Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Seeds & Intellectual Property Rights: Bad Faith and Undue Influence Undermine Food Security and Human Rights

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Law and Sustainability

Part of the book series: Economic and Financial Law & Policy – Shifting Insights & Values ((EFLP,volume 6))

Abstract

The Agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPS) annexed to the Marrakesh Agreement establishing the World Trade Organization (WTO) contains some important flexibilities. In relation to plant variety protection (PVP), TRIPS indicates the necessity of devising a legal regime tailored to local realities. It is disappointing to witness that the International Convention for the Protection of New Varieties of Plants (UPOV Convention) has been advocated as the most appropriate regime and even least-developed countries are being brought under the UPOV framework (The acronym UPOV is based on the French title of the treaty: Union internationale pour la protection des obtentions végétales). The applicability ratione materiae of the UPOV Convention has expanded by encompassing a broad range of activities under ‘commercial breeders’ rights’. The applicability ratione loci has been widened by applying persuasive force on developing countries through bilateral and regional arrangements.

This chapter shows how national laws based on the UPOV Convention negatively affect smallholder farmers and over the long-run affects the realisation of many countries’ policy objectives such as poverty alleviation and human rights protection. Showing how the support of developed countries is making UPOV an undeniable force, and considering the fact that WTO members are obliged to provide for PVP, this chapter argues that countries should devise suitable laws in line with their national objectives before committing to any bilateral or regional obligation to accede to the UPOV Convention. Further, this chapter suggests that along with protecting farmers from the detrimental effect of PVP laws, national laws should be designed in such a way that farmers make use these laws and benefit from the PVP regime.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 139.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 179.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 179.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. 1.

    Kloppenburg (2008), p. 3.

  2. 2.

    WTO (2013).

  3. 3.

    Dutfield (2019), p. 277.

  4. 4.

    Narasimhan (2008), pp. 9–10.

  5. 5.

    Aoki (2009), Fowler (2000), Kloppenburg (1988) and Correa (2000).

  6. 6.

    Braunschweig et al. (2014), Christinck and Tvedt (2015), De Schutter (2011), Haugen (2007) and Narasimhan (2008).

  7. 7.

    Marrakesh Agreement establishing the World Trade Organization (with final act, annexes and protocol). Concluded at Marrakesh on 15 April 1994.

  8. 8.

    Antons and Kanniah (2012), p. 2.

  9. 9.

    Haugen et al. (2011), p. 120.

  10. 10.

    UNCTAD-ICTSD (2005), p. 394.

  11. 11.

    Some discussion on the interpretation of ‘effectiveness’ can be found in WTO (2014) e.g. section 5.2.6 of the Appellate Body Report in China—Measures Related to the Exportation of Rare Earths, Tungsten, and Molybdenum, WT/DS431/AB/R / WT/DS432/AB/R / WT/DS433/AB/R (adopted 29 August 2014).

  12. 12.

    Kanniah (2005), p. 283; Antons (2016), p. 393.

  13. 13.

    UPOV (2002).

  14. 14.

    Dutfield (2011), p. 11.

  15. 15.

    For instance, India, Zimbabwe, Kenya, etc. WTO (2006), para 50.

  16. 16.

    Representative of European Communities. WTO (1999a), para 74.

  17. 17.

    WTO (1999b), p. 4.

  18. 18.

    See Statement of representative of Thailand. WTO (1999b), para 78.

  19. 19.

    Narasimhan (2008), p. 5. This working paper was prepared as part of the work programme of the UNDP Bureau for Development Policy, Poverty Group, Inclusive Globalization Cluster’s project on Intellectual Property, Trade and Biodiversity.

  20. 20.

    Ragavan and O’Shields (2007), pp. 101–102.

  21. 21.

    Ragavan and O’Shields (2007), pp. 101–102.

  22. 22.

    Narasimhan (2008), p. 6.

  23. 23.

    Statement of Representative of Switzerland. WTO (1999a), para 82.

  24. 24.

    ‘To maximize the chances of success,[in the first Conference] the French Government issued invitations to twelve countries only, all from Western Europe, which were known to share the same concerns and the same hopes (Austria, Belgium, Denmark, Finland, Federal Republic of Germany, Italy, the Netherlands, Norway, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, the United Kingdom). All were to participate at one stage or another in the elaboration of the UPOV Convention.’ as quoted by Heitz (1990), p. 35. For the participants of the conference (states and organizations), see UPOV (1974), pp. 103–104.

  25. 25.

    Narasimhan (2008), pp. 9–10.

  26. 26.

    Plant Variety and Farmers Right Act, 2001; Sanderson (2017), p. 108.

  27. 27.

    Protection of Plant Variety and Farmers Right Act, of India 2001 (PPVFR Act), Sec. 26(5).

