Natural Farming Summit 1.0

Natural Farming Summit 1.0

Natural Farming Summit 1.0

In July last year, Prof. Gregory Radick of the University of Leeds and I designed a research project to study the innovativeness among Indian farmers engaged in natural/organic farming and the role that intellectual property (broadly and narrowly defined, as per Prof. Radick’s theoretical framework on IP-Broad and IP-Narrow) plays in this process. The research was designed to take forward Prof. Radick’s work, as well as my work in the field of promoting sustainable innovations in plant varieties (see my research on the topic, available here). The project named the International Art of Living Foundation as its NGO partner and sought to hire a post-doctoral research fellow, to be jointly supervised by Prof. Radick (at the University of Leeds) and me (at the Max Planck Institute for Innovation and Competition) who would conduct the necessary study, including field work, in India over the course of approximately one year. The project received funding from the UK Arts and Humanities Research Council in November last year. The research has started since January this year after we were fortunate enough to find a brilliant young post-doctoral researcher – Dr. Natalie Kopytko, for the study. Natalie is currently in India and is conducting field studies with support from the Art of Living Foundation in several remote areas on India. We are all looking forward to her research findings – updates can be found on the website she maintains here.

In the mean time, the Art of Living decided to organize its annual conference on organic farming (Natural Farming Summit) in early May this year. This proved to be perfect timing for our project as it coincided with Natalie’s field work kick off. The Art of Living foundation, whose work I have been observing and following for over a decade now (and with whom I did a couple of yoga teacher training courses) also invited us to make presentations on our research during the summit. After the conference, I (and other speakers) were interviewed by the Art of Living Bureau of Communications (ABC). I reproduce the text of the interview hereunder: 

From the Art of Living Bureau of Communications:

Agricultural Summit on Natural Farming:

The Natural Farming Summit 1.0, organized by the Art of Living Foundation was held on 9th and 10th May 2017 at the Art of Living International Centre, Bangalore. The summit brought together a diverse set of stakeholders engaged in natural and organic farming, and associated sectors of work at both practical and policy levels. The two day summit saw these stakeholders sharing their experiences, research findings and policy recommendations with a rich audience comprising of farmers, distributors, business houses, academic experts, policy makers and NGOs. 
The conference participants re-emphasized the benefits of natural farming, including its impact on individual health, quality of soil, improved financial status of farmers and many more. World renowned activist Dr. Vandana Shiva ji, founder of the NGO “Navdanya” also shared her thoughts on how farming which is aligned to nature is the only means of maintaining biodiversity, which is the most urgent need of the hour.

Dr. Mrinalini Kochupillai:

Forums like the Natural Farming Summit are an opportunity to bring together various stakeholders who share a common vision and goal, namely to make the agricultural sector sustainable and prosperous from an ecological, as well as economic perspective. One of our international speakers from Germany was Dr. Mrinalini Kochupillai, who has a masters and doctoral degree in intellectual property law, with special focus on Indian plant variety protection law and policy. According to Mrinalini ji, “practical solutions at the farm level need support at the research and policy level to ensure that socio-economic benefits flow to farmers.” She said that “the farmers of this country have always been innovators – it is unfortunate that following the Green Revolution, the role of farmers was reduced to mere technology takers who sow and harvest crops. In order to re-establish and re-define the role of farmers in the agricultural sector, it is necessary to remind farmers that traditionally, they have always been innovators on the farm – improving traditional seeds in situ and improvising means of maintaining soil health, while also managing pests in an eco-friendly and sustainable manner.” In relation to her current research, Mrinalini Ji said:

[blockquote align=”none” author=”Dr. Mrinalini Kochupillai“]We feel that the work of farmers who are engaged in natural farming using traditional varieties of seeds improved and preserved in situ, is not recognized as innovation. In fact, their work and role in maintaining and enhancing germplasm reserves while ensuring sustainable high yield and nutritive content in the food, has not even been adequately researched!.”[/blockquote] The research project, designed jointly by Prof. Gregory Radick of the University of Leeds and Dr. Mrinalini Kochupillai, which received funding from the Arts and Humanities Research Council, Government of UK in November last year, is perhaps the first qualitative, empirical study into:

