{"id":4574,"date":"2026-01-08T09:25:03","date_gmt":"2026-01-08T09:25:03","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/maew-sea.org\/?p=4574"},"modified":"2026-01-08T09:36:09","modified_gmt":"2026-01-08T09:36:09","slug":"upov-1991-and-thai-farmers-impacts-and-concerns","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/maew-sea.org\/?p=4574&lang=en","title":{"rendered":"UPOV 1991 and Thai Farmers: Impacts and Concerns"},"content":{"rendered":"

\u201cThere is only one answer to the question, \u2018What will we do?\u2019 We will stop it, cancel it, and not sign it.\u201d<\/span><\/p><\/blockquote>\n

\u00a0<\/p>\n

When discussing \u201cUPOV 1991,\u201d many people may think it is merely a legal framework designed to protect plant varieties, encourage the development of new varieties, and support free trade in the global market. However, for Thai farmers\u2014especially small-scale farmers who rely on saving, replanting, or selling seeds\u2014this agreement raises serious risks and concerns<\/strong>.<\/span><\/p>\n

UPOV not only grants breeders the right to protect plant varieties they develop, but also limits farmers\u2019 rights to save, share, and exchange seeds<\/strong>\u2014practices that have been fundamental to Thai farming communities for generations.<\/span><\/p>\n

This section draws on the discussion titled \u201cThe Trend of the Seed Business and Its Impacts on Farmers\u2019 Rights<\/a>,\u201d which aims to explain what UPOV is, how it differs from other systems, why the Thai government is pushing for it, and what impacts and concerns Thai farmers may face if Thailand joins.<\/span><\/p>\n

\u00a0<\/p>\n

Seed Control: Definitions and Corporate Strategies<\/b><\/p>\n

Kartini Samon of GRAIN clarified the scope of seed laws and the strategies corporations use to control seeds.<\/span><\/p>\n

\u201cSeed laws\u201d refers to intellectual property laws\u2014such as patents and plant variety protection (PVP) systems, such as UPOV\u2014as well as seed marketing regulations.<\/span><\/p>\n

\u00a0<\/p>\n

Definitions of Legal Categories and Their Impacts on Farmers<\/b><\/p>\n

Patents grant exclusive rights for 20 years over innovations involving seeds, plant cells, genetic engineering, or genetic sequencing. This represents the strictest form of control, primarily intended to protect corporate technological investments.<\/span><\/p>\n

Plant Variety Protection (PVP) is a form of \u201csoft patent\u201d for breeders, granting exclusive rights for 15\u201330 years over new plant varieties that are distinct, uniform, and stable. UPOV governs this system by establishing exclusive rights over plant varieties, thereby restricting farmers\u2019 ability to save and reuse seeds.<\/span><\/p>\n

Seed marketing laws set criteria that seeds must meet before entering the market. These criteria often mirror PVP standards\u2014distinctness, uniformity, and stability\u2014thereby excluding diverse local varieties that do not meet the \u201cstability\u201d requirement. As a result, farmers are increasingly compelled to use commercial seeds.<\/span><\/p>\n

Kartini added that large corporations expand their influence and profits in the seed business through two main strategies. The first involves biological mechanisms, such as the use of hybrid seeds. The second involves legal mechanisms\u2014intellectual property and market regulations\u2014which restrict farmers\u2019 rights to save, sell, and exchange seeds.<\/span><\/p>\n

UPOV was founded in 1961 and has existed for more than 60 years. Member states are required to submit draft seed laws for review to ensure compliance with UPOV regulations. In this way, UPOV effectively influences national seed management systems through domestic lawmaking processes.<\/span><\/p>\n

UPOV is an international organization established to regulate new plant varieties globally. There are four versions of the convention: 1961, 1972, 1978, and 1991. The most widely adopted version today is UPOV 1991.<\/span><\/p>\n

Under World Trade Organization (WTO) obligations, established in 1992, each WTO member state must amend its laws to comply with regulations related to breeders\u2019 rights. Thailand is subject to these obligations as well. While neighboring countries were granted transition periods, most have already adjusted their laws to align with UPOV standards.<\/span><\/p>\n

Another legal mechanism affecting seed management is seed market regulation. Seeds that are legally traded must meet the requirements of distinctness, uniformity, and stability. This creates barriers to biodiversity-based restoration and excludes local farmers from formal markets. In several countries, such laws have been used to penalize farmers for selling seeds without official permits, as seen in Kenya and Tanzania.<\/span><\/p>\n

