Democrats Seek Answers on UPOV 1991 as Thailand Debates Farmers' Seed Rights

Seed rights become a test for Thailand's trade talks

Thailand's Democrat Party is demanding safeguards for farmers before the government accepts commitments on plant variety protection in trade negotiations with the European Union. The dispute concerns UPOV 1991, an international convention that protects plant breeders' rights, and whether changes to Thai law would narrow farmers' ability to keep seeds, increase production costs or weaken protections for local genetic resources.

Weer Sriwarathanabul, the party's deputy spokesperson, has called for answers on four issues: fair dispute resolution, the right to save seeds for the next planting season, support for Thai researchers alongside benefit sharing, and transparent impact studies with broad public consultation. Her warning centres on the unequal resources available to large investors and small farmers when ownership claims or legal disputes arise.

The National Farmers Council has also opened a public consultation. In its invitation to farmers, the council says joining UPOV 1991 could restrict saving or exchanging some seeds, while potentially encouraging new plant variety development and creating trade opportunities. Responses will inform its recommendations to the government, and the survey takes less than five minutes.

The immediate question is not whether farmers have already lost these rights. Thailand's Plant Varieties Protection Act 1999 remains in force, and agriculture officials say a review is continuing. The unresolved issue is what the government might promise in the trade agreement, how that promise would affect domestic legislation, and which protections would survive any changes. Accounts of the negotiations differ, making a precise explanation of the proposed obligations particularly important.

What the Democrats want protected

Weer's demands connect legal rights with the practical cost of farming. Saving part of a harvest for planting can reduce the need to buy new seed. If that practice becomes subject to narrower exceptions, fees or disputes over permission, farmers could face expenses that vary according to the crop and the protection attached to its variety.

Her first request is a dispute process that does not disadvantage small farmers. A formal right to challenge an ownership claim may offer little protection if a farmer cannot afford legal advice or sustain a lengthy case against a much larger business. She wants that imbalance addressed before Thailand accepts new commitments.

The second request is protection for saving and replanting seeds in the following season without a sharp increase in costs. The third combines support for Thai researchers with arrangements that return benefits from the use of local genetic resources and native varieties. The fourth calls for published impact studies and consultation extending beyond officials and commercial interests.

Weer also warned that seed policy reaches beyond farm incomes to the cost of living. That is a concern about possible effects, not evidence that consumer prices have already risen because of UPOV 1991. Her central demand is that the government explain the risks and protections before making a binding commitment.

Officials describe a review, while accounts of talks differ

On October 11, Agriculture and Cooperatives Ministry deputy permanent secretary and spokesperson Krit Uttamawethin said the Department of Agriculture had been instructed to study the advantages, disadvantages and possible effects on the economy and farmers' livelihoods. He also said there had not yet been consideration or negotiations with any party on the matter.

That statement sits alongside accounts describing UPOV 1991 as an issue already raised in the Thailand EU negotiations. Associate Professor Jessada Denduangboripant, a biologist at Chulalongkorn University, said the Commerce Ministry and negotiating team had confirmed that the subject had been discussed but that no conclusion had been reached. The National Farmers Council's consultation likewise identifies accession as an issue in the trade talks.

These descriptions may concern different stages or different agencies' work, but they do not establish the same negotiating status. Discussion of a proposed trade clause, a ministry's internal assessment and a formal decision to join a convention are separate steps. The government has not resolved that distinction in the statements described here.

Agriculture Minister Suriya Juangroongruangkit has instructed officials to hear farmers' views broadly, according to Krit. Department of Agriculture deputy director general and spokesperson Sasinya Pantan said consideration would have to proceed through the department, the ministry, the Cabinet and Parliament, with public consultation before a submission to the Cabinet.

Why keeping seeds depends on the legal exception

UPOV 1991 provides an international framework for protecting new plant varieties. Its economic purpose is to reward investment in breeding by giving breeders control over specified uses of protected varieties. Those rights can support research, but they also make the scope of exceptions important for farmers who reproduce seed rather than buy it each season.

The debate distinguishes two provisions that are sometimes treated as interchangeable. Article 15(1) contains compulsory exceptions, including acts done privately and for purposes that are not commercial, experimental acts, and certain breeding activities. Article 15(2) allows countries to adopt an optional exception permitting farmers, within reasonable limits and while safeguarding breeders' legitimate interests, to use harvest material for propagation on their own holdings.

The exception for replanting on a farmer's own holding is optional, not an automatic unrestricted right. Its wording and domestic implementation matter. A rule allowing a farmer to replant a protected variety on the same holding does not necessarily permit exchanging that seed with neighbours or selling it for propagation.

Jessada argues that UPOV 1991 does not amount to a complete ban on saving seeds and that domestic exceptions can protect small farmers. Critics focus on how narrow those exceptions could become. Those positions overlap on one point: the actual law must specify which uses are permitted. They differ over whether the room left by the convention is sufficient.

The Agriculture Ministry describes the existing Thai law as balancing breeders' protection with native and community varieties, benefit sharing and farmers' ability to retain seeds for planting on their own land. The relevant comparison is therefore between those current protections and a specific proposed replacement, rather than between unrestricted seed use and a universal prohibition.

Traditional varieties and benefit sharing are different questions

Weer has warned that large investors could claim rights connected to traditional varieties and charge farmers for their use. Jessada disputes the suggestion that companies could simply take ownership of every existing local variety. He points to the requirements for protection: novelty, distinctness, uniformity and stability.

These terms have specific legal meanings. Distinctness concerns whether a variety can be distinguished from others; uniformity and stability concern consistency in its relevant characteristics. Novelty under plant variety protection rules concerns prior commercial exploitation under defined conditions. It should not be understood simply as a claim that the plant has never existed before.