  28. 28.

    Protection of Plant Variety and Farmers Right Act, of India 2001 (PPVFR Act), Sec. 45.

  29. 29.

    Correa (2015), p. 27.

  30. 30.

    The following organizations, which represented the interests of commercial breeders, were present in the Conference: Association internationale des sélectionneurs pour la protection des obtentions végétales (ASSINSEL), Association internationale pour la protection de la propriété industrielle (AIPPI), Communauté internationale des obtenteurs de plantes ornementales de reproductions asexuée (CIOPORA) and Fédération internationale du commerce des semences (FIS), see UPOV (1974), p. 104. For the history and role of these organizations, see Heitz (1987), pp. 80–83.

  31. 31.

    Sanderson (2017), p. 43.

  32. 32.

    Haugen (2020), p. 6.

  33. 33.

    Haugen (2020), p. 6.

  34. 34.

    Recommendation Relating to Article 15(2) added to UPOV Convention 1991.

  35. 35.

    UPOV (2020).

  36. 36.

    Agreement between the World Intellectual Property Organization and the International Union for the Protection of New Varieties of Plants (WIPO/UPOV Agreement) signed on 26 November 1982 (UPOV/INF/8).

  37. 37.

    OAU (2000); Straba (2017), p. 192.

  38. 38.

    GRAIN (2001); Opoku Awuku (2008), p. 114.

  39. 39.

    Roseboom (2012), p. 453.

  40. 40.

    The Members of the Organisation Africaine de la Propriété Intellectuelle (OAPI) at the time were Benin, Burkina Faso, Cameroon, Central African Republic, Chad, Congo, Ivory Coast, Equatorial Guinea, Gabon, Guinea, Guinea-Bissau, Mali, Mauritania, Niger, Senegal and Togo. The list of OAPI Members is available at http://www.oapi.int/index.php/en/aipo/presentation/member-countries (Last consulted on 20 April 2020). See Straba (2017), p. 193; Roseboom (2012), p. 453.

  41. 41.

    The Bangui Agreement established OAPI in 1977 and was revised in 1999: Accord portant révision de l’Accord de Bangui du 2 mars 1977 instituant une Organisation Africaine de la Propriété Intellectuelle (Bangui (République centrafricaine) (24 February 1999). See also Roseboom (2012), p. 453.

  42. 42.

    UPOV (2020).

  43. 43.

    The current members of OAPI are Benin, Burkina Faso, Cameroon, Central African Republic, Chad, Comoros Congo, Ivory Coast, Equatorial Guinea, Gabon, Guinea, Guinea-Bissau, Mali, Mauritania, Niger, Senegal and Togo. Among them Benin, Burkina Faso, Central African Republic, Chad, Comoros Congo, Guinea, Guinea-Bissau, Mali, Mauritania and Senegal are least-developed countries. The UN list of Least-Developed Countries is available at https://unctad.org/en/Pages/ALDC/Least%20Developed%20Countries/UN-list-of-Least-Developed-Countries.aspx (Last consulted on 20 April 2020).

  44. 44.

    Haugen (2015), p. 197.

  45. 45.

    UPOV (2014).

  46. 46.

    Arusha Protocol for the Protection of New Varieties of Plants within the Framework of the African Regional Intellectual Property Organization (ARIPO), ARIPO Office, Arusha, Tanzania adopted on 06 July 2015 (Arusha Protocol) available at https://www.aripo.org/ip-services/plant-variety-protection-pvp/ (Last consulted on 20 April 2020).

  47. 47.

    See Haugen (2015), p. 206.

  48. 48.

    Elver (2016).

  49. 49.

    The members of the African Regional Intellectual Property Organization (ARIPO) are Botswana, Eswatini, Gambia, Ghana, Kenya, Lesotho, Liberia, Malawi, Mozambique, Namibia, Rwanda, Sao Tomoe and Principe, Sierra Leone, Somalia, Sudan, Tanzania, Uganda, Zambia, and Zimbabwe available at https://www.aripo.org/member-states/ (Last consulted on 20 April 2020); Among them, Gambia, Lesotho, Liberia, Malawi, Mozambique, Rwanda, Sao Tomoe and Principe, Sierra Leone, Somalia, Sudan, Tanzania, Uganda, Zambia are least-developed countries. UN list of Least-Developed Countries is available at https://unctad.org/en/Pages/ALDC/Least%20Developed%20Countries/UN-list-of-Least-Developed-Countries.aspx (Last consulted on 20 April 2020).

  50. 50.

    UPOV (2019).

  51. 51.

    Narasimhan (2008), pp. 9–10.

  52. 52.

    World Bank (2006), p. 46.

  53. 53.