\u201cThis approach is incompatible with the realities of farming,\u201d Kartini explained. \u201cFarmers constantly adapt to ecosystems, increase diversity, and develop varieties that evolve with the environment. The idea that seeds must be static rather than dynamic\u2014even if they are high quality\u2014is incompatible with climate adaptation.\u201d<\/span><\/p><\/blockquote>\n

\u00a0<\/p>\n

People\u2019s Struggles Against the Privatization of Seeds and UPOV<\/b><\/p>\n

Examples from Different Countries<\/b><\/p>\n

In Benin, social movements successfully stopped parliament from considering a UPOV-based draft law.<\/span><\/p>\n

In Zambia, farmers and social movements opposed World Bank loan conditions that pressured the country to join UPOV and amend its seed laws.<\/span><\/p>\n

In Guatemala and Argentina, mass mobilizations demanded the withdrawal of proposed laws aligned with UPOV standards, commonly referred to as the \u201cMonsanto Law.\u201d These protests were part of broader national strikes.<\/span><\/p>\n

In Malaysia and Indonesia, farmers and civil society groups are resisting free trade agreements\u2014such as those with the EU\u2014that require compliance with UPOV-like standards rather than protecting farmers\u2019 rights to local seeds.<\/span><\/p>\n

In the Philippines, farmers are leading efforts to strengthen farmers\u2019 seed rights through alternative legislation that differs from UPOV.<\/span><\/p>\n

These struggles share a common goal: defending seeds as a common, protecting biodiversity, and keeping seed systems in the hands of communities as a foundation of food sovereignty.<\/span><\/p>\n

Kartini concluded by noting that Peru will hold another referendum in November on regulations that would allow greater private-sector access to genetic resources. Safeguards against exploitation remain uncertain, and it is unclear whether such access would lead to genuine technology transfer or merely increase corporate profits.<\/span><\/p>\n

\u00a0<\/p>\n

Protection of Plant Varieties in East Asia<\/b><\/p>\n

In East Asia, Japan is a major player in plant variety protection. Two Japanese companies dominate the regional seed industry, and Japan has played a leading role in driving seed law reforms across ASEAN.<\/span><\/p>\n

China and South Korea are also influential actors in Southeast Asia, promoting legal changes related to seeds. These efforts have already led to reforms in Myanmar, Laos, and Cambodia that align with the UPOV 1991.<\/span><\/p>\n

\"\"<\/p>\n

\u00a0<\/p>\n

What Is UPOV and Where Does Thailand Stand?<\/b><\/p>\n

Before summarizing why UPOV 1991 should be monitored closely\u2014or rejected\u2014Prokchol Ousap from BioThai reviewed the origins and principles of Thailand\u2019s Plant Variety Protection Act of 1999. This law protects breeders\u2019 new varieties while also recognizing farmers\u2019 and communities\u2019 rights.<\/span><\/p>\n

Thailand has been a WTO member since 1995. In response to the Agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPS), industrialized countries and transnational corporations pushed for stronger plant variety protection in Thailand and other developing countries.<\/span><\/p>\n

Three policy options were considered. The first was patent-based protection for new plant varieties used industrially. The second was the adoption of the UPOV standards, which focus solely on breeders\u2019 rights. The third was a sui generis system tailored to national conditions.<\/span><\/p>\n

Thailand ultimately adopted a hybrid approach. The Plant Variety Protection Act of 1999 combines UPOV 1978 principles with recognition of farmers\u2019 and communities\u2019 rights, in line with FAO guidelines and the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD), Prokchol explained.<\/span><\/p>\n

\u00a0<\/p>\n

Risks and Concerns if Thailand Joins UPOV 1991<\/b><\/p>\n

Prokchol warned that UPOV 1991 would significantly expand breeders\u2019 rights. All plant varieties would eventually be subject to protection, and protection periods would increase to 20\u201325 years. The scope of protection would extend to harvested products and derivatives, including \u201cEssentially Derived Varieties (EDVs),\u201d a concept not yet clearly defined in Thai law.<\/span><\/p>\n

Under UPOV 1991, farmers\u2019 rights to save and reuse seeds would depend on national implementation and could be severely restricted. The definition of \u201cbreeder\u201d would also expand to include those who merely discover plant varieties.<\/span><\/p>\n

Prokchol concluded that Thailand\u2019s current law attempts to balance breeders\u2019 rights with farmers\u2019 rights. Joining UPOV 1991 would undermine this balance and pose serious risks to farmers\u2019 livelihoods and biodiversity.
\n<\/span><\/p>\n

\n

Learn more from<\/strong><\/p>\n