The wider concern is what happens when local genetic material contributes to a newly developed variety. Thailand's 1999 law includes mechanisms for benefit sharing associated with the use of certain native or wild plant resources. Benefit sharing means returning an agreed portion of the value generated from those resources to the relevant fund or community.

UPOV 1991 does not itself require such a benefit sharing system. That absence does not, on its own, prove that every Thai protection must disappear. It does make the relationship between trade obligations, registration rules and existing safeguards a central subject for legal review.

Critics also raise Article 14(5), which deals with essentially derived varieties. Broadly, these are varieties predominantly derived from another variety while retaining its essential characteristics. The provision can extend an original breeder's control to certain derived varieties. It is not a blanket ownership claim over all crops, food or traditional recipes.

Investment promises meet a concentrated seed market

Supporters argue that stronger breeders' rights could attract investment, encourage new varieties and give Thai researchers and farmer breeders better protection for their work. Jessada points to opportunities involving economically important plants, including rice, durian, aromatic coconut and orchids. These are possible benefits, rather than measured gains from a decision Thailand has already taken.

The National Farmers Council recognises the same balance in its consultation: possible restrictions on some seed practices alongside possible gains in breeding and trade. The challenge is to establish who would receive those gains, which farmers would face new costs, and whether public research institutions could participate effectively.

Figures cited in the debate put the combined market share of the four leading maize seed companies at 69%, and that of the two leading vegetable seed companies at 58%. On those figures, the remaining businesses account for 31% and 42%, respectively. The crop markets are different, so those percentages should not be combined into a single national estimate.

Another figure cited is 203 plant variety rights held collectively by three leading companies in Thailand. That is a count of rights, not a percentage of all rights or of seed sales. Without a total, it cannot establish the companies' share of registered protection.

These numbers help explain why critics question whether competition alone would contain prices. They do not establish how much seed prices would change under a new law. Claims that prices could rise by several times remain forecasts, not documented outcomes of the proposed agreement.

Earlier scrutiny and the October developments

BioThai director Prokchol Ousap argues that opposition rests on years of research rather than a sudden reaction on social media. She cites a House of Representatives committee's 2020 study of the proposed Comprehensive and Progressive Agreement for Trans Pacific Partnership, which heard from more than 400 officials, academics and stakeholders. That earlier review examined risks associated with UPOV 1991, although it concerned a different trade agreement.

The current debate also includes references to a United Nations report identified as A/HRC/63/26 and a September 21, 2026 communication from four UN special rapporteur mandates, identified as OL OTH 81/2026. The latter is described as urging the EU to withdraw proposed Article X.51 concerning UPOV 1991. These are reported descriptions of the UN documents, rather than findings independently established here from the documents themselves.

• 2020: A Thai parliamentary committee examined CPTPP, including concerns about plant variety protection, after hearing from more than 400 participants.
• September 21, 2026: A communication attributed to four UN special rapporteur mandates challenged the proposed UPOV 1991 provision in the Thailand EU talks.
• October 2, 2026: Civil society groups submitted a petition to the EU Delegation seeking removal of the UPOV 1991 requirement.
• October 6, 2026: The tenth negotiating round in Phuket reportedly concluded, with agreement on 15 of 24 chapters.
• October 11: Agriculture officials described an ongoing assessment and promised consultation before further government approval steps.

The account of the Phuket round says the intellectual property chapter remained unresolved. Agreement on 15 of 24 chapters would mean nine chapters were still unfinished, but that count does not measure how difficult the remaining issues are. The October 11 statement does not specify a year, unlike the dated account of the negotiating round.

What Thailand still needs to decide

A key distinction is whether the EU proposal would require formal membership in UPOV 1991 or require Thai law to meet its standards without accession. Jessada stresses that these are different obligations. Critics argue that alignment could still force substantial changes to domestic protections even if Thailand did not formally join.

Accession and alignment should therefore be evaluated separately. Article 35(1) bars reservations to the convention, meaning a country joining it cannot simply exclude provisions it dislikes. Negotiating different wording in a trade agreement is another process. Neither discussion establishes that Thailand has already accepted the proposed clause.

The same unresolved intellectual property chapter reportedly contains pharmaceutical proposals described as extending patent protection from 20 to 25 years and providing regulatory data exclusivity for eight years plus a possible two more. Data exclusivity restricts reliance on an originator's submitted trial data for regulatory approval. These are separate from seed rights, but they show why assessment of the trade agreement cannot stop at agricultural export opportunities.

The essential missing information is the precise obligation Thailand is considering, the domestic amendments it would require, and the scope of any exceptions. A useful impact assessment would identify affected crops, estimate costs under different rules and explain how benefit sharing and affordable dispute resolution would work.

The negotiating account describes a government ambition to conclude the agreement by the end of 2026. That is a target, not a confirmed signing date. No specific parliamentary vote, public consultation deadline or final decision date is identified. For now, the 1999 law remains in force, while the Democrats and farmer representatives seek answers before commitments become binding.

Key Points

• The Democrats want safeguards on dispute resolution, seed saving, Thai research, benefit sharing and public consultation.
• The National Farmers Council is collecting farmers' views on possible restrictions and possible breeding and trade benefits.
• Thailand's Plant Varieties Protection Act 1999 remains the current law.
• UPOV 1991 permits an optional exception for replanting protected varieties on farmers' own holdings, subject to limits.
• Accounts differ over whether UPOV 1991 is already being negotiated or remains under preliminary review.
• The tenth trade round reportedly settled 15 of 24 chapters, with intellectual property unresolved.
• No final accession decision or parliamentary vote date has been identified.