TITLE: SUI GENERIS PROTECTION OF PLANT VARIETIES: AN INDIAN

PERSPECTIVE

1
 ABSTRACT

Protection of plant varieties relates to intellectual property rights over plant varieties that guarantee
exclusive commercial rights to rights-holders for a specific period of time. Article 27(3) (b) of the
TRIPS Agreement obliges all WTO member states to introduce such protection within certain set
time frames through domestic legislation. These rights are one form of IPR that is aggressively
imposed on developing countries and are often claimed to be a' soft' patent regime. Plant variety laws
are as threatening as biodiversity industrial patents and also represent an attack on the farming rights
of other local communities. From a legal point of view, the protection of plant varieties in India
remains a far from being settled issue even though the Plant Varieties Protection and Farmers ' Rights
Act was adopted in 2001 in accordance with the TRIPS Agreement. This study argues that the IP
regime's goal should be to balance the competing needs of maximizing societal innovation while
rewarding the individuals who contribute to that innovation appropriately. To this end, the study aims
to analyze issues related to plant variety protection with reference to the TRIPS Agreement together
with the Biodiversity Treaty and the PGRFA Treaty. One of the main characteristics of the PGRFA
Treaty is its emphasis on the rights of farmers. In the Indian context, this characteristic is further
reviewed.

Keywords: Plant variety protection, sui generis, farmer’s right, farmer’s rights, breeder’s rights.

2
 TABLE OF CONTENTS

1. Introduction------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 4

1.1 Introduction---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------4
1.2 Research Problems-------------------------------------------------------------------------------4
1.3 Existing Legal Situation-------------------------------------------------------------------------4
1.4 Literature Review--------------------------------------------------------------------------------4
1.5 Hypothesis-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------5
1.6 Research Methodology--------------------------------------------------------------------------5

2. Plant Variety Protection and Developing Nations---------------------------------------------6

3. Sui Generis Protection of Plant Varieties-------------------------------------------------------9

4. Sui Generis System in India-----------------------------------------------------------------------11

5. Conclusion---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------15

6. Bibliography-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------16

3
 1. INTRODUCTION

1.1
As required by the TRIPS Agreement to protect new varieties as well as extant and derived
varieties and in turn to protect the interests of breeders, farmers and village communities, India
adopted the sui generis system and enacted the Plant Varieties Protection and Farmers' Rights Act
2001 as existing Indian Patents Act 1970 excluded farming and horticultural methods.
Article 27(3) (b) of TRIPS excludes the protection of plants from patents. There was therefore a
pressing need to decide what kind of protection of intellectual property should be given to plant
innovation and why. It became urgent to decide on this issue in the light of the obligation imposed
by Article 27.3 of the TRIPS Agreement on all WTO Member States to provide for the protection
of plant varieties either by patents or by an' effective sui generis system' or by any combination
of both.
Plant variety protection encourages investment and effort in plant breeding by providing an
incentive to breeders. IPRs provide an incentive for private research and development into new
breeding techniques, thus reducing the need for government funding to support such activities.

1.2 Research Problems

i. What are the PVP systems existing in developing nations? Are these systems sufficient to
meet the requirements of these nations?
ii. What is the efficiency of the sui generis system in India? Is it competent enough?

1.3 Existing Legal Situation

In compliance with the requirement under TRIPS, India developed its own sui generis system of
law to protect plant variety. This law is the Protection of Plant Varieties and Farmers' Rights Act,
2001 (PVPFR Act).

1.4 Literature Review

 Rohan Dang and Chandni Goel- “Sui Generis Plant Variety Protection: The Indian
Perspective”: Plant variety protection is linked to both agricultural innovation and the
conservation of biological resources, although on different levels. The present
international legal framework remains partly inconclusive with regard to the type of
agricultural management that it seeks to encourage. Though the development of sui
generis programs for plant variety protection is still in a nascent stage, this paper analyses
4
 the advantages and disadvantages of the Farmers’ Rights Act, 2001 and submits proposals
for a better future. In conclusion, IPR and agriculture and sustainable development are
indeed integrated and the homogenization of international law is the only panacea to the
mutual needs of both, the North and the South. Available at
https://thescipub.com/pdf/10.3844/ajebasp.2009.303.312.
 Sudhir Kocchar- “How Effective is the Sui Generis Plant Variety Protection in India:
Some Initial Feedback”. Available at
https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2208399.
 Bonwoo Koo, Carol Nottenburg and Philip G. Pardey- “Plants and Intellectual Property:
An International Appraisal”. Available at http://www.jstor.org/stable/3839574.
 C. Niranjan Rao- “Indian Seed System and Plant Variety Protection”. Available at
http://www.jstor.org/stable/4414678.

