle, a la production, la distribution et l'utilisation des semences. Ces questions concernent en grande partie le fait de savoir si on doit permettre ou non aux exploitants agricoles de conserver des semences d'une annee a l'autre et de les echanger avec d'autres producteurs (ce que l'on appelle souvent les <>).

Keywords:

Seed saving, farmers' rights, green citizenship, political practice, Canada

**********

In the simple act of planting I was engaged in one of the most

universal--and certainly one of the most important--of all human

activities. I share the act of planting and my hope for a harvest

with most of the world's population and with unnumbered previous

generations. People must eat. And the chain of production processes

that finally delivers food to our mouths--long for the New Yorker,

short for the Thai peasant--begins everywhere with the sowing of the

seed (Kloppenburg 1988: xi).

What is at stake is the integrity, future and control of the first

link in the food chain. How these issues are decided will determine

to whom we pray for our daily bread (Fowler and Mooney 1990: xiii).

Both of the above quotes emphasise the importance of seed and its immersion within socio-political processes. Kloppenburg (1988) draws our attention to the universality and necessity of food, while hinting at a growing reliance on the food industry, and Fowler and Mooney (1990) raise the question of control and power in relation to seeds and food. These themes underpin current debates in Canada regarding seed production, distribution, and use. Should saving seed (1) be illegal? Is it a right? Should the practice be protected?

These questions relating to saving seed, among others, are being raised worldwide as reorganisation of seed production and distribution networks through legislation, farming practices, corporate consolidation, and technological innovation threaten the common-place practice of farmers and gardeners saving seeds (often referred to as 'farmers' rights'). Where once saving seed was 'just the way it's done', it is increasingly constructed by legislators, distributors and developers as an exception, even an anachronism, to the endorsed 'norms' of modern, industrial agriculture and intellectual property rights. This change in the perception of saving seed is part of a broader process of the governance of seed, its uses and its users, and more broadly agro-ecological systems.

Canada is no exception to these processes of restructuring. In the last few years changing how seed is used and regulated has been pursued in several ways including proposed changes to organic legislation, to the Seeds Act, to intellectual property rights legislation, approval and promotion of genetically engineered varieties, etc. (2) For example, in November of 2004 the Canadian Food Inspection Agency released for public comment their proposed changes to the Plant Breeders' Rights Act. (3) These changes, along with other recommendations within a recent industry-led report called the Seed Sector Review, would make growers' practices of saving seed at least more difficult, and at most, illegal. Public feedback on these government and industry initiatives to restructure the seed system has been inhibited by the facts that consultation opportunities were not widely publicised, even in farming communities, and that the mainstream media have not picked up the story.

Why does saving seed matter at all? Does saving seed somehow contribute to society as a whole? Is it a political act? The strong responses of farming communities and their supporters to the proposed legislative changes and to industry-led initiatives--despite the lack of publicity and information--through petitions, letter-writing, and so forth, indicate that these practices are not irrelevant. Rather, seed saving is a set of practices valued by growers and consumers interested in supporting more sustainable socio-natural systems. My interest here lies in the importance of the practices of seed saving and exchange for the people who actually do it, and in how these understandings relate to more abstract considerations of everyday politics and green citizenship. The changing techno-political context has influenced seed savers to increasingly understand their everyday practices of saving seed as a kind of political engagement, even resistance. Therefore, rather than understanding the practice of saving seed as private or as outdated, saving seed should be understood as political practice, perhaps even as citizenship, which questions and alters socio-natural relationships.

On Citizenship and Seed Saving

Contemporary political and environmental issues are not solely confined by national boundaries; rather, their complexity and the complexity of necessary responses mean that these issues are simultaneously part of and beyond state control. The redefinition of national boundaries, which both increases and decreases their permeability, raises questions about how we define citizenship. According to Douglas Klusmeyer (2001: 1), citizenship brings together three primary issues: "how the boundaries of membership within a polity and between polities should be defined; how the benefits and burdens of membership should be allocated; and how the identities of members should be comprehended and accommodated". By raising questions about the first matter of polity boundaries, questions regarding the others are necessarily posed.

