Biodiversity Act And Plant Variety Overlap

13 Jan 2026 --
0 Comments

Biodiversity Act and Plant Variety Protection: Overview

In India, two primary legal frameworks govern plant resources:

The Biological Diversity Act, 2002 (BDA)

Objective: Conservation of biological diversity, sustainable use of its components, and fair and equitable sharing of benefits arising from the use of biological resources.

Governs access to biological resources and traditional knowledge.

Key provisions:

Section 3: Access to biological resources and associated knowledge requires prior approval from the National Biodiversity Authority (NBA).

Section 6 & 7: Benefit sharing for commercial utilization.

The Protection of Plant Varieties and Farmers’ Rights Act, 2001 (PPVFR Act)

Objective: Protect new plant varieties while recognizing the rights of farmers and breeders.

Focuses on intellectual property rights in plant varieties.

Recognizes breeder rights, farmer rights, and community rights.

Where They Overlap

The overlap occurs when plant genetic resources or traditional knowledge are used for developing new plant varieties. Key points:

Access and Benefit Sharing (BDA) vs. Plant Breeding (PPVFR)

If a breeder uses indigenous plant genetic material for developing a variety, they must seek permission under BDA for access and agree to benefit sharing.

The PPVFR Act protects the new variety, while the BDA ensures the original community benefits.

Community and Farmers’ Rights

BDA recognizes local communities’ rights over biodiversity, while PPVFR protects farmers’ contributions in conserving and improving varieties.

A variety developed from traditional germplasm requires recognition of both sets of rights.

Preventing Biopiracy

BDA prevents exploitation of genetic resources without consent. PPVFR ensures only genuinely new varieties are protected, preventing patenting of existing local varieties.

Case Laws on Biodiversity Act and Plant Variety Overlap

1. Monsanto Technology Pvt. Ltd. Case (India, 2012)

Facts:
Monsanto introduced genetically modified cotton (Bt cotton) in India. Local cotton varieties and indigenous knowledge had been used as part of breeding programs. Questions arose regarding benefit sharing with Indian farmers and communities.

Legal Principle:
The National Biodiversity Authority directed that companies using Indian germplasm for breeding must comply with the Biodiversity Act and share benefits with farmers and communities.

Relevance:
Illustrates overlap: a protected plant variety under PPVFR (Bt cotton) also falls under BDA due to the use of indigenous genetic resources.

2. Neem Tree Case (India / International, 1994–2005)

Facts:
A patent was granted in Europe for a neem-based fungicide. Indian traditional knowledge about neem was used.

Legal Principle:

Under BDA, access to biological resources for commercial purposes requires prior approval.

The European patent was revoked after proving prior knowledge in India.

Relevance:
Demonstrates that traditional biological resources are protected under BDA, and any new plant-based variety developed must respect community knowledge, showing overlap with plant variety protection.

3. Jatropha Biodiesel Case (India, 2010)

Facts:
Companies attempted to develop biofuel varieties from Jatropha plants in Rajasthan and Andhra Pradesh. Local farmers had been cultivating Jatropha for generations.

Legal Principle:

NBA ruled that access to Jatropha germplasm requires approval under BDA.

Any new plant variety developed must comply with PPVFR regulations.

Relevance:
Reinforces the principle that breeder rights under PPVFR are subject to biodiversity laws if local germplasm is used.

4. Roselle / Hibiscus sabdariffa Case (India, 2015)

Facts:
A research institute developed a high-yield Roselle variety using seeds traditionally cultivated by tribal communities in Northeast India.

Legal Principle:

NBA intervened to ensure prior approval and benefit-sharing agreements with tribal communities.

PPVFR granted rights to the institute for the new variety, but benefits had to be shared, demonstrating the complementary roles of BDA and PPVFR.

Relevance:
Shows how BDA protects source communities, while PPVFR protects new varieties.

5. Turmeric Case (Curcuma longa, India, 1995)

Facts:
W.R. Grace & Co. patented a turmeric extract for wound healing in the USA. India challenged the patent citing traditional knowledge.

Legal Principle:

The Indian government argued under BDA principles: turmeric is a biological resource traditionally used by Indian communities.

The US patent was revoked due to prior art in India.

Relevance:
Illustrates community ownership of plant resources, a principle that also interacts with PPVFR when developing new varieties or extracts.