Institutional Frame work for Plant Variety Protection Facilitator : Dr. Sanjeev Saxena Participants : Dr. V.K.Khanna Dr. R.P. Nachane Dr. D. Rama Rao Dr.

Institutional Frame work for Plant Variety Protection

Facilitator : Dr. Sanjeev Saxena

Participants : Dr. V.K.Khanna

Dr. R.P. Nachane

Dr. D. Rama Rao

Dr. M. Bhattacharya

Dr. A. K. Roy

Genesis of Plant Variety protection Act

• Various conventions/ Treaties affecting Biodiversity – CBD– IUPGR– UPOV– TRIPs

Convention on Biological Diversity

• Legal Binding Document signed in Rio de Janerio Earth summit – 1992, >170 member countries.

• Objectives – Conservation of Biodiversity– Sustainable use of Biodiversity– Fair and equitable sharing of the benefits

•  Article 15 recognises sovereign rights of states over national resources

•  Debatable issues– No clear cut guidelines– No agreement on pre CNBD germplasm, IARC, CGIAR etc., where

germplasm are stored “ in trust of humankind” as per FAO.

International Undertaking on PGR/ FAO commission on GR

• Non legally binding document

• Being changed to be in tune with CBD/TRIPS

UPOV

• An intergovernmental organization which cooperates with WIPO• Presently 40 members mostly from developed world• Objectives • Plant Breeders rights and protection of new plant varieties• UPOV encourages the adoption of sui generis laws for protecting new plant

varieties by creating distinct system outside of patent laws.•  • UPOV in 1991 made two amendments • Breeders authorization for propagation of material• Limiting the Farmers privilege i.e. to save seeds for further planting and

innovations• UPOV do not recognize the contribution of country of rouging, local

communities and farmers• CBD confirms national sovereignty on genetic wealth.

CBD vis a vis UPOV

• UPOV in 1991 made two amendments – Breeders authorization for propagation of material

– Limiting the Farmers privilege i.e. to save seeds for further planting and innovations

• UPOV do not recognize the contribution of country of rouging, local communities and farmers

• CBD confirms national sovereignty on genetic wealth.

TRIPS• Article 27

– Patents shall be available for any invention, whether product or processes in all field of technology.

• Article 27.3 (b) – Members may exclude from patentability– Plants and animals other than microorganisms and

essentially biological processes for the production of plants or animals other than microbiological processes

– However members shall provide the information for the protection of plant varieties either by patents or by an effective sui generis system or by any combination thereof.

Biological Diversity Act

• Permission required for the following to obtain any biological resources occurring in India or knowledge for research or commercial utilization or biosurvey and bioutilisation.– Not citizen of India– Citizen of India but non resident– A body, corporate, association or organization not

incorporated in India – Or incorporated in India but non Indian participation in

its share capital or managements.

Hierarchy

• National Biodiversity Board

• State Biodiversity Board

• Biodiversity management committee : Local bodies (Panchayats and Municipalities)

PPVFR Act

•  WHY ? - – As a signatory to TRIPS. India is committed to enact a

legislation for plant variety protection under Article 27.3(b)

• Reasons for PVP – To promote/ protect investment by providing appropriate returns.– To facilitate access to improved varieties protected in other

countries– To encourage need based appropriate research– To enable Indian plant breeders to get their varieties protected in

other countries on reciprocity.– To facilitate market access for export of seed to countries– To ensure researcher’s access to foreign germplasm in future.

NDUS

• Criteria not defined for – Composites– Hybrids– Synthetics– Open pollinated varieties etc.

NDUS

• Who will conduct DUS tests?– IF by NARS – will it be ethical

• Will have some legal authority

• Autonomy from ICAR / SAUs /institute who may also be interested party

Suggestions

May be done by designated persons in the NARS with full autonomy for this purpose.

Or some designated testing centres with full autonomy and control of PVP Authority – binding factor may be the cost involved..

Necessity of Act – Farmer’s point of view

• May be – For getting better varieties– For getting guaranteed products– For agribusiness purposes getting specific

varieties

• May not be – Quite happy with existing system

Necessity of Act – Researcher’s point of view

• May be – For getting royalty, recognition

For access to new germplasm, varieties, gene sources

• May not be– Blockage in getting new technologies– Protection/ secrecy – the Buzz word now

DUS – Characters

• Morphological, biochemical, molecular ? • Recommendations –

– first based on morphology, stable, identifiable charcters

– Biochemical to be done only if there is any claim viz., alkaloid content, secondary metabolites, aroma etc. to be compared with existing varieties/ germplasm?

•  Molecular – – DNA fingerprinting must for each variety.

– But who will do it – NRC fingerprinting - ?

DUS – Testing guidelines

• Not yet defined

• ICAR has started developing guidelines for many crops– But the acceptability, applicability and

feasibility by all the stakeholders?

Crop/ Genera

• What are the genera to be incorporated ? • Whether influenced by national priorities,

commercial value, food / nutritional insecurity, horticultural, medicinal crops, indigenous and endemic crops or MNC directives.

• Recommendations – Food security– National commercial interests– Competitiveness globally

Disclosures

• The word parental line everywhere is confusing – Whether it is – For hybrid varieties only (F1 hybrids)– Or for all kind of varieties

• Suggestion– Should only be for F1 hybrid varieties– For others immediate parent / germplasm

should be mentioned

Disclosures

• Details of passport data – from farmer/ village/ community etc.– Problem exist that it is not available with most

of the germplasm held in gene banks or with breeders.

• Suggestion– May give some grace period – 5 years or so

Farmer’s rights- sale of seed

• A loophole ? – Most of the varieties are agro-ecosystem based

Farmer may sell seed in oral agreements in local market

Suggestions – Quantity of seed sell must be defined for each

crop by farmers. – Discourage sell of seed by farmer

Fee structure

• Who will pay for farmer’s varieties and maintenance of germplasm

• Recommendations– ICAR/ NARS or some NGO should take this

responsibility in cataloguing, documenting, filing application for registration of all farmer’s varieties/ land races.

Maintenance of germplasm

• Who will do it – NBPGR National Gene bank or some independent authority

• Technical expertise/ cost for different types of materials especially vegetatively propagated materials. ?

The Authority

• Most of the members are ex-officio holding important posts in the Government set-up– Will they be able to give sufficient time– Recommendations

• Time limit for registering a variety/ processing

• Frequency of meeting

Thank You