While citizenship may be partially understood as "a status bestowed on those who are full members of a community" (Marshall and Bottomore 1992: 18), it is also more than a status granted by states. Citizenship should be understood critically and not limited only to those rights that are granted (and theoretically guaranteed) by a government, but also as substantive practices which define and redefine those rights (Gilbert and Phillips 2003). As Friedmann (2002: 77, original emphasis) argues, citizenship aims "at either, or both, the defence of existing democratic principles and rights and the claiming of new rights that, if enacted, would lead to an expansion of the spaces of democracy, regardless of where these struggles take place".

Seed savers (and their supporters) may choose to work within more traditional understandings of and approaches to politics and citizenship. For example, many engage as activists and/or lobbyists within municipal, provincial, national or global policy negotiations with governmental representatives. Others involve themselves in non-governmental efforts to deal with proposed changes to Plant Breeders' Rights legislation, and have organised debates, lobbying operations, protests, letter writing campaigns, etc. However, seed savers also go beyond these more obvious political efforts and, in addition to their growing and keeping of seeds, create informal networks through which they gain access to seeds and knowledge, and support alternative socio-natural relationships. Through these actions seed savers demonstrate, in manifest ways in real time and space, ways of living differently. This more direct engagement enlarges the definition of what is political to include less formal means of challenging dominant relations and meanings. In other words, as people save seeds they are not just saving seeds; rather, they are 'being political' (Friedmann 2002; Isin 2002).

In the context of this special issue, however, the question is not merely whether saving seed can be understood as 'being political' or even as citizenship, but whether these actions can be understood more specifically as environmental, ecological, or green citizenship. Various scholars (cf. Smith 1998; Dobson 2000; Urry 2000) have employed the concept of citizenship in their efforts to understand environmental activism and its underlying values, arguing that relating citizenship and environmentalism is useful but that making this connection necessarily alters how citizenship is understood. Accordingly, constructing green citizenship cannot simply be understood as the addition of ecological concerns to more conventional understandings of citizenship; rather, it requires more fundamental rethinking of citizenship to include moral responsibilities and/or participation in the public sphere (Christoff 1996).

In the effort to understand what 'green citizenship' might be, two of the more dominant lines of argument will be dealt with here--one which argues that the underlying ethic of green citizenship must be ecologically based, and another which argues that it must be the ethic of democracy that reigns. Neither approach necessarily excludes other ethics; in fact several theorists attempt to include means of achieving more democratic and more sustainable socio-natural relations in their theories. However, one ethic--either an environmental one or a democratic one--is invariably prioritised. The stewardship approach, which prioritises an environmental ethic, and the eco-deliberative approach, which emphasises a democratic one, are quite different and have their own strengths and weaknesses. Therefore, there is merit in examining examples of each approach as potential means of understanding seed saving practices as green citizenship.

Stewardship as Green Citizenship

The variation of green citizenship most commonly assumed to account for activities such as seed saving is that of stewardship, or the acceptance by citizens of their responsibility for creating sustainable relationships between humans and natures. Green citizenship in its stewardship variation is a means to an end rather than an end in itself; what truly matters is that sustainability is achieved. From a stewardship perspective, citizenship practices are the means to develop and situate the moral virtue of stewardship, becoming 'green citizenship' in the process. It is through virtuous conduct (stewardship) that environmentally sound decisions are made and acted upon. (4) John Barry is one of the seminal theorists of this type of green citizenship, and will be used as the exemplar throughout this section. He offers a clear statement of the essence of this type of green citizenship when he says that:

what is distinctive about 'green citizenship' is that it represents

a mode of thinking and acting that concerns the establishment and

maintenance of ecologically virtuous ('symbiotic,' or morally

justified/legitimate) and sustainable forms of use and interaction

between societies and environments (Barry 2002: 145).

So, the citizen here is a thinking, acting, virtuous person participating in creating a more sustainable relationship between humans and nature. It is reasonable to argue that seed savers fit this description of what constitutes a green citizen. Many seed savers feel a sense of moral obligation to save seeds, whether it is in order to conserve agrobiodiversity, to preserve cultural heritage, and/or to ensure a stable food system (5)--any and all of which aim to support more sustainable socio-natural processes for themselves and future generations. For example, Sarah (6) states that:

... my research into heirlooms led me to the horrific realization

that we had lost--and were continuing to lose at a dramatic pace--

thousands of varieties of plants. I felt by saving seed, that I

would be helping to save the earth! I know, it sounds like a

cliche--but that's truly how I felt, and how I still feel (Sarah

2005).

