New Delhi: Farmers and civil society organizations are urgently appealing to the Indian government to reject proposed changes to the International Treaty on Plant Genetic Resources for Food and Agriculture (ITPGRFA), also known as the Plant Treaty. These groups fear the amendments, set to be discussed at the 11th session of the governing body of the ITPGRFA in Lima, Peru at the end of November 2025, would undermine India's sovereignty over its agricultural genetic resources and jeopardize farmers' rights.
The core of the concern revolves around proposed expansions to the treaty's Annex 1, potentially including all Plant Genetic Resources for Food and Agriculture (PGRFA). Currently, the treaty facilitates access to 64 vital crops for food security. Expanding the scope to encompass all plant genetic resources—potentially 350,000 known species—raises significant worries. Opponents argue this broad expansion would obligate India to share all of its plant germplasm under a standard material transfer agreement (SMTA) dictated by the Plant Treaty's Governing Body, rather than under India's own terms and conditions.
Several organizations, including the Alliance for Sustainable and Holistic Agriculture, Kisan Swaraj, Rashtriya Kisan Mahasangh, Bharat Beej Swaraj Manch, and Scientists for Genetic Diversity, have voiced their concerns to high-ranking government officials, including Prime Minister Narendra Modi and Ministers Shivraj Singh Chouhan and Bhupender Yadav. They are urging the government to protect India's sovereignty and farmers' rights during the upcoming negotiations.
These groups argue that the proposed changes would expose India's resources to global seed corporations, potentially jeopardizing farmers' rights and national sovereignty. They are calling for the government to demand mandatory transparency, including public lists of recipients and details of PGRFA accessed through the Multilateral System (MLS). They also oppose newly introduced confidentiality clauses in the SMTA. Civil society members highlight that, despite sharing 6.6 million seeds with over 25,000 users, communities have seen little benefit, with only five users making monetary contributions to the benefit-sharing fund. They maintain that unless the MLS is strengthened, expanding the list would be detrimental.
Specifically, farmer organizations and scientists are urging the Indian government to reject the proposal to expand Annex 1, as they believe it undermines India's sovereign rights. They emphasize that the Plant Treaty is a legally binding international instrument that prohibits reservations. They also point out that Articles 11 and 12 of the treaty obligate parties to share all PGRFA within the scope of the MLS.
Critics also argue that the proposed amendment is inconsistent with the Plant Treaty's Preamble, and Articles 10 and 11. They state that expanding the scope to 'all PGRFA' dilutes national sovereignty and may even affect the role of State Biodiversity Boards, especially without consulting State Governments. Kerala Agriculture Minister P. Prasad has also weighed in, stating the Centre should not approve the amendments. He emphasized that agriculture and agricultural research fall under the State List of the Constitution, highlighting the need for consultation with states.
Conversely, the Indian Council of Agricultural Research (ICAR) has stated that India's interests would be prioritized and protected during the negotiations. ICAR nominated Principal Scientist Sunil Archak, who has been involved with the Plant Treaty for several years, to represent India at the meeting.
