Rethinking Plant Variety Protection: Lessons from Vietnam Shared at Surabaya Workshop
- Khristine Maguddayao
- 14 hours ago
- 4 min read
SURABAYA, January 28, 2026 —During the Workshop on Plant Variety Protection, Farmers’ Rights, and the Development of the Indonesian Seed Sector, Normita Ignacio, Executive Director of SEARICE, presented critical insights into the impacts of UPOV 1991, drawing on Vietnam's experience. Her presentation highlighted the complex realities behind plant variety protection (PVP) systems and raised important questions about their implications for farmers, public research institutions, and national seed sovereignty in Southeast Asia.
Why Vietnam Joined UPOV 1991
Ignacio began by outlining the historical context of Vietnam’s accession to UPOV. Agricultural transformation in Vietnam had already been underway since the Doi Moi reforms of the late 1980s, which introduced structural policy changes, expanded irrigation, and strengthened agricultural technologies. By 1986, Vietnam had achieved significant gains in rice production and began exporting over a million tons of milled rice, long before joining UPOV.
Vietnam’s eventual adoption of the UPOV 91 version of plant variety protection laws in the mid-2000s was influenced largely by trade agreements and international pressure rather than purely domestic agricultural needs. Advocates of UPOV argued that stronger intellectual property protection would encourage breeders to release valuable varieties and improve agricultural productivity.
However, Ignacio emphasized that historical evidence indicates Vietnam’s agricultural growth was already driven by policy reforms, government investment, and scientific advances, not necessarily by the introduction of stricter PVP systems.
Examining the Evidence
A major focus of the presentation was a study often cited to promote UPOV membership. According to Ignacio, the study links increases in plant variety protection applications and crop productivity to Vietnam’s accession. However, closer examination reveals important gaps.
For instance, while PVP applications increased significantly, particularly for rice, many breeders reported applying for protection not because it benefited them. As Ignacio pointed out, “There is pressure to apply for protection so that varieties will not be misappropriated—not because breeders actually need it.” Some public breeders even described PVP as an additional financial burden rather than a meaningful incentive.
Moreover, the study attributed productivity gains to plant breeding under UPOV, despite evidence that factors such as land consolidation, irrigation development, government investment in research, and advances in molecular breeding technologies were far more decisive.
Ignacio also highlighted inconsistencies in the study’s claims — including linking improvements in sweet potato production to UPOV, even though no plant variety protection applications had been filed for the crop.
Impacts on Farmers and Public Breeders
One of the most striking concerns raised during the presentation was the economic impact of PVP systems on smallholder farmers. Protected seeds in Vietnam were reported to cost six to eight times as much as non-protected commercial seeds, disadvantaging farmers.
Public plant breeders also faced new pressures. With reduced government funding and rising commercialization demands, many institutions were forced to sell licensing rights to private seed companies because they lacked the capacity to produce and distribute seeds.
These dynamics, Ignacio argued, have contributed to a shift in the seed sector—from public and farmer-led systems to corporate control.
Corporate Concentration and Genetic Erosion
Ignacio’s presentation underscored broader structural impacts that extend beyond statistics. The concentration of breeding efforts on export-oriented crops, particularly rice, has reduced attention to vegetables and other locally important crops, potentially accelerating genetic erosion and increasing reliance on imported seeds.
Data from Vietnam show that foreign entities now hold a large share of plant variety protection certificates, and multinational companies dominate the vegetable seed market—a significant shift from earlier years, when public institutions supplied most seeds.
The effects have extended to farmer seed systems as well. Community seed clubs, once responsible for meeting a large share of local seed demand in the Mekong Delta, have declined due to fears of violating stricter PVP laws.
Lessons for Southeast Asia
Despite these concerns, Ignacio clarified that plant breeding remains essential to agricultural development. The key question, she argued, is whether adopting strict UPOV-style laws is necessary—or even compatible—with diverse national seed systems.
Findings from SEARICE and partner organizations indicate that Vietnam’s agricultural progress stemmed from a complex combination of policy reforms, scientific innovation, and farmer participation rather than from PVP legislation alone.
For countries like Indonesia, which are currently examining their seed sector policies, Vietnam’s experience offers valuable lessons: strengthening local seed systems, investing in public research, and safeguarding farmers’ rights may be as important as legal protection mechanisms.
Protection—But at What Cost?
In closing, Ignacio emphasized that the debate over plant variety protection ultimately concerns whose interests seed systems are meant to serve. While innovation and plant breeding remain vital, policies that prioritize strict intellectual property regimes without sufficient safeguards for farmers and public research risk deepening inequalities within agriculture.
Vietnam’s experience shows that agricultural progress cannot be reduced to legal protection alone. Decades of public investment, farmer knowledge, and locally grounded innovation built the country’s seed sector long before UPOV-style laws were introduced. As Southeast Asian countries consider similar policy pathways, Ignacio urged stakeholders to critically examine not only the promised benefits but also the long-term social and ecological consequences.
Protection must not come at the expense of farmers’ rights, biodiversity, and national seed sovereignty. The challenge moving forward is not merely to adopt global models but to shape seed governance frameworks that remain accountable to farmers, responsive to local realities, and rooted in equitable and sustainable agricultural futures.
