The Article has been written by Ms. Debanjoli Deb Roy, a 3rd year student of University Law College, Gauhati University, Guwahati.
Welcome to the arena of plant range and sustainable agriculture. In this article, we delve into the essential interaction among numerous plant types and the pursuit of sustainable agricultural practices. From the renovation of biodiversity to the enhancement of crop resilience, we discuss the varied plant range and the sustainability of our agricultural systems. This article studies the crucial position of various plant types in making sure a greater resilient, environmentally conscious, and efficient agricultural future to the arena of plant range and sustainable agriculture.
WHAT IS SUSTAINABLE AGRICULTURE?
Sustainable agriculture refers to a technique of farming that aims to offer cutting-edge agricultural wishes without compromising the potential destiny of future generations to fulfill their personal wishes. It includes practices that prioritize environmental health, monetary profitability, and social and monetary equity. This method frequently consists of strategies like crop rotation, natural farming, agro forestry, incorporated pest management, and the usage of renewable resources, aiming to lessen the environmental effect of farming even as preserving productivity. It strives to limit the usage of artificial inputs like insecticides and fertilizers, preserve soil fertility, lessen water consumption, and sell biodiversity, contributing to extra resilient and environmentally pleasant meals production.
SIGNIFICANCE
Sustainable development is important because it harmonizes financial growth, social progress, and environmental protection, making sure the desires of the prevailing without compromising the future generations’ potential to fulfill their very own desires. It addresses worldwide challenging situations like weather change, poverty, inequality, and useful resource depletion, fostering a balanced and inclusive global. Economically, it stimulates innovation, creating green jobs and industries while enhancing efficiency and reducing costs in the long term. Socially, it goals for equitable access to resources, education, and healthcare, fostering resilient communities. Environmentally, it preserves biodiversity, mitigates climate change, and decreases pollution, making sure a healthier planet. By integrating those aspects, sustainable development gives a pathway closer to a extra just, prosperous, and solid global for contemporary and destiny generations.
PLANT VARIETIES
Plant varieties talk over with special variations of a selected plant species which have particular traits. These versions may be either obviously happening or evolved via selective breeding or genetic modification. They embody a huge variety of attributes, which includes variations in size, color, taste, boom habits, resistance to sicknesses or pests, and adaptableness to diverse environmental situations. The improvement of plant types includes diverse techniques, which include hybridization, mutation breeding, and genetic engineering.
There are numerous styles of plant types:
- Open-Pollinated Varieties: These are the vegetation which is pollinated via way of means of herbal approach like insects, wind, or birds. They are the end result of cross-pollination inside the equal species, preserving steady developments from one technology to the next.
- Hybrid Varieties: These are produced by means of crossbreeding. Two different breeding lines are associated to create a hybrid that regularly reveals acceptable traits like expanded yield, sickness resistance, or uniformity. Hybrid vegetation does not produce seeds that reliably bring the equal developments in next generations.
- Heirloom Varieties: These are open-pollinated plant types which have been handed down via generations because of their valued traits which include taste, appearance, or historic significance. They regularly have extended records and are loved for their particular attributes.
- GMOs (Genetically Modified Organisms): These are the vegetation which have had their genetic cloth altered for the use of biotechnological techniques to introduce particular developments like resistance to pests, tolerance to herbicides, or stepped forward dietary content.
Plant types are vital in agriculture, horticulture, and gardening. They permit farmers to select plants which are fine proper for his or her particular developing situations and patron preferences. Additionally, the range in plant types facilitates to make sure meals safety via the means of imparting alternatives which are resilient to diverse environmental challenges, pests, and sicknesses. Furthermore, they make a great contribution to the renovation of biodiversity and cultural history via the means of retaining conventional and indigenous plant species.
PROMOTING SUSTAINABLE AGRICULTURE VIA PLANT VARIETY PROTECTION
Sustainable agriculture has ended up as a critical thing in addressing foods safety, environmental conservation, and financial stability. At the heart of this endeavor lies the safety of plant varieties, an essential issue that guarantees the range and resilience of vegetation in the face of converting climates and developing worldwide call for food. In this regard, the implementation of Plant Variety Protection (PVP) mechanisms serves as a crucial device in fostering sustainable agricultural practices.
Understanding Plant Variety Protection
Plant Variety Protection refers to the legal safeguarding of latest plant sorts, allowing breeders to have different rights over their creations for a positive period. This safety encourages funding in studies and research, incentivizing the advent of latest, advanced crop varieties that show off greater tendencies along with ailment resistance, expanded yields, and adaptableness to diverse environmental conditions.