(1)Seed exchange and seed saving culture among Indian farmers and how it affects innovation at farmer level;
(2) how the Indian government’s seed replacement policy affects innovativeness among Indian farmers;
(3) the manner in which the Indian Plant Variety Protection law affects in situ agrobiodiversity conservation; and
(4) the relationship between the above and (a) the growing crisis in international agriculture, including (b) suicides by Indian farmers and (c) dwindling number of young people willing to take up a way of life seen as menial labour 

Using the funds received, the University of Leeds has engaged a highly qualified post-doctoral research fellow, Dr. Natalie Kopytko, to study innovation among farmers in India, especially farmers who have received training in Zero Budget Farming from the Art of Living, farmers who have won the genome savior community recognition award by the Government of India, and farmers that are engaged in conventional farming using modern seeds.” Mrinalini ji‘s five year long empirical study on the Indian Plant Variety Protection Law and associated governmental policies, conducted as part of her Ph.D. research with MPI, established the basis for this joint research with the University of Leeds. Her research was published by Springer Nature in Max Planck’s Munich Studies on Innovation & Competition series. 

Global scenario:

Mrinalini ji shared her thoughts on the scenario in India and the world regarding agricultural technologies, especially new and improved seeds. She said that since the Green Revolution, farmers in India are relying on Universities and large corporations to provide them improved seeds and improved agricultural technology. Undoubtedly, the green revolution increased crop yields in some crops. What policy makers in India have failed to pay adequate attention to, however, is that the green revolution as well as most formal innovations coming from the private sector focus only on specific crops. Food security for the nation and for the globe, however, does not depend on high yield alone, but also on a divserse diet rich in micronutrients, minerals and vitamins that cannot be provided by staple crops such as wheat and rice that the green revolution focussed on. Also, the green revolution made farmers not only reliant on new improved seeds, but also on expensive fertilizers and chemical pesticides that modern science has shown to be extremely damaging to the environment. Indeed, under the green revolution, only few types of seeds were artificially designed to “perform” under the influence of chemical fertilizers. As a result, soils and farmlands where these fertilizers are regularly used, see drop in the yields of other crops whose seeds are not designed to tolerate chemical inputs. The entire strategy for food security and sustainable innovations in seeds therefore needs to be re-thought. 

Furthermore, reliance on green revolution and modern “hybrid” seeds that require farmers to replace their seeds each season (by buying new seeds from the marker) is harmful for farmers’ socio-economic status in society. Farmers who are potentially entrepreneurs and innovators, their status in society is reduced to that of laborers that merely sow seeds created by others, harvest crops and sell the yield to make a living. “Our farmers have to go back to the times when they were technology makers, rather than mere technology takers.” She emphasized that “India doesn’t only have religious and cultural diversity – India also has incredible geographic, climatic, biotic and abiotic diversity. If we give this diversity the importance that it deserves, and make our research local, we can export agricultural technology (including seeds, and sustainable pest and soil management technology) to every agro-climatic zone in the world!” She insisted, however, that “India and Indian farmers must stop giving or expecting anything for free. If we are ourselves developing indigenous, ecologically sustainable high yielding seeds of a large number of diverse crops, we also need to be economically aware enough to charge a proper price for it. India’s economic development would then not be dependent on obtaining foreign technology as charity, but on exporting high quality, eco-friendly technology at fair and reasonable price to the rest of the world.” Mrinalini ji shared with our team that she is also inspired by Art of Living founder, Sri Sri Ravi Shankar Ji’s vision of “creating wealth” for all. She said that “we have to use our own traditional systems and traditional values of innovation to create wealth for our farmers and provide food security to the whole world. Any effort or emphasis placed in trying to bring us foreign, non-sustainable technology at cheap rates is not going to help India become economically strong in the long run. Only indigenous, high quality, appropriately priced innovation can bring back India’s lost prosperity. We have to create wealth for ourselves and for the world by using our own intellectual property. Then, those technologies that are developed (and patented) elsewhere, which complement and support our indigenous innovations (e.g. innovations in the digital age) can also be used more meaningfully by our farmer-innovators for further mutually beneficial wealth creation. 

