The Experts below are selected from a list of 7203 Experts worldwide ranked by ideXlab platform
Bram De Jonge - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
a differentiated approach to Plant Variety Protection in africa
The Journal of World Intellectual Property, 2016Co-Authors: Bram De Jonge, P MunyiAbstract:Several African countries and regional organizations are investing in the establishment of a Plant Variety Protection system modeled on the UPOV 1991 Convention, which currently provides the strongest, international standard for Plant Variety Protection. Whereas proponents argue that strong Protection of breeder's rights will incentivize breeding and the introduction of new varieties for farmers, opponents fear that the proposed legal framework is unsuitable for African countries as it may hamper traditional farming practices of using and exchanging farm-saved seed. These informal or farmer-managed seed systems supply more than 80% of the total food crop seed used by farmers. The challenge for African countries is to strike a balance between protecting the interests of breeders through the incentive function of Plant breeder's rights for the commercial market, and the leeway that needs to be provided to smallholder farmers that depend on informal sources for their seed security and survival. And to do so in a practical and legally enforceable manner. This paper explores how African countries and regional organizations can establish such balance through a differentiated approach to Plant Variety Protection, which sets different levels of Protection for different crops in relation to different categories of farmers.
-
a solution to the controversy on Plant Variety Protection in africa
Nature Biotechnology, 2015Co-Authors: Bram De Jonge, Niels Louwaars, Julian KinderlererAbstract:African countries can establish a Plant Variety Protection system that supports commercial seed systems without negatively affecting smallholder farmers.
-
farmers and breeders rights bridging access to and ip Protection of Plant varieties in africa african intersections between intellectual property rights and knowledge access
The African Journal of Information and Communication, 2015Co-Authors: P Munyi, Bram De JongeAbstract:Studies in Africa have shown that saving, using, exchanging and selling farm-saved seed is the main channel through which farmers access seed and Planting material. Moreover, these saving and related practices are recognised in international law, mainly through the International Treaty on Plant Genetic Resources for Food and Agriculture (Plant Treaty), which many African countries have ratified. These practices are also recognised by, inter alia, obligations at the national level to protect traditional knowledge relevant to seeds and Planting material. The standard being employed in developing Plant Variety Protection (PVP) mechanisms in Africa, as with elsewhere in the world, is the 1991 revision of the Convention of the International Union for the Protection of New Varieties of Plants (UPOV, 1991). This Convention has, since its inception, been developed with reference to developed-world farming practices. This article looks at how farmers' rights are enshrined in Africa's legal frameworks, and the extent to which the current process of developing regional PVP systems on the continent is taking farmers' rights into account. The article then makes recommendations on how a balance can be struck between farmers' and breeders' rights, while still complying with the UPOV 1991 framework.
-
Plant Variety Protection in sub saharan africa balancing commercial and smallholder farmers interests
Journal of Programming Languages, 2014Co-Authors: Bram De JongeAbstract:Sub-Saharan African countries, through their regional organizations, have embarked on the harmonisation of Plant Variety Protection (PVP) systems. These initiatives are largely modelled on the UPOV 1991 act, which claims to incentivize Plant breeding and facilitate agricultural development. Civil Society Organisations (CSO), however, strongly criticise this process for being out of step with Sub-Saharan African agricultural realities, undermining smallholder farmers’ agricultural practices and, ultimately, threatening food security. Among their main concerns are the fear that the proposed regimes facilitate biopiracy and lack recognition of farmers’ rights. This article discussed three of the main CSO concerns in tandem with examples of alternative provisions from PVP systems from around the world. While it will be shown that the CSO concerns are not likely to be acted upon, this article aims to answer the pressing question whether a UPOV ’91 based PVP system hampers farming practices in developing countries, and explores several legal avenues to accommodate the needs and traditions of smallholder farmers.
Christoph Antons - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
article 27 3 b trips and Plant Variety Protection in developing countries
Social Science Research Network, 2016Co-Authors: Christoph AntonsAbstract:In comparison with industrialised countries, agriculture in developing countries accounts for a substantial share of GDP and involves a substantial sector of small-holders and traditional agriculturalists. In view of these differences, the biotechnology clause of Article 27.3.b TRIPS with its requirement of Plant Variety Protection either by patents or an effective sui generis system or a combination of the two has been controversial. However, developing countries have made surprisingly little use of the freedom to design their own systems in this field. Instead, there has been a surge in UPOV membership among developing countries and some have gone as far as introducing patent Protection for Plant varieties. Such countries now have to consider the same exclusions and exceptions to patenting that are normally discussed in countries with much more advanced biotechnology industries. The chapter examines the scope for the use of orde public considerations under Article 27.2 TRIPS, of exclusions for research and experimental purposes under Article 30 TRIPS, compulsory licensing under Article 31 TRIPS as well as the advantages of a specific breeding exemption and it briefly comments on the various sui generis options. While liberal interpretations of the TRIPS exceptions remain possible, the chapter concludes that the majority of developing countries will be better off in more creatively using the freedom to develop sui generis systems suitable for their local conditions rather than struggling to introduce TRIPS conform ‘limited exceptions’ to patent Protection for Plant varieties.