The establishment of PVP gives a way for breeders to investment time, effort, and assets into growing new varieties without the fear of on spot imitation or exploitation. This, in turn, results in the availability of a much wider array of crop diversity that make contributions to the diversification of agriculture, in the long run assisting worldwide foods safety and agricultural sustainability.
PLANT VARIETIES PROTECTION IN INDIA
Plant Varieties Protection in India refers back to the Legal framework that safeguards the rights of breeders and encourages innovation in the subject of agriculture. India’s Legislation regarding plant variety protection is by and large governed through the Protection of Plant Varieties and Farmers’ Rights Act, 2001. This act targets to shield the rights of plant breeders, making sure they get recognition and reward for their efforts in growing new plant varieties. The law additionally, upholds the rights of farmers through letting them freely utilize, exchange, and store seeds whilst shielding them from exploitation. Protection of Plant Varieties and Farmers’ Rights Authority (PPV and FRA) implemented these protections in order to safeguard farmer’s rights. This organization not only oversees the registration and protection of plant varieties but also promotes the interests of both the breeders and the farming community. The legislation serves as a pivotal mechanism in enhancing agricultural productivity, fostering innovation, and protecting the rights of both breeders and farmers in the diverse agricultural landscape of India.
Case Studies
Following are the 4 landmark judgments based on The Protection of Plant Varieties and Farmers Right Act, 2001:
1.Mosanto Technology LLC v. Nuziveedu and Ors (3SCC 381)
Mosanto was the breeder. Mosanto and Nuziveedu entered into a 10-year sublicense agreement under which Nuziveedu has the right to use Mosanto’s patented technology. The agreement gave the defendant the right to develop “Genetically modified cotton-cotton hybrid seeds”. It was also stated that Nuziveedu must pay the license fees stipulated in the agreement, meanwhile Nuziveedu found out that the fee stipulated in the agreement is higher than the fee stipulated by law and as a result the parties had disagreements and this caused the termination of the contract with Mosanto.
Mosanto then sought a temporary injunction against Nuziveedu to restrict him from using their registered trademark and from using or selling seeds or hybrid seeds using his patented technology due to the pending conclusion of the lawsuit and the settlement.
The defendants argued that their rights were well protected under the Plant Protection and Plant Varieties Act 2001.
The plaintiff had a Nucleic acid sequence that is not a living organism and is chemically processed in a laboratory. According to paragraph 3(j) of the TRIPS Agreement, Parties may exclude from patentability plants and animals other than micro organisms, and essentially biological processes for the production of plants or animals other than non-biological and microbiological processes. The defendants claimed that they used a biological process, but the plaintiff did not, and therefore the plaintiff’s patent was invalidated, which did not count for infringement.
When the plaintiffs’ application for an injunction was presented to the single judge, he found that the issues raised in the suit required formal evidence and expert testimony. Thus, this issue in the suit had to be heard after the pleadings were completed and the evidence collected.
In the meantime, it was noted that since the suit was still pending, the defendant had to pay the plaintiff the contractual license fee.
Aggrieved by this decision, both the parties filed for appeal and the Division Bench dismissed plaintiff’s appeal and upheld defendants claim regarding patent exclusion as per sec 3(j) of the Act and that the plaintiffs were at liberty to claim registration under the PPVFR Act, as the two Acts were not complementary, but exclusive in the case of all processes and products falling under Section 3(j) of the Act. Defendant’s counter claim succeeded .The suit was then allowed to continue with damages and other reliefs. Even thought lack of patentability wasn’t an issue, both respondents still tried to invalidate the patent. The court was silent about this and then it was decided that the matter should go to Supreme Court. The Supreme Court then held that the matter cannot be deposed of by the Division Bench on a summary basis and therefore the order is vacated. Supreme Court then restored the decision of Single Judge and left for it to decide the patent matter elaborately based on expert evidence.
The case is yet to be decided by the Single Judge.
- Sungro Seeds Ltd, V. Union of India and Anr (9th January, 2015)
This case talks about seed of a plant variety to be taken into consideration as a novelty if a hybrid seed is crafted from it. The issue was that petitioner had contended that an order passed by the Registrar against them was impugned. The order that was passed was that a Protection of Plant Varieties and Farmers’ Rights Authority holds that parent lines of known hybrid varieties, could not be registered as “new” plant varieties under the Protection of Plant Varieties and Farmers’ Rights. According to petitioners, even when a hybrid crop has been produced from a parental seed, a parental seed would still be eligible to be considered under the category of a novel product and that a hybrid and a parental seed can be separately registered for novelty under the Act. It was held that if the hybrid falls under the category of extant variety about which there is common knowledge then its parental lines cannot be treated as novel.
