Intellectual property rights industriously feed incentive for a finite duration as a token of reward for the mammoth innovation whereas the concept of ‘farmers right’ is rather a reward that is immensely retrospective while being concerned with a time period that is infinite for conserving plant genetic resources. Multitudinous suggestions were offered to facilitate recognition and a system composing of reward for diverse innovations which were informal in nature while keeping in consideration the rights attached to the farmers at The Keystone International Dialogue on Plant Genetic Resources .The dawning of the concept of farmers’ right took place in FAO International Undertaking on Plant Genetic Resources.
The conception of novelty by farmers triggered back in the era of settled agriculture. However, such innovations are barely given recognition. Farmers breed upon real knowledge pertaining to environment by naturally selecting and unceasing process of evolution rather laboratory conditions. In India, farmers have been champions in evolving miscellaneous varieties which are salt, flood, drought resistant. If breeders are entitled to a right of ownership and control by developing a new variety from amongst the actual genetic resources then the poor farmers are as well destined to possess a right for identification, conservation and development of the conventional variety. A farmer arms the biodiversity which are used by breeders and seed industries as raw material. Multifarious efforts have been made at the global level to recognize the unconditional contributions made by the farmers.
Many developing countries are arduously trying for fulfilling the demands through IPR regimes that concurrently aid in protecting the breeders and farmers’ rights. Although TRIPS customarily does not give recognition to the concept of farmers’ rights, however, it does permit in enacting of sui generis legislation for PVP.India does not have a current sui generis legislation, however, it does recognize the rights of plant breeders a well as farmers in its own version of PVP. There are two dominant issues which are being addressed by the concept of farmers’ rights in the present legal context-a) plant genetic resources .b) traditional agricultural knowledge. There lacked a system to compensate or provide incentives to the farmers. Such unfairness and exploiting ramification of the intellectual property rights in the field of agriculture, PBRs/ patents, paved a path to a recognition that farmers also possess a right to adequate compensation for holding the resources , both knowledge wise and genetic pool wise . The right to livelihood of farmers hence required protection by enabling easy access to genetic resources.
The biased manner in which the germplasm owners and the technology owners are treated has generated debate at various global platforms and the conclusion being the institutionalization of farmers’ rights in the disguise of two principle instruments: a) The demand for right of the farmers in a formal manner was incorporated in Food and Agricultural Organization (FAO) in form of an International Undertaking on Plant Genetic Resources (IU). b) The International Treaty on Plant Genetic Resources for Food and Agriculture (PGRFA ) where the ‘ Farmers’ Rights’ had been added , in Agenda 21 of the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD).
The progression of Farmers’ Rights: In the 1960s and 1970s, many developed countries began to grant PBR and patent right on various plant varieties. The concept of Farmers’ Rights used as a political tool was in the early 1980s, when the term was brainstormed by Pat Roy Mooney and Cary Fowler of the then Rural Advancement Foundation International for highlighting the precious yet unrewarded contributions made by farmers in the field of plant genetic resources for food and agriculture. In the absence of such right farmers would not be able to continue with the process of selection of variety and conserving, that are responsible for evolving of novelty in genetic diversity in crop plants. While giving recognition to this fundamental factor, an independent plant genetic resources Commission was established by the FAO under Prof. M.S. Swaminathan’s chairmanship. The Commission appointed The International Undertaking on Plant Genetic Resources ,with an aim to affirm the necessity for globally protecting the rights of farmers’ upon seeds, especially in those countries, that are enriched in plant genetic diversity. The definition of ‘’ Farmers’ rights ‘by the IUPGR was then turned into an international treaty that was legally binding known as the International Treaty on Plant Genetic Resources for Food and Agriculture (ITPGRFA), in which India is also a signatory to the treaty thus devoting itself for the protection of the rights of the farmers on seeds.
