Banner
Current IssueEditorial BoardOnline First ArticlesArchive
Current IssueEditorial BoardOnline First ArticlesArchive

Research Article

volume 53 issue 1 (february 2019) : 25-32,   Doi: 10.18805/IJARe.A-5025

One decade of PPV&FRA’s functioning: Crop and institution wise performance and implications

R
Rajesh K. Rana
R
Renu Martolia
S
Suresh Pal
1ICAR-National Institute of Agricultural Economics and Policy, DPS Marg, Pusa-110 012, New Delhi, India.
Cite article:- Rana K. Rajesh, Martolia Renu, Pal Suresh (2019). One decade of PPV&FRA’s functioning: Crop and institution wise performance and implications. Indian Journal of Agricultural Research. 53(1): 25-32. doi: 10.18805/IJARe.A-5025.

ABSTRACT

At the time of this study 2270 varieties were registered (about 18%) by the PPV&FRA out of 12691 the applications filed by research organisations, private companies, farmer groups, NGOs and individuals. Large proportion of registered varieties were Extant-varieties (40%), Farmers-varieties (37%) and Extant varieties-of-common-knowledge (10%) while the proportion of New-varieties and Essentially-derived-varieties was considerably low. About 62% applications were under examination or DUS testing. Public-sector (933), including ICAR (718), led varietal registration followed by farmers (832) and private-sector (505). The ratio of varietal registrations to the filed applications was quite high in case of cereals, pulses, oilseeds and cotton while this ratio was dismally low in case of spices and vegetables. Capacity expansion of PPV&FRA, including the DUS testing centres, was very strongly realized for making functioning of the authority more robust and better.  

REFERENCES

  1. Brahmi, P., Saxena, S., Dhillon, B.S. (2004). The protection of plant varieties and farmers’ rights act of India. Current Science, 86(3): 392–398.
  2. ICAR (2006). Guidelines for Intellectual Property Management and Technology Transfer/ Commercialization.Indian Council of Agricultural Research-Intellectual Property and Technology Management, New Delhi. http://www.icar.org.in/files/reports/    other-reports/icar-ipmttcguide.pdf
  3. Louwaars, N.P., Tripp, R., Eaton, D., Henson, A., Hu, R., Mendoza, M., Muhuku, F., Pal, S., Wekundah, J. (2005). Impacts of strengthened intellectual property rights regimes on the plant breeding industry in developing countries: a synthesis of five case studies. World Bank Report. Centre for Genetic Resource, The Netherlands.
  4. Martolia, R., Rana, Rajesh K. (2016), Imperative role of pulses in Indian food and nutritional security-analysis of current reasons of crisis and their solution. Bhartiya Krishi Anusandhan Patrika, 31(4): 245-250. 
  5. Pathak, A.R., Pithia, M.S., Javia, R.M., Mehta, D.R. (2017) Challenges and options for meeting the needs of pulses-A review. Agricultural Reviews, 38(2): 103-111
  6. Priscilla, L., Balakrishnan, A., Lalrinsangpuii, Chauhan, A.K. (2017). A Study on the performance of agricultural sector in India. Indian Journal of Agricultural Research, 51(3): 282-286. 
  7. Rana, Rajesh K., Martolia, R., Singh, S. and Srivastava, S. (2016). Agri-IPRs pricing in India: Viewing from two divergent cases. ICAR News, 22(3): 9-11.
  8. Ravi, S.B. (2004). Manual on farmers’ rights. MS Swaminathan Research Foundation (MSSRF / MA / 04 / 12).
  9. Venkatesh, P., Pal, S. (2013). Determinants and valuation of plant variety protection in India. Journal of Intellectual Property Rights, 18(5): 448-456.
  10. Venkatesh, P., Sekar, I., Jha, G.K., Singh, P., Sangeetha, V. Pal, S. (2016). How do the stakeholders perceive plant variety protection in Indian seed sector? Current Science, 110(12): 2239-2244.
  11. WTO (2017). Agreement on Trade-Related aspects of Intellectual Property Rights. Annex-IC, page 331. https://www.wto.org/english/    docs_e/legal_e/27-trips.pdf 
Published In
Indian Journal of Agricultural Research
Article Metrics
Metrics Icon
0
Views
0
Citations
Reviewed By
Share Article
Download Article
In this Article
    Contact us
    Follow us

    Research Article

    volume 53 issue 1 (february 2019) : 25-32,   Doi: 10.18805/IJARe.A-5025

    One decade of PPV&FRA’s functioning: Crop and institution wise performance and implications

    R
    Rajesh K. Rana
    R
    Renu Martolia
    S
    Suresh Pal
    1ICAR-National Institute of Agricultural Economics and Policy, DPS Marg, Pusa-110 012, New Delhi, India.
    Cite article:- Rana K. Rajesh, Martolia Renu, Pal Suresh (2019). One decade of PPV&FRA’s functioning: Crop and institution wise performance and implications. Indian Journal of Agricultural Research. 53(1): 25-32. doi: 10.18805/IJARe.A-5025.

    ABSTRACT

    At the time of this study 2270 varieties were registered (about 18%) by the PPV&FRA out of 12691 the applications filed by research organisations, private companies, farmer groups, NGOs and individuals. Large proportion of registered varieties were Extant-varieties (40%), Farmers-varieties (37%) and Extant varieties-of-common-knowledge (10%) while the proportion of New-varieties and Essentially-derived-varieties was considerably low. About 62% applications were under examination or DUS testing. Public-sector (933), including ICAR (718), led varietal registration followed by farmers (832) and private-sector (505). The ratio of varietal registrations to the filed applications was quite high in case of cereals, pulses, oilseeds and cotton while this ratio was dismally low in case of spices and vegetables. Capacity expansion of PPV&FRA, including the DUS testing centres, was very strongly realized for making functioning of the authority more robust and better.  

    REFERENCES

    1. Brahmi, P., Saxena, S., Dhillon, B.S. (2004). The protection of plant varieties and farmers’ rights act of India. Current Science, 86(3): 392–398.
    2. ICAR (2006). Guidelines for Intellectual Property Management and Technology Transfer/ Commercialization.Indian Council of Agricultural Research-Intellectual Property and Technology Management, New Delhi. http://www.icar.org.in/files/reports/    other-reports/icar-ipmttcguide.pdf
    3. Louwaars, N.P., Tripp, R., Eaton, D., Henson, A., Hu, R., Mendoza, M., Muhuku, F., Pal, S., Wekundah, J. (2005). Impacts of strengthened intellectual property rights regimes on the plant breeding industry in developing countries: a synthesis of five case studies. World Bank Report. Centre for Genetic Resource, The Netherlands.
    4. Martolia, R., Rana, Rajesh K. (2016), Imperative role of pulses in Indian food and nutritional security-analysis of current reasons of crisis and their solution. Bhartiya Krishi Anusandhan Patrika, 31(4): 245-250. 
    5. Pathak, A.R., Pithia, M.S., Javia, R.M., Mehta, D.R. (2017) Challenges and options for meeting the needs of pulses-A review. Agricultural Reviews, 38(2): 103-111
    6. Priscilla, L., Balakrishnan, A., Lalrinsangpuii, Chauhan, A.K. (2017). A Study on the performance of agricultural sector in India. Indian Journal of Agricultural Research, 51(3): 282-286. 
    7. Rana, Rajesh K., Martolia, R., Singh, S. and Srivastava, S. (2016). Agri-IPRs pricing in India: Viewing from two divergent cases. ICAR News, 22(3): 9-11.
    8. Ravi, S.B. (2004). Manual on farmers’ rights. MS Swaminathan Research Foundation (MSSRF / MA / 04 / 12).
    9. Venkatesh, P., Pal, S. (2013). Determinants and valuation of plant variety protection in India. Journal of Intellectual Property Rights, 18(5): 448-456.
    10. Venkatesh, P., Sekar, I., Jha, G.K., Singh, P., Sangeetha, V. Pal, S. (2016). How do the stakeholders perceive plant variety protection in Indian seed sector? Current Science, 110(12): 2239-2244.
    11. WTO (2017). Agreement on Trade-Related aspects of Intellectual Property Rights. Annex-IC, page 331. https://www.wto.org/english/    docs_e/legal_e/27-trips.pdf 
    In this Article
      Contact us
      Follow us
      Published In
      Indian Journal of Agricultural Research

      Editorial Board

      View all (0)