International Plant Protection Convention (1951) and Permanent Sovereignty over Natural Resources (1962)

Part A: The International Plant Protection Convention, 1951

1. Origin and revisions

International cooperation on plant pests began with the 1881 convention on the grapevine pest Phylloxera and the 1929 International Convention for the Protection of Plants. After the Second World War, the Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) Conference adopted the International Plant Protection Convention (IPPC) at Rome in 1951; it entered into force in 1952. It was revised in 1979 and again in 1997; the 1997 New Revised Text, which entered into force in 2005, aligned the Convention with the WTO Agreement on Sanitary and Phytosanitary Measures (SPS Agreement) of 1994. It is deposited with the Director-General of FAO and has close to universal membership. India is a contracting party.

2. Purpose and scope

The purpose of the Convention is to secure common and effective action to prevent the spread and introduction of pests of plants and plant products, and to promote appropriate measures for their control. Key concepts:

• Pest: any species, strain or biotype of plant, animal or pathogenic agent injurious to plants or plant products. Weeds and invasive plants are included.
• Quarantine pest: a pest of potential economic importance to an area where it is not yet present, or present but not widely distributed and officially controlled.
• Phytosanitary measures: legislation, regulations or procedures to prevent the introduction or spread of pests.
• The Convention covers cultivated and wild plants, so it protects natural ecosystems as well as crops.

3. Obligations and institutions

• Each party establishes a National Plant Protection Organization (NPPO) to inspect consignments, issue phytosanitary certificates, conduct surveillance and maintain pest-free areas.
• Exporting parties issue phytosanitary certificates in the model form; importing parties may set import requirements, but measures must be technically justified, transparent, non-discriminatory and no more restrictive than necessary.
• Parties report pests and cooperate on information exchange.
• The Commission on Phytosanitary Measures (CPM), the governing body under the 1997 text, adopts International Standards for Phytosanitary Measures (ISPMs), for example on pest risk analysis, wood packaging material (ISPM 15) and pest-free areas. A Secretariat is hosted by the FAO at Rome.
• Disputes are settled by consultation and, if needed, an expert committee; the procedure is non-binding.

4. Link with the WTO and the CBD

The SPS Agreement names the IPPC Secretariat as the reference standard-setter for plant health (with Codex Alimentarius for food safety and the World Organisation for Animal Health). A phytosanitary measure that conforms to an ISPM is presumed consistent with the SPS Agreement; a stricter measure needs scientific justification through risk assessment. The IPPC therefore shapes trade in seeds and plant material.

Its biodiversity relevance lies in invasive alien species, one of the five direct drivers of loss. Article 8(h) of the CBD requires parties to prevent the introduction of, control or eradicate alien species which threaten ecosystems, habitats or species; the IPPC supplies the machinery for plants. The CBD and IPPC secretariats cooperate on this.

5. Implementation in India

India’s plant quarantine law predates the Convention: the Destructive Insects and Pests Act, 1914 empowers the Central Government to regulate the import of plants and plant material. The Plant Quarantine (Regulation of Import into India) Order, 2003, made under that Act, requires import permits and phytosanitary certificates and lists regulated pests. The Directorate of Plant Protection, Quarantine and Storage at Faridabad is the NPPO. Parthenium, which entered India with wheat imports in the 1950s, is the standard example of what weak quarantine costs.

Part B: Permanent Sovereignty over Natural Resources, 1962

6. Background

Decolonisation in the 1950s and 1960s left many new states with their minerals, oil and plantations owned by foreign companies under colonial-era concessions. These states argued that political independence was empty without economic control of their resources. The UN General Assembly established a Commission on Permanent Sovereignty over Natural Resources in 1958, and on 14 December 1962 adopted Resolution 1803 (XVII), “Permanent Sovereignty over Natural Resources”.

7. Principles

1. The right of peoples and nations to permanent sovereignty over their natural wealth and resources must be exercised in the interest of their national development and of the well-being of the people of the state concerned.
2. Exploration, development and disposition of resources, and the import of foreign capital for these purposes, should conform to the rules the peoples and nations freely consider necessary.
3. Where authorisation is granted, the capital imported and the earnings are governed by the terms of the agreement, national law and international law, and profits are shared as freely agreed.
4. Nationalisation, expropriation or requisitioning must be based on grounds of public utility, security or the national interest, and the owner is to be paid appropriate compensation in accordance with the rules in force in the state and international law.
5. Foreign investment agreements freely entered into are to be observed in good faith.
6. Violation of the rights of peoples and nations to sovereignty over their resources is contrary to the spirit and principles of the UN Charter.

The Resolution was a compromise: it affirmed sovereignty but also protected investors through compensation and respect for agreements. Later resolutions on a New International Economic Order (1974) and the Charter of Economic Rights and Duties of States (Resolution 3281 of 1974) pushed further in favour of host states. Common Article 1(2) of the two International Covenants of 1966 states that all peoples may, for their own ends, freely dispose of their natural wealth and resources. In Texaco v. Libya (1977), the sole arbitrator treated Resolution 1803 as reflecting customary international law, while giving less weight to the 1974 Charter.

8. From common heritage to sovereignty over genetic resources

Until the 1980s, plant genetic resources were treated as the common heritage of mankind: the FAO International Undertaking on Plant Genetic Resources (1983) said so expressly. Gene banks in the North collected freely from the South, while improved varieties came back protected by plant breeders’ rights. Developing countries saw this as one-way traffic and applied the logic of 1962 to genes.

The CBD (1992) adopted that logic:

• Article 3: states have, in accordance with the UN Charter and international law, the sovereign right to exploit their own resources pursuant to their own environmental policies, and the responsibility not to cause damage to the environment of other states (this repeats Principle 21 of the Stockholm Declaration, 1972).
• Article 15(1): recognising the sovereign rights of states over their natural resources, the authority to determine access to genetic resources rests with national governments and is subject to national legislation.

The preamble of the Biological Diversity Act, 2002 recites that the CBD reaffirms the sovereign rights of states over their biological resources. The ITPGRFA also recognises sovereign rights over plant genetic resources (Article 10) while pooling certain crops in its Multilateral System.

How this is examined

Likely long questions. “Trace the evolution of the principle of permanent sovereignty over natural resources and its influence on the Convention on Biological Diversity.” “Examine the salient features of the International Plant Protection Convention and its role in biodiversity conservation.”

Likely short notes. IPPC; International Standards for Phytosanitary Measures; Resolution 1803 (1962); common heritage of mankind; Article 3 of the CBD.