    Dutfield (2019), p. 289.

  54. 54.

    GRAIN (2018).

  55. 55.

    Indonesia-Japan Economic Partnership Agreement (IJEPA), Art. 106 (3)(c).

  56. 56.

    The European Union’s (EU) proposal for a legal text on intellectual property in the EU-Indonesia FTA available at https://trade.ec.europa.eu/doclib/docs/2017/february/tradoc_155281.pdf (Last consulted on 10 May 2020).

  57. 57.

    Action Fiche for IP Key South East Asia is available at https://ipkey.eu/sites/default/files/ipkey-docs/2019/ANNEX-10_IPKey-SouthEastAsia.pdf (Last consulted on 01 April 2020).

  58. 58.

    Action Fiche for IP Key South East Asia is available at https://ipkey.eu/sites/default/files/ipkey-docs/2019/ANNEX-10_IPKey-SouthEastAsia.pdf (Last consulted on 01 April 2020).

  59. 59.

    The details of IP Key project is available at https://ipkey.eu/en (Last consulted on 01 April 2020).

  60. 60.

    USTR (2020), pp. 62 and 80.

  61. 61.

    De Schutter (2015), p. 27.

  62. 62.

    The Japan Agricultural News (2018).

  63. 63.

    GRAIN (2019a).

  64. 64.

    Further information on EAPVP Forum is available at http://eapvp.org/about/ (Last consulted on 01 April 2020).

  65. 65.

    EAPVP Forum (2019), p. 1.

  66. 66.

    EAPVP Forum (2018, 2019).

  67. 67.

    UN list of Least-Developed Countries is available at https://unctad.org/en/Pages/ALDC/Least%20Developed%20Countries/UN-list-of-Least-Developed-Countries.aspx (Last consulted on 20 April 2020).

  68. 68.

    UPOV (2020).

  69. 69.

    On February 1, 2019, the Ministry of Agriculture and Rural Affairs (MOA) issued an announcement to publicly solicit comments on the ‘Revised Draft Regulations on the Protection of New Varieties of Plants of the People’s Republic of China (Draft for Comment)’, for purpose of further stimulating original innovation and enhancing protection. See Xiang (2010).

  70. 70.

    CIOPORA (2019).

  71. 71.

    Rosenzweig (2020).

  72. 72.

    China remained the top filing office in 2018, receiving 5760 applications. The China office now accounts for over a quarter of the plant varieties filed worldwide. WIPO (2019), p. 164.

  73. 73.

    WIPO (2019), p. 166.

  74. 74.

    See para 14 of the Opinion of General Office of Communist Party of China and the State Council is available [Chinese] at http://www.gov.cn/zhengce/2019-11/24/content_5455070.htm (Last consulted on 22 April 2020).

  75. 75.

    See para 12 of the Opinion of General Office of Communist Party of China and the State Council is available [Chinese] at http://www.gov.cn/zhengce/2019-11/24/content_5455070.htm (Last consulted on 22 April 2020).

  76. 76.

    GRAIN (2019b).

  77. 77.

    GRAIN (2019b).

  78. 78.

    Abbas (2018).

  79. 79.

    Siqi (2018).

  80. 80.

    Correa (2015), p. 27.

  81. 81.

    World Bank (2020).

  82. 82.

    Braunschweig et al. (2014), p. 6.

  83. 83.

    Louwaars et al. (2005), p. 4.

  84. 84.

    UPOV Convention 1991, Art 14(1).

  85. 85.

    A field study was conducted in Indonesia by Saurav Ghimire. The study was carried with financial support from the Vlaamse Interuniversitaire Raad (VLIR-UOS) as a Global Minds Small Great Projects of Vrije Universiteit Brussels (SGP 018) in collaboration with Universitas Airlangga, Surabaya, Indonesia (October–December 2018) (VUB GM 2018).

  86. 86.

    Christinck and Tvedt (2015), p. 69.

  87. 87.

    CIPR (2002), p. 63.

  88. 88.

    Braunschweig et al. (2014), p. 7; Gene Campaign (n.d.).

  89. 89.

    Protection of Plant Variety and Farmers Right Act, of India 2001 (PPVFR Act), Sec. 39 (1)(iv).

  90. 90.

    Protection of Plant Variety and Farmers Right Act, of India 2001 (PPVFR Act), Sec. 42; Plant Breeder’s Rights Act 1994 of Australia, Sec. 57.

  91. 91.

    Ragavan and O’Shields (2007), p. 121.

  92. 92.

    UPOV (2019).

  93. 93.

    IHCS (2016).

  94. 94.

    GRAIN (2019a).

  95. 95.

    GRAIN (2019a).

  96. 96.

    Wattnem (2014), pp. 14 and 17.