1.5 Hypothesis

UPOV is not an effective sui generis system. The flexibility contained in the TRIPS agreement
regarding the sui generis PVP system is of immense importance and advantage to developing
countries as a viable option, as opposed to the application of a PVP patent regime.

1.6 Research Methodology

Doctrinal method of research is used in this research paper. Both primary and secondary sources
of law are the basis for this research work.

5
 2. PLANT VARIETY PROTECTION AND DEVELOPING NATIONS

By opening hybrid markets to developing countries with the ability to reduce traditional agricultural
deficits, the introduction of PVPs was intended to reduce one of the barriers to international
agricultural trade. Like all other forms of IPRs, plant variety protection enhances foreign investment
by encouraging foreign breeders to invest in countries that provide adequate safeguards for their high-
risk investments. One of the most important incentives for private sector involvement in agrogenetic
engineering is the legal protection offered by intellectual property rights. IPRs are therefore
paramount in ensuring the private sector's participation in the development of new varieties of plants.
Improvements that can be achieved through agrogenetic engineering include plant varieties that
produce higher yields by enhancing the plant's ability to absorb more photosynthetic energy into grain
rather than stem or leaf; varieties that have the ability to combat pests and adverse weather conditions
and varieties that have been modified to grow faster through increased input efficiency. In view of
the food security concerns of the developing world, the only solution to the loss of land under
cultivation as a result of increasing urbanization and industrialization is to increase' productivity per
unit area.' From this point of view, the possibility of modifying varieties to improve their nutritional
value is another potential feature. Thus, the latter may promote food security in developing countries
between maintaining the status quo and introducing PVPs, provided that the risks are appropriately
allocated.

Developing nations underline several factors that require a national plant variety protection regime
rather than a similar system of protection in developed nations. First, agriculture has a close
connection to the national economy in developing nations. The agricultural population in developing
nations is higher than in developed nations. Economic dependence distinguishes southern agricultural
sectors from northern ones. The differences include smaller land holdings and labor-intensive farming
practices, subsistence land farming, and lower international trade involvement. These distinguishing
features of agriculture and its impact on their economies, the opinion of developing nations, require
prioritization of national goals when introducing PBRs (for example, when the UPOV Convention
was adopted, the percentage of people engaged in the European Union's agricultural sector in 1961
was only 20 percent).1

In addition, most developing nations are mainly concerned about the skepticism attached to the
privatization process, which suo moto brings with it multiple socio-economic and environmental
concerns. Some of the specific concerns are:

1
Sudhir Kocchar- “How Effective is the Sui Generis Plant Variety Protection in India: Some Initial Feedback”. Available at
https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2208399. Last accessed on 12-04-2019.
6
 i. Private sector investment results in consumer-oriented food rather than catering to the
needs of the poor2: Generally, first-generation GM crops were not produced to increase yield
potential and any yield and production gains resulted primarily from reduced losses to pests.
This suggests that additional measures should accompany the introduction of IPR in
developing countries to ensure that research is also geared towards the needs of the poor. One
way to do the same would be through public-private partnerships where the public sector
adapts the private variety to subsistence agriculture.
ii. Restriction on traditional practices and harmful effects of terminator technology3: Majority
of PVP practices restrict the traditional farmers' practice of saving harvested crops for
subsequent sowing. Technologies like Genetic Use Restriction Technology (GURT) make the
harvested crop sterile for additional cultivation. This is disastrous in the context of developing
countries as this practice of saving the harvested crop is essential for the farmer's survival and
poverty alleviation. The cultivation cost due to high input costs contains the potential to be
devastating when using PVP and failing the harvest.
iii. PVPs themselves have not necessarily fostered food security4: Although the agricultural
trade liberalization envisages alleviating the economic situation of farms and food
consumption patterns, the situation in reality shows a declining pattern. Agriculture's
globalization process has undermined the food security goals that the states are aiming to
achieve, and there is no clear indication that food security has increased with the introduction
of PVP. In addition, having to pay substantial royalties to industrial countries and corporations
could significantly increase many countries ' debt burdens.
iv. Effects on biodiversity5: Management of agriculture and biodiversity is inextricably
intertwined because biological resources are a primary input to agricultural production
systems and most existing agricultural products have evolved through plant and animal
selection and collection. In agriculture, intellectual property rights have an inherent tendency
to displace landraces as protected varieties generally yield higher than local counterparts. This
tends to promote homogenization that results in a loss of diversity and generally reduces the
resilience of crops to pests and diseases. The breeding uniformity thus results in monocultures
after a stage that are ecologically unstable in terms of the environment.