The larger project, funded by the UK Arts and Humanities Research Council also seeks to determine the history of India’s ‘Seed Replacement Policy’ and whether farmer to farmer seed exchange was, is, or should be included within this policy. The research project takes forward Dr. Mrinalini Kochupillai’s PhD research in the field of promoting sustainable innovations in plant varieties and Prof. Gregory Radick’s theoretical and conceptual work on Intellectual Property over the long-run of the history of science, and seeks to learn from Art of Living’s vast practical and on-farm work with farmers across the length and breadth of India. Mrinalini ji shared that the innovative potential of the Indian farming community if already clear from the presentations made at the Natural Farming Summit. She said that she got a lot of interesting and insightful information about Indian methods of natural farming and the work of the farming community. “The work and what has been accomplished despite difficult and adverse legal/policy environments is commendable! A truly enriching and eye opening experience!” she said.

Sudarshan Kriya: It is not ‘just Yoga’, it is innovation from India! 

“It is a wonder that when 50% of the Indian population is engaged in agriculture or allied activities, agriculture and allied sectors are contributing less than 14% to the Indian GDP. To increase agriculture’s contribution to the Indian GDP, on the international level, Indian farmers can and must become technology makers & know-how suppliers,” remarked Mrinalini ji during her presentation at the Natural Farming Summit. Drawing a parallel with Sudarshan Kriya, she said that “In my view, Sri Sri Ravi Shankar ji is not only a humanitarian leader, but also an innovator. He has created, packaged and disseminated the highly beneficial traditional knowledge based innovation, Sudarshan Kriya, to more than 150 countries around the globe.” ‘Sudarshan Kriya’ is not protected by patent, the name is protected by trade mark and the tapes are protected by copyright. Copyright is considered a relatively weak form of intellectual property protection. Yet, using incredible skill, together with what can be considered the highest form of ‘Corporate Social Responsibility’, Indian innovators like Sri Sri Ravi Shankar have brought the economic benefits accruing from the dissemination of Sudarshan Kriya back to India and to other poor countries of the world – supporting important river rejuvenation projects, organic farming projects, projects for building homes for the poor and many other socially oriented projects. This is the goal that every Indian farmer-innovator should aspire to. We should stop adjudging profit making enterprises as greedy and stop glorifying poverty.” In relation to Sudarshan Kriya, Mrinalini ji said that the variety of projects of global significance that have taken a license to teach Sudarshan Kriya is mind boggling! Yet, India has itself failed to see technologies like Sudarshan Kriya that are widely researched in top scientific institutions around the globe, as Indian innovations! Such innovations based in Indian traditional knowledge ought also to be taken into account by the United Nations or the World Intellectual Property Organization, when they create country rankings for indices such as the Global Innovation Index.

The Munich Conference Series on “Ethics in Innovation: Innovation 4.0 

Mrinalini ji said that “in fact, not just India, but all nations across the world need to re-consider their own approach to identifying, promoting and beneficially disseminating innovations that are unique to their cultures. Encouraging culture specific innovations would not only bring equitable economic development to all nations, but would also increase the choice and diversity available for the citizens of the 21st century multi-cultural global village. This, in fact, is one of the aims with which we are organizing the World Youth Forum for Ethics in Innovation.” According to the write up provided to us by Mrinalini ji, “the fundamental research projects associated with the World Youth Forum for Ethics in Innovation is designed to engage the student participants of the World Youth Forum in multi-disciplinary & multi-cultural discussion to consider three questions that are of significant concern in our increasingly diverse, 21st century global village:

1. How individuals from different cultures, countries & educational background understand the terms ‘ethics’ & ‘innovation’
2. What in their opinion, constitutes an ‘ethical innovation’, including whether a re-assessment is necessary of the manner in which the term ‘innovation’ as currently defined & understood is culturally, socially & economically inclusive.
3. How existing laws, policies & practices can/should be modified to promote ‘ethical innovations’.”