  97. 97.

    Consultation with local farmers and farmers’ right activists by Ghimire during a field research in Indonesia (as yet unpublished) (VUB GM 2018).

  98. 98.

    Commercial Court at City Civil Court, Ahmedabad (2019a) PepsiCo India Holdings Pvt Ltd versus Bipin Patel – Commercial Trademark Suit Number 23 of 2019; Commercial Court at City Civil Court, Ahmedabad (2019b) PepsiCo India Holdings Pvt Ltd versus Vinod Patel – Commercial Trademark Suit Number 24 of 2019; Commercial Court at City Civil Court, Ahmedabad (2019c) PepsiCo India Holdings Pvt Ltd versus Chabilbhai Patel – Commercial Trademark Suit Number 25 of 2019; Commercial Court at City Civil Court, Ahmedabad (2019d) PepsiCo India Holdings Pvt Ltd versus Haribhai Patel – Commercial Trademark Suit Number 26 of 2019.

  99. 99.

    Dhar (2019).

  100. 100.

    Protection of Plant Variety and Farmers Right Act, of India 2001 (PPVFR Act), Sec. 3 (1)(iv).

  101. 101.

    Dhar (2019) and Bhutani (2019).

  102. 102.

    Dhar (2019).

  103. 103.

    Dhar (2019).

  104. 104.

    Bhutani (2019).

  105. 105.

    Protection of Plant Variety and Farmers Right Act, of India 2001 (PPVFR Act), Sec. 42.

  106. 106.

    Bhutani (2019).

  107. 107.

    VUB GM 2018.

  108. 108.

    Correa (2000), p. 4.

  109. 109.

    QUNO (2013), pp. 2–3.

  110. 110.

    UPOV Convention 1991, Art. 1(iv).

  111. 111.

    UPOV (2013).

  112. 112.

    Sanderson (2017), p. 112.

  113. 113.

    Protection of Plant Variety and Farmers Right Act, of India 2001 (PPVFR Act), Sec. 14, 16(d), 39(1).

  114. 114.

    PPVFRA (2018).

  115. 115.

    UPOV (1991).

  116. 116.

    Ragavan and O’Shields (2007), p. 4.

  117. 117.

    Christinck and Tvedt (2015), p. 64.

  118. 118.

    Christinck and Tvedt (2015), p. 64.

  119. 119.

    Christinck and Tvedt (2015), pp. 67–68.

  120. 120.

    UPOV Convention 1991, Art. 14(5)(c).

  121. 121.

    Graeub et al. (2016), p. 1.

  122. 122.

    HLPE (2013), p. 46.

  123. 123.

    Graeub et al. (2016), p. 1.

  124. 124.

    HLPE (2013), p. 12.

  125. 125.

    HLPE (2013), p. 45.

  126. 126.

    Christiaensen and Vandercasteelen (2019).

  127. 127.

    Braunschweig et al. (2014), p. 7.

  128. 128.

    De Schutter (2009), para 40.

  129. 129.

    Elver (2016).

  130. 130.

    Christinck and Tvedt (2015) and Braunschweig et al. (2014).

  131. 131.

    Christinck and Tvedt (2015), p. 63.

  132. 132.

    CESCR (2008), para 69.

  133. 133.

    EU Parliament (2018), para 18.

  134. 134.

    EU Parliament (2018), para 19.

  135. 135.

    United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Peasants and Other People Working in Rural Areas, (UN Human Rights Council, adopted 28 September 2018 (A/HRC/RES/39/12), Article 19(1)(d). The Resolution was adopted by a recorded vote of 33 to 3, with 11 abstentions (in favour: Afghanistan, Angola, Burundi, Chile, China, Côte d’Ivoire, Cuba, Democratic Republic of the Congo, Ecuador, Egypt, Ethiopia, Iraq, Kenya, Kyrgyzstan, Mexico, Mongolia, Nepal, Nigeria, Pakistan, Panama, Peru, Philippines, Qatar, Rwanda, Saudi Arabia, Senegal, South Africa, Switzerland, Togo, Tunisia, Ukraine, United Arab Emirates, Venezuela (Bolivarian Republic of); against: Australia, Hungary, United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland; abstaining: Belgium, Brazil, Croatia, Georgia, Germany, Iceland, Japan, Republic of Korea, Slovakia, Slovenia, Spain.

  136. 136.

    Jefferson and Adhikari (2019).

  137. 137.

    Jefferson and Adhikari (2019), p. 18.

  138. 138.

    Adebola (2019).

  139. 139.

    For instance, Correa (2015) and Narasimhan (2008).