2
Sudhir Kocchar- “How Effective is the Sui Generis Plant Variety Protection in India: Some Initial Feedback”. Available at
https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2208399. Last accessed on 12-04-2019.
3
Ibid.
4
Ibid.
5
Ibid.
7
 v. Over patentability6: In the private and public sectors, the genetic engineering industry may
have the potential to stifle innovation rather than promote it. The perception is often that broad
clams are necessary to provide sufficient incentives for the industry to innovate, but that
claims for intellectual property rights should not extend to the primary research material, as
this tends to stifle scientific and technological innovation.

6
Bonwoo Koo, Carol Nottenburg and Philip G. Pardey- “Plants and Intellectual Property: An International Appraisal”. Available at
http://www.jstor.org/stable/3839574. Last accessed 16-09-2016, 21:58.
8
 3. SUI GENERIS PROTECTION OF PLANT VARIETIES

Following the adoption of TRIPS, the issue of sui generis protection of intellectual property rights
for plant varieties has become a matter of great importance. Article 27(3) (b) specifically requires all
Member States to' provide patents or an effective sui generis system or a combination thereof for the
protection of plant varieties.'7 This in essence sheds light on two broad aspects: First, the compulsory
introduction of plant patents was rejected by a number of countries in the North and the South.
Second, it was not possible for negotiators to agree on a specific alternative to patents. As a result,
TRIPS gives a wide margin of appreciation to member states in determining how to implement their
TRIPS obligations in accordance with their constitutional objectives and other international
commitments.

3.1 Sui Generis System and its importance

 The sui generis system offers an additional option to select ' new forms of intellectual property
rights ' not necessarily based on existing ones such as patents or plant breeders ' rights.
 The idea of sui generis protection provides ' conceptual justification ' for developing countries
to look beyond established categories of IPRs and to protect certain categories of inventions
in line with the specific characteristics of the field concerned and the specific needs of
individual countries.
 It provides a basis for integrating rights of intellectual property and sustainable development.

3.2 Elements of an effective sui generis system

Effectiveness' can be linked to' enforcement' under one school of thought, that is, the narrow concerns
of the holders of intellectual property rights and their interest in having any rights recognized and
enforced under Part III of the TRIPS Agreement. On the other hand,' Effectiveness' can be read as the
introduction of a protection regime that fully protects' all actors ' involved in the conservation and
development of plant varieties, that is, commercial actors and other agricultural actors. A number of
states that did not have the time or resources to develop a completely separate and locally relevant
sui generis regime decided to take over the rights of plant breeders under the UPOV without taking
full account of their impact (member states of the African Intellectual Property Organization simple
adopted a regime modeled after the 1991 Act of the UPOV Convention and at the same time

7
Sudhir Kocchar- “How Effective is the Sui Generis Plant Variety Protection in India: Some Initial Feedback”. Available at
https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2208399. Last accessed on 12-04-2019.
9
 committed themselves to joining the UPOV Convention on 24th February 1999 in the “Bangui
Agreement”).8

Some important components of an' effective' sui generis system involve:

 A sui generis protection system should not stop protecting innovators ' interests alone, but
should also seek to provide a framework that specifically promotes' food security' in line with
Article 8 of the TRIPS Agreement. 9
 In accordance with Article 7 of the TRIPS, an effective sui generis system integrates
sustainable development with the intellectual property rights regime.10

In the South, plant variety protection is a TRIPS Agreement creation. Being the primary document
framed with the aim of harmonizing Member States ' domestic laws on intellectual property, it
prescribes certain minimum requirements that must be complied with by each WTO contracting party.
The TRIPS agreement also provides for certain exceptions and flexibilities in addition to providing
for strict obligations. Article 27(3) (b) requires Member States to ensure that plant varieties are
protected by patents or sui generis systems or a combination of both. As a viable alternative to the
plant variety patent system, the option or exception of a sui generis system has been generated as it
provides sufficient flexibility for developing countries to design a system that best suits their
circumstances and meets their goals and objectives.11

