PROPOSED AMENDMENTS TO THE PLANT TREATY
Context:
- The Ad Hoc Open-Ended Working Group under the International Treaty on Plant Genetic Resources for Food and Agriculture (ITPGRFA), also called the Plant Treaty, is meeting in Peru (July 7–11, 2025) to discuss amendments—especially to Annex I.
- These proposed changes have triggered concerns among Indian farmers, scientists, and policymakers.
WHAT IS THE PLANT TREATY?
- Full Name: International Treaty on Plant Genetic Resources for Food and Agriculture (ITPGRFA).
- Adopted by: FAO in 2001; came into force in 2004.
- India: A signatory.
- Purpose:
- Facilitate access to plant genetic resources for food and agriculture (PGRFA).
- Ensure fair and equitable sharing of benefits from their use.
- Support food security and biodiversity conservation.
WHAT IS ANNEX 1 OF THE TREATY?
- Annex I lists 64 crops and forages critical for global food security.
- These crops are shared internationally through a Multilateral System (MLS), under a Standard Material Transfer Agreement (SMTA).
- The SMTA governs how countries access and use each other’s germplasm.
THE PROPOSED AMENDMENT
- The proposal is to expand Annex I to include “all PGRFA” (i.e., all plant genetic resources that could potentially be used in food and agriculture).
- This would mean:
- All countries, including India, must legally share all of their plant germplasm (seeds, DNA, crop varieties) through the MLS.
- India cannot set its own terms — it must follow the SMTA as decided by the Treaty’s Governing Body.
WHY IS INDIA OPPOSING THE AMENDMENT?
1. Loss of Sovereignty:
- India would lose national control over its vast and diverse plant genetic resources.
- Sharing of germplasm would be mandatory and automatic, not governed by Indian law.
2. Threat to Farmers’ Rights & Seed Sovereignty:
- Undermines farmers’ control over traditional seeds.
- Goes against Article 9 of the Treaty, which recognizes Farmers’ Rights.
- Could hurt indigenous seed practices and community seed banks.
3. Lack of Domestic Consultation:
- No discussion with:
- State Governments
- Farmers’ organizations
- Biodiversity authorities
- Letter from Kerala Agriculture Minister and farmer groups criticizes Centre’s unilateral handling.
4. Violation of Federal Principles:
- Agriculture is a State Subject (Entry 14, State List – Schedule VII, Constitution of India).
- States and local biodiversity boards were not consulted.
- Decisions may infringe on powers of State Governments and Biodiversity Boards.
WHO ARE THE STAKEHOLDERS & WHAT ARE THEIR VIEWS?
| Stakeholder | Position |
| ICAR (Indian Council of Agricultural Research) | Assured that India’s interests will be protected. Appointed Dr. Sunil Archak (Principal Scientist, NBPGR) as India’s representative and Co-Chair of the Peru meeting. |
| Farmers’ Groups (Bharath Beej Swaraj Manch, Rashtriya Kisan Mahasangh) | Strongly oppose amendment; demand consultation with farmers before any decision. Warn of loss of seed sovereignty. |
| Kerala Government | Opposes the proposal; flagged federal concerns, stated agriculture falls under State List. Warned of weakening the role of State Biodiversity Boards. |
| Scientists | Many support farmers’ concerns; fear uncontrolled global access to India’s rich crop genetic resources. |
RELEVANT TREATY PROVISIONS
- Preamble: Recognizes sovereign rights of nations over their genetic resources.
- Article 10 & 11: Outline the scope of the Multilateral System (MLS).
- Article 9: Recognizes Farmers’ Rights – to save, use, exchange seeds, and participate in benefit-sharing.
KEY CONCERNS FOR INDIA
| Concern | Explanation |
| Loss of control | India will be bound to share all germplasm through MLS, not on its own terms. |
| Erosion of Farmers’ Rights | Undermines farmers’ traditional role in conserving and exchanging seeds. |
| No internal discussion | Amendments proposed without debate in Parliament or consultation with States. |
| Risk of Biopiracy | Indian genetic material may be used by global corporations without fair benefit-sharing. |
| Dilution of State powers | Decision affects agriculture and biodiversity, both of which involve State jurisdiction. |
WHAT INDIA SHOULD DO?
- Hold nationwide consultations — with farmers, scientists, State Govts, and biodiversity boards.
- Assert sovereignty — ensure that India’s national interest and farmer rights are upheld.
- Negotiate carefully — use India’s Co-Chair role in the Peru meeting to block or amend the proposal.
- Strengthen domestic frameworks — like the Protection of Plant Varieties and Farmers’ Rights Act (PPVFR Act, 2001).
- Seek consensus in the federal spirit — any international commitment on agriculture must involve States.
Note: Connect with Vajirao & Reddy Institute to keep yourself updated with latest UPSC Current Affairs in English.
Note: We upload Current Affairs Except Sunday.