6.1 Indian Case Study
159
Regardless of the obstacles for the private seed sector, India has a potential for
seed production. Because of equally similar breeding technologies but lower
wages, breeding may be more cost -efficient in India than in some industrialized
countries. Apart from the multi-national breeding companies, which are cautiously
entering the Indian market since the liberalization of the Indian seed policy, there
are national private seed companies emerging, with a good deal of pioneering
spirit.
Being the major starting point for an increased private involvement, the
liberalization of the seed market seems to be the point of offence for some of the
breeders involved in the public breeding sector who suspect a loss of influence
and power to the private sector.
Although rather hesitant concerning a legal protection for crop varieties, India
has been one of the leading countries in investing in crop improvement during the
last 25 years (Jain, 1992). Neighboring countries like Bangladesh and Nepal are
benefiting from the 30 to 35 varieties released annually in India, because these
varieties are often cultivated there as well (Jain, 1992). Hence, a protection system
would benefit India's investments and success.
Because of the inability in securing intellectual property, the private seed sector
is mainly involved only in seed multiplication. In India, research and development
for the site-specific problems are carried out only in hybrids, because of the
inherent intellectual property protection (Kush, 1996).
Private breeding companies are interested in genetically coded information
through the conserved accessions in the genebanks. Their interest lies in the
reduction of their search costs, which necessitates a good information system on
the supply side. However, at present the rice breeding companies conduct more
cooperative activities with IRRl than with the national genebank in India, because
of the lower search costs at IRRl (Narayanan, 1996).
Summarizing the Indian activities for conservation and utilization of PGRF A,
India represents a centralized PGRF A ex situ conservation system. In addition to
the formal system, different active groups involved in some conservation issues
are constantly emerging. Two of the more important NGOs have already been
introduced above. Both the MS Swaminathan Foundation and the Honeybee
Network combine scientific research and practical work in the field of PGRF A
conservation. Other groups and activities could be named as well.
The main in situ conservation activities in India, as well as in Germany, are
coordinated and implemented by different agencies and ministries than other
PGRF A conservation activities, which are coordinated and implemented by the
Ministry of Agriculture. This is evidence for the fact that in situ conservation was
emerging as the major conservation method for wild species of flora and fauna.
Hence, in situ conservation came to fall under the responsibility of the Ministry
for Environment. It will be of future importance either to merge all efforts for in
situ conservation activities related to agriculture and integrate them under NBPGR
or to keep the cooperation between the different ministries and offices going at a
high level.
India is taking the lead position in formulating a sui generis system for the
protection of property rights, in harmony with TRIPS and the Farmers' Rights of
159
Regardless of the obstacles for the private seed sector, India has a potential for
seed production. Because of equally similar breeding technologies but lower
wages, breeding may be more cost -efficient in India than in some industrialized
countries. Apart from the multi-national breeding companies, which are cautiously
entering the Indian market since the liberalization of the Indian seed policy, there
are national private seed companies emerging, with a good deal of pioneering
spirit.
Being the major starting point for an increased private involvement, the
liberalization of the seed market seems to be the point of offence for some of the
breeders involved in the public breeding sector who suspect a loss of influence
and power to the private sector.
Although rather hesitant concerning a legal protection for crop varieties, India
has been one of the leading countries in investing in crop improvement during the
last 25 years (Jain, 1992). Neighboring countries like Bangladesh and Nepal are
benefiting from the 30 to 35 varieties released annually in India, because these
varieties are often cultivated there as well (Jain, 1992). Hence, a protection system
would benefit India's investments and success.
Because of the inability in securing intellectual property, the private seed sector
is mainly involved only in seed multiplication. In India, research and development
for the site-specific problems are carried out only in hybrids, because of the
inherent intellectual property protection (Kush, 1996).
Private breeding companies are interested in genetically coded information
through the conserved accessions in the genebanks. Their interest lies in the
reduction of their search costs, which necessitates a good information system on
the supply side. However, at present the rice breeding companies conduct more
cooperative activities with IRRl than with the national genebank in India, because
of the lower search costs at IRRl (Narayanan, 1996).
Summarizing the Indian activities for conservation and utilization of PGRF A,
India represents a centralized PGRF A ex situ conservation system. In addition to
the formal system, different active groups involved in some conservation issues
are constantly emerging. Two of the more important NGOs have already been
introduced above. Both the MS Swaminathan Foundation and the Honeybee
Network combine scientific research and practical work in the field of PGRF A
conservation. Other groups and activities could be named as well.
The main in situ conservation activities in India, as well as in Germany, are
coordinated and implemented by different agencies and ministries than other
PGRF A conservation activities, which are coordinated and implemented by the
Ministry of Agriculture. This is evidence for the fact that in situ conservation was
emerging as the major conservation method for wild species of flora and fauna.
Hence, in situ conservation came to fall under the responsibility of the Ministry
for Environment. It will be of future importance either to merge all efforts for in
situ conservation activities related to agriculture and integrate them under NBPGR
or to keep the cooperation between the different ministries and offices going at a
high level.
India is taking the lead position in formulating a sui generis system for the
protection of property rights, in harmony with TRIPS and the Farmers' Rights of