The debate around the GATT Final Act in relation to its impact on agriculture has pitched the farmer at the centre of attention. Those in favour of the argument have been identifying the gains the farmer is likely to make. Those against have been stressing on the fact that the farmer, already at the mercy of external agencies, as for example pesticide and fertilizer manufacturers, could now be at the mercy of private transnational (TNC) seed companies.

Parallel to the debate on agriculture is the debate on the utilisation of the world's biodiversity, raising questions such as - who should control it; how to utilise it; who should have the right to genetic resources derived from it etc. This debate around the issues of biodiversity, more particularly around the Biodiversity Convention, also raises questions on the rights of farmers and the impact of the Convention on farmers. The two debates are closely interlinked. Both the documents have potential to threaten the very survival of farmers and farming in much of the developing world. Farmers in the industrialized world, especially in Europe and Japan, USA and Canada, have sensed the threat to their survival posed by the GATT Uruguay Round Talks and have been resisting and protesting the GATT moves in their own countries. The voice of the farmers in the developing world is yet to be heard along with the protests of farmers from the industrialized world.

In India, thousands of farmers went to New Delhi to protest against the GATT proposals on intellectual property in relation to seeds and seeds patenting, asking the Indian Government to reject the GATT demands. Farmers belonging to Karnataka State during one of their agitations in the State capital Bangalore, in a spontaneous outburst of anger, burnt down the offices of the seed and agribusiness, TNC Cargill, in Bangalore. Obviously feelings are running high and the farmers are an agitated lot. The anger and frustration of hundreds of farmers, however, has not prevented ex-World Bank employee turned gentlemen farmers' doubling also as farmer leaders to express support to the TNC motivated GATT. Such ardent votaries of the GATT have no hesitation in advocating globalisation of even agriculture in a developing country and for integrating it to the world market. The farming community however, intuiting a threat to their very survival as a cultural and economic entity, have indicated their opposition not only to the GATT but also to agencies like World Bank, which acting almost as a Trojan Horse of global market forces, has tried to lay the ground for the enforcement of GATT trade rules. For example, recently World Bank had asked the Government of Tamil Nadu, as part of its assistance to the State's agricultural sector, to stop supplying seeds and hand over this task to private seed companies. When the Tamil Nadu Government tried to enforce this, the farmers instantly protested and demanded that the Government should continue to supply seeds as they were not willing to be at the mercy of private companies.

It is evident that very powerful global combines and institutions are at work in transforming practices in the developing world in a manner that TNC agribusiness models of agriculture could be enforced globally so that they may reign dominant over all forms of global agriculture. In India, these efforts would strike at the very root of an activity in which 70 per cent of the population is directly involved and indirectly affect another 10 to 15 per cent of the population. The debate over the outcome of the Uruguay Round of GATT is no academic exercise; it is a matter that directly affects more than two-thirds of the population in India. Yet, a problem of this magnitude and having very serious implications to the very future of Indian society has received only scant attention. It is hardly a subject for democratic debate either in Parliament or in the society at large. To understand and to be able to explain the implications of this TNC-backed, GATT-initiated, World Bank and IMF-supported attempt to literally thrust an imperfect and inadequate intellectual property regime on the entire world and on all forms of activity including farming, is a great challenge to academicians and scholars. Their primary challenge is to objectively examine the ethical, ecological and human rights issues involved in subjecting the entire range and diversity of farming in the developing world to the demands of an intellectual property regime (IPR) that is being demanded by GATT. This paper is a modest attempt to raise some of these issues in the context of the attempts to enforce an intellectual property rights regime on agriculture. The first part of the paper looks at the issue of IPRS in relation to seeds, farmers and farming and the second part the implications for the survival of farmers, farming diversity, the diverse knowledge systems forming part of this diversity and its ultimate impact on both cultural and biological diversity.