India being the very first amongst other countries that has successfully included rights of farmers in the protection of plant varieties. The 2001 Act enables a farmer breeding a new variety being entitled for registering and protecting as a breeder of such new variety. IPR rights are granted to plant breeders due to the input of intellect while developing the new variety that becomes beneficial to the public at large.The pursuits of acquiring patent rights in “Basmati rice”, “Neem” “Turmeric”, were all of The European Patent Office (EPO).
Basmati being a variety of rice has been a huge crop for export for both India and Pakistan. The infamous “Battle of Basmati” began in 1997 when the US firm, Rice Tec Inc.(firm which bred rice) was granted patent related to plants and seeds, that sought monopoly over different rice lines which also included few possessing the characteristics of Basmati . Being worried about the effect on exports, a re-examination of the disputed patent was requested by India in 2000. Later, the dispute took a sideline from patent to the misusing of the name of “Basmati”. In few countries the name “Basmati” is applicable to long grained aromatic rice that is grown in India and Pakistan. RiceTec had also applied for registration of the trademark ‘Texmati’ in United Kingdom and claimed that the term “Basmati” was rather generic in nature, which was then opposed while establishing a set of codes for practising of marketing rice.
India’s sui generis legislation (PVPFR Act, 2001), is the very first around the globe for granting formal rights to the farmers in such a manner that the framers control over the genetic resources and self-reliance in agriculture does not get jeopardized that in turn involves the requirement for providing reward as well as incentives. With due recognition being given to the rural communities rights as well. India’s Protection of Plant Varieties and Farmers’ Rights Act India has successfully enacted PVP and FR Act while complying with the requirements of TRIPS. The Act deals with PVP as well as the farmers’ rights and follows a holistic approach. The terminology ‘farmer’s rights’ per se is has only been used in Indian legislation. The Act grants three simultaneous rights to the breeders, farmers and well as the researchers while further giving due recognition to the farmer as the cultivator, the conserver and the breeder.
The Act further awards the farmers with PBR on being recognized as breeders. There is no requirement of a farmer to pay fees for registering or renewing the varieties which in turn serves as incentives. While the professional breeders /public research institutions have to pay an amount of Rs.5, 000 to 10,000 separately for registering and renewing.
Rights of farmers, scope and legal protection in Indian context:
In spite of intellectual attempts, the concept of IPR has blatantly ignored the farmer’s contributions. The International Convention for the Protection of New Varieties of Plants (UPOV Convention) permits the breeder to license rights to others, receive royalties reproduced from using of the propagating material in an authorised way. The legal space accessible to the farmers with regard to the seed of the variety which is protected under such a system imbibes the shape of farmers’ rights/ farmer’s privilege.
Protection of farmer from accidental infringement: If a farmer is able to prove in the court that he was unaware of the existing rights during the time of infringement upon such rights, as specified in PPVFR Act, then he shall not have to face the charge. Such provision has been enacted while considering the age -old unrestrained rights which the farmers possessed upon the seed of all varieties, the novelty associated with PPVFR Act and the minimal legal level of literacy of the farmers.
Rights of farmers with regard to the rural poverty (India): The germaneness of farmers’ rights, as granted under the PPVFR Act, metamorphoses more evidence while taking into account the fact that 660 million people living in India are subsisting the Farmers’ rights, primarily upon agriculture for their income and livelihoods. Significant provisions are included in the Indian PPVFR Act to promote the concept of on-farm management of PGR. The groundwork pertaining to fair and equitable sharing of benefit from the plant breeders by the use of PGR that is conserved by farmers is indeed a hefty incentive to link conservation with the development of livelihood and community biodiversity management process (CBM).
Thus, for ensuring the free-flow of farmer’s contribution through the means of CBM, the farmers across the globe ought to granted with liberal rights over the seed of varieties that are developed by them.
References:
[1] http://shodhganga.inflibnet.ac.in/bitstream/10603/148911/11/11_chapter%205.pdf
[2]https://www.bioversityinternational.org/fileadmin/user_upload/online_library/publications/pdfs/Community_biodiversity_management/6.3.farmers_rights_protection_India.pdf
