Africa and Intellectual Property Rights for Plant Varieties

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Titilayo Adebola
Keyword(s):  
Intellectual Property ◽  
Property Rights ◽  
Intellectual Property Rights ◽  
African Country ◽  
Biological Diversity ◽  
Plant Genetic Resources ◽  
Benefit Sharing ◽  
Small Scale ◽  
Model Law ◽  
Plant Breeders Rights

The entry into force of the Agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPS) on 1 January 1995 reversed Africa’s relationship with intellectual property rights for Plant Varieties. Except for Kenya, South Africa, and Zimbabwe, no other African country had intellectual property rights systems for plant varieties before TRIPS. However, the obligation set out in Article 27.3(b) of TRIPS for all World Trade Organization (WTO) members to protect plant varieties through patents, an effective sui generis system, or a combination of systems, heralded revisions to the intellectual property laws and policies on the continent. Africa’s response to Article 27.3(b) of TRIPS was the Organization for African Unity (now African Union—AU) African Model Law for the Protection of the Rights of Local Communities, Farmers, and Breeders, and for the Regulation of Access to Biological Resources (African Model Law), adopted in 2000. Grounded on the dynamic social, economic, and political realities in Africa, the African Model Law seeks to balance small-scale farmers’, farming communities’, and commercial plant breeders’ interests. The African Model Law rejects patents for plant varieties and the wholesale adoption of the 1991 version of the International Convention on the Protection of New Varieties of Plants (UPOV). Instead, it presents a TRIPS-compliant model sui generis option that provides for access and benefit-sharing principles from the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD), farmers’ rights from the International Undertaking on Plant Genetic Resources for Food and Agriculture (IUPGRFA), and plant breeders’ rights from UPOV 1978 and UPOV 1991. Despite the commendable efforts at creatively designing the Model Law and its historical significance as an African-rooted response to the international debates on the overlapping and conflicting international treaties for plant varieties, the Model Law failed to gain traction in Africa. No African country has adopted it. On the contrary, there is increasing pressure through a coalition of Global North countries, international organizations, and multinational firms for African countries to adopt UPOV-1991-styled plant breeders’ rights systems.

scholarly journals Intellectual Property Rights (IPR) issues related to access and use of genetic resources

2019 ◽  
Vol 79 (01S) ◽  
Author(s):  
Pratibha Brahmi ◽  
Vandana Tyagi
Keyword(s):  
Intellectual Property ◽  
Property Rights ◽  
Genetic Resources ◽  
Intellectual Property Rights ◽  
Biological Diversity ◽  
Plant Genetic Resources ◽  
Genetic Material ◽  
Convention On Biological Diversity ◽  
Food And Agriculture ◽  
Food And Nutritional Security

Genetic Resources (GR) refer to genetic material of actual or potential value. Use of GR refers to the process of researching their beneficial properties and using them to increase scientific knowledge and understanding, or to develop commercial products. There is continuous search for newer resources to meet the future demands that arise with the emergence of new diseases, abiotic stresses, climate change, and enhanced demand for food and nutritional security. GR are exchanged and searched continuously for specific traits to improve yields and nutritional value in crops and animal genetic resources. Every nation is concerned with acquisition of diverse and superior germplasm for conservation and utilization. The rapid advancements in the fields of molecular biology, biotechnology and bioinformatics, led to the emergence of new legal, political and technological regimes regulating access to GR. Three international negotiations impacted the access to GR, these are the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD), the Agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPS) as part of the Agreement establishing the World Trade Organization (WTO) and the International Treaty on Plant Genetic Resources for Food and Agriculture (ITPGRFA). The regulation regarding access to GR, increasing application of IPRs and the vast potential of biological wealth yet to be tapped through bio-prospecting and genetic engineering, has placed greater demands on nations to adjust to the changing scenario of GR management. Currently access to GR is under the provisions of CBD and access to GR is based on mutually agreed terms (MAT), subject to prior informed consent (PIC). In response to CBD, India enacted the Biological Diversity Act (BDA), 2002 and established the National Biodiversity Authority (NBA) in 2003. Access to PGR from India is therefore regulated by BDA, 2002. The Nagoya Protocol which entered into force from October 2014 defines the international regime within the framework of CBD to promote and safeguard the fair and equitable sharing of benefits arising from the utilization of genetic resources. The paper discusses these agreements in detail with reference to access and use of GR.