PART I

International Legal Protection — An Overview

Even though one could trace the history of protecting intellectual property in plant varieties and seeds to the eighteenth century, serious attempts started only in the early periods of the twentieth century.1 It was the legislation of USA, Germany, Hungary, Italy, Netherlands, Austria etc. in the 1930s which really lead to private monopolization of plants and seeds business. It was these global seedsmen who raised the question of intellectual property protection in the international forum. The International Union for the Protection of New Varieties of Plants (UPOV) in 1961 gave more strength and vigour to these global seedsmen to further exploit the genetic resources not only from their countries but also from the gene-rich South. The Convention inter alia mandates the member countries to provide protection of seeds for commercial marketing.2 This led to the large scale shifting of seed companies from the production of fruits and ornamentals to that of agricultural seeds.3 The significant impact of this is the success of Green Revolution. This in turn eroded the genetic resources leading to the beginning of Gene Revolution, which reveals the importance and need for exercising control over genetic resources. Realising the importance of genetic resources in the Green Revolution, the Multinational Companies (MNCs) tried to get control over the genetic resources available in the world by creating germplasm banks with the help of world organizations.4 The majority of these germplasm banks are located in the developed countries. With the programmes of these world bodies these developed countries were able to collect maximum germplasm from the gene-rich South. They preserved it and made it available to the scientists in both public and private sectors for research and development. It was also found that the research benefits of these public research organisations were exploited by the private seed companies for making profits without the payment of royalties.5 The products of the research have been monopolised and sold back to the South. Thus, after collecting and preserving the genetic varieties in their germplasm banks, they started destroying the genetic varieties available in the South by introducing the Green Revolution. The use of new high yielding variety (HYV) seeds, especially the hybrid varieties, by the farmers made them to lose their traditional varieties and further pushed them into the hands of big seed companies for their survival. While this is going on, the UPOV Convention has been constantly revised to tighten the intellectual property protection. The most recent one is the 1991 Amendment which takes away the exemption clause in the original Convention on the farmers' right to reuse the seeds and the breeders' right to use it for further research.6 Since they were not satisfied by this, attempts were made to internationalise the monopoly system by introducing new provisions in the Trade Related Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPs) Agreement. Before we look into these new provisions and their impact on Indian farmers it is worth looking at independent India's policy with reference to seeds and plant varieties.

The Indian position on plant and seed varieties

Since Independence, realising the importance of food security for the people, the Government took the initiative to improve agricultural productivity. Though there was no agricultural policy resolution like the industrial policy resolutions till recently, the focus on agriculture in the Five Year Plans makes the Government's policy towards agriculture very clear. It was indeed a progressive policy. In addition to giving subsidy to the farmers, there was heavy input in the R & D through Government sectors.7 Thus, after more than 45 years of independence if we look back, we have today in the Government sector at the national level 42 Central Research Institutes, 21 National Research Centres, 71 All-India Coordinated Research Projects and 9 Project Directorates under the Indian Council of Agricultural Research, besides 27 State Agricultural Universities for the purpose of teaching, research and extension education in agriculture and allied sciences1. In addition to this we have today 120 National Agricultural Research Projects in identified agroclimatic subzones to take care of the diversified needs of the Indian farmers. If we look at the R & D manpower, there are 6477 scientists and 8031 technicians in the ICAR in addition to more than 25,000 scientists working in various Agricultural Universities contributing to various research activities in agriculture1. It is needless to emphasise that large amount of public money is invested by the Government for building this large infrastructural facility for Green Revolution in India. The intellectual input for the development of HYV seeds for the Green Revolution in India goes to the credit of these committed scientists. Till recently they have produced nearly 2000 improved varieties of seeds answering the standards prescribed under the Seeds Act.1 Since the R & D work was at the cost of the Government, Parliament decided not to give any intellectual property protection to these breeders in the form of monopoly. Section 3(a), (b), (h) and (i) of the Patent Act read together will make it very clear that plant and seed varieties are not inventions for intellectual property protection in India. These new varieties are treated as common property for the free exploitation by the farmers to increase productivity. Thus in the Indian context the germplasm which were traditionally preserved and used by the farmers, were taken from them, improved, converted and given back to them for use without collecting any royalties.

Since R & D work was kept under Government control, the Government also took steps to create seed corporations to undertake production of quality seeds and make them available to the farmers. The National Seeds Corporations, State Farms Corporation of India and 13 State Seeds Corporations were originally undertaking the reproduction and distribution of seeds. Because of the inefficiency created in these institutions they could not meet the demands of the farmers. Instead of rectifying the defects in these institutions, the Government decided to provide the Government-bred varieties to the private sector freely to produce quality seeds and make them available to the farmers. The private corporations made huge profits without spending much on R & D. It appears that today these private sctors are trying to destroy the public seed companies though they are interested in preserving the large scale R & D investment of the Government to continue for a few more years. This is because of their vested interest to get the fruits of the Government research without burdens. The New Seed Development Policy of 1988 permitting the foreign seed corporations to operate in India also helped them to advance arguments for monopolising the seed industry. The outcome of this exercise was the demand from these private companies in 1989 for the protection of intellectual property in the new seed varieties. It is in this context that in 1989 for the protection of intellectual property in the new seed varieties. It is in this context that one must look at the TRIPs provision on seed and plant varieties and their impact on Indian agriculture.