Conferences like these add great value to global knowledge reserves and showcase innovations from different cultures, regions and sectors. We highly encourage everyone to participate in the 1st Ethics in Innovation Conference Series in Munich from 23-27th June 2017.

The research linked with the World Youth Forum 2017 is now being taken forward by Mrinalini ji as a first of its kind open source social science research project. All students, professionals, experts and interested people are encouraged to participate. For more information, see here.

Innovations by Small Land Owners – Can their innovations bring them economic prosperity under Indian law?

Innovations by Small Land Owners – Can their innovations bring them economic prosperity under Indian law?

Innovations by Small Land Owners – Can their innovations bring them economic prosperity under Indian law?

A. HMT Rice and Dadaji Ramji Khobragade 

(This is an updated case study – an earlier version of this was published on Spicy IP here)

Until the early 1980s, Dadji Ramji Khobragade, a farmer owning a small land holding in Nanded village of Chandipur district in Maharashtra, cultivated the locally popular Patel 3 rice variety on his 1.5 acre landholding. The Patel 3 variety was a high yielding, typical rice variety created by Dr. J.P. Patel, a scientist and rice breeder at the Jawaharlal Nehru Krishi Vishwavidyalaya (JNKV) Agriculture University, Jabalpur, India. 

In 1983, Khobragade noticed a few unusual looking yellow seeded paddy spikes in his field, where he had cultivated the Patel 3 variety as usual. He collected these seeds, kept them aside, and replanted them season after season till he developed what went on to become the most popular rice variety in his village – the HMT rice variety. The story goes that when Khobragade took his new variety to sell to the local wholesaler, he was asked what the name of the variety is (as it looked completely different from any other variety in the market at the time). As Khobragade had not thought of a name, the variety was initially named ‘Swarna Sona’ (Golden Sona – Sona is a commonly grown rice variety in India). Later, as the variety became more popular, one of the traders named it ‘HMT’ after a popular Indian wrist-watch brand (‘HMT’ brand wrist-watches were widely advertised in the Indian media in the 1980s). Soon, farmers from neighboring villages were also at Khobragade’s doorstep asking for a bag of HMT rice to plant in their own fields. As is customary in Indian villages, Khobragade was proud of the popularity of his rice and was happy to share his seeds with other farmers. 

Khobragade and his HMT rice gained popularity rather speedily because HMT was found to give a higher yield than other commercially sold rice varieties; the prosperity of Khobragade’s village is attributed to the HMT rice variety. It also has a better smell and cooking qualities than the parent Patel 3 variety. These qualities, coupled with its exceptionally short and thin grain, helps farmers earn a higher rate per kilogram in the local market. 

In 1994, the Sindewahi Rice Station, a part of Dr. Punjabrao Deshmukh Krishi Vidyapith (PKV) University (an state funded agricultural research university in Maharashtra) (herein after, the ‘University’) took five kilograms of the HMT seeds from Khobragade to conduct ‘experiments’ on it. 4 years later, the University released a new variety named PKV HMT, a ‘pure’ and improved form of the HMT variety. 

Although these developments received a great deal of press publicity and the actions of the university were questioned both from ethical and legal standpoints, the vice-chancellor of the University was quoted as saying that 

[blockquote align=”none”]The original seed may have come from Khobragade, but now it is entirely the University’s intellectual property (IP).”.[/blockquote] In the following sections we examine, inter alia, whether under Indian law, the statement of the vice-chancellor is indeed accurate.

B. Plant Variety Registrations (in India) Pertaining to the ‘HMT’ Rice Variety

In February 2009, the University filed an application for PKV HMT under the ‘new variety’ category. The application resulted in the registration of the variety in 2012. The registration is in the name of Dr. Punjabrao Deshmukh Krishi Vidyapeeth, Maharashtra and the variety is disclosed as being a selection from local variety HMT Sona. The Certificate of Registration (CoR) contains the following additional information – 

A) Under paragraph (8) of the CoR where the applicant has to disclose the ‘Name and address of contributor, nature and amount of the contribution or the community knowledge used in the development of the plant variety’, the University has stated ‘N/A’ (not applicable). 