Developing countries that are members of the WTO have multiple concerns; firstly, they must
implement all their international obligations in a coherent manner at national level, and secondly, the
TRIPS Agreement is one set of international obligations that must run at the same time as several
others, particularly in the context of intellectual property rights related to food security. Thus, the
flexibility contained in the TRIPS agreement with regard to the PVP sui generis system is of immense
importance and advantage to developing countries as a viable option, as opposed to the application
of a PVP patent scheme. It is therefore up to developing countries to make the most of the built-in
flexibility and India has responded to the TRIPS requirements by enacting a sui generis legislation
aimed at providing protection for plant varieties, farmers’ and breeders’ rights and incentives to
develop new plant varieties.

8
Ibid.
9
Sudhir Kocchar- “How Effective is the Sui Generis Plant Variety Protection in India: Some Initial Feedback”. Available at
https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2208399. Last accessed on 12-04-2019.
10
Ibid.
11
Ibid.
10
 4. SUI GENERIS SYSTEM IN INDIA

India plays a very critical role in the debate on plant variety protection, representing developing
nations' vulnerabilities and ambitions. This is due to the following reasons:

 India has access to a wide range of genetic resources and is a germplasm-owning country. 12
 It has a state-of-the-art stand in the country. This is due to the huge investments made in
agricultural research from scientists to technical assistants, especially during the Green
Revolution days, which created a strong scientific framework.13
 It has a wide repertoire of skilled workers, making comparative skills available at half the
cost.14
 The cost of the technology itself is another advantage from India's point of view.
Biotechnology is not capital, but labor intensive, unlike any other major technology that has
developed in recent times. This is a tailor-made situation for a cash-strapped country that is
rich in manpower.15

The history of the evolution of the sui generis plant variety protection of India can be traced back to
1999 when the Plant Variety Bill was introduced in December 1999 with a view to starting
parliamentary process before the deadline of 1 January 2000 for the implementation of TRIPS. 16 This
draft was by no means comprehensive and was largely the law of the rights of a plant breeder. In the
event that the act was not immediately adopted, it was referred to a joint parliamentary committee.
The committee ended up substantially rewriting the bill after several hearings in 2000. It maintained
the main provision regarding the rights regime of a plant breeder but added an important new chapter
on' the rights of the farmer.' In essence, therefore, the Committee added an element to the first draft
which, as analyzed below, created some imbalances in the overall legal regime proposed under the
Plant Variety Act.17

Finally, in 2001, the Plant Variety Act was passed. Rules were drawn up in 2003 following the
adoption of the Act. The 2001 Plant Variety Act has a clear mandate of twin. It is based on the need
to' recognize and protect the rights of farmers in respect of their contributions to the conservation,
improvement and availability of plant genetic resources for the development of new plant varieties at

12
Sudhir Kocchar- “How Effective is the Sui Generis Plant Variety Protection in India: Some Initial Feedback”. Available at
https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2208399. Last accessed on 12-04-2019.
13
Ibid.
14
Ibid.
15
Ibid.
16
Sudhir Kocchar- “How Effective is the Sui Generis Plant Variety Protection in India: Some Initial Feedback”. Available at
https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2208399. Last accessed on 12-04-2019.
17
Ibid.
11
 all times,' as well as' to protect the rights of plant breeders to stimulate investment in research and
development in both the public and private sectors for the development of new plant varieties.' The
act's objectives are generally much broader in scope than those of the UPOV Convention.

4.1 Merits of the act

The new plant variety must comply with the criteria of novelty, distinctiveness, uniformity and
stability under the plant variety act. It is striking that the PPVFR allows for the protection of four
types of varieties: a new variety, an extant variety, an essentially derived variety, and farmer's variety.
Extant variety is a broad category of varieties available in India that are notified under Section 5 of
the 1966 Seeds Act in situations where the quality of seeds for specific varieties sold for use in
agriculture has been deemed necessary.18 The farmer's varieties are those that are commonly known
about or in the public domain.

For different cases, the PPVFR provides different protection durations. More specifically, for trees
and vines, the protection period is 18 years from the date of the variety's registration; for existing
varieties, the protection period is 15 years from the date of the Central Government's notification of
that variety under Section 5 of the Seed Act 1996 and for other varieties, the protection period is 15
years from the date of the variety's registration.19

The Act's main contribution is the possibility granted to farmers under Section 39 to be offered the
same rights for their varieties as commercial breeders.20 In other words, farmers are entitled to save,
use, sow, re-sow, exchange, share or sell their agricultural products, including seeds. The only proviso
is not to' brand' these seeds with the registered name of the breeder. This protects the rights of both
farmers and breeders. The breeder is rewarded for his innovation, but without being able to threaten
the ability of the farmer to live independently and support other farmers ' livelihoods. In addition,
compensation may be claimed as part of the farmers ' rights if a variety fails to deliver the expected
performance under the given condition and leads to crop failure.

Some other valuable features of the act include the explicit and detailed disclosure requirements in
the passport data required when applying for a breeder's certificate; the complete ban on Gene Use
Restricting Technology (GURT), which is terminator technology, the exemption of farmers ' fees and
the guaranteed protection from innocent infringement.21 The Act recognizes that farmers are not only
innovators, but also important conservators of agro-biodiversity, with particular regard to the
environment. Thus, where farmers contribute to the conservation of the genetic resources of soil races

18
Sudhir Kocchar- “How Effective is the Sui Generis Plant Variety Protection in India: Some Initial Feedback”. Available at
https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2208399. Last accessed on 12-04-2019.
19
Ibid.
20
Ibid.
21
Bonwoo Koo, Carol Nottenburg and Philip G. Pardey- “Plants and Intellectual Property: An International Appraisal”. Available at
http://www.jstor.org/stable/3839574. Last accessed 16-09-2016, 21:58.
12
 and wild relatives of plants whose genes have been used in varieties protected under the Act or where
they contribute to the improvement of these same plants through selection and preservation, they are
entitled to a financial reward. The National Gene Fund established under the Act will institute this
reward. Despite being narrowed for economic use alone, the conservation focus is noteworthy for at
least recognizing the link between conservation and use.22

4.2 Demerits of the act

Despite being christened as a progressive PVP legislation, there are a number of shortcomings faced
by the Plant Variety Act. First of all, it remains unclear whether farmers will ever be able to benefit
from the relatively generous provisions of the Act while there is a framework for the registration of
farmers ' varieties, but very few farmers, if any, will be able to benefit from their provisions because
their varieties generally do not meet the criteria of distinctive character, uniformity and stability.

The second corollary relates to the varieties that are essentially derived. On the one hand, the Act
clearly indicates that it aims to provide a framework for safeguarding the rights of both commercial
breeders and farmers. On the other hand, while India officially seeks to join the UPOV Convention
Act of 1978, the Act provides not only for the protection of new varieties but also for the protection
of varieties that are essentially derived.

In addition, Section 46. 2(d) the use of farmers ' varieties for the production of new varieties will have
to be paid for and the income will flow to the Gene Fund.23 Despite the good intentions to protect the
farming community, this section's formulation is likely to create implementation problems due to
poor, even incomplete, drafting. With regard to the liability clause for protection against bad seed,
the plant variety authority has too much discretion to determine the compensation. This will result in
arbitrary decisions, according to national NGOs working in the field such as the Gene Campaign.
They suggest that if a breeder has made false claims and the farmer has suffered a crop failure as a
result, compensation must be awarded at least twice the projected harvest value. Furthermore, if the
offense is repeated, a prison term should be provided. It can therefore be concluded that the Act in
principle exhibits noble intentions, but in practice it appears likely that the original emphasis of the
1999 Bill will prevail.

4.3 Other acts in relation to PVP

The Plant Variety Act is not the only legislative instrument of relevance to plant variety protection in
India at the very beginning. There are at least two more related acts. It will be difficult to strike a

22
Bonwoo Koo, Carol Nottenburg and Philip G. Pardey- “Plants and Intellectual Property: An International Appraisal”. Available at
http://www.jstor.org/stable/3839574. Last accessed 16-09-2016, 21:58.
23
Bonwoo Koo, Carol Nottenburg and Philip G. Pardey- “Plants and Intellectual Property: An International Appraisal”. Available at
http://www.jstor.org/stable/3839574. Last accessed 16-09-2016, 21:58.
13
 balance between economic use and conservation without specific implementation-level coordination
between these acts. The first of these is the 1970 Patents Act. As the Patents Act specifically prohibits
the patentability of plant varieties, there is a clear distinction between the two in principle. Because
patents on biological material used for inventions in the field of agricultural genetic engineering will
be sought in the future, there is a direct connection with agriculture. There is also a direct connection
with the varieties and existing varieties of the farmer. The Act does not mention these links. The
second related act is the 2002 Biodiversity Act, which in practice mainly focuses on accessing
biological resources, controlling these resources, and sharing knowledge and benefits. In addition,
the Biodiversity Act specifically addresses IPR-related issues; therefore, there is significant potential
for confrontation in practice.