References

  • Abbas A (2018) Patenting agriculture: case of Chinese hybrid wheat seeds introduced under CPEC, roots for equality. https://rootsforequity.noblogs.org/patenting-agriculture-case-of-chinese-hybrid-wheat-seeds-introduced-under-cpec/. Last consulted 27 April 2020

  • Accord portant révision de l’Accord de Bangui du 2 mars 1977 instituant une Organisation Africaine de la Propriété Intellectuelle (Bangui (République centrafricaine) (24 February 1999)

    Google Scholar 

  • Adebola T (2019) Examining plant variety protection in Nigeria: realities, obligations and prospects. J World Intellect Prop 22(1-2):36–58. https://doi.org/10.1111/jwip.12113

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Agreement between the World Intellectual Property Organization and the International Union for the Protection of New Plant Varieties (WIPO/UPOV Agreement) signed on 26 November 1982 (UPOV/INF/8)

    Google Scholar 

  • Antons C (2016) Article 27 (3)(b) TRIPS and plant variety protection in developing countries. In: Ullrich H et al (eds) TRIPS plus 20. Springer, Heidelberg, pp 389–414. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-662-48107-3_12

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Antons C, Kanniah R (2012) Plant variety protection and traditional agricultural knowledge in Southeast Asia. Aust J Asian Law 13(1):1–23

    Google Scholar 

  • Aoki K (2009) Seeds of dispute: intellectual-property rights and agricultural biodiversity. Gold Gate Univ Environ Law J 3:79–160

    Google Scholar 

  • ARIPO (2015) Arusha protocol for the protection of new varieties of plants within the framework of the African Regional Intellectual Property Organization (ARIPO). ARIPO Office, Arusha, Tanzania adopted on 06 July 2015 (Arusha Protocol)

    Google Scholar 

  • Bhutani S (2019) The ‘Farmers’ Rights’ law lays the IPR trap. https://spicyip.com/2019/04/the-farmers-rights-law-lays-the-ipr-trap.html. Last consulted 26 April 2020

  • Braunschweig T et al (2014) Owning seeds, accessing food: a human rights impact assessment of UPOV 1991 based on case studies in Kenya, Peru and the Philippines. The Berne Declaration, Zurich

    Google Scholar 

  • CESCR (Committee On Economic, Social And Cultural Rights) (2008) Fortieth Session 28 April - 16 May 2008, UN Economic and Social Council, consideration of reports submitted by states parties under Articles 16 And 17 of The Covenant: concluding observations of the Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights-India E/C.12/IND/CO/5, 8 August 2008

    Google Scholar 

  • Christiaensen L, Vandercasteelen J (2019) Earning more on the farm. In: Beegle K, Christiaensen L (eds) Accelerating poverty reduction in Africa. World Bank Publications, Washington DC

    Google Scholar 

  • Christinck A, Tvedt MW (2015) The UPOV Convention, farmers rights and human rights: an integrated assessment of potentially conflicting legal frameworks. GIZ

    Google Scholar 

  • CIOPORA (2019) CIOPORA advocates for PBR upgrade, better enforcement before high-level MARA & NFGA Officials in Bei. https://www.ciopora.org/post/report-ciopora-mission-in-china-2019. Last consulted 24 April 2020

  • CIPR (Commission on Intellectual Property Rights) (2002) Integrating intellectual property rights and development policy: report of the Commission on Intellectual Property Rights. Commission on Intellectual Property Rights London

    Google Scholar 

  • Commercial Court at City Civil Court, Ahmedabad (2019a) PepsiCo India Holdings Pvt Ltd versus Bipin Patel – Commercial Trademark Suit Number 23 of 2019

    Google Scholar 

  • Commercial Court at City Civil Court, Ahmedabad (2019b) PepsiCo India Holdings Pvt Ltd versus Vinod Patel – Commercial Trademark Suit Number 24 of 2019

    Google Scholar 

  • Commercial Court at City Civil Court, Ahmedabad (2019c) PepsiCo India Holdings Pvt Ltd versus Chabilbhai Patel – Commercial Trademark Suit Number 25 of 2019

    Google Scholar 

  • Commercial Court at City Civil Court, Ahmedabad (2019d) PepsiCo India Holdings Pvt Ltd versus Haribhai Patel – Commercial Trademark Suit Number 26 of 2019

    Google Scholar 

  • Correa CM (2000) Options for the implementation of farmers’ rights at the national level. Trade Related Agenda. Development and Equity Working Papers, 8

    Google Scholar 

  • Correa CM (2015) Plant variety protection in developing countries: A tool for designing a sui generis plant variety protection system: An alternative to UPOV 1991. Association For Plant Breeding For The Benefit Of Society (APBREBES)

    Google Scholar 

  • De Schutter O (2009) Report of the Special Rapporteur on the right to food. UN. A/64/170