- Pioneer Overseas Corporation v. Chairperson,2019
The petitioner in this case has a plant variety which is protected under The Patents Act,1970.. Pioneer claims that KMH50 is identical/similar to its variety of maize referred to as 30V92 thus Kaveri has indulged in misappropriation of germplasm of Pioneer’s variety 30V92. Kaveri’s application for registration of it’s variety had been accepted merely based on DUS test report findings. Therefore, the procedure for registration too was questioned here.
Pioneer not only filed an opposition against the registration application of Kaveri’s variety but it also showed evidences which demonstrates that there is 99.45% – 99.80% similarity between the two varieties. It has also filed an application under Section 24(5) of the Act for conducting special test (DNA Test) by the authority also for determining the genetic similarity of KMH50 and 30V92 in support of its claim of germplasm theft. It also claimed that Kaveri also abused the provision by making false declaration and providing incorrect information.
On these arguments, Kaveri did not show any expressed intention of filing their counter statement nor contested the technical evidence or established lawful development and ownership of KMH-50.
The court rejected application for conducting special test and the Registrar held that the two varieties fulfills the criteria of DUS (distinctiveness, uniformity and stability) after the test had been conducted and hence the need for no special test. It then said that both the varieties were eligible for registration.
But then the Court examined whether Pioneer’s opposition was required to be rejected only on the ground that Kaveri’s variety KMH-50 had qualified the DUS Test and held that the answer to this question was clearly in the negative.
The court interpreted rule 29 establishing that the special test could be requested by a person aggrieved, be it an applicant for registering its plant variety in case where DUS test fails or even by an opponent challenging/contesting registration of a candidate variety. The court ruled that the reliance on rule 29(1) by the registrar for rejecting the application for conducting special test was misplaced.
Pioneer’s application then for requesting a special test was restored to the file of Registrar. After DUS tests were conducted, based on the results, the Court prima facie held that the characteristics of both the variety qualified for DUS test and that both were more or less identical to each other when compared inter se.
In the view of above, the impugned orders by the Registrar were set ACC aside, that Kaveri cannot apply for registration and that the special test as requested by Pioneer be restored to Registrar’s file. The parties therefore were left go bear their own costs
- Umakant Dubey v. The Chairperson of PPVFR, 2013
The petitioners in this writ petition were appointed by the Statutory Authority under The Protection of Plant Varieties and Farmers’ Act, 2001(PPV & FR Act). Petitioners were appointed as Senior Technical Officers by the Selection Committee. Along with the petitioner, there were also others who were appointed by direct recruitment. Sec 20 of PPV&FR Act says that you cannot appoint or recruit anyone until you have issued advertisements in the Employment News and in atleast one national daily. The respondents later sent a show cause notice that the appointment is invalid and thereby ending the services of petitioner and therefore the petitioner approached the court to seek relief.
It was contended by the Court that subordinate legislation cannot override a parent Act provision.
The court observed that the Authority should examine the impact of Rule 3 as well as Rule 20 of the Act and that the Authority can also make direct recruitments and appointments after posts have been created if necessary approval is taken from Central Government.
It was therefore determined that the petitioners can continue their services and in case the Authority tries to remove them in future, the petitioners at liberty to approach the court anytime.
IMPACTS AND CHALLENGES
The implementation of PVP has yielded enormous blessings in improving agricultural sustainability. It has advocated innovation, expanded crop resilience, and contributed to foods safety. However, challenges persist. Access to protected varieties, especially for small-scale farmers in developing countries, remains a concern. Balancing the protection of intellectual property rights with ensuring access to critical agricultural resources for these farmers is an ongoing challenge.
Additionally, the emerging technologies such as gene editing pose new questions and challenges for the existing PVP framework. The need to adapt legal frameworks to accommodate and regulate these new breeding techniques while ensuring safety and fairness is an evolving area of concern.
CONCLUSION
Plant Variety Protection stands as an indispensable mechanism in promoting sustainable agriculture by encouraging innovation, fostering crop resilience, and ensuring food security. The case studies discussed underline the vital role of PVP in addressing regional and global agricultural challenges. However, the continual evolution of these mechanisms to address emerging challenges and maintain a balance between innovation and access is critical to the future of sustainable agriculture.
REFERENCES
1. https://legaldesire.com/top-landmark-judgements-on-farmers-rights-in-india/