Written Specially for Vikalp Sangam and Radical Ecological Democracy

Re-orienting the International Seed Treaty and National Laws and Policies

The global south is fabulously rich in plant diversity. This wealth of ‘plant genetic resources’ is critically vital to regenerate a future of abundance and health for all. But rich, powerful MNCs of the so-called ‘developed’ north are keen to prospect and indeed, privatize this genetic treasure – to expand their markets, profits and geo-political control.

The International Treaty on Plant Genetic Resources for Food and Agriculture (ITPGRFA) – also known as the International Seed Treaty – was formed with the aim of conservation and sustainable use of plant genetic resources for food and agriculture. But to actually achieve this, and to widen its benefits inclusively, the world needs decentralized initiatives of in situ conservation and participatory breeding by farmers and local communities in their fields and forests. 

Conservation is particularly required in the regions of origin and diversity of the relevant plant varieties – their natural ecological and bio-cultural habitats. Not in distant gene banks. Nor in ‘smart’ computerized laboratories that map their genomes (or ‘genetic blue-prints’) in the form of abstract ‘Digital Sequence Information’ (DSI). 

The Governing Body of the International Treaty (ITPGRFA) is presently meeting in Lima, Peru from November 24 to 29, 2025. It has proposed amendments to expand its ‘Multilateral System’ (MLS) of access and benefit sharing from the present 64 crops to sweepingly include all plant genetic resources. 

The new proposed amendments are primarily geared to the interests of the seed industry and agri-business, rather than the interests of common farmers. Even till date, the functioning of the present Seed Treaty – with 64 crops in the open sharing pool – lacks transparency and clear tracing mechanisms. There is no simple way to know who has accessed what crop varieties, sourced from which nation, and for what purpose; and whether any of the outcomes of such access have indeed helped common farmers. 

While the Treaty stipulates a ‘Standard Material Transfer Agreement’ (SMTA) to be signed by recipients to obtain access to plant genetic resources/seeds, the proposed amendments to this, include new confidentiality clauses that would further cloud the opacity of the whole process. Further, the promise of ‘benefit sharing’ for the free open access provided to the enormous diversity of crop/plant seeds shared by the Global South, is fundamentally hollow, as experience shows.  As controversy rages around the Treaty, the Bharat Beej Swaraj Manch (BBSM), aka India Seed Sovereignty Alliance – a nation-wide network of seed savers and farmers working for in situ conservation and farmers’ rights – has written a detailed letter to the national leaders and representatives of the Global South. 

This ‘Urgent Open Letter’ points to the numerous failings and potentially grave pitfalls in the functioning of the Treaty, including the proposed new amendments. The letter states:

“Why should nations of the global south hand over on a platter our rich genetic treasures and their genomic information to seed companies of the global north that staunchly assert their own intellectual property rights, prioritizing profits over people, while neglecting ecological health and sustainability? Already, over 54% of the global trade in seeds is monopolized by just four giant agri-business multinationals that rake in many billions from struggling farmers worldwide.”

“If some nations ever need any varieties of seeds from any other nation/s, these can be easily sourced through limited bilateral arrangements, without absolutely surrendering for all time our sovereignty over all our seed/plant varieties! We sadly forget that our rich plant genetic resources are more precious for life than inert rare earths!

“By failing to regulate Digital Sequence Information (DSI) or Genomic Sequence Data (GSD) of the shared plant genetic resources, the proposed amendments to ITPGRFA further legitimise and facilitate digital bio-piracy, with no means available to trace its pathways.”

There lurks an underlying hypocrisy in the stand of gene-prospecting seed corporations that rush to create ‘Intellectual Property Rights (IPRs) or patents, based on the germplasm sourced from the global south. They seem to claim: “What is mine is only mine; but what is yours is also mine. And when I register my patents/IPRs – with or without a little genetic tampering – your heritage seeds too will be exclusively mine!” 