    Google Scholar 

  • De Schutter O (2011) The right of everyone to enjoy the benefits of scientific progress and the right to food: from conflict to complementarity. Hum Rights Q 33:304–350

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • De Schutter O (2015) The new alliance for food security and nutrition in Africa. European Parliament Committee on Development, Brussels

    Google Scholar 

  • Dhar B (2019) Points of Law in the PepsiCo-Potato Case, The Hindu Business. https://www.thehindubusinessline.com/opinion/points-of-law-in-the-pepsico-potato-case/article27060326.ece#. Last consulted 27 April 2020

  • Dutfield G (2011) The role of the international Union for the Protection of New Varieties of Plants (UPOV). QUNO, Intellectual property issue paper 9

    Google Scholar 

  • Dutfield G (2019) The globalisation of plant variety protection: are developing countries still policy takers? In: Correa C, Seuba X (eds) Intellectual property and development: understanding the interfaces. Springer, Singapore, pp 277–293. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-13-2856-5_13

  • EAPVP Forum (2018) 10-Year Strategic Plan of The EAPVP Forum (2018–2027), EAPVPF/11/03, 01August 2018

    Google Scholar 

  • EAPVP Forum (2019) 10-Year Strategic Plan of the EAPVP Forum (2018-2027), EAPVPF/12/03_REV., 22 April 2019

    Google Scholar 

  • Elver H (2016) Open letter to the Member States of the African Regional Protocol for the Protection of New Varieties of Plants. https://www.ohchr.org/EN/Issues/Food/Pages/FoodIndex.aspx. Last consulted 22 April 2020

  • EU Parliament (2018) Committee on International Trade, Committee on Women’s Rights and Gender Equality, Report on gender equality in EU trade agreements (2017/2015(INI)) A8-0023/2018

    Google Scholar 

  • Fowler C (2000) The Plant Patent Act of 1930: a sociological history of its creation. J Patent Trademark Off Soc 82:621–644

    Google Scholar 

  • Gene Campaign (n.d.) Advocacy to protect farmers’ rights. http://genecampaign.org/farmers-rights/. Last consulted 16 August 2019

  • Graeub BE et al (2016) The state of family farms in the world. World Dev 87:1–15

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • GRAIN (2001) UPOV and WIPO attack Africa’s Model Law on community rights to biodiversity. https://www.grain.org/en/article/89-ipr-agents-try-to-derail-oau-process. Last consulted 07 May 2020

  • GRAIN (2018) Trade agreements privatising biodiversity outside the WTO: 2018 update. https://www.grain.org/bulletin_board/entries/6030-trade-agreements-privatising-biodiversity-outside-the-wto-2018-update. Last consulted 20 April 2020

  • GRAIN (2019a) Asia under threat of UPOV 91. https://grain.org/e/6372. Last consulted 25 April 2020

  • GRAIN (2019b) Belt and Road Initiative – Chinese agrobusiness going global. GRAIN. Barcelona

    Google Scholar 

  • Haugen HM (2007) The right to food and the TRIPS agreement: with a particular emphasis on developing countries’ measures for food production and distribution. Brill, Leiden

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Haugen HM (2015) Inappropriate processes and unbalanced outcomes: plant variety protection in Africa goes beyond UPOV 1991 requirements. J World Intellect Prop 18(5):196–216. https://doi.org/10.1111/jwip.12037

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Haugen HM (2020) The UN Declaration on Peasants’ Rights (UNDROP): is Article 19 on seed rights adequately balancing intellectual property rights and the right to food? J World Intellect Prop 2020:1–22. https://doi.org/10.1111/jwip.12152

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Haugen HM et al (2011) Food security and intellectual property rights: finding the linkages. In: Wong T, Dutfield G (eds) Intellectual property and human development: current trends and future scenarios. Cambridge University Press, New York, pp 106–138. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511761027.006

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Heitz A (1987) The history of plant variety protection. In UPOV the first twenty-five years of the International Convention for the Protection of New Plant Varieties, pp 53–96

    Google Scholar 

  • Heitz A (1990) The History of the UPOV Convention and the Rationale for Plant Breeders’ Rights. Proceedings, UPOV Seminar on the Nature of and Rationale for the Protection of Plant Varieties under the UPOV Convention. UPOV Publication No 697 (E)

    Google Scholar 

  • HLPE (2013) Investing in smallholder agriculture for food security. A report by the High Level Panel of Experts on Food Security and Nutrition of the Committee on World Food Security, Rome

    Google Scholar 

  • IHCS (Indonesian Human Rights Committee for Social Justice) (2016) Data Kriminalisasi Petani Menggunakan Uu 12/1992 Dan Uu 29/2000. http://en.ihcs.or.id/?p=429. Last consulted 15 August 2019

