Amendments Proposed to India’s Plant Variety Protection Law

The Government of India initiated steps to amend the Protection of Plant Variety and Farmers’ Rights Act (PPV&FRA) of 2001. The move aims to address challenges faced by farmers and incorporate advancements in agriculture and biotechnology. A committee led by agriculture scientist R.S. Paroda has begun wide consultations with stakeholders. The review seeks to modernise the law to better protect farmers’ interests and respond to changes in seed technology and trade.

Background of the PPV&FRA Act

The PPV&FRA Act was enacted to protect plant breeders’ rights and recognise farmers’ contributions in developing varieties. It balances intellectual property rights (IPR) with farmers’ rights to save, use, exchange, and sell seeds. Over two decades, the agricultural sector has evolved with new scientific methods and increased seed trade, prompting the need for legal updates.

Key Areas for Amendment

The committee is examining the Act’s definitions and provisions. One major proposal is to expand the definition of variety to include combinations of genotypes. This aligns with the draft Seeds Bill 2019. Another suggestion is to include vegetatively propagated materials such as tubers, bulbs, rhizomes, tissue culture plantlets, and synthetic seeds within the seed definition. The term institution in breeder definitions may be broadened to cover both public and private seed sector entities. The Distinctness, Uniformity and Stability (DUS) test guidelines are also under review to emphasise trait inclusion. Discussions include defining abusive acts that misuse variety names to prevent unauthorised commercialisation.

Stakeholder Concerns

Farmers’ groups have raised concerns about protecting community-developed seeds. They demand provisions to register such seeds collectively to prevent private monopolisation. There are suspicions about improper DUS testing in some cases, such as the registration of the njavara paddy variety. Critics argue that seeds passing DUS tests should not be registered under individual or farmer names to avoid misuse. Policy analysts show that many small farmers remain outside formal systems and follow traditional seed-sharing practices incompatible with strict IPR frameworks. They point to international moves promoting open-source models to protect local varieties from patenting pressures.

Challenges in Implementation

Though the Act includes provisions for compensation if protected seeds fail, detailed rules on farmer compensation remain incomplete. The evolving global seed trade and intellectual property regimes pressure developing countries to align domestic laws with international conventions like the International Union for the Protection of New Varieties of Plants (UPOV). Balancing innovation incentives with farmers’ rights and biodiversity conservation remains a key challenge.

Questions for UPSC:

1. Taking example of the Protection of Plant Variety and Farmers’ Rights Act, discuss the challenges of balancing intellectual property rights with farmers’ traditional rights in India.
2. Examine the role of Distinctness, Uniformity and Stability (DUS) testing in seed certification. How can it impact farmers and seed diversity?
3. Analyse the implications of expanding seed definitions to include vegetatively propagated materials and synthetic seeds on agricultural biodiversity and trade regulations.
4. With suitable examples, discuss the need for open-source seed initiatives in the context of global intellectual property regimes and farmers’ rights.

Answer Hints:

1. Taking example of the Protection of Plant Variety and Farmers’ Rights Act, discuss the challenges of balancing intellectual property rights with farmers’ traditional rights in India.

1. PPV&FRA aims to protect breeders’ rights while recognising farmers’ rights to save, use, exchange, and sell seeds.
2. Farmers’ traditional practices involve seed sharing and community control, conflicting with exclusive IPR frameworks.
3. Challenges include preventing monopolisation of seeds by private companies through patents or registrations.
4. Misuse of DUS testing can lead to improper ownership claims over farmer-developed varieties.
5. Small and marginal farmers often remain outside formal legal/technical systems due to lack of awareness.
6. Balancing innovation incentives for breeders with protection of farmers’ biodiversity and livelihood is complex.

2. Examine the role of Distinctness, Uniformity and Stability (DUS) testing in seed certification. How can it impact farmers and seed diversity?

1. DUS testing ensures new varieties are distinct, uniform, and stable before registration and commercialisation.
2. It provides legal protection and quality assurance but may exclude traditional or heterogeneous varieties.
3. Strict DUS criteria can limit seed diversity by favouring uniform commercial varieties over diverse landraces.
4. Farmers’ groups suspect misuse or incomplete DUS testing undermining farmers’ rights (e.g., njavara paddy case).
5. Inclusion of trait-based assessments is proposed to better capture meaningful diversity.
6. Overemphasis on DUS may restrict farmers’ ability to register and use community-developed seeds.

3. Analyse the implications of expanding seed definitions to include vegetatively propagated materials and synthetic seeds on agricultural biodiversity and trade regulations.

1. Including tubers, bulbs, rhizomes, tissue culture plantlets, and synthetic seeds broadens protection scope under the law.
2. This can improve legal clarity and protection for modern biotechnological innovations in seed sector.
3. May strengthen breeders’ rights but risks sidelining farmers’ traditional propagation methods and biodiversity.
4. Could increase seed trade regulation complexity, affecting both domestic markets and exports/imports.
5. Potential for increased monopolisation if private entities control propagation materials.
6. Need to balance technological progress with conservation of diverse, locally adapted varieties.

4. With suitable examples, discuss the need for open-source seed initiatives in the context of global intellectual property regimes and farmers’ rights.

1. Open-source seed models allow free use, sharing, and improvement of seeds, protecting farmers’ traditional practices.
2. They counter restrictive IPR systems that grant exclusive economic rights and limit access to seeds.
3. Examples include community seed banks and initiatives in countries promoting open licensing of plant varieties.
4. Open-source approaches help preserve agricultural biodiversity and farmers’ sovereignty over seeds.
5. Global regimes like UPOV pressure developing countries to adopt strict IPR laws, risking farmers’ exclusion.
6. Open-source seeds encourage innovation through collaboration, avoiding monopolies and enhancing food security.