There are several international regimes related to these concerns of developing countries to be considered. The Convention on Biological Diversity(CBD) vests states with sovereignty over their genetic resources and requires prior informed consent and benefit sharing as a condition for access to the resources. The International Undertaking on Plant Genetic Resources FAO-IU (FAO) recognizes farmers' rights. It is under renegotiation, to make it a protocol to the CBD. Article 27.3(b) of the Agreement on TRIPs requires WTO members to protect plant varieties, which involves protecting rights of plant breeders, by effective sui generis systems but without spelling out its position on benefit sharing and farmers' rights. The International Convention of the Union for the Protection of New Varieties of Plants (UPOV) contains provisions on protecting the rights of plant breeders and farmers. First adopted in 1961, it has over the years been modified, significantly by the 1978 Act (UPOV 78) and the 1991 Act (UPOV 91). UPOV 91, urged upon the WTO by the USA for instance, contains extensive protection for plant breeders to the prejudice of farmers' rights and severely restricts the scope of other breeders to innovate around protected varieties (the breeders' exemption), in this way disturbingly affecting the food security and equity goals of developing countries on the whole. UPOV 78 did not limit the farmers' rights and kept the rights of plant breeders within levels supported by some developing countries. Some WTO members have assumed obligations under the other instruments as well. The proposal that UPOV 91 is the sui generis system, raises the alarm that unfavorable regimes could be imposed on unwilling developing countries; and specifically that the obligations of UPOV 91 will be smuggled into the WTO Agreement, making them enforceable under the WTO dispute settlement system, when they were not negotiated in the Uruguay Round to include them in the WTO. India is attempting to become member of UPOV, 1978 but opposition in the country from NGOs has resulted in a PIL being filed. The judgment is awaited. (Gene Campaign, 2003)

At the domestic level, several countries have adopted or will soon adopt laws on plant varieties, but in the context of CBD the laws extend to the rights of farmers and local communities, and regulation of access to genetic resources. The Organization of African Unity has developed a model law encompassing the various concerns in respect of African countries especially for the right to save, use, multiply and process farm-saved seed but not to sell it on a commercial scale.

Taking the above discussion in view, experts in India representing all sectors including farmers’ organizations discussed and formulated a model Act for the first time in the world. India has now passed its national legislation namely, “Protection of Plant Varieties and Farmers’ Rights Act,”(PPVFR, 2000). This novel act not only introduces provisions for the protection of new plant varieties but also builds into the legislation features to protect farmers’ rights, provides an administrative framework for benefit sharing between the beneficiaries which in combination of new Indian Patent Act, 1999 and 2002;Trademarks Act1999; Geographical Indications Act, 1999; and also the Biodiversity Act, 2002 .It aims to protect the interests of all and also comply with standards as per the TRIPS. Implementation of this itself is a major challenge to researchers in agriculture. Efforts must be made to understand the Act and sort out conscientious issues allaying fears especially of the farmers whose livelihoods depend and of breeders, communities and others who need the recognition of the knowledge as an economic asset.

Conclusion

Protected IPs can thus provide the researchers several options for sharing their creations with public. Depending on the need, IPs can be made freely available at no cost or with no obligations as was being done earlier. But in the post-TRIPS era, compulsions due to prevailing environment in international trade may force researchers to adopt options like selling, (which means losing control on their inventions), or transfer through licensing which gives economic benefits to the inventors. Using some of instruments to gain successes in face of competition is to be learnt and researchers need to gear up to build strong IP portfolios for research institutions and use them as bargaining power. However, any exclusiveness in production and marketing will generally result in relatively high prices, which the users pay for in using or purchasing the product. Therefore, an integral element in the protection of intellectual property is to ensure that there is a balance between the interests of the innovator and institution on one hand and the user on the other hand to harmonize development of knowledge and products.

References
Chaturvedi, S.2002. India, the European Union and Geographical Indications (GI): Convergence of Interests and Challenges Ahead. RIs for non-aligned and other developed countries. RIs-Dp#35-2002
CIPRA.2003. http://www.iprlawindia.org
Erbisch, F.H and Carlos Velazquez 1998. Introduction to intellectual properties In: Intellectual Property Rights in Agricultural Biotechnology (Eds.) Erbisch, F.H and K.M. Maredia. CAB Institute Wallinford Oxon. ISBN 0-85199-2323 p3-18
Ganguli, Prabhudha 1998. Gearing up for patents-the Indian scenario.Universities Press India Ltd., .ISBN01-7371-109-4
Ganguli, Prabhudha 2001. Intellectual Property Rights-Unleashing the knowledge economy. McGraw Hill India. ISBN 0-07-463860-2
Ganguli, Prabhudha 2003. India Path Towards TRIPS Compliance. World Patent Information Vol (in press)
Ganguli, Prabhudha 2003. Complying with article 39of TRIPs…a myth or evolving reality. World Patent Information Vol (in press)
GI Act, 1999.http://www.patentoffice.nic.in/ipr/gi/geo_ind.htm
Gupta, Anil. K. 2003.Rewarding Conservation of Biological and Genetic Resources and Associated Traditional Knowledge and Contemporary Grassroots Creativity. IIMA W.P. No. 2003-01-06, January 2003.
Gene Campaign.2003. India’s Protection of Plant Varieties and Farmers’ Rights Act. Chapter in Section III, Pages 57-58. In: “Status of Rights of Farmers’ and Plant Breeders in Asia. Edited by Ujjwal Kumar and Suman Sahai. ISBN 81-901009-4-7.
GOI,2002. India and the WTO Vol. 4No.5 A monthly newsletter of ministry of commerce and industry. Government of India.
ICTSD.2003.Doha Round Briefing Series. Development since Fourth Round of WTO Ministerial Conference. International Centre for Trade and Sustainable Development 1(5): 1-4
ID Act, 2000.http://www.patentoffice.nic.in/ipr/design/designs.htm
IIPRDR. 2001. Intellectual Property Rights and Development Policy: Traditional Knowledge and Geographical Indications Chapter 4:73-91
IPA, 2002. http://www.patentoffice.nic.in/ipr/patent/patents.htm
Mashelkar, R.A. 2002. Intellectual Property Rights-Indian Agriculture. J.Raghotham Reddy Memorial Lecture-2002.November 25, 2002.Farm and Rural Science Foundation, ANGRAU and Society of scientists for advancement of agriculture.26pages.
Sahai,Suman 2000. Commercialization of Indigenous Knowledge and Benefit Sharing. UNCTAD Expert Meeting on Systems and National experiences for Protecting Traditional Knowledge, Innovations and Practices. Geneva. 30 October to 1 November,2000.
TM Act,1999.http://www.tmrindia.com/Acts/actindex.htm
Watal, Jayashree 1998. Intellectual Property Rights in Indian Agriculture. Working Paper No.44.Indian Council for Research on International Economic Relations. New Delhi. Pages 32.
WTO.1997. World Trade Report WT/DS50/R dated 5/9/97 and WT/DS50/AB/R dt.19.12.1997
WTO, 2001a. http://www.wto.org/english/docs_e/legal_e/ldc2_512.htm
WTO.2001b.http://www.wto.org/english/tratop_e/trips_e/paper_develop_w296_e.htm
WTO.2001c.http://www.wto.org/english/thewto_e/minist_e/min01_e/mindecl_trips_e.htm
WTO. 2003. http: www.wto.org/english/docs_e/legal_e/l.egal_e.htm WTO.2003