  • Indonesia-Japan Economic Partnership Agreement (IJEPA)

    Google Scholar 

  • International Convention for the Protection of New Varieties of Plants 1961 International Convention for the Protection of New Varieties of Plants 1961, as revised in 1972, 1978 and 1991

    Google Scholar 

  • International Treaty on Plant Genetic Resources for Food and Agriculture (2001, November 3). Res 3/2003 FAO Conference, 31st Session

    Google Scholar 

  • Jefferson DJ, Adhikari K (2019) Reimagining the relationship between food sovereignty and intellectual property for plants: lessons from Ecuador and Nepal. J World Intellect Prop 22(5-6):396–418. https://doi.org/10.1111/jwip.12134

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kanniah R (2005) Plant variety protection in Indonesia, Malaysia, the Philippines and Thailand. J World Intellect Prop 8(3):283–310. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1747-1796.2005.tb00251.x

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kloppenburg J (1988) Seeds and sovereignty. The use and control of plant genetic resources. Duke University, Durham and London

    Google Scholar 

  • Kloppenburg J (2008) Seeds, sovereignty, and the vía campesina: plants, property, and the promise of open source biology. In Workshop on Food Sovereignty, 17–18 November 2018, St. Andrews College, University of Saskatchewan, Saskatoon, Saskatchewan

    Google Scholar 

  • Law of Republic of Indonesia No. 29 of 2000 on Plant Variety Protection

    Google Scholar 

  • Louwaars NP et al (2005) Impacts of strengthened intellectual property rights regimes on the plant breeding industry in developing countries. Report commissioned by the World Bank. Wageningen, The Netherlands

    Google Scholar 

  • Marrakesh Agreement establishing the World Trade Organization. Concluded at Marrakesh on 15 April 1994. Vol. 1867, 1-31874

    Google Scholar 

  • Narasimhan SM (2008) Towards a balanced ‘sui generis’ plant variety regime: guidelines to establish a national PVP law and understanding of trips-plus aspect of plant rights. UNDP

    Google Scholar 

  • OAU (Organization of African Unity) (2000) The African Model Legislation on the Protection of the Rights of Local Communities, Farmers and Breeders, and for the Regulation of Access to Biological Resources. Algeria. https://www.wipo.int/edocs/lexdocs/laws/en/oau/oau001en.pdf. Last consulted 07 May 2020

  • Opoku Awuku E (2008) Intellectual property rights, biotechnology and development: African perspectives. In: Wüger D, Cottier T (eds) Genetic engineering and the World Trade System: World Trade Forum. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp 109–117. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511494581.005

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Plant Breeder’s Rights Act of Australia 1994

    Google Scholar 

  • PPVFRA (2018) (Protection of Plant Varieties and Farmers’ Rights Authority) Compendium of registered varieties under PPV&FR Act, 2001. http://www.plantauthority.gov.in/pdf/CompendiumFinal27Oct2018.pdf. Last consulted 15 August 2019

  • Protection of Plant Variety and Farmers Right Act, of India 2001 (PPVFR Act)

    Google Scholar 

  • QUNO (Quaker United Nations Office) (2013) Definition of “Breeder” under UPOV why it matters. Briefing paper number 2

    Google Scholar 

  • Ragavan S, O’shields JM (2007) Has India addressed its farmers’ woes – a story of plant protection issues. Geo Int Environ Law Rev 20:97–127

    Google Scholar 

  • Roseboom J (2012) Creating an enabling environment for agricultural innovation. In: World Bank (ed) Agricultural innovation systems an investment sourcebook. World Bank, Washington DC

    Google Scholar 

  • Rosenzweig LF (2020) 2020/04/02 Essentially derived varieties and the role of leading cases in Chinese Plant Variety Protection. https://chinaipr.com/2020/04/02/essentially-derived-varieties-and-the-role-of-leading-cases-in-chinese-plant-variety-protection/. Last consulted 24 Apr 2020

  • Sanderson J (2017) Plants, people and practices: the nature and history of the UPOV convention. Cambridge University Press, New York

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Siqi C (2018) Hybrid wheat a success in Pakistan pilot areas Global Times Published. http://www.globaltimes.cn/content/1116415.shtml. Last consulted 25 April 2020

  • Straba SI (2017) Legal and institutional considerations for plant variety protection and food security in African development agendas: solutions from WIPO? J Intellect Prop Law Pract 12(3):191–205

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • The Japan Agricultural News (26 Dec 2018) Japan aims more ASEAN states to accede seed patent UPOV. http://english.agrinews.co.jp/?p=8974. Last consulted 26 April 2020

  • UNCTAD-ICTSD (2005) Resource book on TRIPS and development. Cambridge University Press, USA