Sadly, India’s ‘Protection of Plant Varieties and Farmers’ Rights Act’ (PPV & FRA) left open a glaring loophole, at least in its implementation. While the Act recognizes traditional ‘Varieties of Common Knowledge’ (VCK), the PPVFR Authority has not even begun yet any heritage registry/ catalogue/ category for listing such ‘prior art’ extant varieties. In consequence, it has wrongly registered thousands of such heritage varieties in the names of private individuals, bestowing exclusive plant-breeder intellectual property rights (IPRs) on them. This fundamentally violates farmers’ traditional rights to such varieties, notwithstanding the deceptive nomenclature of the PPVFR Act. 

Somewhere down the line, what prevents rich seed corporations from ‘legally’ buying over the private IPRs of such wrongly registered varieties (under the PPV&FR Act) that are actually our collective heritage? The infringement of traditional seed sovereignty then gravely endangers our atma-nirbhar or self-reliant food security.

The Indian Constitution wisely prohibited patents on life forms. But following pressure from UPOV and WTO, we unfortunately began to grant private intellectual property rights (IPRs) on plant varieties under the so-called sui generis PPV & FR Act. We now need to re-visit the fundamental question: Can life forms and plant varieties be claimed as private property at all? The growing trend to infringe nature’s rights and collective commons, bodes ill for our modern civilization! 

To compound the already existing failings of PPVFRA are new proposed amendments lobbied by the seed industry. These are apparently being sought in view of the proposed amendments to the International Seed Treaty (ITPGRFA). All such amendments threaten to become permanently binding, with potentially grave consequences.

India’s newly proposed Seed Bill adds further cause for concern; as also the recent deregulation by government authorities of potentially hazardous Genetically Engineered/Edited (GE) seeds. Once released, such GE seeds can progressively contaminate our heritage seeds, without any means to stop such deleterious contamination. They also pose serious health, ecological and socio-economic problems.

The IAASTD World Agriculture Report – prepared over 4 years by over 400 agricultural experts, 1,000 multi-disciplinary reviewers and representatives of 58 nations, including India; and those from FAO, WHO, WB, UNEP, UNDP – clearly states: Genetically Modified/Engineered (GM/GE) crops are not the answer to hunger, poverty or climate change. Instead, the Report strongly recommends agro-ecological methods, traditional knowledge and small-scale farmers.

There is no need whatsoever for any genetically edited/engineered varieties of crops/ plants. India’s National Bureau of Plant Genetic Resources (NBPGR) already has over 450,000 varietal plant accessions collected over many decades from farmers. These contain an enormous range of desired plant traits and required adaptability for diverse conditions – to ensure food security, and balanced nutrition for all our people, with a rich choice of various foods.

Over a 10,000 year old history of Indian agriculture, our farmers have contributed enormously to the evolution of many thousands of crop/plant varieties. This has required careful selection of desired traits and adaptation to diverse local conditions over many generations of repeated selection and replanting. And yet, the seeds and agri-business industry will pooh-pooh the contributions of ‘illiterate peasants’, while ironically claiming credit for the most miniscule of genomic alterations by chopping and/or inserting a genetic sequence or two, despite the potential ecological and health hazards posed.

In stark contrast to the ‘magic bullet’ techno-fix approaches of modern corporate breeding, the incremental evolution of plant varieties bred in situ on farms, allows for integral, holistic adaptation and far more safety. Modern breeders need to pay more careful attention to the science of epigenetics – ie the study of how the environment can affect gene function.

The faulty logic of “incentivizing innovation” by granting exclusive private IPRs/Patents is found, in actual historical experience, to be a blatant lie. Rather, there has been vastly diminishing diversity of plants in the post-IPR era, compared to earlier years, particularly preceding the Green Revolution, which too sharply reduced crop diversity in farmers’ fields.

