Customary rights of farmers and PepsiCo controversy

Abstract

AbstractFarming communities have played a vital role in making plant genetic resources available to commercial plant breeders for development of new varieties of plants. They are instrumental in ensuring sustainability of agriculture, which is a must to meet the demands of an increasing world's population. Despite the above the contributions of farming communities are undervalued. Agriculture‐based economies cannot do justice with these communities by treating them as steward of biological resources only. Attempts have been made in different jurisdictions to protect commercial plant breeders as well as farmers using different options available under the TRIPs Agreement. But, in no jurisdiction, farming communities have affirmative rights equal to or better than commercial plant breeders due to the demands of privatization of seed industries and technological developments in agriculture sector. An attempt has been made by the Government of India under the Protection of Plant Varieties and Farmers' Rights Act, 2001 to recognize the enormous contributions of farming communities and give them protection at par with commercial plant breeders. In fact, the Act recognizes the long‐due customary claims of farming communities. The paper examines the rights of farmers as customary rights particularly in light of the UNDROP, 2018. It critically examines the recent decision of PPV&FR  Authority in Kavitha Kuruganti case to understand PepsiCo's concerns and its contradictions with customary rights of farmers in India.