Farmers’ groups, seed savers and environmental advocates across India have warned that a new international agreement could allow global corporations to access India’s traditional seeds without adequate safeguards for farmers’ rights.
The discussions are part of the UN’s International Treaty on Plant Genetic Resources for Food and Agriculture (PGRFA), commonly known as the Plant Treaty. It aims to facilitate the exchange of seeds and ensure equitable sharing of the benefits arising from their use, including when private companies develop commercial crops from traditional varieties.
The treaty is important for global food security and crop diversity, particularly at a time when climate change and corporate concentration threaten small farmers and traditional agriculture.
Governments are meeting in Lima, Peru from July 7 to 11, 2025, to negotiate a new “package of measures” under the treaty. India is co-chairing the talks. However, civil society groups said the proposals on the table could prioritise corporate interests while weakening protections for farmers.
At present, the treaty includes a multilateral system that covers 64 food crops, such as wheat and rice. Countries agree to make these genetic resources available, while companies are expected to share a portion of the profits when commercialising products based on them.
But the system has failed to deliver. Millions of seed samples have been shared globally, yet countries like India have received little in return, both in terms of financial benefit and transparency.
To address these, negotiators have proposed a new “dual-access” system. This would allow companies to acquire seeds in two ways:
A subscription model, in which a company pays a fixed fee for broad access.
A single-access model, in which payment is made only when a product is commercialised.
Critics say the flexibility of this system gives too much freedom to companies. They could even switch between the two options to avoid paying a fair amount. For example, a company could delay announcing that it is selling a new product or switch to the cheaper model just before launching it.
“The moment you open access without strong conditions, global corporations could access seed collections without any obligation to share benefits,” said KM Gopakumar of the non-profit Third World Network. “They would then make new varieties and protect them under intellectual property laws.”
Another key concern is the issue of digital sequence information (DSI) or the genetic data extracted from seeds. Using modern biotechnology, companies can download genetic data from public databases, develop new seeds from it and commercialise the results without ever using the physical seed or compensating the source country.
Research groups like Consultative Group on International Agricultural Research centres and others generate sequence information from seeds shared by countries like India and upload it to online databases, wrote KV Biju, national coordinator of the Rashtriya Kisan Mahasangh, in a letter to the prime minister.
“India receives nothing in return, not even a record of who is using the data. The package of measures seeks to legitimise current practices such as ‘anonymous sharing’ in the name of open access,” Biju warned.
Without proper data governance, India stands to lose sovereignty over the genetic data of its biological resources, he added.
“The single-access model and silence on DSI benefit-sharing are the most dangerous parts of this proposal. Much of India’s biodiversity could fall outside the control of our National Biodiversity Authority,” Gopakumar added.
Narasimha Reddy, a policy expert on seeds and agriculture, warned that emerging agreements over DSI could erode India’s capacity to regulate its genetic wealth. “The discussions at ITPGRFA are moving towards a regime that eases access for multinationals while making it harder for farmers,” he said. “It could undermine India’s stand against patents and threaten the tradition of Indian farmers to select, sow, breed, share, save and store seeds.”
This shift, he added, could threaten Indian farmers’ traditional practices of selecting, saving, sharing and breeding seeds. “Without regulatory control over DSI, it will be harder for Indian farmers to breed seeds based on their own needs, knowledge, and nutritional requirements. This could turn plant variety protection into a tool to help seed companies, not farmers.”
Legal researcher Shalini Bhutani pointed out that farmers’ rights are meaningful only if they translate into control over how seeds are saved, used and shared.
“Even if farmers have rights under national or international laws, the real test is whether they have a say in how local seeds are handled,” she said. “Seed saving is often done by women and Indigenous farmers and their knowledge must be recognised and protected.”
She emphasised that farmers’ varieties and landraces (traditional seed types) play an increasingly vital role in climate resilience and nutritional security. However, she warned that two decades of the treaty and India’s own Protection of Plant Varieties and Farmers’ Rights (PPV&FR) Act had yielded little tangible benefit for farmers, despite thousands of varieties being registered.
Bhutani identified two structural gaps, disparity and diversity. Profits for large seed companies have grown, while rural farmers remain impoverished, and traditional varieties are being lost and a small number of crops now dominate global diets.
“Unless these issues are addressed, expanding the treaty’s scope from 64 crops to all PGRFA is deeply troubling,” she said. She urged countries to consider whether such changes align with their commitments under Article 9 of the Plant Treaty (on farmers’ rights), the Global Biodiversity Framework and the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Peasants.
One major proposal under discussion would broaden the treaty’s scope to include all PGRFA, including wild, uncultivated and non-edible plants. Critics say this risks sweeping up vast swathes of India’s biodiversity under a system that has already failed to deliver.
“Even worse, the benefits will neither be shared through Food and Agriculture Organization of the UN nor India’s national authorities. India and its farmers stand to gain nothing,” Biju wrote to the PM. He noted that companies use seeds not only for agriculture but for food processing, biotechnology and medicine. Yet profits from these uses are rarely shared.
“A medicine can be developed using Indian seeds... eventually such medicines would be sold at high prices back to Indian public health systems,” he wrote.
Many farmer groups believe corporate interests are increasingly shaping the treaty’s agenda. “Most international forums are directly influenced by corporate houses,” Biju wrote. “They are shaping the agenda and outcomes of such treaties to protect their commercial interests, often sidelining the voices of farmers, Indigenous communities and civil society.”
India is not alone in its concerns. Countries in Africa, Asia and Latin America have also criticised the draft package for contradicting the Convention on Biological Diversity, undermining national laws like India’s Biodiversity Act and PPV&FR Act and ignoring the contributions and rights of traditional custodians of seed diversity.
Some regions, including Latin America and the Caribbean, have suggested alternatives, such as mandatory upfront payments or limitations on the single-access model. But consensus remains elusive. Meanwhile, industry representatives are lobbying for simplified rules that lower their financial obligations.
In India, one of the strongest criticisms is the lack of consultation with farmers’ groups and state governments, even though the outcome could directly affect their seeds, knowledge and rights.
“We request the government to consult farmers’ organisations and state governments before endorsing any package of measures,” Biju urged.
The Peru meeting is the last major opportunity to revise or reject the package before the final decision is made at the Governing Body meeting in November 2025.
“India must make it clear that the co-chair’s proposals do not represent our national position,” Biju warned. “Otherwise, we risk being forced to accept a treaty that goes against our laws and our farmers.”