Thus, there are substantial overlaps between the mandates of the three Acts requiring specific
coordination provisions. Also, when the three Acts are implemented, the issue of benefit sharing is
likely to cause significant problems. For example, the Patents Act does not provide for any sharing
of benefits even though the Biodiversity Act provides for sharing of benefits in cases where patents
relating to biological material are granted. Furthermore, since the Act was adopted, new international
legal obligations have come into force, such as the PGRFA Treaty, which must be harmoniously
integrated.24

Therefore, it can be concluded that the regime of' Indian sui generis' can be viewed from two
completely different perspectives. On the one hand, the Plant Variety Act is a progressive law as it
clearly recognizes that farmers ' rights can be conceived as intellectual property rights in exactly the
same way as other human creativity products.25 On the other hand, it seems likely that the chapter on
farmers ' rights will not be implemented due to its incoherent construction, lack of coordination with
other acts added to the pressure from the government, when joining the UPOV Convention.26

24
Bonwoo Koo, Carol Nottenburg and Philip G. Pardey- “Plants and Intellectual Property: An International Appraisal”. Available at
http://www.jstor.org/stable/3839574. Last accessed 16-09-2016, 21:58.
25
Ibid.
26
Ibid.
14
 5. CONCLUSION

The international legal framework of today remains partly inconclusive with regard to the type of
farm management it seeks to promote. While the TRIPS Agreement generally seeks to encourage
private appropriation of inventions, the PGRFA Treaty is much more hesitant as it seeks to promote
free flows of plant genetic resources while accepting the validity of claims for intellectual property
rights over transformed material. This confirms that there is no a priori reason for emphasizing rather
than weakening the strengthening of IPR protections. Various treaties with the same mandates may
find no coordination mechanisms in their provisions due to the decentralized nature of international
law. The TRIPS Agreement and the Biodiversity Convention have an equality relationship in so far
as each has been independently negotiated by Member States and has the same legal weight. The
TRIPS Agreement makes no mention whatsoever of any environmental agreement and does not even
recognize the possibility of overlaps.

Given such a fragmented international law position, it is important to conclude that IPR is indeed
integrated in agriculture and sustainable development. Introducing intellectual property rights in
agriculture cannot be dissociated from preserving agro-biodiversity, protecting traditional knowledge
in general, and the scope of life patenting that influences genetic engineering development. Sound
international decisions are the fine balance between the complex aspirations and vulnerabilities of the
present time. The harmonization of the split international law is therefore the only solution to the
mutual needs of the north and the south.

An alternative treaty such as the one drawn up by gene campaign along with the Center for
Environmental and Agricultural Development called the CoFaB can be one suggested solution to the
developing nations ' dilemma. CoFab provides UPOV with an alternative treaty to provide a forum
to implement their farmers ' and breeders ' rights for developing countries. It reflects their strengths
and vulnerabilities and seeks to secure their agricultural policy interests.

Finally, as far as overlaps are concerned, the final word for plant variety protection lies in another
interrelated but crucial issue, namely' agricultural subsidies.' It is argued that the introduction of PVPs
will not have a positive impact on international agricultural trade as long as agricultural subsidies
restrict market access. Developing the ability of nations to take advantage of PVPs depends on
interaction with other market mechanisms. Therefore, the impediments from agricultural subsidies
must first be removed in order for nations to benefit from PVPs.

15
 6. BIBLIOGRAPHY

Articles

 Rohan Dang and Chandni Goel- “Sui Generis Plant Variety Protection: The Indian Perspective”.
Available at https://thescipub.com/pdf/10.3844/ajebasp.2009.303.312.
 Sudhir Kocchar- “How Effective is the Sui Generis Plant Variety Protection in India: Some
Initial Feedback”. Available at https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2208399.
 Bonwoo Koo, Carol Nottenburg and Philip G. Pardey- “Plants and Intellectual Property: An
International Appraisal”. Available at http://www.jstor.org/stable/3839574.
 C. Niranjan Rao- “Indian Seed System and Plant Variety Protection”. Available at
http://www.jstor.org/stable/4414678.

Online Databases

 www.jstor.org

16