B) The University also does not consider its PKV HMT variety as being a variety ‘essentially derived’ from HMT and provides ‘N/A’ as the response to the question under paragraph (7) of the CoR, which seeks ‘In case of ‘essentially derived variety’, the details of the ‘initial variety’ from which the ‘essentially derived variety’ is claimed to have been derived.’

C) Although the application was filed under the ‘new variety’ category, the CoR categorizes PKV HMT as an ‘extant variety’. Of particular relevance is the fact that the year 2008 has been declared as the date of commercialization of the PKV HMT variety under paragraph (10) of the CoR. This is surprising because according to the Rice Knowledge Management Portal (RKMP), the PKV HMT variety was released in 1998. 

A parallel look at the farmers’ variety applications filed so far reveal that an application was also filed by Khobragade for his HMT rice variety (named Dadaji HMT) (Application No. REG/2008/138, filed on 16 January 2008) more than one year before the application filed by the University. Further, a Farmers’ Variety registration certificate (CoR) was granted to Khobragade on 04 April 2012 (6 months before the Registration Certificate was granted to the University). No plant variety registrations for the HMT rice variety are known to exist in any country other than India. 

In the light of the above facts, the following section seeks to determine (i) the provisions under the Indian PPV&FR Act that permit Khobragade to successfully obtain a Plant Variety Protection certificate over his HMT rice variety; and (ii) the manner and extent to which he can expect to enforce his exclusive rights under the Indian law (which, as described above, has already granted him a certificate of registration ) and (iii) whether Khobragade would have managed to obtain a certification under a system that closely follows provisions of UPOV as opposed to the provisions under Indian law. An issue that is closely linked to issue (ii) above, is whether Khobragade has any claim against the University (in the above fact scenario) under Indian law or under any law that adopts a UPOV 1991 type regime. 

C. Applying Provision of UPOV 1991 & the PPV & FR Act to the facts of the HMT Controversy

The above and other CoRs are periodically published by the Plant Authority to ‘[invite] claims of benefit sharing under sub-section 1 of section 26 of the Protection of Plant Varieties and Farmers Rights (PPV&FR) Act, 2001 read with rule 40 of the PPV&FR Rules 2003.’ In order to determine whether Khobragade is entitled to any benefits under the PPV&FR Act, several issues must be addressed: 

(a) Why was the University’s application not rejected despite its failure to disclose Khobragade’s variety as the starting material for its improved PKV HMT Variety? 
(b) Can Khobragade argue that PKV HMT is an essentially derived variety? If yes, can Khobragade claim royalties/share of benefits from the University even though PKV HMT is not registered as an EDV, but as an extant variety?
(c) In what way, if at all, can Khobragade prevent the sale of PKV HMT (in the light of the rights that would accrue to him under section 28 following registration)? 
(d) What rights does Khobragade have now that PKV HMT has been registered as an extant variety without any mention of Khobragade’s contributions? Can he still claim a share of the profits resulting from the sale of PKV HMT (benefit sharing)?

Each of these questions is discussed below in the light of the provisions of the PPV&FR Act: 

C.1 Researcher’s Rights 
At the outset, it is relevant to note that every breeder is free to use a variety created or improved by a farmer or breeder, whether or not it has been registered under the Act, for purposes of ‘experimenting’ and for creating new varieties (section 30 of the PPV&FR Act details these ‘Researchers Rights’ ). 

In the present case, it is clear that Khobragade created the initial variety (HMT). However, using the Researcher’s Rights under section 30 of the PPV&FR Act, the University was free to conduct experiments and to use the HMT variety as an initial source of variety for the purpose of creating other varieties. 

Once such other varieties are created, the breeder of such other varieties is free to apply for registration of these varieties under the PPV&FR Act. The University, therefore, was on the right side of the law when it applied for protection for its PKV HMT variety 

However, the Proviso to section 30 lays down an exception to the researcher’s rights in the following words: 
Provided that the authorization of the breeder of a registered variety is required where the repeated use of such variety as a parental line is necessary for the commercial production of such other newly developed variety. 