-
article 27 3 b trips and Plant Variety Protection in developing countries
TRIPS plus 20: from trade rules to market principles, 2016Co-Authors: Christoph AntonsAbstract:In comparison with industrialised countries, agriculture in developing countries accounts for a substantial share of GDP and involves a substantial sector of small-holders and traditional agriculturalists. In view of these differences, the biotechnology clause of Article 27.3.b TRIPS with its requirement of Plant Variety Protection either by patents or an effective sui generis system or a combination of the two has been controversial. However, developing countries have made surprisingly little use of the freedom to design their own systems in this field. Instead, there has been a surge in UPOV membership among developing countries and some have gone as far as introducing patent Protection for Plant varieties. Such countries now have to consider the same exclusions and exceptions to patenting that are normally discussed in countries with much more advanced biotechnology industries. The chapter examines the scope for the use of orde public considerations under Article 27.2 TRIPS, of exceptions for research and experimental purposes under Article 30 TRIPS, compulsory licensing under Article 31 TRIPS as well as the advantages of a specific breeding exemption and it briefly comments on the various sui generis options. While liberal interpretations of the TRIPS exceptions remain possible, the chapter concludes that the majority of developing countries will be better off in more creatively using the freedom to develop sui generis systems suitable for their local conditions rather than struggling to introduce TRIPS conform ‘limited exceptions’ to patent Protection for Plant varieties.
-
Plant Variety Protection and traditional agricultural knowledge in southeast asia
The Australian Journal of Asian Law, 2012Co-Authors: Christoph Antons, Rajeswari KanniahAbstract:This article provides an overview of the emerging Plant Variety Protection (PVP) systems in Southeast Asia. The case studies are from countries that form part of the regional Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN), mainly Indonesia, Malaysia, Philippines and Thailand. The focus will be on the intersection between intellectual property rights (IPRs) and popular demands for the Protection of the traditional knowledge (TK) of local communities. Factors that fuelled the emergence and shaped the content of the PVP laws were the obligation to comply with art 27(3)(b) of the Agreement on Trade Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPS Agreement), aspirations for the development of the biotechnology industry, avoidance of possible sanction under the US ‘Special 301’ procedure, Free Trade Agreements (FTAs), the role played by the International Union for the Protection of New Plant Varieties (UPOV), technical assistance from UPOV member countries, membership of international biodiversity treaties and demands from civil society organisations for Protection of TK. The PVP laws that resulted present an uneasy amalgam of conventional property rights with some aspects of Protection of TK. It is very likely that the local communities claiming TK rights will face legal hurdles, in as much as government agencies implementing the law will face administrative and technical complications.
Raymond J Venner - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
the effects of the us Plant Variety Protection act on wheat genetic improvement
Research Policy, 2002Co-Authors: Julian M Alston, Raymond J VennerAbstract:In our model of partially appropriable invention, if the US Plant Variety Protection Act (PVPA) of 1970 succeeded in strengthening intellectual property Protection for Plant breeders, it should have led to increases in investment in varietal R&D, improved varietal quality, and enhanced royalties. These hypotheses are tested using data on US wheat. We find that the PVPA may have stimulated public (but not private-sector) investment in wheat varietal improvement but that the PVPA did not cause any increase in experimental or commercial wheat yields. These findings indicate that the PVPA had little impact on excludability or appropriability in wheat varieties.
-
the effects of the us Plant Variety Protection act on wheat genetic improvement
Research Policy, 2002Co-Authors: Julian M Alston, Raymond J VennerAbstract:The U.S. Plant Variety Protection Act (PVPA) of 1970 was meant to strengthen intellectual property Protection for Plant breeders. A model of investment under partial excludability is developed, leading to the hypotheses that any increase in excludability or appropriability of the returns to invention, attributable to the PVPA, would lead to increases in investment or efficiency gains in varietal R&D, improved varietal quality, and enhanced royalties. These hypotheses are tested in an economic analysis of the effects of the PVPA on wheat genetic improvement. The PVPA appears to have contributed to increases in public expenditures on wheat Variety improvement, but private-sector investment in wheat breeding does not appear to have increased. Moreover, econometric analyses indicate that the PVPA has not caused any increase in experimental or commercial wheat yields. However, the share of U.S. wheat acreage sown to private varieties has increased–from 3 percent in 1970 to 30 percent in the 1990s. These findings indicate that the PVPA has served primarily as a marketing tool with little impact on excludability or appropriability.
