House study warns of biopiracy risks as farmers in 27 Thai provinces oppose EU seed rules

A 2020 study by a Thai House of Representatives special committee warned of biopiracy risks associated with UPOV 1991. Separately, farmers’ networks from 27 provinces oppose possible restrictions on saving, selecting, exchanging and replanting seed from previous harvests in Thailand–European Union (EU) trade talks scheduled for September 28–October 6, 2026. 

The plant-variety dispute concerns whether the proposed Thailand–EU free trade agreement should require changes to Thailand’s Plant Varieties Protection Act of 1999 to bring it into line with UPOV 1991, the 1991 Act of the International Convention for the Protection of New Varieties of Plants. The tenth negotiating round is taking place in Phuket. 

Thailand’s Ministry of Agriculture and Cooperatives has previously said rice farmers retain the right to save seed for replanting and rejected claims that the proposed approach favours major corporate interests. Farmers’ networks remain unconvinced by those assurances.

Farmers’ networks and civil-society organisations, including the Assembly of the Poor, have submitted objections to Prime Minister Anutin Charnvirakul’s government and relevant agencies, demanding that UPOV 1991-related obligations be removed from the negotiations to protect their rights.

House committee study identifies seven risks for agriculture

The biopiracy warning comes from a study by the House special committee examining the potential effects of Thailand joining the Comprehensive and Progressive Agreement for Trans-Pacific Partnership (CPTPP). The committee’s 2020 assessment identified seven possible UPOV 1991-related risks for agriculture and the rural economy, as summarised by Krungthep Turakij:

• Biopiracy: The House committee study warned that weakening existing controls over permission and benefit-sharing could allow Thai plant genetic resources to be used to obtain commercial rights overseas. Resulting varieties could then be sold in Thailand in competition with domestic breeders.

• Unintentional infringement through natural cross-pollination: The House committee study raised concerns that pollen from fields containing protected new varieties could cross with local crops, potentially creating disputes over essentially derived varieties (EDVs). Such disputes could affect communities’ established seed-saving and selection practices.
• Risks to rice genetic resources and production costs: The House committee study identified incomplete genetic-resource databases as a vulnerability that could allow domestic varieties to be developed further without benefit-sharing, while increasing farmers’ seed costs.
• Implications for genetically modified crops: The House committee study raised concerns that obligations to protect genetically modified plant varieties could affect confidence in Thailand’s organic and high-value agricultural exports.
• Seed prices potentially rising two- to six-fold: The House committee study warned that a reduced government role in producing and distributing seed could weaken mechanisms that help keep prices in check, increasing farmers’ dependence on more expensive private-sector supplies.
• Litigation risks for farmers and small traders: The House committee study warned that protection extending to harvested material and processed products could expose farmers, small retailers and traders to legal claims, particularly those without the documentation needed to demonstrate compliance.
• Greater market concentration: The House committee study identified capital, technology and protection under EDV rules as potential advantages for large corporations that could make it harder for small breeders and domestic agricultural cooperatives to compete. 

The House committee’s assessment concerned potential CPTPP accession in 2020. Its seed-price estimate is therefore a finding from that earlier study, not an established forecast for the current Thailand–EU negotiations.

BioThai warns legal changes could weaken farmers’ and community rights

Prokchol Ousap, director of the BioThai Foundation, said aligning Thai law with UPOV 1991 could fundamentally alter protections for farmers and communities, even without Thailand formally joining the convention. Prokchol outlined the concerns on the Thai Public Broadcasting Service’s Siang Plian Mueang programme on September 15, 2026. 

Prokchol said the disputed wording did not explicitly require Thailand to become a contracting party to UPOV 1991. Instead, the concern was that an obligation to make domestic legislation consistent with the convention would change the underlying principles of the existing plant-variety law. 

Prokchol described the 1999 legislation as having three pillars: protecting breeders’ rights over newly developed varieties; allowing farmers to retain produce and use propagating material they have grown themselves; and recognising community rights while maintaining national sovereignty over genetic resources. 

Under the community provisions, researchers or breeders using wild plants or community varieties must disclose their origins and share the benefits, Prokchol said. Referring to the protections for farmers and communities, Prokchol warned: “But if the law is changed in accordance with UPOV 1991, the latter two principles would disappear.” 

Biodiversity and environmental-law academics, including those associated with BioThai and climate-justice networks, have also raised concerns about food and genetic sovereignty. Their objections include pressure through trade agreements to accept UPOV 1991 obligations, increased corporate control over local varieties, and demands to remove origin-disclosure and community benefit-sharing provisions.

Disclosure and benefit-sharing proposals focus on protecting Thai resources

Intellectual-property academics have pointed to the World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO) Treaty on Intellectual Property, Genetic Resources and Associated Traditional Knowledge as a potentially useful framework for improving transparency in patent applications.

The WIPO treaty provides for applicants whose inventions are based on genetic resources or associated traditional knowledge to disclose the relevant origins or sources. Academic supporters argue that disclosure could help prevent improper patent claims involving Thai medicinal plants and genetic resources, including those used in medicines and cosmetics. 

Academic recommendations for Thailand’s negotiating team and research institutions include three practical safeguards:

• Develop genetic-resource databases: Establish systematic records of medicinal plants and other biological resources, including digital sequence information (DSI), to provide evidence supporting Thailand’s sovereign rights over its resources in international disputes.
• Negotiate tailored conditions: Pursue specific flexibilities or exemptions for provisions affecting small-scale farmers, using a tailored approach such as the Japan–Thailand Economic Partnership Agreement (JTEPA) model rather than accepting blanket conditions promoted by developed-country negotiating partners.
• Strengthen access and benefit-sharing agreements: Use preliminary term sheets to establish benefit-sharing proportions before granting access to genetic-resource collections. The recommendation applies particularly to arrangements between research universities and private companies.

Farmers demand protection of seed-saving rights in EU talks

Farmers’ networks have called on the government to reject provisions they fear could restrict their rights to save, select, exchange and replant seed. The networks have submitted two demands to relevant agencies and Thailand’s negotiating delegation. 

1. Reject the EU’s proposed Article X.51. The networks want the specific UPOV 1991-related plant-variety provision removed from the agreement. They also oppose any wording or pressure that would require Thailand to amend its Plant Varieties Protection Act along UPOV 1991 lines.
2. Halt amendments to the 1999 law. The networks have called on the Ministry of Agriculture and Cooperatives to stop changes intended to bring the legislation into conformity with UPOV 1991. Their position is that Thailand’s existing law already follows the plant-variety protection principles of the World Trade Organization’s Agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPS).

Source: Krungthep Turakij