Why in the News?
India has expressed serious concerns over proposed changes to the International Treaty on Plant Genetic Resources for Food and Agriculture (ITPGRFA)—popularly known as the Plant Treaty.
About the Plant Treaty, 2001:
- Adoption: It was adopted by the FAO on 3rd November 2001 and came into force in 2004.
- Purpose: It governs the Multilateral System (MLS) for the access and benefit-sharing of Plant Genetic Resources for Food and Agriculture (PGRFA).
- Key Features:
- Coverage of Crops: The MLS currently includes 64 essential food crops and forages listed in Annex I, which together meet around 80% of the world’s plant-based food needs.
- Access Mechanism: Access to these genetic materials is provided for research, breeding, and training purposes through a Standard Material Transfer Agreement (SMTA).
- Benefit-Sharing Approach: The Treaty incorporates monetary and non-monetary benefit-sharing mechanisms, with a focus on supporting biodiversity in developing countries.
- IP Restrictions: It prohibits any intellectual property claims over the raw genetic materials accessed under the system.
- Recognition of Farmers’ Rights: It affirms farmers’ rights, such as the protection of traditional knowledge, equitable benefit-sharing, and participation in national decisions about PGRFA use and conservation.
- India’s Participation: India is a signatory and active participant and implements the Treaty alongside domestic legislation like the Protection of Plant Varieties and Farmers’ Rights (PPV&FR) Act, 2001.
Proposed Amendments:
- Objective: The upcoming proposal aims to expand the scope of the MLS to include all PGRFA, not just those in Annex I.
- New Inclusions: The expansion would bring in indigenous varieties, non-commercial crops, and community-protected heirloom seeds under the MLS framework.
- Impact on India’s Obligations: If passed, the amendment would mandate countries like India to share all plant germplasm through the existing SMTA process.
- No Change in Benefit Terms: The amendment retains current benefit-sharing mechanisms, which critics argue are often non-monetary or merely symbolic.
- Concerns over IP Rights: The broadened scope may lead to intellectual property loopholes if traditional seeds are repackaged or genetically altered.
- Allegations of Biopiracy: Critics argue the proposal enables “backdoor biopiracy”, especially of the Global South’s rich seed diversity.
India’s Concerns:
- Loss of Seed Sovereignty: India fears it will lose discretion over which seeds to share, weakening its ability to protect unique plant biodiversity.
- Undermining of Farmers’ Rights: The proposal might override the rights granted to farmers under the Plant Treaty and India’s PPV&FR Act, which view them as custodians of seed heritage.
- Erosion of National Authority: The expansion could violate Articles 10 and 11 of the Treaty, which grant countries sovereign control over their genetic resources.
- Violation of Federal Principles: The lack of consultation with States is seen as a breach of India’s federal structure, as agriculture is a State subject under Schedule VII of the Constitution.
- Marginalization of Biodiversity Boards: The role of State Biodiversity Boards may be diminished, despite their importance in regulating local germplasm and community rights.
- Lack of Equitable Returns: India argues that the global system offers little real benefit, raising doubts about fairness and justice in benefit-sharing.
| [UPSC 2014] Consider the following international agreements:
1. The International Treaty on Plant Genetic Resources for Food and Agriculture. 2. The United Nations Convention to Combat Desertification. 3. The World Heritage Convention. Which of the above has/have a bearing on the biodiversity? Options: (a) 1 and 2 only (b) 3 only (c) 1 and 3 only (d) 1, 2 and 3 |
Get an IAS/IPS ranker as your 1: 1 personal mentor for UPSC 2024