The TRIPs Agreement on Plant Varieties

The attempt in the TRIPs is to internationalise the patent system which was hitherto in the national regime. The Paris Convention, after recognising the need to give freedom to member countries depending upon their technological and economic development to enact suitable patent laws, gave only broad guidelines in this regard. The TRIPs provisions not only internationalise the traditional items covered by the Patent law but also introduces new items which were kept outside the domain of the patent system because of various fundamental reasons. Thus, the TRIPs provisions brings within the scope of patent law life forms, plant varieties, biotechnology etc.8 As far as plant and seed varieties are concerned it is mandatory to give either patent protection or "an effective sui generis system".9 It is also mandatory that these provisions must be reviewed by the GATT four years after entering into the agreement to create WTO. It appears that with reference to plant varieties the option to go for a Plant Breeders Right (PBR) system seems to be only a temporary arrangement and in the long run one has to provide a more effective and powerful monopoly protection under the patent system. In other words, the option given to start with PBR is the first step towards the patenting of plant and seed varieties. Assuming that a country can opt for PBR system, it may not be possible to keep the farmers' exemption and the breeders' exemption in the system. This will be considered as an ineffective sui generis system as contemplated by the TRIPs.10 If a developing country were to opt for a patent system in plant and seed varieties it is needless to emphasise that the position is going to be further worse.11 All the new proposed provisions like rights of patent, term of patent, shifting the burden of proof in process patent etc. will have a serious impact on agriculture. It is in this context one must enquire into the possible consequences India is going to face in the field of agriculture.

Impact of TRIPs on the Indian Farmers

Much has already been said in this context. The debates have sufficiently focussed on the rights of the farmers to preserve the seeds12, the preservation of biodiversity and the rights of the traditional farmers for preserving it13, and the consequence emerging out of accepting GATT provisions like price increase, erosion of genetic varieties, dependency on seed companies by the farmers etc.14 But there seems to be only very little discussion on what will happen to the public R & D in agriculture in India and its impact on farmers and farming. If we look at the Indian scenario one could easily identify the diversified and well-organised network of R & D activity going on. It takes care of the different needs of diversified types of farming going on in this country. It also caters to the different agroclimatic conditions. The focus of the research is not only on the profit-making areas, but also on other areas of importance. It is not fully based on an export-oriented market but based on the food security of the country. Once we recognise the IPR in seeds, the private companies will focus their research only in the areas where they could make profit, and then they could control the farmers. That would mean the future research will be basically on hybrid variety seeds. The private companies will attract the best scientists now working in the public sector also by giving more incentives. They will also try to take over some of the good research institutes as well in the long run. But the research is not going to be as diversified as it is today. Just like the PSUs in industry which are sold today to private companies without re-evaluating the assets, the agricultural research institutes will also be handed over to the private companies in the same manner.15 All that the country funded and developed for the good of the people of India will be given on a platter to a few private profiters.

The problem in India seems to be not much on breeding new varieties, but largely on the diffusion of the seeds to the farmers. That means, the problem lies in the reproduction and distribution of the new varieties rather than on developing new varieties. The answer lies not in introducing IPR in seeds which will be disastrous in the long term, but in revamping the existing system of seed production and distribution. The introduction of viable alternatives which are efficient and productive in seeds reproduction and distribution is the best way to save and improve Indian farming rather than introducing the IPR regime. The IPR regime will only help to promote private initiative which has proved to be of vital negative consequences to the farming community in the long run. After successfully implementing a good network of R & D in agriculture without IPR, which proved to be effective in the Indian context, we must try to strengthen and make the infrastructure more meaningful and viable rather than think in terms of handing it over to private hands for wrongly perceived short term gains. The attempt must be to re-work the old model — the Nehruvian model — of economic development with new tools instead of going for the defective world model. This assumes great significance in the world context in general and Indian context in particular. The alternative is the further decentralization of agricultural research and reproduction and distribution of seeds at the local level through the farmers' cooperatives or similar institutions in the villages. The new Panchayat Raj institutions with the active participation of the farmers can play a vital role in this regard. This would enable the farmers to identify the nature and quality of the seeds they require in their villages and the production and distribution of these through a viable mechanism. The portion of small profits they could make can be given to the local public research institutions to breed new seeds based on the requirements of the farmers in that locality. The R & D personnel must also be provided with incentives so that there will not be any problem in breeding. The viable administration of this system will surely prove more helpful to the farmers in the long term rather than providing IPR protection for new varieties of seeds to improve the efficiency of the present system. The IPR solution is not going to get to the root of the problem but will only aggravate the problem probably in different dimensions. The IPR regime, which focuses on the individual interests, never seems to be the focus of the Indian culture and tradition particularly in the field of agriculture. Society always remained as the centre of the activity with the meaningful utilisation of the common resources for the common good. Reinforcing this value system is the only answer for the preservation of biodiversity and the diversified farming culture that were prevalent and are still continuing in many parts of India. It is the jurisprudence of treating intellectual property as common property that is going to pay rich dividends in the long run for the economic and the agricultural development of India especially in the human rights perspectives of the long term food security of the people in general and the survival of the farming community in particular.

PART II - FUTURE OF FARMING

The GATT strikes at the very root of the ability of communities to grow food and feed themselves. Between the end of the last century and towards the end of the beginning of this century, agriculture may have become just another form of industry. However, the ability of humanity to grow food was maintained. This ability depended on an interaction between human beings and nature that is fundamentally sustainable. It has been possible to maintain this sustainability, because of diverse approaches and diverse methods of farming in diverse ecological and geographical settings have been evolved by the humanity. This diversity threatens the monopoly of powerful global corporations, who have therefore taken to threatening the diversity of agricultural systems by a GATT-initiated TRIPs regime, which will violate the human rights of the many in preference to the economic interests of a few.

Understanding Diversity

Understanding diversity especially in relation to farming systems and as richly as these systems have evolved, not merely as variety, calls upon one to understand firstly multidimensionality. It was the profound understanding of multidimensionality that made it possible for the earliest farmer to understand nature and thus evolve the myriad forms of traditional agriculture the world over. Diversity as multidimensionality means not just a variety of crops, but also a multiplicity of uses for a single plant. The rice plant, the coconut and the banana all symbolize these aspects of diversity and multidimensionality.

Different types of cultures produced different types of agricultural systems and different types of agricultural systems produced different forms of cultures. These diversities were linked by the diversities in geography, climatic zones and ecosystem types. This diversity in nature and culture was symbolized most of all in the tropics, since in a way the tropics had housed and continue to house even today, the world's greatest biodiversity. Towards the end of the twentieth century and the beginning of the twenty-first century it is this richness and greatness of this diversity that is most threatened. The Biodiversity Convention intends to exploit this richness, and the GATT, envious of this diversity, while not giving this diversity its due, seeks through patent rights etc. to monopolize the products of this diversity. Both are thus triggering a irreversible destruction of this diversity, not only the diversity of plant species but the diversity of ecosystems, cultures and cultural knowledge systems as well. "Ten per cent of the world's plant species are now regarded as endangered. Each disappearing plant can take with it anything from 10 to 30 animal or insect species directly or indirectly dependent on it."16 As early as 1972, the US National Academy of Sciences, recognized that the legal requirements of patents have increased the genetic uniformity and disease vulnerability of major American crops. Yet, two decades later, corporate and market forces relentlessly "struggle to make plants conform to the legalisms acceptable to machines" by thrusting a patenting or intellectual property regime for plants the world over. Patents are therefore like death warrants for plant diversity and perhaps consequently for the diversities of human cultures as well.

Going Against Vavilov

Vavilov, the early 20th century scientist, whose contributions to the future of humanity must be seen as epochal in the tradition of the other great plant scientist Linnaeus, by his work gave us a glimpse of the extraordinary richness in plant diversity that humankind had inherited. Vavilov recognized that the agriculture that human beings had evolved in the beginning of the 20th century, was critically dependent on and parasitic on the agricultural knowledge that traditional agriculture and peasant knowledge had produced.17 His later scientific contributions were based on a very profound acceptance of the fact that peasant knowledge and traditional agriculture had produced maize, rice, sweet potato, bread fruit, date, banana, soyabean, cereals, millets and sorghum. Vavilov recognized that modern agriculture had not produced a single crop to rival these crops in the last two thousand years. He concluded that for modern agriculture to survive, it had to periodically collect these traditional varieties. Therefore, based on his law of homologous variations, Vavilov presented a theory which systematized such efforts. He then concluded that eight major centres of domestication and variety in plant species existed. These were later called the Vavilov zones, six of them located in the old world and two of them in the new world. More importantly, for Vavilov these zones were not only areas of the origins of plants, of great plant diversity with the greatest number of domesticated plants but generally associated with areas of great early civilization. These gene pools identified today as Vavilov zones were preserved and sustained by farming communities practicing traditional forms of agriculture. Is this inheritance of humankind today to be permitted to be appropriated as piece of private property without any reference to the past from which it has been inherited to the future generations whose inheritance it would equally be. By centuries of use these have already become common property incapable of individual appropriation as private property.

By saying that any plant species out there in the wilderness or in the gene pools of the Vavilov zones may have future commercial value, one threatens and puts to great risk the diversity that survives in the Vavilov zones and consequently the zones themselves. Vavilov's scientific contributions were never intended by him to create the basis for new centres of corporate power over these gene pools, to permit control over global food production and in the process to destroy the very essence of Vavilov's contribution to humanity. His contributions speak to the opposite; the proposed moves will violate human right to independent life through creation of dependencies for food items.

Common Property Resources and Ecosystem Destruction

Ecological and environmental literature is replete with examples of destruction of common property or common pool resources leading to destruction of ecosystems. Common pool resources are not only unique forms of management of natural resources but they also represent unique knowledge systems that have evolved around these resources, whether it be land-based resources such as forests or resources such as fisheries whether it be of inland water systems or in the seas. Common-pool-resource destruction, leading to ecosystem destruction has had another implication — the destruction of the knowledge systems linked to these ecosystem — specific common-pool resources. Common-pool resources are therefore also treated as knowledge resources with respect to management of natural resources. It is therefore not surprising that plant and seed resources — plant genetic resources in general — have been treated in almost all human cultures as part of common property resources. Traditional farming systems and the gene pools on which they are dependent also become common property knowledge systems. In other words, they become part of the property of communities that cannot be expropriated for private profit — individual or corporate. To seek then to enforce private property rights over resources derived from these common knowledge property systems, is not only a travesty but denying, negating and therefore destroying the value of this knowledge.

The routes of the destruction of such common pool resources are many. They extend from restricting seed exchanges within communities among farmers themselves and sanctioning only those done through the market system. Such process destruction begins by de-skilling the farmer, at first by way of displacing him from his community-knowledge base and then from his own ecosystem. He is forced into a form of displacement in which he is not physically displaced by the displacement of his familiar ecosystem, but by way of introduction of patented seeds requiring complete changes in the environment and ecosystem. In the event of a crop failure or any other problems resulting from ecosystem imbalances such as invasions by new pests or diseases, he can do nothing about it himself. He has to sit and wait for those who now have control by virtue of knowledge about the new patented seeds. In the Green Revolution model, the farmer in the developing countries waited for help from the nearest Government agricultural research station. In the GATT-patented agricultural revolution, the farmer may have to wait for the company representative hopefully from the nearest town and representative, in turn may have to check with his headquarters, at least in serious disasters. The headquarters of any agribusiness TNS could very well be in some far away country and it may become difficult for the representative to establish control with his headquarters.

This is not empty speculation and any serious student of natural or ecological history is aware of the fact that colonization and expansion of colonies, is not merely a political event but ecological colonization as well. Alfred Coroly's classic study "Ecological Imperialism — the Biological Expansion of Europe 900 to 1900 AD" describes in detail how these processes have worked. The native people, whether it be in America or New Zealand or Australia found that the white man's bista had taken over their own and thus displaced them from their own ecosystem — which vanished leaving them uprooted in situ. In this case, the European migrant moved from his temperate home to other temperate zones carrying with him costly shrimp, "the portmanteaus of his bista", changing completely the ecosystem in other temperate zones and making it identical to his own break home. In the process, the people who lived in their original ecosystem with whatever abundance of its bista, which was displaced, mattered little to the European migrant or colonizer. This practice happened in other geographical areas also.

What we face today, in the machinations of GATT and the coercion to enforce Northern corporate-dictated IPR, is as scientists Levins and David Janzen point out, the transfer of the temperate science and knowledge of agricultural systems to the tropics. Levins and Daniel Janzen note that the US model of high energy, high fertiliser monoculture is not only destroying the tropics ecologically but also transforming them as sites of diverse practices. The greatest threat posed by the economic legalisation of patents and intellectual property rights is not only to the ecosystems as a whole but also to the diversity of ecosystems fastened by the traditional farming systems that have evolved over centuries in the web of ecology and natural systems. As much as recent history of tinkering with patent rights for plants has led to species extinction, the attempts to enforce a global regime of patents for plant species threatens the survival of the traditional farmer as a species to argue against this ill-informed and illiterate in terms of knowledge about natural systems — attempts to enforce a property rights regime for plants by the use of seed patents is meaningless from any normative or idealist notion of the traditional farmer. It is more fundamentally a call to recognize knowledge as a rich and diverse human enterprise that has allowed for the richness of human life. We as teachers of law or of any other branch of knowledge, cannot allow markets and trade in the name of "intellectual property" to mock, ridicule and destroy this important basis of human life. The traditional farmer in the throes of a threat to his knowledge systems forces this challenge on us by way of his helplessness. The earlier we take the challenge the better.

* Visiting Professor, National Law School of India University. Return to Text

** Assistant Professor (Sr) National Law School of India University. Paper presented in the Commonwealth Legal Education Association conference on "Economic Policies, Human Rights and the Legal Order" on 1993 at Bangalore, India. Return to Text

1. See Pat Roy Mooney, "The Law of the Seed: Another Development and Plant Genetic Resources", Development dialogue, 1983 pp. 134-37. See also Mangala Rai, "Intellectual Property Rights in the Agricultural Context", Souvenir on National Convention on Agriculture Policy and Intellectual Property Rights in Agriculture, November 16-18, 1992, IARI, New Delhi. Return to Text
2. See Article 14 of the 1961 Convention. The Convention provides Breeders exemption under Article 5 which reads "authorization by the breeder shall not be required either for the utilization of the variety as an initial source or variation for the purpose of creating other varieities or for marketing of such varieities". Return to Text
3. See Pat Roy Mooney, op. cit, pp. 95-99 Return to Text
4. The most important ones are: CGIAR-International Agricultural Research Centre, CIMMYT-International Maize and Wheat Improvement Centre, IRRI-International Rice Research Institute, ICARDA-International Centre for Agricultural Research in Dry Areas, CIAT-International Centre for Tropical Agriculture, CIP-International Potato Centre etc. Return to Text
5. See Pat Roy Mooney, op.cit, pp. 92 & 158 Return to Text
6. See Article 14, Article 15.2 and Article 14.5(c) of the 1991 amended UPOV Convention. Return to Text
7. See National Policy Resolutions, Lok Sabha Secretariat, New Delhi Return to Text
8. Article 27(1) of the Dunkel Draft Text reads: "Subject to the provisions of paras 2 and 3 below, patents shall be available for any inventions, whether products or processes, in all fields of technology, provided that they are new, involve an inventive step and are capable of industrial application ...." Return to Text
9. Article 27(3) reads: "Parties may also exclude from patentability (b) Plants and animals other than micro organisms, and essentially biological procees for the production of plant varieities either by patents or by an effective sui generis system or by any combination thereof. This provision shall be reviewed four years after the entry into force of this agreement." Return to Text
10. The 1991 amendment of UPOV Convention has taken away these exemptions. For details see Usha Menon, "TRIPs Negotiations and Indian Agriculture", J SCI IND RES, Vol. 52, April 1993 pp. 296-303. Return to Text
11. For details see Biswajit Dhar and C. Niranjan Rao, "Dunkel Draft on TRIPs; Complete Denial of Developing Countries Interests" EPW, February 8, 1992, p. 275. Return to Text
12. See Usha Menon, "Intellectual Property Rights in Agricultural Development", EPW, July 6-13, 1991 p. 1660. Return to Text
13. See Vandana Shiva "Farmers, Right, Biodiversity and International Treaties" EPW, April 3, 1993 p. 555. See also Ashish Kothari, "Politics of biodiversity convention", EPW, April 11-18, 1992 p. 749 and also Aravind Subramanian, "Genetic Resources, Biodiversity and Environmental Protection — An Analysis, and Proposal Towards a Solution", Journal of world trade, Vol. 26, No. 5, 1992, p. 105. Return to Text
14. See Khem Singh Gill, "Intellectual Property Rights — Plant Breeding Perspective", J SCI IND RES, Vol. 52, April 1993, pp. 288-295 Return to Text
15. It is to be noted that the same has happened to the USA's and UK's public sectors in agriculture during 1970s and 1980s. See Pat Roy Mooney, op. cit., pp. 65 et seq. Return to Text
16. See generally Pat Roy Mooney. op. cit. Return to Text
17. Shiv Vishvanathan, "Footnotes to Vavilov" Mimeo, 1992 (unpublished) and personal discussions. We are grateful to Shiv for some of the insights in this section of the paper. Return to Text