Why is it in News?
- Union Agriculture Minister announced that the Centre will amend the PPV&FRA Act, 2001.
- A committee headed by R.S. Paroda (appointed by the PPVFR Authority) has begun stakeholder consultations.
- Aim: update the 20-year-old Act in light of technological changes, trade dynamics, and evolving farmers’ needs.
Relevance
- GS 3: Agriculture (seed systems, breeders’ rights, farmers’ rights)
- GS 3: IPR in Agriculture (PPV&FRA, UPOV pressures, TRIPS compliance)
- GS 2: Governance (regulatory institutions, stakeholder concerns)
What Is the PPV&FRA Act, 2001?
- India’s sui generis law under TRIPS to protect plant varieties and recognise farmers’ rights.
- Ensures:
- Breeders’ rights
- Farmers’ rights to save, use, sow, resow, exchange, share or sell farm seeds (but not branded varieties)
- Benefit sharing
- Protection of traditional varieties
- Establishes the Protection of Plant Varieties & Farmers’ Rights Authority (PPVFRA).
Why Amend the Act Now?
- Two decades of scientific & technological change:
- Tissue culture
- Synthetic seeds
- Hybrids and genotype combinations
- New trade realities, IPR pressures, and global norms.
- Need to address deficiencies, ambiguities, and implementation gaps.
What the Paroda Committee Is Examining ?
Definitions & Scope
- Redefining “variety” to include “combination of genotypes” (align with Seeds Bill 2019).
- Expanding the definition of “seed” to include:
- Seedlings
- Tubers, bulbs, rhizomes
- Roots, tissue culture plantlets
- Synthetic seeds
- Vegetatively propagated materials
- Defining “institution” under “breeder” to include public & private entities.
DUS Test (Distinctness, Uniformity, Stability)
- Considering inclusion of trait-based criteria in DUS guidelines.
- Review of procedural integrity due to allegations of improper DUS testing in some cases (e.g., njavara paddy variety).
Abusive Acts
- Proposal to legally define and criminalise “abusiveacts” such as:
- Producing/selling varieties with identical denominations
- Marketing/importing/exporting deceptive varieties
- Aim: prevent fraud, confusion, and misappropriation.
Concerns Raised by Farmer Groups
1. Protection of Community-Developed Seeds
- Demand for mandatory registration of all community-developed seeds.
- Warning: varieties passing DUS tests should not be registered under an individual or private company, to prevent monopolisation.
2. Fear of Misuse of DUS Process
- Allegations of improper DUS evaluation (e.g., njavara).
- Concern: weak oversight may enable private appropriation of farmers’ varieties.
3. Small Peasantry & IPR Fit
- Many small farmers see seeds as shared biocultural commons, not IPR objects.
- Fear: amendments may tilt law towards exclusive economic rights, incompatible with farmer traditions.
4. Global IPR Pressure
- Civil society warns about attempts to align Indian law closer to UPOV norms.
- Risk: erosion of India’s farmer-friendly sui generis architecture.
5. Incomplete Compensation Mechanisms
- Although the original Act provides for compensation when IP-protected seeds fail,
- Rules do not detail criteria or enforcement, leaving farmers unprotected.
Comprehensive Overview
A. Legal & Policy Significance
- PPV&FRA is globally applauded for balancing breeders’ rights and farmers’ rights.
- Amendments risk shifting equilibrium towards industry interests if not carefully designed.
- Defining “abusive acts” is critical for seed market integrity.
B. Technological Imperatives
- Modern breeding technologies require updated definitions to avoid grey zones.
- Inclusion of tissue culture and synthetic seeds expands the law’s coverage.
C. Farmers’ Rights Concerns
- Community stewardship is central to India’s seed culture.
- Registration of community varieties under private names can create biopiracy risks.
D. Governance & Regulatory Gaps
- DUS testing lacks transparency; uniformity needed across centres.
- Lack of clear compensation mechanisms reduces accountability of seed companies.
E. International Context
- Many countries are experimenting with open-source seed systems to keep local varieties outside restrictive IPR regimes.
- India may need hybrid models to protect diversity while encouraging innovation.
Way Forward
- Transparent, participatory amendments with strong farmer representation.
- Strengthen DUS protocols and grievance mechanisms.
- Ensure open-source / commons-based protection for traditional varieties.
- Clearly define compensation criteria for seed failure.
- Maintain India’s sui generis character, resisting pressure to mimic UPOV.