This statement indicates that Sarah thoughtfully undertook the task of creating spaces (physical and temporal) to engage in what she considers to be an 'ecologically virtuous' and sustainable interaction with and between her society and environment. The role of a set of ethics which informs action regarding humans' relationships with natures is clear in this quote, which seems to fit the stewardship-informed construction of green citizenship.

In addition, advocates of the stewardship ethic suggest that through green citizenship there is a transgression of the boundaries between private and public spheres, such that citizenship cannot be understood to be located only within the public sphere. Barry (2002: 145) states that green citizenship: "transgresses the 'public'/'private' boundary since it ranges across those spheres of human action that have the most environmental impact, that can be found in both public and private realms". This lends support to understanding seed saving as green citizenship because activities generally seen as private (and therefore pre-political and/or apolitical by other theorists) become relevant and part of what is defined as political. With the allowance of 'transgression' between public and private realms, a fuller account of the political character of seed saving is possible because the activities take place in both public and private arenas. For example, seed savers frequently organise and participate in seed swaps, public events held to share and inform others, but the actual saving of seed may be done 'privately' as individuals on private property during private time. If activities and locations such as on-farm workshops and community gardens are included in the analysis of seed saver activities, as they should be given their importance to seed savers and their practices, then the clear division between private and public becomes even less tenable and efforts to challenge/transgress/blur this constructed divide only enhance our understanding of seed saving and its political character.

Despite its strengths, Barry's citizen-as-steward model falls short when applied in the case of seed saving. There are at least three key reasons why the stewardship ethic does not suit seed savers. Firstly, seed savers are actually directly engaged with and in ecological/environmental systems through their practices. Barry's citizens are urban stewards who relate to the environment by "environmental management or regulation, based on nondirect, mediated, and institutionalized social-environmental interaction" (Barry 2002: 137). In fact, translating stewardship from an 'agricultural' ethic to an 'ecological' ethic is one of Barry's stated goals. In this translation, it is probable that seed savers' practices would be excluded, or at least marginalised, as anachronisms of an agricultural past, even if they do not see themselves or their practices as such. Unfortunately, this would allow practices such as seed saving, which do re-embed people in local socio-natural communities, to be side-lined as no longer necessary or relevant in an increasingly urbanised, mediated world. There is an interesting contradiction here. Barry seeks to re-embed citizens in community and environment in order to demonstrate our dependence on nature and our responsibility to care for it; however, more direct experience is not seen as a necessary part of stewardship. This is contradictory in and of itself, but also to the experiential character of seed saving, and to the support and creation of food-growing cultures--urban and/or rural. Rather than supporting sustainable socio-natural processes, in this case this construction may actually serve to reinforce alienating and increasingly dominant corporate and government mechanisms aimed to contain and/or eliminate saving seed practices.

Secondly, Barry's green citizenship is limited to humans managing natural resources, albeit in a more sustainable fashion. Seed savers do engage in a type of concerned management of seeds and plants--they might (but do not always) remove the seeds from the plant, sow the seed, or water the plant, etc. However, the characterisation of the practice of seed saving as concerned management is inadequate, and in some instances even inappropriate. It is inadequate in the sense that saving seed is always about much more than responsible management of a resource; it is potentially inappropriate in that some seed savers simply do not understand their relationships with seeds and plants in this light. In fact, some suggest rather an opposite relationship by arguing that they are being taught by nature or that they merely facilitate seeds' telos:

[Seed saving] showed me the difference that exists between nature

itself and nature as it is guided by man. Nature can take care of

itself, but mankind does not always take care of itself, so nature

is the best teacher (Gregoire 2004).

I co-create the environment in which it [the seed] grows. I think of

us as in it together, with the plant doing most of the work and me

clearing the way for it to flourish (Adam 2004).

Other aspects of seed saving are also omitted through this definition. The previously mentioned 'moral obligation' is not felt by all seed savers, and even those who do express it include other motivations that combine with, or overshadow, their sense of responsibility. For example, many seed savers express a spiritual connection to particular seeds and plants, as well as a sense of fun and sensuality regarding saving seed:

I am interested in helping others find their connection with the

natural world. One way of doing this is through gardening. I don't

have to do much but provide a container (e.g., a garden, some seeds,

a place to walk in the woods) and then stand back. We all know how

to connect with the Divine that inhabits this land (Paul 2004).

