Multilateral Regulatory Regimes and Plant Breeding

The document examines the tension between international intellectual property (IP) regimes, such as UPOV and TRIPS, and frameworks protecting farmers' rights and biodiversity, such as the ITPGRFA and the Nagoya Protocol. It argues that the lack of a single comprehensive framework creates legal confusion for developing countries, which are often pressured to adopt strict IP protections that may marginalize small-scale producers and Indigenous communities. The brief suggests that governments can utilize 'sui generis' systems to create tiered levels of protection that safeguard both commercial innovation and traditional seed-sharing practices.

• International legal frameworks for germplasm are contradictory and incoherent, spanning trade agreements, biosecurity, biodiversity conservation, Indigenous rights, and intellectual property law, making it impossible for national governments to conform easily to all of them.
• Developing countries face increasing pressure, often through bilateral and regional free trade agreements, to implement IP protections for plant breeders that exceed the minimum requirements of multilateral agreements, typically favoring commercial seed firms over traditional breeders and the public interest.
• The UPOV 1991 treaty provides breeders with exclusive rights to a variety for 20 years if it is new, distinct, homogenous, and stable, but its 'farmers' privilege' is limited to self-consumption on the farmer's own land, which critics argue restricts traditional seed exchange.
• The TRIPS Agreement obliges WTO members to protect plant variety IP either through patents or an effective sui generis system, though many members are encouraged to adopt the UPOV framework.
• The FAO's International Treaty on Plant Genetic Resources for Food and Agriculture (ITPGRFA) and the UN Declaration on the Rights of Peasants both recognize the rights of farmers to save, use, exchange, and sell seeds, providing a counterweight to strict IP laws.
• Benefit-sharing remains a critical point of contention because major IP frameworks like TRIPS and UPOV do not require the mandatory disclosure of the source of genetic material or Traditional Knowledge, increasing the risk of misappropriation.
• The emergence of 'digital sequence information' (genomic data) has created new challenges for benefit-sharing, as it is unclear if international treaties cover only physical germplasm or also the underlying genetic sequences.
• Governments can implement 'sui generis' systems to allow flexibility; for example, India's law allows farmers to save and share protected varieties as long as they do not use a trademarked brand name.

APA

Baliño, S., Laan, T., & Murphy, S. (2020). Multilateral Regulatory Regimes and Plant Breeding. International Institute for Sustainable Development. https://www.iisd.org/system/files/2020-09/multilateral-regulatory-regimes-plant-breeding.pdf

Chicago

Baliño, Sofia, Tara Laan, and Sophia Murphy. Multilateral Regulatory Regimes and Plant Breeding. International Institute for Sustainable Development, 2020. https://www.iisd.org/system/files/2020-09/multilateral-regulatory-regimes-plant-breeding.pdf.

Wikipedia

{{cite report |last1=Baliño |first1=Sofia |last2=Laan |first2=Tara |last3=Murphy |first3=Sophia |title=Multilateral Regulatory Regimes and Plant Breeding |publisher=International Institute for Sustainable Development |date=September 2020 |url=https://www.iisd.org/system/files/2020-09/multilateral-regulatory-regimes-plant-breeding.pdf |access-date=17 August 2026 |via=Climate Insights Directory}}

BibTeX

@techreport{balio2020multilateral, author = {Baliño, Sofia and Laan, Tara and Murphy, Sophia}, title = {{Multilateral Regulatory Regimes and Plant Breeding}}, institution = {International Institute for Sustainable Development}, year = {2020}, month = sep, url = {https://www.iisd.org/system/files/2020-09/multilateral-regulatory-regimes-plant-breeding.pdf}, urldate = {2026-08-17}, note = {Indexed by Climate Insights Directory} }