In the not too distant past, farmers freely shared their seeds with other farmers, far and near. The conscious and careful selection of desired traits and the repeated replanting of farm bred seeds over many generations in diverse ecological conditions, gave rise to our fabulous wealth of many hundreds or thousands of varieties in almost every food category – cereals, pulse-legumes, oilseeds, vegetables, tubers, fruits, herbs, medicinal plants, etc. 

But when the PPVFR Authority began indiscriminately granting private IPRs to crop/plant varieties on a ‘first come, first served’ basis, suspicion crept in. And the fear that farmers who procured seeds from other farmers might go and fraudulently register them as their private, self-bred varieties. With diminished sharing, this progressively reduced the in situ diversity on farms. As for the seeds provided by agri-business, these were comparably very few varieties with a narrow genetic base.

So what can one now visualize as a new and more benign Avatar for the International Seed Treaty (ITPGRFA)? It perhaps needs to radically re-invent itself as a democratic, participatory forum for discussion and voluntary sharing of resources, ideas, expertise & financial support from time to time. Any IPRs/patents on plant varieties, components, derivatives, and related knowledge or information, must of course be a strict taboo. What is shared in good faith cannot be privatized.

At the national level, it would be foolish to forget that our traditional, heritage seeds can grow quite well, even without any external chemical or energy inputs. They significantly reduce our vulnerability to supply chain disruptions of external farm inputs, particularly our huge 85% dependence on crude oil imports, a basic raw material for manufacturing agro-chemicals and machinery. 

Additionally, our native varieties of seeds are far more water-efficient. They are also relatively less susceptible to climatic disruptions that are not too severe. Without zealously safe-guarding our indigenous crop/plant varieties, and our seed sovereignty, the prospect of sustaining our self-reliant food security is dim indeed.

With minimal externally purchased inputs for farming, come significant cost savings and increased profitability for our struggling, aspirational farmers who are abandoning farming in distress. According to India’s National Commission on Farmers, over 40% of our farming population would like to give up farming and move to cities, if only they could find an alternative livelihood. But city jobs are also becoming much harder to find.

As repeatedly stated in the IAASTD World Agriculture Report, agro-ecological methods combined with traditional knowledge, are the path ahead. Organic farmers growing indigenous crop varieties, also safeguard our soil, water and biodiversity resources, and minimize external energy inputs (directly or indirectly). They eminently deserve to receive payment for the eco-system services they perform. Such payment, along with better Minimum Support Prices (MSP) for farm crops, would again begin to re-incentivize farming and retain the involvement of our severely disillusioned youth. Local economies and the health of local inhabitants would also be revitalized.

A little further down the line, the decentralized empowerment of the farming population would hopefully lead to progressive dismantling of gender, class/caste inequities, especially with supportive socio-economic policies of the government.

Local farmer/community initiatives for in situ conservation and participatory breeding are the crying need of the hour. Community seed banks need to be supported. The newly proposed bureaucratic hurdles on their work of collecting, sharing and selling seeds – as proposed in the recently announced Seed Bill – must be abandoned. The strict regulatory framework for seed sharing/selling must be limited to commercial private initiatives that exceed a minimum annual turnover of say, Rupees three crore per year. 

Many more small seed initiatives are needed rather than a few big ones. Outstanding community work in conservation and sharing should be encouraged with recognition and awards. 

Every member of a community seed bank, indeed every farmer and gardener, must pledge to conserve and widely share at least one adopted plant variety. 

Finally, there is great importance of enhancing wilderness zones, where maximum bio-diversity flourishes with minimal external input, reducing too our vulnerability to climatic upheavals. Our future cannot be protected without protecting and regenerating our forests!

P.S. dated 30th November: News from Peru: “There is no deal for this year!”

About the Author

Bharat Mansata is a writer and environmental activist, involved in ecological regeneration. He has authored several books, including ‘The Vision of Natural Farming’, ‘Organic Revolution’, and ‘The Great Agricultural Challenge’. He has also been closely associated with Earthcare Books and Vanvadi since their inception, over 30 years ago.

Contact the author.