The Experts below are selected from a list of 16707 Experts worldwide ranked by ideXlab platform

Chidi Oguamanam - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.

  • Plant Breeders rights farmers rights and food security africa s failure of resolve and india s wobbly leadership
    Social Science Research Network, 2018
    Co-Authors: Chidi Oguamanam
    Abstract:

    Since 2000s, Africa and India severally rejected the notion that UPOV’s 1991 standard of Plant Breeders Rights (PBRs) is the only route to fulfill their obligations under Article 27 of the TRIPs Agreement. Objecting to the exclusive focus of the UPOV regime on formal Plant Breeders, African countries, insisted on a holistic approach to Plant Breeders’ rights to include protection for rights of communities, farmers and their indigenous knowledge, innovation and practices. Consequently, under the African Union’s (AU) auspices, Africa proposed the Model Law for the Protection of the Rights of Local Communities and Breeders, and for Regulations of Access to Biological Resources. Self-evidently, the law not only recognizes the centrality of the smallholder indigenous and local community farmers on the continent’s food production, it also underscores the interconnections of biodiversity conservation, farmers’ rights, traditional knowledge, access and benefit sharing over genetic resources within then emergent international regimes. Nearly two decades after, Africa’s resolve has proven to be fickle. The continent has reversed itself and fully embraced the UPOV regime. At about the same time as the Model Law, India enacted the Protection of Plant Varieties and Farmers’ Rights Act, 2001 – an instrument consistent with the spirit of Africa’s Model Law. Both regimes take into account the role of local farmers as the backbone of agricultural innovation, food production and food security in the developing world, including Africa and India, thereby further enhancing the idea of farmers’ rights in food and agriculture law and policy. This Article juxtaposes the circumstances around Africa’s failure of resolve and India’s wobbly experience over farmers’ rights. It calls attention to farmers’ rights as a site for a missed and yet potentially redeemable opportunity for both Africa and India to advance South-South solidarity for food security.

  • africa s food security in a broken global food system what role for Plant Breeders rights
    Queen Mary Journal of Intellectual Property, 2015
    Co-Authors: Chidi Oguamanam
    Abstract:

    The food security discourse has moved from the historic emphasis on increased food production and the eradication of hunger to a holistic and multidisciplinary outlook under the food system model. However, the importance of the legal dimensions of the food system discourse has yet to be fully felt or demonstrated within the diverse disciplinary and policy spaces for understanding the food security and food system interface. This article focuses on contemporary developments in Africa on Plant Breeders’ rights (PBRs) – an important aspect of law and policy on innovation over Plant genetic resources for food and agriculture. It observes that the focus of recent legal developments on PBRs in Africa diverges from the centrality of smallholder farmers as the principal food and agricultural producers on the continent. Critically focusing on Africa’s emergent policy reversal in favour of PBRs, the article underscores how legal developments are integral to fully understanding the dynamics of food security within a fractured global food system, especially as they relate to the African continent.

  • breeding apples for oranges africa s misplaced priority over Plant Breeders rights
    The Journal of World Intellectual Property, 2015
    Co-Authors: Chidi Oguamanam
    Abstract:

    In 2000, African countries expressed reservation over the adoption of UPOV Act of 1991 as a model of Plant Breeders’ rights (PBRs) for TRIPS-compliance. For the continent, an acceptable system of PBRs protection would include the protection of the rights of communities and associated indigenous knowledge, innovations, technologies and farming practices. One and half decades after, Africa has virtually reversed itself and embraced the UPOV-PBRs system notwithstanding the latter's narrow focus on Breeders and marginal reference to farmers. This Article critically explores the concerted sites of pressures, especially free trade and economic partnership agreements, and related policies through which Africa appears to have capitulated and upturned its policy position on PBRs. The continent's present priority over the implementation of PBRs through various regional and national legal initiatives currently at the instance of African Intellectual Property Organization (OAPI), the African Regional Intellectual Property Organization (ARIPO), the Southern African Economic Community (SADC) and specific country initiatives are explored. The article highlights the basis for the incongruity of Africa's newfound interest in the UPOV-PBRs system—a regime not designed for the farmer-centered tenor of African agriculture. It calls attention to the continued relevance of Africa's 2000 Model Law, especially as it applies to PBRs and recommends reality assessment as an important step toward the formulation of IPRs system suited for stakeholders in African agriculture for the continent's food security and food sovereignty.

  • breeding apples for oranges africa s misplaced priority over Plant Breeders rights
    The Journal of World Intellectual Property, 2015
    Co-Authors: Chidi Oguamanam
    Abstract:

    In 2000, African countries expressed reservation over the adoption of UPOV Act of 1991 as a model of Plant Breeders’ rights (PBRs) for TRIPS-compliance. For the continent, an acceptable system of PBRs protection would include the protection of the rights of communities and associated indigenous knowledge, innovations, technologies and farming practices. One and half decades after, Africa has virtually reversed itself and embraced the UPOV-PBRs system notwithstanding the latter's narrow focus on Breeders and marginal reference to farmers. This Article critically explores the concerted sites of pressures, especially free trade and economic partnership agreements, and related policies through which Africa appears to have capitulated and upturned its policy position on PBRs. The continent's present priority over the implementation of PBRs through various regional and national legal initiatives currently at the instance of African Intellectual Property Organization (OAPI), the African Regional Intellectual Property Organization (ARIPO), the Southern African Economic Community (SADC) and specific country initiatives are explored. The article highlights the basis for the incongruity of Africa's newfound interest in the UPOV-PBRs system—a regime not designed for the farmer-centered tenor of African agriculture. It calls attention to the continued relevance of Africa's 2000 Model Law, especially as it applies to PBRs and recommends reality assessment as an important step toward the formulation of IPRs system suited for stakeholders in African agriculture for the continent's food security and food sovereignty.

  • breeding apples for oranges africa s misplaced priority over Plant Breeders rights
    Social Science Research Network, 2015
    Co-Authors: Chidi Oguamanam
    Abstract:

    In 2000, African countries expressed reservation over the adoption of UPOV Act of 1991 as a model of Plant Breeders’ rights (PBRs) for TRIPS- compliance. For the continent, an acceptable system of PBRs protection would include the protection of the “rights of communities and their indigenous knowledge, as well as the rights of farmers and fishermen, and their innovations, technologies and practices”. One and half decades after, Africa has virtually reversed itself and embraced the UPOV-PBRs system notwithstanding the latter’s narrow focus on Breeders and marginal reference to farmers. This Article critically explores the concerted sites of pressures, especially free trade and economic partnership agreements, and related policies through which Africa appears to have capitulated and upturned its policy position on PBRs. The continent’s present priority over the implementation of PBRs through various regional and national legal initiatives currently at the instance of African Intellectual Property Organization (OAPI), the African Regional Intellectual Property Organization (ARIPO), the Southern African Economic Community (SADC) and specific country initiatives are explored. The article highlights the basis for the incongruity of Africa’s newfound interest in the UPOV-PBRs system – a regime not designed for the farmer-centered tenor of African agriculture. It calls attention to the continued relevance of Africa’s 2000 Model Law, especially as it applies to PBRs and recommends reality assessment as an important step toward the formulation of IPRs system suited for stakeholders in African agriculture for the continent’s food security and food sovereignty.

P S Bindraban - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.

  • physiology and modelling of traits in crop Plants implications for genetic improvement
    Agricultural Systems, 2001
    Co-Authors: K J Boote, M J Kropff, P S Bindraban
    Abstract:

    Abstract Crop growth models have excellent potential for evaluating genetic improvement, for analyzing past genetic improvement from experimental data, and for proposing Plant ideotypes for target environments. Crop models used for these Plant breeding applications should be sufficiently mechanistic that processes can be investigated in a manner familiar to crop physiologists and Plant Breeders. In addition, the crop models must consider a sufficient number of cultivar-specific traits descriptive of life cycle phases, vegetative traits, and reproductive growth attributes. In this paper, we discuss how crop models consider genetic variability within a species (cultivar variation), how varietal characteristics can be determined from variety trial or other data, how crop models can be used to evaluate past genetic improvement, and how crop models can be used to hypothesize ideotypes for specific environments. We conclude that crop growth models can partially reproduce genotype by environment interactions when considered across broad ranges of weather and sites, and that crop models can be used to help Plant Breeders target cultivar improvement for specific environments. However, more physiological insight into primary processes such as source–sink relationships and morphological development will be needed for enhanced application of the models in breeding programmes.

Regine Tremblay - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.

K J Boote - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.

  • physiology and modelling of traits in crop Plants implications for genetic improvement
    Agricultural Systems, 2001
    Co-Authors: K J Boote, M J Kropff, P S Bindraban
    Abstract:

    Abstract Crop growth models have excellent potential for evaluating genetic improvement, for analyzing past genetic improvement from experimental data, and for proposing Plant ideotypes for target environments. Crop models used for these Plant breeding applications should be sufficiently mechanistic that processes can be investigated in a manner familiar to crop physiologists and Plant Breeders. In addition, the crop models must consider a sufficient number of cultivar-specific traits descriptive of life cycle phases, vegetative traits, and reproductive growth attributes. In this paper, we discuss how crop models consider genetic variability within a species (cultivar variation), how varietal characteristics can be determined from variety trial or other data, how crop models can be used to evaluate past genetic improvement, and how crop models can be used to hypothesize ideotypes for specific environments. We conclude that crop growth models can partially reproduce genotype by environment interactions when considered across broad ranges of weather and sites, and that crop models can be used to help Plant Breeders target cultivar improvement for specific environments. However, more physiological insight into primary processes such as source–sink relationships and morphological development will be needed for enhanced application of the models in breeding programmes.

Jeremy De Beer - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.

  • patents and Plant Breeders rights approaches to intellectual property overlaps
    Social Science Research Network, 2018
    Co-Authors: Jeremy De Beer
    Abstract:

    English Abstract: This article addresses overlaps between patents and Plant Breeders’ rights. To do so, it examines language that judges in the United States and Canada have used in deciding whether to allow cumulative protection for the same subject-matter by both kinds of intellectual property rights. Distilling the core arguments from a series of judgments during the last four decades, the article explains three themes underpinning the case law on overlaps among patents and Plant Breeders’ rights. Majority and dissenting opinions consider overlaps in terms of: the adequacy of incentives, the potential for inconsistency, and/or the historical logic of legislative drafting. These considerations may determine the outcome of future cases in which overlapping protection is at issue. French Abstract: Dans cet article, l’auteur traite des chevauchements entre les brevets et la protection des obtentions ve ge tales. Pour ce faire, il examine le langage utilise par les juges aux E tats-Unis et au Canada au moment de de cider s’il y a lieu d’autoriser que le meˆme objet rec oive une protection cumulative en vertu des deux types de droits de proprie te intellectuelle. Re sumant les principaux arguments d’une se rie d’arreˆts rendus au cours des quatre dernie`res de cennies, l’auteur explique trois the`mes qui sous-tendent la jurisprudence sur les chevauchements entre les brevets et la protection des obtentions ve ge tales. La majorite et les opinions dissidentes conside`rent les chevauchements en ce qui concerne l’ade quation des mesures incitatives, du risque d’incohe rence et de la logique historique de la re daction le gislative. Ces conside rations peuvent de terminer le re sultat d’affaires futures dans lesquelles le chevauchement de la protection est en cause.