6.1 Indian Case Study
157
In addition to this specific cooperation, there always has been an intensive
exchange of PGRF A between NBPGR and other national and international
organizations since its establishment in 1976. As can be seen in Table 6.2, the
import of PGRF A from organizations in other countries far exceeds the export of
genetic resources. This reflects the intensive Indian breeding activities, especially
in the late 1970s, when most of the imported germplasm was used for breeding
and only partially conserved. In the beginning, more material was coming in the
form of international nurseries; today, however, emphasis is laid on elite material,
resistant donors, and wild species (Rana and Chandel, 1992). Furthermore, the
figures show that the interest in PGRF A from NBPGR was not very high over the
years, or that the export was hampered by restrictive policies. If the distribution
rate is calculated based on the amount of exported accessions in 1993 (3,243
accessions) and the present stock of accessions in the national storage facilities
(144,000 accessions), the Indian national program has a distribution rate of 2.3%.
6.1.2
National Policy on Plant Variety Recognition in India
The Indian Patent Act of 1970 presently permits only process patents, not,
however, product patents in agricultural products and pharmaceuticals. For this
reason, India is gaining a bad reputation; USA trade association called India a u ••.
haven for bulk pharmaceutical manufacturers who pirate the intellectual property
of the world's pharmaceutical industry . .. (quoted from The Indian Express, 1996).
According to the Article 70.8 of the Trade-Related Intellectual Property Rights
(TRIPS) agreement (OECD, 1996a), India must change its IPR system to
implement its obligations under the TRIPS until the year 2005.
As regards plant variety protection, India will soon develop an effective
suigeneris Plant Variety Protection Act, which will provide a suitable legal
framework as required under the provisions of GATT. India is considering
adopting the 1978 UPOV Convention, however maintaining the breeder's
exemption and, as part of the concept of Farmers' Rights, to entitle farmers to a
suitable compensation for their efforts in maintaining agrobiodiversity
(Swaminathan, 1996a). The government of India plans to establish a National
Community Gene Fund for rewarding farmers' efforts in maintaining
agrobiodiversity (Swaminathan, 1996b). It would be the first legal recognition and
reward of Farmers' Rights, based on the remuneration rights (Sehgal, 1996).
NBPGR is expected to playa vital role in the proposed legislation (ICR, 1995).
There are some major obstacles in the Indian sui generis system. It has been
considered to make it compulsory for all breeders to deposit a reference seed
sample in the national gene bank and to catalogue it in the National Register,
besides the compulsory seed certification and licensing. Especially private
breeders fear that their breeding secret will be revealed and their seed may be
utilized for further breeding without their agreement (Narayanan, 1996).
Furthermore, the Indian patenting procedure takes one to two years at present,
which is not an incentive for research and development in India (Senrayan, 1996).
157
In addition to this specific cooperation, there always has been an intensive
exchange of PGRF A between NBPGR and other national and international
organizations since its establishment in 1976. As can be seen in Table 6.2, the
import of PGRF A from organizations in other countries far exceeds the export of
genetic resources. This reflects the intensive Indian breeding activities, especially
in the late 1970s, when most of the imported germplasm was used for breeding
and only partially conserved. In the beginning, more material was coming in the
form of international nurseries; today, however, emphasis is laid on elite material,
resistant donors, and wild species (Rana and Chandel, 1992). Furthermore, the
figures show that the interest in PGRF A from NBPGR was not very high over the
years, or that the export was hampered by restrictive policies. If the distribution
rate is calculated based on the amount of exported accessions in 1993 (3,243
accessions) and the present stock of accessions in the national storage facilities
(144,000 accessions), the Indian national program has a distribution rate of 2.3%.
6.1.2
National Policy on Plant Variety Recognition in India
The Indian Patent Act of 1970 presently permits only process patents, not,
however, product patents in agricultural products and pharmaceuticals. For this
reason, India is gaining a bad reputation; USA trade association called India a u ••.
haven for bulk pharmaceutical manufacturers who pirate the intellectual property
of the world's pharmaceutical industry . .. (quoted from The Indian Express, 1996).
According to the Article 70.8 of the Trade-Related Intellectual Property Rights
(TRIPS) agreement (OECD, 1996a), India must change its IPR system to
implement its obligations under the TRIPS until the year 2005.
As regards plant variety protection, India will soon develop an effective
suigeneris Plant Variety Protection Act, which will provide a suitable legal
framework as required under the provisions of GATT. India is considering
adopting the 1978 UPOV Convention, however maintaining the breeder's
exemption and, as part of the concept of Farmers' Rights, to entitle farmers to a
suitable compensation for their efforts in maintaining agrobiodiversity
(Swaminathan, 1996a). The government of India plans to establish a National
Community Gene Fund for rewarding farmers' efforts in maintaining
agrobiodiversity (Swaminathan, 1996b). It would be the first legal recognition and
reward of Farmers' Rights, based on the remuneration rights (Sehgal, 1996).
NBPGR is expected to playa vital role in the proposed legislation (ICR, 1995).
There are some major obstacles in the Indian sui generis system. It has been
considered to make it compulsory for all breeders to deposit a reference seed
sample in the national gene bank and to catalogue it in the National Register,
besides the compulsory seed certification and licensing. Especially private
breeders fear that their breeding secret will be revealed and their seed may be
utilized for further breeding without their agreement (Narayanan, 1996).
Furthermore, the Indian patenting procedure takes one to two years at present,
which is not an incentive for research and development in India (Senrayan, 1996).