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Peasants and Other People Working in Rural Areas A/C.3/73/L.30

    Google Scholar 

  • UPOV (1974) Actes des conferences internationales pour la protection des obtentions végétales. https://www.upov.int/edocs/pubdocs/fr/upov_pub_316.pdf. Last consulted 11 May 2020

  • UPOV (1991) Recommendation relating to Article 15(2): Diplomatic Conference for the revision of the International Convention for Protection of New Varieties of Plants DC/91.139

    Google Scholar 

  • UPOV (2002) International harmonization is essential for effective plant variety protection, trade & transfer of technology, UPOV Position based on an intervention in the Council for TRIPS, on September 19, 2002

    Google Scholar 

  • UPOV (2013) Explanatory notes on the definition of breeder under the 1991 Act of the UPOV Convention, UPOV/EXN/BRD/1 https://www.upov.int/edocs/expndocs/en/upov_exn_brd.pdf. Last consulted 01 August 2019

  • UPOV (2014) UPOV Press Release 96, UPOV Council Holds its Thirty-First Extraordinary Session Geneva, April 11, 2014. https://www.upov.int/export/sites/upov/news/en/pressroom/pdf/pr96.pdf. Last consulted 21 April 2020

  • UPOV (2019) Status in relation to The International Union for the Protection of New Varieties of Plants UPOV Convention. http://www.upov.int/export/sites/upov/members/en/pdf/status.pdf. Last consulted 01 August 2019

  • UPOV (2020) Members of The International Union for the Protection of New Varieties of Plants, Status on February 3, 2020. https://www.upov.int/edocs/pubdocs/en/upov_pub_423.pdf. Last consulted 21 April 2020

  • USTR (2020) Special 301 Report 2020. https://ustr.gov/sites/default/files/2020_Special_301_Report.pdf. Last consulted 30 April 2020

  • Wattnem TA (2014) Outlawing informal seed systems in the global south: seed laws, certification, and standardization. Thesis for the M. Sc. In Agroecology. University of Wisconsin

    Google Scholar 

  • WIPO (2019) World Intellectual Property Indicators 2019. World Intellectual Property Organization, Geneva

    Google Scholar 

  • World Bank (2006) Intellectual property rights: designing regimes to support plant breeding in developing countries (No. 35517-GLB). International Bank for Reconstruction and Development

    Google Scholar 

  • World Bank (2020) Employment in agriculture. https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/sl.agr.empl.zs. Last consulted 19 April 2020

  • WTO (1999a) Council for trade-related aspects of intellectual property rights, minutes of meeting held in the Centre William Rappard on 20–21 October 1999 IP/C/M/25, 22 December 1999

    Google Scholar 

  • WTO (1999b) Review of the provisions of Article 27.3(b) communication from the United States IP/C/W/162, 29 October 1999

    Google Scholar 

  • WTO (2006) Review of the provisions of Article 27.3(b) summary of issues raised and points made note by the Secretariat IP/C/W/369/Rev.1., 09 March 2006

    Google Scholar 

  • WTO (2013) Extension of the transition period under Article 66.1 for least developed country members, IP/C/64, 12 June 2013

    Google Scholar 

  • WTO (2014) Appellate Body Report in China – measures related to the exportation of rare earths, tungsten, and molybdenum, WT/DS431/AB/R / WT/DS432/AB/R / WT/DS433/AB/R (adopted 29 August 2014)

    Google Scholar 

  • Xiang A (2010) Introduction to the protection of new plant varieties in China. https://www.lexology.com/library/detail.aspx?g=b012e1f4-d0a3-4ba3-9715-f045afc8118c. Last consulted 24 April 2020

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Faculty of Law and Criminology, Vrije Universiteit Brussel, Brussels, Belgium

    Kim van der Borght & Saurav Ghimire

Authors
  1. Kim van der Borght
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Saurav Ghimire
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Kim van der Borght .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Faculty of Law and Criminology, Vrije Universiteit Brussel, Brussels, Belgium

    Koen Byttebier

  2. Faculty of Law and Criminology, Vrije Universiteit Brussel, Brussels, Belgium

    Kim van der Borght

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2022 The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG

About this chapter

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this chapter

van der Borght, K., Ghimire, S. (2022). Seeds & Intellectual Property Rights: Bad Faith and Undue Influence Undermine Food Security and Human Rights. In: Byttebier, K., van der Borght, K. (eds) Law and Sustainability. Economic and Financial Law & Policy – Shifting Insights & Values, vol 6. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-92620-5_7

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-92620-5_7

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Cham

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-030-92619-9

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-030-92620-5

  • eBook Packages: Law and CriminologyLaw and Criminology (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation