A section of agricultural scientists, activists and farmer leaders has alleged that there is an undesirable attempt to align India’s Protection of Plant Varieties and Farmers’ Rights (PPR&FRA) 2001 with the International Union for the Protection of Plant Varieties (UPOV), even though the country has no legal obligation to do so.

In a letter written to Union Agriculture Minister Radhamohan Singh and PPR&FR Authority Chairperson KV Prabhu, they strongly opposed the move and said: “We note with deep concern the idea to align PPV&FR Act, 2001, with the international law on the subject, implying compliance with UPOV. We emphasise that India is not a member of UPOV and is under no legal obligation to be compliant with UPOV.”

The amendment was to increase the period of protection available to registered varieties to 20 years for trees and 25 years for vines from the existing 15 and 18 years, respectively.

“(The PPR&FRA) members were informed that the period of protection has to be made on a par with the period of protection under UPOV in alignment with international law on the subject,” said the letter quoting the minutes of the meeting of the authority members on November 13, 2017.

The existing protection period itself is long and any further extension to 20 and 25 respectively, will interfere with the farmers’ freedoms and researchers’ privileges that are guaranteed in the law.

The Authority is legally bound to maintain the balance between the rights of farmers versus breeders, they argued.

“The minutes do not note what the international law being referred to is, and why this alignment has to be made,” said the letter signed by 115 people representing different organisations across the country. Some prominent signatories include BKU leader Rakesh Tikait; Kisan Sabha general secretary Hannan Mollah; activists Suman Sahai, Vandana Shiva and Kivita Kuruganthi; legal experts Shalina Bhutani, and scientists such as Rajeswari Raina of Shiv Nadar University, Om Dhamani of the Indian Institute of Technology Bombay and Amita Shah, economist at the Gujarat Institute of Development Research.

Significantly, the Authority put out the minutes of the meeting only recently, even though the meeting was held six months ago, they alleged.

It was not very clear whether a decision was taken at the Authority as the minutes of the subsequent (31st) meeting of the Authority was not available in public domain.

“Since any change would require due amendment of the relevant Section 24(6) of the Act, the changes cannot simply be effected by an Authority decision, and any move to amend the law along these lines is not acceptable.

India should not become a Member of the UPOV regime or align itself in this manner,” it said.