Seeds, UPOV91 and trade deals: our response to the Government position

After over 20,000 people signed our petition calling for an end to UPOV91 in UK trade deals, Transform Trade wrote a letter to Minister Alexander back in October. See the Government response below, with our reflections and responses to the Government’s position: 

“UPOV plays an important role in providing for and promoting an effective system of plant variety protection, with the aim of encouraging the development of new varieties of plants, for the benefit of society.” 

UPOV91 protects the interests of commercial plant breeders—corporations with the resources to invest in labs, scientists, and test farms. It takes years to develop new varieties of plants in this way. Once developed, these seeds are designed to be produced en-masse in monocultures, often require fertilisers and pesticides and are very costly for smallholders. 

It does not adequately protect the rights of farmers to save, swap and sell their own seeds. The UPOV91 system undermines the many farmers who rely on farmer-managed seed systems. Such restrictions are not to the benefit of smallholder farmers, or the communities that rely on them.  

In the vast majority of cases, new plant varieties aren’t developed in a lab, they are developed in farmer fields. Yet, because of agricultural intensification, we’ve been losing crop diversity at an alarming rate. Between 1900-1990, 75% of plant genetic diversity disappeared as farmers worldwide shifted from diverse local crop varieties to genetically uniform, high-yielding ones, according to the UN Food & Agriculture Organisation.  

A 2021 study confirmed this loss, linking it to policies promoting agricultural modernization. However, this trend has made global agriculture more vulnerable to climate change, as uniform crops often struggle to adapt to shifting conditions. 

“Encouraging innovation and the development of new plant varieties is vital in building a global agricultural system, which is fit to face the dual challenges of climate change and population growth.” 

This narrative overlooks the critical role that farmers play as innovators, de-facto plant breeders, and in providing the world’s food. Smallholder farmers feed not only up to 80% of populations in countries on the Global South, but are continually innovating by breeding, exchanging and developing new plant varieties as they go, which are tailored to their local ecosystems, providing nutritious, diverse diets to local populations. 

Unlike commercial breeding, which requires years of costly lab work, farmers’ on-the-ground innovation is often more efficient, resilient, and cost-effective. And yet these efforts are given little recognition, and farmer-managed seed systems are underfunded.  

“The assurance that intellectual property will be respected, provided partly by UPOV, is a key factor in decision making by plant breeders to invest in developing necessary new plant varieties and making them available to farmers.” 

While there may be a case for this argument, the restrictions placed on farmers under UPOV91 are disproportionate. Smallholders in rural areas, selling seeds locally, pose negligible financial risks to large breeders. Yet, the system imposes heavy penalties for saving or selling protected seeds, including fines or imprisonment in extreme cases. 

This undermines the autonomy of smallholder farmers, who often have little need for commercial varieties. For many, local seeds already meet their agricultural needs, offering cultural, economic, and environmental advantages that commercial breeds cannot replicate. A one-size-fits-all push for commercial seeds risks replacing diverse farmer-led innovations with monocultures driven by profit. 

“Article 15(2) of UPOV91, contains an optional exception to the Breeder's Right, allowing farmers to use seed collected from their own crops for their own use.” 

While Article 15(2) of UPOV91 offers an optional exception allowing farmers to save seeds for their use, the reality is far more restrictive. Farmers must pay royalties if they plan to reuse seeds commercially, and they cannot sell saved seeds to other farmers. Such limitations disproportionately affect smallholders, particularly in the Global South, where seed sharing and exchanges are integral to farming practices. 

“The UK offers Farm Saved Seed rules which allow farmers to use seed collected from their own holding for propagating purposes on their own holding and to pay equitable remuneration to the right holder. This provides farmers with a relatively low-cost source of seed and allows control over seed quality, provenance, and treatment (Plant Varieties Act 1997).” 

The situation in countries like the UK illustrates this disparity. In the UK, where farmers already rely heavily on commercial seeds, such rules may seem reasonable. However, imposing these regulations on smallholder farmers globally adds financial and administrative burdens, threatening their ability to sustain themselves. A study in 10 African countries found that 90% of smallholder farmers accessed seeds through farmer-managed systems—highlighting the need to prioritise and protect farmer-managed seed systems.  

“As a signatory to the UPOV 1991 convention since 1999, the UK continues to uphold these commitments via domestic legislation and reiterated through our international trade agreements.“ 

UPOV91’s reach extends through trade agreements, often requiring signatories to adopt its provisions. For instance, Chile’s participation in the Comprehensive and Progressive Agreement for Trans-Pacific Partnership (CPTPP) compelled it to adopt UPOV91, arguably against its preferences. While the UK claims to promote mutually beneficial trade with developing countries, such agreements risk undermining smallholder farmers by prioritizing intellectual property commitments over sustainable farming practices. 

Moreover, UK-funded development assistance often fails to support farmer-managed seed systems, focusing instead on market-driven solutions. Cutting aid budgets further exacerbates this neglect, leaving smallholder farmers without the resources to strengthen their traditional practices or enhance agroecological approaches. 

A Call for Change: Listening to Farmers 

Despite UPOV91’s stated benefits, its critics argue that the system’s rigid restrictions clash with the realities of smallholder farming and traditional seed systems. Farmer groups worldwide have called for an end to UPOV91, emphasizing that reforms are insufficient. Instead of imposing top-down solutions, policymakers must actively engage with farmers to understand their needs and develop a coherent policy that respects food sovereignty and agricultural diversity. 

The UK has an opportunity to lead by example, removing UPOV91 provisions from trade deals and redirecting development assistance toward farmer-led initiatives. Supporting seed banks, promoting agroecology, and funding smallholder farmers can pave the way for a more equitable and sustainable agricultural future.