Julian M Alston - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
intellectual property in Plant breeding comparing different levels and forms of Protection
Staff General Research Papers Archive, 2016Co-Authors: Sergio H Lence, Julian M Alston, Dermot J Hayes, J S C SmithAbstract:Welfare trade-offs between intellectual property (IP) Protections provided by patents and by Plant Variety Protection (PVP) are explored. PVP breeders’ exemption weakens IP Protection, but may speed the transfer of research gains across firms. A model is developed assuming firms optimise research given existing IP Protection. A baseline scenario supporting each system is used to perform welfare analysis, and study how the balance is altered between systems. Survey data suggest patents are more appropriate for longer-term, higher-risk research, whereas PVP is better suited for traditional breeding. A scenario where patents and licensing co-exist dominates PVP in all commercially relevant areas.
-
the effects of the us Plant Variety Protection act on wheat genetic improvement
Research Policy, 2002Co-Authors: Julian M Alston, Raymond J VennerAbstract:In our model of partially appropriable invention, if the US Plant Variety Protection Act (PVPA) of 1970 succeeded in strengthening intellectual property Protection for Plant breeders, it should have led to increases in investment in varietal R&D, improved varietal quality, and enhanced royalties. These hypotheses are tested using data on US wheat. We find that the PVPA may have stimulated public (but not private-sector) investment in wheat varietal improvement but that the PVPA did not cause any increase in experimental or commercial wheat yields. These findings indicate that the PVPA had little impact on excludability or appropriability in wheat varieties.
-
the effects of the us Plant Variety Protection act on wheat genetic improvement
Research Policy, 2002Co-Authors: Julian M Alston, Raymond J VennerAbstract:The U.S. Plant Variety Protection Act (PVPA) of 1970 was meant to strengthen intellectual property Protection for Plant breeders. A model of investment under partial excludability is developed, leading to the hypotheses that any increase in excludability or appropriability of the returns to invention, attributable to the PVPA, would lead to increases in investment or efficiency gains in varietal R&D, improved varietal quality, and enhanced royalties. These hypotheses are tested in an economic analysis of the effects of the PVPA on wheat genetic improvement. The PVPA appears to have contributed to increases in public expenditures on wheat Variety improvement, but private-sector investment in wheat breeding does not appear to have increased. Moreover, econometric analyses indicate that the PVPA has not caused any increase in experimental or commercial wheat yields. However, the share of U.S. wheat acreage sown to private varieties has increased–from 3 percent in 1970 to 30 percent in the 1990s. These findings indicate that the PVPA has served primarily as a marketing tool with little impact on excludability or appropriability.
Frederic Perronwelch - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
comparative study of the nagoya protocol the Plant treaty and the upov convention the interface of access and benefit sharing and Plant Variety Protection
Social Science Research Network, 2019Co-Authors: Jorge Cabrera Medaglia, Chidi Oguamanam, Oliver Rukundo, Frederic PerronwelchAbstract:This study presents the existing situation and recent developments relating to the Nagoya Protocol on Access to Genetic Resources and the Fair and Equitable Sharing of Benefits Arising from their Utilization to the Convention on Biological Diversity (Nagoya Protocol), the International Treaty on Plant Genetic Resources for Food and Agriculture (Plant Treaty) and the and International Convention for the Protection of New Varieties of Plants (UPOV Convention). Intellectual property rights (IPR) are an instrument for the appropriation or allocation of benefits, and it must be assessed whether Plant Variety Protection (PVP) can be a mode of equitable or fair benefit-sharing given the obligations found in the Nagoya Protocol and Plant Treaty, and how the Nagoya Protocol and Plant Treaty can be implemented in a mutually supportive manner with the UPOV Convention. The primary aim of the study is to address the linkages between the requirements of the Nagoya Protocol, the requirements of the Plant Treaty, and PVP under the UPOV Convention. To do so, it addresses ongoing processes and current initiatives and measures at the national and international levels relating to the three treaties. Specifically, in order to examine the mutually supportive implementation of these treaties, the study reviews measures to implement obligations under the three treaties in the European Union and Switzerland. The study concludes with a review of the analysis of linkages between the three treaties, elaborates proposals for ensuring mutual supportiveness in their implementation, and identifies emerging issues that may profoundly influence their functioning such as emerging technologies relating to the use of genetic resources that rely on digital sequence information.