You know, it's not just the political or practical part of seed-

saving, it's the sensuous and visual and tactile experience of

collecting them and storing them and simply touching and looking at

them. Seeds are a miracle and to be aware of how they grow and turn

into their mature form to me is such a gas! (Rachel 2004)

Green citizenship as stewardship is about constructing a responsible, virtuous citizen who meets their moral obligations to create more sustainable relationships between nature and humans. This formulation does not leave much room for the spirit or joy that are important motivations to save seed.

Finally, many seed savers express a tendency toward decentralised networks, an emphasis on self-reliance, and a sceptical view of the trustworthiness and beneficence of states (particularly with respect to the state's support of and reliance upon corporate interests). This view runs counter to Barry's (1996) assumption and endorsement of a representative democratic state that ensures 'environmentally benign' outcomes for virtuous citizens, or to Christoff's (1996) argument for a state that ensures widespread 'environmental rights' for dutiful ecological stewards. Indeed, in some cases, it is a drive for self-reliance and a scepticism that the state could (or would) ensure their best interest that motivates people to become seed savers. As Steve puts it:

I don't trust what our government's going to do until we get a real

change in the way we do politics and how money oriented it is, and

how you can't really do anything unless you're in the hands of, in

the pocketbooks of, these people with the big bucks (Steve 2005).

The move of governments to encourage public-private partnerships and/or private plant breeding, as well as the changes in legislation reflecting corporate interests in increased control of (and therefore profit through) seed, are of great concern to many seed savers and have fuelled their discontent and distrust of state and legal mechanisms. This is particularly evident in the attitudes of seed savers toward patent rights held by corporations and legislated and legitimated by governments:

Seed patenting changes seeds from being a virtually free energy

source, to something that can be controlled by only an elite few,

which takes away from the very nature of what seeds are. Taking away

control from the people happens more than enough today. It is our

right as human beings to be able to control our own food source--no

one has the right to take that away from us, period (Clara 2004).

If green citizenship as stewardship is an inadequate basis for understanding the political nature of saving seed, as I have argued it is, then where does this leave us? One of the more popular reformulations of citizenship is an argument for eco-deliberation, or the creation of a democratic public sphere open to environmental debates. Although the eco-deliberative model is perhaps a less obvious candidate to account for the practices of seed savers than the stewardship version of green citizenship, it does provide some possibilities omitted by the stewardship version. It is to this variation, and its applicability to seed saving, that I now turn.

Eco-Deliberation as Green Citizenship

In opposition to the constructions of green citizenship in which environmental virtue is valued over democratic process, in eco-deliberative approaches it is the process of democratic deliberation that gains prominence, while the results of that deliberation become secondary. Deliberative approaches "cannot guarantee green outcomes or even the prioritisation of environmental values, but they can provide a conducive context within which the variety of environmental values can be voiced and considered in decision-making processes" (Smith 2003: 129). The goal for eco-deliberative theorists then, is not to arrive at an environmentally sustainable conclusion, but to allow debate of the possibilities: "political debate involves an exchange of opinions that illuminates a common situation rather than imposing a conclusion" (Torgerson 1999:132).

While there is considerable diversity among particular formulations, in eco-deliberative citizenship two emphases remain constant. First, priority is assigned to debate, or the communication between many equal individuals. Second, these debates must occur in public, rather than private, realms. Along these lines, Sandilands (2002: 123) argues that we should aim to create "something like a green public culture--meaning here a cultivated practice of reflection and imagination by which individuals' opinions about nature might be debated and refined in public". How might eco-deliberative versions of green citizenship help us understand seed savers and their practices?

The demand in this type of theory for multiple voices and for each individual's opinion certainly allows for a plurality not necessarily evident in the stewardship variation of green citizenship. According to the eco-deliberative model, a scientific opinion of seed saving focused on biodiversity and variety purity would be just as worthy of debate as a spiritual perspective on seeds and nature or an economic growth argument for seed commodification. Debate among these disparate perspectives might serve to reveal the plethora of reasons for and against saving seed through raising questions about if and why it should be done at all. These questions are frequently glossed over by more powerful forces than seed savers, and sometimes even by seed savers themselves, but are important to building a strong critical understanding of the practices and their possibilities. In a more applied context, the lack of public debate about the technological or legislative changes relating to seeds is one of the critiques raised by seed savers and their supporters, who are concerned that negotiations between governments and corporations prioritising financial gains, rather than public interest, dictate current and future possibilities (Wells 2005).