Intellectual Property Rights and the Politics of Food

2014 ◽  
Author(s):  
Krishna Ravi Srinivas
Keyword(s):  
Intellectual Property ◽  
Property Rights ◽  
Genetic Resources ◽  
Intellectual Property Rights ◽  
Legal Status ◽  
Biological Diversity ◽  
Plant Genetic Resources ◽  
Convention On Biological Diversity ◽  
Free Access ◽  
Nation States

The legal status of plant genetic resources has been subject to numerous international agreements and laws over the centuries. The “common heritage of mankind” approach enabled free access but proved unworkable because of conflicts over intellectual property rights. The Convention on Biological Diversity (1992) recognized sovereign rights of nations over genetic resources within their territory. The Trade Related Intellectual Property Rights Agreement under auspices of the World Trade Organization mandated intellectual property protection for plant varieties, but synchronizing such rights has proved problematic. Many developing countries have enacted sui generis regimes to comply with TRIPS requirements. The International Union for the Protection of New Varieties of Plants Convention provides models that have changed over time. With the advent of agricultural biotechnology and availability of intellectual property rights for plant components, patents relating to plant genetic resources have increased. As plant genetic resources are subject to many overlapping treaties, the regime governing them is becoming more complex, resulting in inconsistencies and disputes. While the rights of plant breeders and the private seed industry are well protected in formal agreements, the rights of farmers, who have nurtured diversity in plant genetic resources, developed varieties of crops with different traits, and contributed to exchange and conservation of plant genetic resources, are left to the discretion of nation-states. Farmers’ rights are mentioned in many international legal instruments, but no binding treaty or convention mandates protecting and promoting the rights of working farmers.

Part VII Inter-linkages with Other Regimes, Ch.48 Intellectual Property

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Benjamin Lisa
Keyword(s):  
Intellectual Property ◽  
Property Rights ◽  
Intellectual Property Rights ◽  
Biological Diversity ◽  
Environmental Law ◽  
Plant Genetic Resources ◽  
Convention On Biological Diversity ◽  
International Environmental Law ◽  
Food And Agriculture ◽  
Environmentally Sound

This chapter focuses on the role of intellectual property law and intellectual property rights (IPRs) in international environmental law. IPRs such as patents are also closely associated with biotechnology developments, and so are highly relevant to efforts to preserve biological diversity, ensure food security, and implement sustainable development goals (SDGs). Issues relating to IPRs arise in three broad areas of international environmental law: whether IPRs should be granted for potentially environmentally damaging technologies; the extent to which IPRs protect Indigenous environmental knowledge; and the extent to which IPRs may limit the transfer of environmentally sound technology. The chapter then provides an overview of IPRs under the 1994 Agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPs) and the 2001 International Treaty on Plant Genetic Resources for Food and Agriculture (ITPGFA). It also considers the 1992 Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD); the 2010 Nagoya Protocol; the 1992 United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC); and the 2015 Paris Agreement.

scholarly journals Pelindungan Hak Paten atas Pengetahuan Obat Tradisional Melalui Pasal 26 UU No. 13 Tahun 2016 tentang Paten (Protection of Patent Rights on Traditional Medicine Knowledge Through Article 26 of Law No. 13 of 2016 Concerning Patents)

2019 ◽  
Vol 10 (1) ◽  
pp. 49-65
Author(s):  
Trias Palupi Kurnianingrum
Keyword(s):  
Intellectual Property ◽  
Property Rights ◽  
Traditional Medicine ◽  
Traditional Knowledge ◽  
Intellectual Property Rights ◽  
Trips Agreement ◽  
Patent Law ◽  
Benefit Sharing ◽  
Traditional Medicines ◽  
Patent Rights

Patent as a branch of Intellectual Property Rights (IPR) serves to protect inventions on the field of technology, one of them being medicine. The rise on the number of cases on the theft of genetic resources and traditional knowledge on the field of medicine for commercialization purposes shows that the protection of patent rights on traditional medicine knowledge is still not optimal. This article is the result of a normative juridical research which is supported by an empirical data, examines the protection of patent rights on traditional medicine knowledge and the implementation of Article 26 of Law No. 13 of 2016 on Patents (Patent Law year 2016). In the research results, it was mentioned that even though the TRIPs Agreement did not accommodate the traditional knowledge, the presence of Patent Law year 2016 complemented the Indonesian government's efforts to save the knowledge of traditional medicines from biopiracy and misappropriation. It is necessary to regulate the disclosure obligation in TRIPs agreement and further mechanism regarding benefit sharing and granting access to traditional medicines knowledge. AbstrakPaten merupakan salah satu cabang Hak Kekayaan Intelektual yang berfungsi untuk melindungi invensi di bidang teknologi, salah satunya obat-obatan. Maraknya kasus pencurian sumber daya genetik dan pengetahuan tradisional di bidang obat-obatan untuk tujuan komersialisasi menunjukkan bahwa pelindungan hak paten atas pengetahuan obat tradisional masih belum maksimal. Artikel ini merupakan hasil penelitian yuridis normatif yang didukung dengan data empiris, membahas mengenai pelindungan hak paten atas pengetahuan obat tradisional dan implementasi Pasal 26 Undang-Undang Nomor 13 Tahun 2016 tentang Paten (UU Paten 2016). Di dalam hasil penelitian, disebutkan meskipun Perjanjian Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPs) belum mengakomodasi pengetahuan tradisional namun hadirnya UU Paten 2016 melengkapi usaha pemerintah Indonesia dalam menyelamatkan pengetahuan obat tradisional dari biopiracy dan misappropriation. Perlu pengaturan kewajiban disclosure di dalam Perjanjian TRIPs dan mekanisme lebih lanjut mengenai benefit sharing dan pemberian akses atas pengetahuan obat tradisional.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document