The PPV&FR Act does not define the term ‘Parental Line.’ However, the PPV&FR Regulations, 2006 define the term ‘Parental Line’ under Paragraph 2(f) to mean the “inbred line of immediate parents or ‘A’ line, ‘B’ line and ‘R’ line of hybrids.” PKV HMT has been classified as a typical variety and not as a hybrid. Therefore, in order for it to fall within the scope of the Proviso to section 30, the HMT variety must be the inbred line of immediate parents of PKV HMT and its repeated use as a parental line must be necessary for the production of PKV HMT. 

This, however, is never the case in typical varieties created by purifications resulting from selections from generations of a variety. As per the CoR of PKV HMT, it is not an inbred parent, but a selection from the local HMT variety. In fact, it is noteworthy that HMT itself was created following selections made from the progeny of the Patel 3 variety. Once Khobragade selected HMT seeds from Patel 3, he no more needed to continue planting Patel 3 in order to get HMT seeds. He only needed to keep growing and multiplying the selected HMT seeds. 

It appears from the above that the Proviso to section 30 only comes into play if a breeder uses parental lines to generate hybrids or if a breeder creates an inbred parent line by repeatedly selfing a variety that has desirable characteristics. Once again, therefore, it seems that the University did not violate any law under the PPV&FR Act by applying for registration of its PKV HMT variety. Nor was it required to obtain authorization from Khobragade under the Proviso to section 30 before applying for such registration. 

Indian Agriculture: Some Basic Facts and Food for Thought

Indian Agriculture: Some Basic Facts and Food for Thought

Indian Agriculture: Some Basic Facts and Food for Thought



This blog is partially an excerpt from a recently published article of mine, titled “India’s Plant Variety Protection Law: Historical and Implementation Perspectives.

India today is self-sufficient in most of its food requirements. However, it suffered from major famines and severe shortage of food until the mid 1960s.(1) In the decades following the Green Revolution, (coupled, to a smaller extent with increase in cropped and irrigated areas) India became increasingly self-sufficient in agricultural produce. Today, Indian agricultural produce, particularly in relation to important staple foods, is sufficient to feed the entire population of India, while also contributing 15 to 20% of the total value of India’s exports. (2) India was (and is) also an active participant and contributor to international agricultural R&D efforts, including international research efforts in wheat, maize and rice. (For example, Indian scientists have recently created a drought resistant variety of rice called Sahbhagi Dhan that can survive 12 days without rain)(3)

India has witnessed an increase in its agricultural production by >350% from 50.82 million tonnes in 1950-51 to 230.67 million tonnes in 2007-08. (4) While the increase in the land area under cultivation was mere 27.87%, (5) the increase in yield per hectare of land was 255%; from 522Kg/hectare in 1950-51, to 1854 Kg/hectare in 2007-08. (6) This increase in production is largely attributed to improved production technologies, particularly high yielding varieties (HYV) of seeds introduced under the Green Revolution.

In a world that considers intellectual property rights as inevitable and indespensible, Lost Clauses fondly reminds itself and its readers that these HYV seeds and the related technology were acquired and successfully disseminated in India in the absence of an intellectual property protection regime: Green revolution in India resulted from an initial transfer of large quantities of high yielding varieties of rice and wheat seeds from Mexico under the initiative of Norman E Borlaugh. (7) Thereafter, the appropriate technology and know-how, including the best manner of cultivating, the quantity of pesticides and fertilizers to be used etc. was innovated and recommended by the Indian National Agricultural Research System (NARS). (8) Once the dissemination of HYV seeds to Indian farmers commenced, the Green Revolution spread rapidly to most farming communities because of the traditional practice of saving, resowing and exchanging seeds, and because of the absence of IP laws preventing these practices. Experts opine that in the absence of this tradition, such a rapid spread would not be possible.(9)

Recently, Lost Clauses read an interesting article by Christine Godt titled “Regulatory Paradoxes – The Case of Agricultural Innovation.” Ms. Godt notes:

[blockquote align=”none” author=”Ms. Godt”]Traditionally, ‘access’ was conceived as the central component of agricultural innovation, as distinct from industrial patent driven innovation. It rested on two pillars: the former plant breeders’ rights system provided privileges for both farmers and breeders: Complementarily, public agricultural research institutions granted open access to its collections.” (10)[/blockquote]

She further notes:

[blockquote align=”none” author=”Ms. Godt”]Historically, the agricultural innovation system was firmly rooted in open access to genetic resources as public domain…. The inherent reason being self-replication. This feature does not only limit proprietary control along distribution lines. The improvement of seeds is necessarily built on the stock of already existing ones.” (11)[/blockquote]

If the above are facts, which indeed they are, I wonder about 2 things:

1. What prompted and sustained robust private sector participation in seed production and distribution in India (and elsewhere) during the absence of a strong IP protection regime for seeds?

2. Why is a need felt now for strong(er) IP protection in the seed sector despite the glowing growth rates of agricultural productivity around the globe witnessed in 2nd half of the 20th century without such protection?

We invite thoughts on these from our readers and promise to provide our own inputs on them soon!

Sources and Citations
(1) For E.g. the great famines in Bengal 1943-44, in Orissa in 1866 and Bihar in 1873. Greenough, Paul R., Prosperity and Misery in Modern Bengal: The Famine of 1943-1944, (New York, Oxford University Press), I982.
(2) Sahay BR and Shrivastava MP, National Agricultural Policy in the New Millennium, (Anmol Publications Pvt. Ltd. New Delhi), 2001, p. 31.
(3) According to news reports, “Sahbhagi Dhan, which means rice developed through collaboration, is the result of 15 years of joint effort by scientists at the Manila-based IRRI and Central Rainfed Upland Rice Research Station (CRURRS) in Hazaribag town [Jharkhand, India].” Pandey Geeta, India’s drought resistant rice, BBC News, 5 August 2009.
(4) Agricultural Statistics at a Glance, (Government of India) 2008, (20 February 2011). See also Ray Shovan, Economic Policy and Agriculture, In Handbook of India Agriculture, edited by Shovan Ray (Oxford University Press, New Delhi), 2007, p. 37.
(5) Agricultural Statistics at a Glance, (Government of India) 2008.
(6) Agricultural Statistics at a Glance, (Government of India) 2008. The total food-grain stocks of the government have shot up from 20.8 million tones in 1995-96, to 42.3 million tons in 2000-2001. However, this increase may be a result of the Minimum Support Price Scheme of the government of India whereunder, the government guarantees that it will buy all the quantities of grain that the farmer offers to sell. Ray Shovan, Economic Policy and Agriculture, In Handbook of India Agriculture, edited by Shovan Ray (Oxford University Press, New Delhi), 2007, p. 40
(7) The recommended seed replacement rate for self-pollinating crops is 25%. National Seed Plan of India(Government of India), 2005. Also see, Lesser William H, An Economic Approach to Identifying an ‘Effective Sui Generis System’ for Plant Variety Protection Under TRIPs, In Transitions in Agbiotech: Economics of Strategy and Policy, (Proceedings of NE-165 Conference, Washington DC), June 24-25 1999, p. 324.
(8) Inputs provided by Dr. Sudhir Kochhar during the review of the article by this LCD.
(9) Experts also opine however that India’s agricultural policies have catered more to the large landowners and has neglected the needs of the poorer and small farmers. Demangue Sabine, Intellectual Property Protection for Crop Genetic Resources: A Suitable System for India (Herbert Utz Verlag Publishers, Munich), 2005, p. 243 and 257.
(10) Godt, Christine (2009) Regulatory Paradoxes – The case of agricultural innovation, in: J. Drexl, C. Godt, R. Hilty, B. Remiche & L. Boy (Eds.), Technology and Competition – Technologie et Concurrence, Brussels: Larcier (De Boek), 99-118, at 78.
(11) Godt, Christine (2009), ibid., at 82.