While this concern for having a diversity of voices expressed and opinions debated is certainly valid and useful in this particular case, eco-deliberative green citizenship, like the stewardship formulation, does not offer an adequate explanation of the political character of seed saving practices. There are two main reasons why the deliberative model is insufficient. First, in arguments for establishing a green public sphere, there is inherent value placed on debate, such that public debate is what is considered truly political engagement. While some theorists such as Dryzek (2000) have moved to understanding deliberation to include forms of 'everyday' speech, such as gossip and jokes, non-instrumental debate within the public sphere remains the privileged mode and location of politics. This advocacy of 'politics for politics sake', simply does not fit with the 'actions speak louder than words' sensibility of seed saving. It is not just the discussion of seeds and related issues that matters; rather, it is the act of saving seed that is of primary significance for seed savers. Furthermore, if no one were engaged in the practices of saving seed, the issues relating to saving seed would be of less immediate concern and seed savers' contribution to wider socio-natural processes would be purely theoretical rather than manifest, making the public debate of these issues even less likely. The difference of value between discourse and action is clearly illustrated by one seed saver who states that:

I have come to appreciate the wonder of the diversity in our seeds

so much more ... I knew intellectually that this was how seeds were,

but I didn't really appreciate it fully until I was saving seeds

(Amanda 2004).

This quote articulates a sentiment expressed by many seed savers that it is through their actions with/in nature and with/in their networks that they gain knowledge and efficacy for themselves, simultaneously influencing others and the world around them. While discursively oriented models of green citizenship acknowledge action in their formulations, political action is understood exclusively as appearance and debate. This approach precludes a fuller understanding of the kind of acts that might be included in the notion of 'being political' in addition to debate, such as those associated with the embodied knowledges, experiences and practices of seed savers; proponents of the eco-deliberative approach would likely conclude that the 'politics' of seed saving are irrational (from the perspective of Habermasian theory) or pre-political (for those of an Arendtian persuasion).

The second difficulty for using the eco-deliberative conception of green citizenship to understand seed saving is that politics, and citizenship, occur only in the public sphere. This, of course, links to the earlier discussion of seed saving crossing private/public boundaries. Some efforts in the 'green public culture' vein have allowed for movement between private and public realms (cf. Sandilands 1997; Garside 2006). Nevertheless, even the more flexible approaches rely on a conversion of private activities into public debates in order for them to count as political acts. In this way, the division between public and private is maintained, while allowing some issues traditionally thought of as private, such as family or consumption habits, to earn temporary political status. This is a useful advance from previous formulations, in which the private and public spheres were clearly separated; however, it does not go far enough in acknowledging the elision of these spheres generally in everyday living or in particular seed savers' experiences or perceptions of political activity. Of course, public debate has (and should) occur about seeds, and these debates were (and would be) political. However, in addition to its presence in this green public sphere, saving seed happens in and through the 'private' sphere--in the activities and times of work and leisure, in spaces of farm fields, backyards, and rooftops, and through family and friends, internet services, etc. Even in the more flexible formulations of green citizenship as eco-deliberation the political character of saving seed would not be acknowledged during these times, as seed saving would be judged to have remained within or returned to the realm of the private. This judgement does not provide an adequate explanation of the way that seed savers see their activities as political, or of the way that these practices affect broader socio-natural processes. While it is true that some seed savers do not see their activities as political, and that others do not see their activities as always political, the line between when seed saving is or is not political is not so clearly drawn, and not drawn necessarily by private/public divisions. Through their practices seed savers not only raise questions about dominant socio-natural systems, but help to create alternative views and realities of these systems. To suggest that their activities, by being partly or wholly confined in private spheres, are pre-political, apolitical, or even anti-political, is simply erroneous.

Conclusion

While citizenship language is employed in international and national forums, such as La Via Campesina's (2003) call for food sovereignty, it is not the everyday language used by seed savers to speak of the what or the why of their practices. This point alone raises questions about the usefulness of citizenship, green or otherwise, in this context. However, in building a critical understanding of seed saving, examining the concepts of green citizenship is certainly interesting.

As I have attempted to outline, there are theoretical possibilities and limitations to using green citizenship to construct understandings about seed saving and its political importance. Seeing green citizens as stewards is helpful in questioning established divisions between private and public spheres that interfere with understanding seed saving as a political activity, and it is also useful for describing a sense of moral obligation that some people feel to save seeds. However, the stewardship version of green citizenship is limited by its emphasis on more indirect and/or managerial approaches to creating sustainability, as well as by its reliance on state mechanisms. Eco-deliberative understandings of green citizenship, on the other hand, encourage the questioning of taken-for-granted positions about and within socio-natural systems through debates among diverse voices. This, for example, lends support to the calls made by seed savers and their supporters for public debate about technological and legislative changes affecting seeds and food. However, the emphasis on public debate as the one true political act excludes many of the practices of seed savers from consideration as important, political engagement in and with socio-ecological processes. So, although green citizenship, in the form of stewardship and/or of eco-deliberation, may be useful in understanding certain aspects of what seed savers do, it is not adequate to explore the practices more fully as political engagement. Seed saving is not easily contained within the bounds of what generally counts as environment/ecology or as citizenship, so it should perhaps come as no surprise that it is an awkward fit with the even narrower space delimited by the notion of 'green citizenship'.

In many cases the extension and expansion of citizenship is useful, and indeed necessary, to account for changes in political activity and issues, including some of the changes associated with environmental problems and activism. The two formulations of green citizenship discussed in this paper do have explanatory value in understanding seed saving; however, employing a broader understanding of eco-political practices--one which accounts for more complex, everyday engagements with/in natures and societies--seems more appropriate. While the explanatory value of green citizenship formulations may be limited in the case of saving seed, what is undoubtedly useful about the debates raised through considerations of green citizenship is the disruption and continual questioning of what we consider to be political and environmental engagement, and of how this engagement aids in creating a world in which we wish to live. For this reason, debating the theoretical and practical possibilities of green citizenship makes a substantial contribution to understanding practices such as seed saving.

References

Adam [pseudo] Interview by author. November 4 2004.

Amanda [pseudo] Interview by author. July 15 2004.

Barry, J. 1996. Sustainability, Political Judgement and Citizenship: Connecting Green Politics and Democracy. In Democracy and Green Political Thought, B. Doherty and M. de Geus, eds. London: Routledge.

Barry, J. 2002. Vulnerability and Virtue: Democracy, dependency and ecological stewardship. In Democracy and the Claims of Nature: Critical perspectives for a new century, B.A. Minteer and B. Pepperman Taylor, eds. London: Rowman and Littlefield Publishers.

Christoff, P. 1996. Ecological Citizens and Ecologically Guided Democracy. In Democracy and Green Political Thought. B. Doherty and M. de Geus, eds. London: Routledge.

Clara [pseudo] Interview by author. September 24 2004.

Connelly, J. 2006. The Virtues of Environmental Citizenship. In Environmental Citizenship. A. Dobson and D. Bell, eds. Cambridge, Ml: MIT Press.

Dobson, A. 2000. Ecological Citizenship: A Disruptive Influence? In Politics at the Edge, C. Pierson and S. Torney, eds. Basingstoke: MacMillan.

Dobson, A. 2003. Citizenship and the Environment. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Dryzek, J.S. 2000. Deliberative Democracy and Beyond: Liberals, Critics, Contestations. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Fowler, C. and P.R. Mooney. 1990. Shattering: Food, politics, and the loss of genetic diversity. Tuscon: University of Arizona Press.

Friedmann, J. 2002. The Prospect of Cities. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.

Garside, Nick. 2006. Feral Citizens, Democratic Ideals and the Politicization of Nature. Faculty of Environmental Studies, York University, Toronto, Canada (unpublished dissertation).

Gilbert, L. and C. Phillips. 2003. Practices of Urban Environmental Citizenships: Rights to the City and Rights to Nature in Toronto. Citizenship Studies 7(3): 313-330.

Gregoire [pseudo] Interview by author. July 17 2004.

