International Treaty on Plant Genetic Resources for Food and Agriculture

Context (TH): Indian farmers and activists are opposing proposed amendments to the Plant Treaty, citing threats to seed sovereignty and the rights of farmers.

Also known as the Plant Treaty, it is a binding agreement adopted in 2001 during the FAO’s 31st session in Madrid and took effect in 2004.
The FAO administers it in Rome with 149 member countries and the EU, including India.
- ICAR–NBPGR is India’s nodal agency for the treaty-related coordination.
It encourages the preservation and sharing of plant genetic resources to enhance food security and support climate resilience.
This is the first globally binding treaty to officially acknowledge the importance of indigenous and smallholder farmers in conserving agrobiodiversity.

Multilateral System (MLS): It enables members to share & access food and forage crops listed in Annexe I for research, breeding, and conservation.
Standard Material Transfer Agreement (SMTA): A treaty-based contract granting access to MLS crops that mandates benefit-sharing if the crops are used commercially.
Farmers’ Rights (Article 9): Recognizes rights to save, use, exchange, and sell farm-saved material, and share benefits from genetic resources.
Benefit Sharing Fund: Financed by SMTA users and donors to support on-farm conservation and capacity-building in developing countries.
Annexe I: It lists 64 key crops vital for global food security, including rice, wheat, maize, potato, and sorghum, shared under the MLS.
IPR Limitation Clause: It prevents exclusive rights claims on MLS materials that could limit others from using them.

Annexe I Expansion: Aims to include all Plant Genetic Resources for Food and Agriculture (PGRFA) within the MLS.
- PGRFA refers to any plant genetic material with actual or potential value for food and agriculture.
Mandatory SMTA: Designates SMTA as the exclusive mechanism for accessing any listed PGRFA, overriding national frameworks.
Centralised Governance: Transfers decision-making authority on access from national biodiversity agencies to the Treaty’s Governing Body.

Sovereignty Undermined: The expanded MLS might require India to give access to native genetic resources without retaining national control.
Legal Conflict: The proposal conflicts with India’s PPV&FR Act and BD Act, which regulate seed access and benefit-sharing.
Farmers’ Rights at Risk: Article 9 protections and India’s seed-saving traditions could be compromised by uniform global regulations.
Federal Dilution: State Biodiversity Boards may lose powers under a centralised access regime.