To:
Shri Shivraj Singh Chouhan,
Hon’ble Minister for Agriculture & Farmers’ Welfare,
Government of India.
Dear Sir,
Namaste. This is with regard to the process that is underway to make amendments to Protection of Plant Varieties and Farmers’ Rights (PPV&FR) Act 2001 and related Rules. We write to you to share our concerns and to seek your intervention in the matter.
As you are kindly aware, India’s sui generis legislation was evolved and enacted through one of the most widespread consultative processes around any legislation in the country. The PPV&FR Act 2001, is in alignment with India’s commitments not just under the WTO TRIPS Agreement, but also the International Treaty on Plant Genetic Resources for Food and Agriculture (ITPGRFA). Since, India is not a party to the UPOV Convention, which is wholly pro-corporate breeders, and not pro-farmers, the country is not required to bring its domestic law ‘on par with UPOV’.
At present, some sections of the PPV&FR Act 2001 are also in alignment with sub-provisions of Article 19 of the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Peasants and Other People Working in Rural Areas (UNDROP), which India voted in favour of in the UN General Assembly, in 2018.
This sui generis statute of PPV&FR Act 2001 emerged from civil society’s intense work on its framework of farmers’ rights and seed freedoms and in situ conservation.
Despite having a unique legislation with regard to farmers’ seed rights and freedoms globally, officials/other individuals associated with the PPV&FR Authority created under the Act are engaging in processes that are causing concern, to propose amendments to the legislation.
Framing of wrong concepts and approaches for the amendments being proposed, once again reflecting the sinister nature of the current processes: India consciously chose a sui generis framework for this legislation. However, the justification being provided for some of the amendments being proposed, rationalising the proposals as harmonisation with UPOV, is highly objectionable. This “harmonisation with UPOV” is a sinister agenda of industry lobbies. It could also be the Government of India’s kowtowing to pressure from the USA and other countries in the trade deals being negotiated. However, this is simply unacceptable, and there is absolutely no need for India to harmonise its unique legislation with UPOV. Further, proposals are being discussed to do away with benefit-sharing with farmers, expectably with the kind of processes being run.
Time Gap and opaque process: The Committee was constituted in December, 2024. Information of its constitution or the process of work has not been shared readily in the public domain. After 10 months of its constitution, this Committee came up with some draft amendments which were shared only in the form of a power point presentation. No official communication was created with participants. Details are not available on how this draft was developed and why it took 10 months.
Closed and Industry-oriented processes adopted by the Committee: The Committee held three consultations, including one with the seed industry, even though seed industry association members are already part of the Committee. These repetitive consultations with seed industry associations, which are the threats to seed conservation and farmers rights’ is a serious concern. The consultation period with civil society representatives was a mere 3 hours, that too in only one session with few seed conservationists. It is not clear what other amendments are being discussed, because no information is being shared proactively and transparently. This inclusion of some civil society members in a recent hybrid-mode consultation was at the very last minute, as an afterthought, after some questioning about the consultative processes accidentally. The amendments that are being proposed are also emerging from the industry associations, whose representatives are sitting in the same Committee that is looking into finalising the amendments to be suggested to the Government of India. Suggestions made by civil society representatives were not even recorded or presented, even though written suggestions were provided in the past too, and before the consultation. It was mentioned that individuals can write, but no further details have been provided. Within the limited participation, almost 90% of the participants did not get a chance to speak, as the Chairman kept interfering with submissions being made.
No meaningful engagement possible without transparency and widespread publicity to consultations: Civil society members were called at the very last minute to join the consultation. The handouts that were given to a handful of civil society members who were present in a recent consultation meeting organised by the Authority did not have amendments proposed. Not sharing all materials beforehand, and running ad-hoc processes is a mockery of the democratic deliberations that are needed on such an important legislation. Meaningful engagement is possible only if all the proposals from all quarters are put up transparently on the Authority’s website, and widespread consultations organised. After 20 years of the Act in force, given that it is a farmers’ rights law, the process of consultation with farmers ought to have been institutionalised through the Authority by now.
No review and evaluation of the implementation of the legislation so far: No call has been made to the public inviting citizens to present their feedback on the statutory schema and implementation of the provisions of the Act. Nor has there been any review or evaluation commissioned for the amendments to emerge from grounded experiences.
Composition of the Committee to suggest amendments: To begin with, there are serious questions around a Committee that was constituted by the Authority in its 39th Meeting on 3rd December 2024, to suggest amendments to the Act. Surprisingly, two seed industry association representatives have been included in the Committee. However, farmer union representatives and civil society representatives, who have been at the forefront of seed conservation and protection of farmers’ rights, were not included. Further, it would be a better idea to have another Chairperson for the Committee since the current chairman has been embroiled in the past in controversies related to heading institutions funded by seed industry entities, reflecting a conflict of interest. Meanwhile, India’s civil society has actively and critically engaged with this statute for many years now, reflected in the participation of several senior development activists in the very creation of this legislation in the late 1990s and early 2000s, in addition to subsequent implementation of the Act and its Rules (this is reflected in the genome saviour awards presented each year, as well as registration of farmers’ varieties, multiple rounds of correspondence and engagement between civil society and the Authority on different provisions etc.). Non-inclusion of farmer union and civil society organisations’ representatives in the Committee indicates a serious bias and most probably a sinister move to restrict farmers’ rights. Why is PPV&FR Authority favouring the seed industry, when this legislation is farmers’ rights-centric?
We write to you to express our serious concerns with regard to the process adopted, especially the wide berth being provided to the seed industry and its lobbyists to influence changes to the farmers’ rights-centric unique legislation that India has in its PPV&FR Act 2001. The Government of India will run the avoidable risk of facing stiff opposition from farmers of the country in another massive resistance movement if this pro-corporate and anti-farmer process for amending the PPV&FR Act is not suspended immediately, to make the process inclusive, transparent and democratic.
We seek your urgent intervention in the matter. Thank you.
Sincerely,
Dr Suman Sahai, Gene Campaign
Dr Sarath Babu Balijepalli, Scientists for Biodiversity
Dr Dinesh Abrol, Delhi Science Forum
Dr Narasimha Reddy Donthi, Seed Campaign
Kavitha Kuruganti, ASHA-Kisan Swaraj
Kapil Shah, Beej Adhikar Manch
Sridhar Radhakrishnan, Sustainable Agriculture Activist