Indian farmers and experts are urging the government to reject proposed expansions to the International Treaty on Plant Genetic Resources for Food and Agriculture.
They expressed fear that the treaty could undermine India’s sovereignty over its agricultural genetic resources.
They contended that the modifications would expose India's resources to global seed corporations, potentially jeopardising farmers' rights and national sovereignty.
Civil society organisations, farmers group and scientists in India are raising an urgent alarm over proposed changes to an international agreement on plant resources just weeks before a crucial meeting in Lima, Peru.
The 11th session of the governing body of the International Treaty on Plant Genetic Resources for Food and Agriculture (ITPGRFA) is scheduled for the last week of November 2025.
Groups like the Alliance for Sustainable and Holistic Agriculture, Kisan Swaraj, Rashtriya Kisan Mahasangh, Bharat Beej Swaraj Manch and Scientists for Genetic Diversity have written to high ranking government officials, including Prime Minister Narendra Modi and ministers Shivraj Singh Chouhan and Bhupender Yadav, urging them to protect India’s sovereignty and farmers’ rights.
The main concern is a proposal to dramatically expand the scope of the multilateral system (MLS) of access and benefit sharing under the ITPGRFA.
Currently, MLS covers 64 crops but the amendment seeks to expand this to include all other plant genetic resources for food and agriculture (PGRFA), except for a few limited species a country might list only at the time of ratification (negative list).
Civil society groups warned that this expansion would effectively open up nearly all of India’s agricultural genetic resources to seed companies in developed countries, leading to the internationalisation of control over these resources.
They argue that this move would dismantle India’s ability to decide how, when and by whom its agricultural genetic resources are accessed.
Furthermore, this expansion directly conflicts with India’s national law, specifically the Biological Diversity Act, 2002 and the Protection of Plant Varieties and Farmers' Rights Authority, 2001, which assert India’s sovereign control and farmers custodianship over genetic resources.
The controversy intensified following a consultation meeting where Sunil Archak, officer-in-charge of Germplasm Exchange (National Bureau of Plant Genetic Resources) and co-chair of the working group that proposed the amendments, presented his perspective.
Archak’s arguments, as reported by the concerned organisations, included:
Expansion is not mandatory, and India retains the freedom to choose which PGRFA accessions to make available under the MLS.
India is not currently giving seeds to the MLS but is receiving and benefiting from several seeds through it.
India needs the MLS to be expanded to gain access to resources from crops like soyabean, tomato, groundnut and oil palm.
Farmers and experts strongly disagree, stating that Archak’s assertions are patently untrue and risk misleading national policy decisions.
They emphasised that the plant treaty is a binding international legal instrument that prohibits reservations (Article 30). Article 11 and 12 clearly obligate parties to share all PGRFA that falls within the scope of the MLS.
Contrary to the claim that India is not sharing seeds, records show that India has already provided more than 400,000 samples to MLS and this material includes farmers’ varieties, according to the Government of India notifications.
Experts also argued that benefit of accessing just a few crops like soyabean and tomato does not outweigh the massive cost of giving up India’s sovereign rights over its genetic resource base.
They noted that India already possesses substantial diversity in these crops and can access additional varieties through bilateral agreements, avoiding the need to surrender its national sovereignty.
A major concern is the current lack of governance, accountability and tracking within MLS. Critics state there is no reliable system to track who is accessing the seeds, for what purposes or what commercial products are developed, undermining benefit-sharing.
Furthermore, proposed package of amendments seeks to ligitimise non transparent practices and even introduces new confidentiality clauses in the standard material transfer agreement (SMTA).
The proposed amendments also fail to regulate digital sequence information (DSI) generated from shared plant resources.
Organisations warned that this lack of regulation facilitates digital biopiracy and allows data to be shared anonymous to databases that are not accountable to India or governing body.
This gives big agribusiness and multinational seed companies access to India’s genetic wealth without providing accountabilityor transparency.
Based on these concerns, farmer organisations and scientists are demanding that the Government of India take several key actions at GB-11 in Lima. They have called for the country to reject the proposal to expand Annex 1 to include all PGRFA as it undermines India’s sovereignity rights.
India should call for mandatory transparency, including making list of recipients and details of PGRFA, accessed through the MLS publicly available, they said. The government should also oppose the newly introduced confidentiality clauses in the SMTA.
The dissenting bodies also said India should insist on measures to regulate DSI ensuring it is shared only through accountable databases and cannot be used for unauthorised purposes or claiming intellectual property rights.
A skilled negotiator with experience in multilateral negotiations should be appointed by the Indian government, the groups said. The negotiator can potentially be from the Union Ministry of External Affairs to attend GB-11. The govenrment should also restrict Sunil Archak, whose role as co-chair creates a conflict of interest with defending India’s national interests.
Finally, India should coordinate with like-minded countries in the Global South to demand comprehensive reforms to MLS governance, transparency and traceability before any expansion is adopted, they suggested.
The groups will also hold a press briefing on November 18, 2025 to present their objections and concerns on these developments. The briefing will address critical questions about the national position, including whether an expanded treaty would place all of India's publicly held genetic plant resources under international access, if India would lose national oversight and what risks face farmers’ seed sovereignty.