Germplasm conservation and sharing is a public good but also raises questions of sovereignty and benefit-sharing. Critically analyse in the Indian context.

Germplasm is the seeds and genetic material kept for crop breeding, and it is the raw material of food security. India and CGIAR have worked together for 50 years. One example of that work: an Indian groundnut sample shared through ICRISAT now underpins varieties grown in Malawi, Uganda, Mozambique and Zambia [1]. Sharing germplasm is clearly a public good, but it also tests India's control over its own resources and its share of the returns.

Germplasm as a public good

• Green Revolution: swapping germplasm with CIMMYT, IRRI and ICRISAT helped turn India from a food-deficit importer into a food exporter [1].
• Facilitated access under the Multilateral System of the ITPGRFA (the FAO Plant Treaty) cuts transaction costs, which is itself an indirect benefit [2].
• South–South soft power: the Hyderabad Centre of Excellence for South–South Cooperation in Agriculture shares Indian know-how with Asia, Africa and Latin America [1].
• Climate resilience: breeding drought- and heat-tolerant varieties needs a wide gene pool, and no single country holds one.

Sovereignty concerns

• Under the Biological Diversity Act, 2002, foreigners need prior approval from the National Biodiversity Authority (NBA) to access Indian biological resources, or to claim intellectual property rights on them [3]. But material already held in international genebanks moves under treaty rules, which bypass this domestic check.
• Biopiracy risk: breeders abroad may claim private rights over traits taken from Indian landraces.
• Overlapping regimes: the Plant Treaty, the Nagoya Protocol, the BD Act and the PPVFR Act overlap, which leaves researchers and companies unsure which rules apply.

Benefit-sharing gaps

• Under the Standard Material Transfer Agreement (SMTA), the mandatory payment of 1.1% of sales applies only when a product is closed to further breeding. In all other cases payment is voluntary [4]. A company can therefore profit from Indian germplasm and owe nothing.
• The Benefit-sharing Fund relies on both voluntary donations and user payments [5]. This makes returns to provider countries unpredictable.
• Talks to "enhance" the Multilateral System, including a revised SMTA, are still unfinished [6].
• Farmers as conservers: the PPV&FR Act, 2001 recognises farmers' rights and creates a National Gene Fund [7]. Even so, the communities that conserve landraces rarely see any returns from international use.

Overall, germplasm sharing has done far more for food security than it has cost India in sovereignty, but the fairness gaps are real. As a major provider, India should support a subscription-based SMTA and align its BD and PPV&FR Acts with the Plant Treaty. It can also use the ICAR–CGIAR Science and Partnership Week in April 2027 [8] to agree on fair partnership terms. Together these steps would advance SDG target 2.5: conserving seed diversity while sharing its benefits fairly.