APBREBES
Updates
on Plant Variety Protection
Issue
#37, 8 November 2019
1.
Editorial
We are publishing these Updates on Plant Variety Protection shortly
after the end of UPOV’s Autumn Session 2019 and as the 8th session
of the Governing Body of the International Treaty on Plant Genetic
Resources for Food and Agriculture is about to begin in Rome. Two
different worlds. And yet, in both bodies decisions made are of great
relevance to Farmers’ Rights, agrobiodiversity and innovation in plant
breeding. In this Newsletter, besides APBREBES Report on the recent
UPOV session, we draw your attention to three scientific articles,
quering about the right Plant Variety Protection system to implement
especially in developing countries in order to best benefit society.
2.
APBREBES report on the UPOV autumn 2018 session
UPOV’s bodies met in Geneva from 29th October to 2nd December 2019.
Now available on our website is a report
some of the key decisions taken by UPOV and the input of APBREBES.
3.
Is UPOV 1991 a good fit for developing countries?
This article by Mrinalini Kochupillai, Lecturer at the Technical University
of Munich is part of the recently published book The
Innovation Society and Intellectual Property. The article discusses
the question whether UPOV 1991 (or a similar IP regime) is a good
fit for developing countries that seek to create an innovation
society in the context of seed related innovations. This is done by
comparing UPOV 1991 with the sui generis regime adopted by India.
The author concludes by saying that “Overzealous adoption of incentive
measures that support creation only by the formal sector tend to act
as indirect disincentives for farmer-innovators to continue the age-old
science and art of in-situ agrobiodiversity conservation and seed
improvement. Indeed, maintaining and continuing this age-old art brings
boundless benefits to society – most of which remain forever uncompensated.
In this situation, UPOV-type regimes coupled with technological advancements
are also failing to create an innovation society, as they discourage
or prevent farmers, who are traditionally active, necessary and first
level innovators, from engaging in the process of innovation altogether,
thereby reducing their status to that of mere labourers.” Needed is
a law that “primarily promotes informal innovations and in-situ agrobiodiversity
conservation.”
4.
Reimagining the relationship between food sovereignty and intellectual
property for plants: Lessons from Ecuador and Nepal
The article
by David J. Jefferson and Kamalesh Adhikari, both from the School
of Law at the University of Queensland, was published in the Journal
of World Intellectual Property. In the conclusion the authors write
: “We recognize that the global expansion of intellectual property
laws for plant varieties has mainly served the interests of professional
plant breeders, by concentrating control of seeds and plants in the
hands of a small number of actors. This has enabled the entrenchment—and
in some countries, the dominance—of multinational agricultural firms
in local markets. However, new legal systems in Ecuador and Nepal
demon-strate that food sovereignty can be invoked as a basis for the
reimagination of intellectual property outside of the ambit of exclusive
ownership. Moreover, intellectual property laws can be deployed in
novel ways, for instance by granting protection to a broader set of
plant varieties.
Overall, the case studies of Ecuador and Nepal provide evidence that
the relationship between food sovereignty and intellectual property
can be reconfigured. Rather than asking whether food sovereignty can
act as a foil to intellectual property, we suggest that scholarly
inquiry should shift to focus on understanding how food sovereignty
might inspire countries to create alternative forms of intellectual
property for plants and seeds. Doing so could expand intellectual
property, moving beyond exclusive ownership to reimagine how different
actors might control the use of plant material to support more sustainable,
dynamic, and just food systems.”
5.
Intellectual property protection in plant varieties. A worldwide index
(1961-2011)
Although already published in 2015 by Mercedes Campi and Alessandro
Nuvolari we like to bring attention to this article, as he provides
statistical evidence about the impact of Intellectual Property Rights
in Plant Varieties. The authors measured the strength of intellectual
property (IP) protection for plant varieties in 69 countries over
the period 1961–2011. They conclude : «We find a positive and significant
correlation between the strengthening of IP protection and agricultural
valued added for developed countries, but we are not able to establish
any significant correlation for developing countries. To conclude
the evidence presented in this paper supports the hypothesis that
the effect of IPRs may be different across sectors, technologies and
development levels. For this reason, a more cautious approach towards
the adoption of a global and harmonized IP protection system (such
as that emerging from TRIPS) should be in order. In this sense, our
results are in line with the historical appraisal of Khan and Sokoloff,
who argue that ” … intellectual property rights best promoted the
progress of science and arts when they evolved in tandem with other
institutions and in accordance with the needs and interests of social
and economic development of each nation.”
6.
Subscription, Feedback & Contact
Subscribe/Unsubscribe
Subscribe/Unsubscribe
to the APBREBES Updates. You are welcome to forward this issue to
other interested individuals or organizations.
Feedback
& Contact
François Meienberg, Coordinator Association for Plant Breeding for
the Benefit of Society (APBREBES) Mail: contact@apbrebes.org,
Web: www.apbrebes.org
