India lacks laws to protect its biodiversity: Experts

Savita Verma

New Delhi, Aug 26: EVEN as opinions vary on the Basmati patent issue, with some branding the recent US Patent Office (USPTO) ruling as a victory for India while others calling the battle as lost, agricultural experts are unanimous in saying the country lags behind in formulating relevant laws making it difficult to protect the country’s biodiversity.

USPTO on August 14 upheld US company RiceTec Inc’s patent on three rice lines developed by it, prohibiting, however, the company from using the term ‘Basmati’. The company had earlier named these rice lines as ‘Basmati rice lines and grains’ and got a patent in Sept 1997 on the basis of 20 such claims.

The recent ruling is the result of India’s efforts challenging three such claims. It strikes down the use of the term ‘Basmati’ for these rice lines, allowing RiceTec to use the titles, BAS-867, RT-1117 and RT-1121, for them, a development which many brand as a victory for India.

Insisting that recent USPTO ruling did not mean infringement on India’s biodiversity, Dr Mangla Rai, Deputy director general for Crops at Indian Council of Agricultural Research, said the country must soon frame and implement laws on plant variety protection, biodiversity and geographical protection.

Had the geographical protection law been there, RiceTec could not have branded its rice lines as “basmati rice lines and grains” in the first place, as the law would have protected basmati on the basis of geographical indicators, Dr Rai said.

Once laws on biodiversity and plant variety are made, the country using Indian germplasm to evolve new varieties, will have to pay India and share benefits of the outcome, Dr Rai said. He added, it was the US law which allowed the company to use Basmati type material and come up with new lines. India can also come up with a law and improve upon existing material from other countries and claim intellectual property rights on them. The ruling would not have an adverse impact on Basmati exports from the country, he said.

On the question whether patent allows RiceTec to claim that rice lines developed by them are superior to Basmati, Dr Rai said their lines might be superior in some characters and in marketing, use of such tactics is generally allowed.

Calling the ruling to be a “resounding victory” for India as the term Basmati has been dropped from the patent, Council of Scientific and Industrial Research Director General RA Mashelkar said while India had challenged only three out of 20 claims, 15 were knocked out in May.

Remaining five claims based on which the patent has been granted related to rice lines which they have developed by crossing a Pakistan line with a US rice line. These claims are linked to characteristics such as high yield, disease resistance, and photo sensitiveness.

It is a perfectly legitimate innovation for which India need not be concerned, Mr Mashelkar said. On being asked that RiceTec can now brand its rice as superior to Basmati, he said he did not agree with such reports.