The difficulty with this "compromise" is the fact that most States Parties to the ITPGR are parties to the TRIPS agreement, which clearly does not allow saving, using, exchanging, and selling farm-saved seed that is covered by IPRs.
Because the ITPGR is the main instrument that recognizes and enumerates Farmers' Rights, it is the guiding document for implementing Farmers' Rights internationally.
Parties to the ITPGR make their own decisions through national legislation about how to protect PGR cultivated by local and indigenous communities.
Legislation from India and Zambia illustrate two ITPGR States Parties' methods of protecting Farmers' Rights.
Realizing Farmers' Rights globally will not be an easy task--the ITPGR language describing Farmers' Rights is ambiguous; powerful nations, like the United States, have signed, but not ratified, the ITPGR; (275) and the WTO threatens nations that violate TRIPS with the possibility of dispute settlement proceedings.
The ITPGR leaves states to create their own methods of protecting Farmers' Rights and TRIPS leaves the choice of how to implement IPRs over PGR to member countries.
The ITPGR Governing Body could easily fill this role.
Clearly the adoption of the ITPGR was not sufficient to create meaningful realization of Farmers' Rights internationally.
asserting that the ITPGR is a reaction to IPRs over PGR).
ITPGR, supra note 13, at Annex I; MOORE & TYMOWSKI, supra note 13, at 82.