Isin, E. 2002. Being Political: Genealogies of Citizenship. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.

Kloppenburg, J.R. Jr. 1988. First the Seed: The political economy of plant biotechnology, 1492-2000. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Klusmeyer, D.B. 2001. Introduction. In Citizenship Today: Global Perspectives and Practices, T.A. Aleinikoff and D.B. Klusmeyer, eds. Washington, D.C.: Carnegie Endowment for International Peace.

Kneen, B. 1992. The Rape of Canola. Toronto: NC Press.

Kuyek, Devlin. 2004. Stolen Seeds: The Privatisation of Canada's Agricultural Biodiversity. Sorrento, BC: Ram's Horn.

Marshall, T.H. and T. Bottomore. 1992. Citizenship and Social Class. London: Pluto Press.

Nazarea, V. 2005. Heirloom Seeds and their Keepers: Marginality and Memory in the Conservation of Biological Diversity. Tucson: University of Arizona Press.

Paul [pseudo] Interview by author. September 26 2004.

Rachel [pseudo] Interview by author. August 23 2004.

Sandilands, C. 1997. Is the Personal Always Political? Environmentalism in Arendt's Age of "the Social". In Organizing Dissent: Contemporary Social Movements in Theory and Practice, W.K. Carroll, ed. Toronto: Garamond Press.

Sandilands, C. 2002. Opinionated Natures: Toward a Green Public Culture. In Democracy and the Claims of Nature: Critical perspectives for a New Century, B.A. Minteer and B. Pepperman Taylor, eds. London: Rowman and Littlefield.

Sarah [pseudo] Interview by author. October 14 2004.

Shiva, V. 1993. Monocultures of the Mind: Perspectives on Biodiversity and Biotechnology. London: Zed Books.

Smith, G. 2003. Deliberative Democracy and the Environment. London: Routledge.

Smith, M. 1998. Ecologism: Towards Ecological Citizenship. Buckingham: Open University Press.

Steve [pseudo] Interview by author. February 27 2005.

Torgerson, D. 1999. The Promise of Green Politics: Environmentalism and the Public Sphere. London: Duke University Press.

Urry, J. 2000. Global Flows and Global Citizenship. In Democracy, Citizenship and the Global City, E. Isin, ed. London: Routledge.

Via Campesina. 2003. What is Food Sovereignty? Via Campesina. http://viacampesina.org/en/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=227<emid=135> [accessed on: January 30, 2004].

Wells, Stuart. 2005. Seed Issues. Seeds for the Future: COABC Annual General Meeting, Sidney, B.C., February 27 2005.

Catherine Phillips is a PhD Candidate in the Faculty of Environmental Studies at York University writing her dissertation on the politics and practices of saving seed, particularly in Canada. She teaches in environmental studies and development studies. She can be reached at cphil@yorku.ca

(1) Throughout this article, 'saving seed' or 'seed saving' should be understood to encompass the myriad of activities involved in the practice including the growing, collection, storage, reuse, and/or exchange of seeds (and/or other propagating material), regardless of whether this material is a landrace, a hybrid or a genetically engineered variety. However, seed saving here goes beyond this definition and includes the generation and maintenance of the necessary knowledge and networks for seed saving practices to occur.

(2) For analyses of the politics and economics of seeds in Canada see Fowler and Mooney 1990; Kneen 1992; Kuyek 2004.

(3) There are distinctions made between types and uses of seed contained within the proposed changes and existing legislation that are beyond the scope of this paper. The text of relevant seed and plant breeders' rights legislation is available on the Canadian Food Inspection Agency website: www.inspection.gc.ca, while the text of the Seed Sector Review is available from: www.nationalforumonseed.com.

(4) For further discussions of the concept of virtue in relation to green citizenship see Smith 1998; Dobson 2003; Connelly 2006.

(5) The losses of agrobiodiversity, of cultural diversity, and of food security, as well as the connections among these trends, are of great concern to many seed savers, and these concerns are increasingly reflected in academic literature. See for example: Fowler and Mooney 1990; Shiva 1993; Nazarea 2005.

(6) The statements attributed to seed savers herein were gathered, as part of ongoing dissertation field research, across Canada during the period between June 2004 and March 2005. Each study participant has been assigned a false name, coincident with their gender identification, in order to preserve their anonymity.