The Joint Parliamentary Committee (JPC) under the chairmanship of Mr Sahib Singh Verma of the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP), which had recently reviewed the Bill, seems to have been in a haste and has overlooked certain crucial issues that may adversely affect farmers.

The need to have a plant variety protection Bill rose from India's commitment to Article 27 (3)(b) of the TRIPS agreement which provides for protection of plant varieties either by patents or by an effective sui generis system or by any combination thereof. The TRIPS agreement also provided that the provisions of Article 27 (3)(b) shall be reviewed four years after the date of entry into force of the World Trade Organisation (WTO) agreement.

Many African countries under the leadership of Kenya have already raised certain objections regarding protection of plant varieties. Many other developing countries have also stated that they foresee certain problems in the implementation process and have stressed on the need to extend the transitional period. The General Council of WTO has recognised these facts and is slated to deliberate on the issue soon.

In India, some NGOs and activists in the field, including Mr B K Keayla, convenor of the National Working Group on Patent Laws, have appealed to Parliament to wait for the outcome of the deliberations of the General Council of the WTO before taking up the proposed Bill for passage. Mr Keayla has stated that as the UPOV conventions of 1978 and 1991 permit new members to start with protection of a limited number of varieties, India should first concentrate on protecting the varieties that relate to food security and then gradually extend it to other crops, as the country is not yet ready with a codified data of all existing plant varieties. In the absence of a codified data, there is every chance that India can falter in conferring exclusive rights for such so-called new varieties.

Mr Kealya said only new plant varieties developed by the breeders should be given exclusive rights as per the TRIPS agreement. These should not be extended to derived and extant varieties. It is also imperative for the government to expedite the completion of codification of various plant varieties as soon as the proposed Bill becomes an Act. This will be in the best interests of protecting all indigenous plant varieties and those developed by Indian scientists.

As the TRIPS agreement provides mainly for protection of plant breeders' rights and there is no binding international treaty to protect the rights of farmers, the government should also take adequate care to ensure that farmers are not adversely affected by the enactment.

There is a loose, non-binding resolution on international undertaking on plant genetic resources under the auspices of FAO. However, the attempts of the government in protecting farmers' rights is ambiguous in the proposed Bill. Section 39 (iv) of Bill restricts the farmers' rights in selling branded seeds. The Bill states that branded seeds means `any seed put in a package or any other container and labelled in a manner indicating that such seed is of a variety protected under this Act.' The JPC which looked into the issue even proposed providing for sale of surplus seeds of protected variety by farmers identifying the same by the distinct denomination assigned under Section 17 of the Bill.

The Bill seeks to introduce compulsory licensing for protected seeds to safeguard `public interest' but has no provision for a system to grant `licensing of right' as was being contemplated earlier. This system of `licensing of right' could have helped farmers and research institutes in getting protected seeds on easy terms. The Bill should also have outlined certain parameters of royalty to compensate the right holder. But it's not too late yet, the proposed licensing authority still has enough time to ensure that farmers get `protected seeds' on easy terms.