Skip to main content

The Globalisation of Plant Variety Protection: Are Developing Countries Still Policy Takers?

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Intellectual Property and Development: Understanding the Interfaces

Abstract

Until recently, for developing and emerging economies intellectual property policy taking was the norm rather than policy making. What we mean is that the developed countries set the standards for other countries to follow. This may still be the general trend but developing nations are starting to devise their own policy approaches that other countries are imitating. This shift towards policy making is certainly noticeable. But it is not yet hugely significant. Conformity to the recommendations (and still in some cases the dictates) of developed countries, their industries, and experts from the Global North remains very common. The question arises of whether developing countries continue to be policy takers or have begun to develop their own counter-norms which are viable. As we will see there is evidence that some developing countries are indeed “translating” international obligations in some imaginative ways that may (or may not) promote their interests better. It may be that divergences between Europe and the United States in how innovations in plant science and agricultural biotechnology are protected inadvertently encourages the adoption of more flexible perspectives than would otherwise have been envisaged. However, there are massive policy challenges ahead especially due to the lack of empirical evidence on the effects of different intellectual property rules concerning plants on rural development and food security that could be used to shape law and policy. This goes far in explaining why only a handful of countries has sought alternative approaches. Further research is desperately needed.

Professor of International Governance, University of Leeds, UK.

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

Access this chapter

Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 149.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Hardcover Book
USD 199.99
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

Notes

  1. 1.

    On the history of the Plant Patent Act and its lack of global influence, see Bugos and Kevles (1992); Dutfield (2003); Fowler (1994). On the conceptual challenges of patenting plants in the United States, see Pottage and Sherman (2010).

  2. 2.

    Heitz (1987).

  3. 3.

    FIS later merged with ASSINSEL to form the International Seed Federation.

  4. 4.

    “The [1953 German] Seed Law played a substantial part in the making of the UPOV Convention”, Heitz (1987).

  5. 5.

    Sage (2002).

  6. 6.

    Formally, the Accord Portant Revision de l’Accord de Bangui du 2 Mars 1977 Instituant une Organisation Africaine de la Propriété Intellectuelle.

  7. 7.

    Deere (2009).

  8. 8.

    Deere (2009).

  9. 9.

    Prifti (2015).

  10. 10.

    Article 17(2), UPOV 1991. For a thorough treatment of the European unitary plant variety right as provided under the EU Regulation 2100/94 and its implementing rules, see Würtenberger et al. (2015).

  11. 11.

    See Louwaars et al. (2005); Smith et al. (2016); UPOV (2005).

  12. 12.

    Louwaars et al. (2009).

  13. 13.

    Wilson (1989); Mushegian and Shepherd (1995).

  14. 14.

    Gilbert (2016).

  15. 15.

    Some genetic technologies might in fact counteract this trend.

  16. 16.

    Regarding farmers’ varieties, see Halewood and Lapeña (2016); Louwaars and De Boef (2012). Concerning wild relatives, see Castañeda-Álvarez et al. (2016); Montenegro (2016).

  17. 17.

    Kingsbury (2009).

  18. 18.

    For extended discussions on this issue and reviews of policy measures to address it by different countries, see Halewood (2016). The European Union does provide for limited derogations allowing for the cultivation and marketing of certain locally adapted and threatened agricultural varieties, or landraces. See Commission Directive 2008/62/EC of 20 June 2008 providing for certain derogations for acceptance of agricultural landraces and varieties which are naturally adapted to the local and regional conditions and threatened by genetic erosion and for marketing of seed and seed potatoes of those landraces and varieties; Commission Directive 2009/145/EC of 26 November 2009 providing for certain derogations, for acceptance of vegetable landraces and varieties which have been traditionally grown in particular localities and regions and are threatened by genetic erosion and of vegetable varieties with no intrinsic value for commercial crop production but developed for growing under particular conditions and for marketing of seed of those landraces and varieties.

  19. 19.

    Brokensha (1999).

  20. 20.

    World Bank (2006).

  21. 21.

    UPOV (2005).

  22. 22.

    Rangnekar (2013).

  23. 23.

    Kochupillai (2016).

  24. 24.

    Lertdhamtewe (2013); Kanniah (2005).

References

  • Brokensha, D. (1999). What African farmers know. In D. A. Posey (Ed.), Cultural and spiritual values of biodiversity (pp. 309–312). Nairobi: UNEP and IT.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bugos, G. E., & Kevles, D. J. (1992). Plants as intellectual property: American practice, law, and policy in a world context. Osiris, 7, 75–104.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Castañeda-Álvarez, N. P., Khoury, C. K., Achicanoy, H. A., Bernau, V., Dempewolf, H., Eastwood, R. J., et al. (2016). Global conservation priorities for crop wild relatives. Nature Plants, 2, 16022.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Deere, C. (2009). The implementation game: The TRIPS agreement and the global politics of intellectual property reform in developing countries. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dutfield, G. (2003). Intellectual property rights and the life science industries: A twentieth century history. Aldershot: Ashgate.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fowler, C. (1994). Unnatural selection: Technology, politics, and plant evolution. Yverdon: Gordon and Breach.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gilbert, N. (2016). The race to create super-crops. Nature, 533, 308–310.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Halewood, M. (Ed.). (2016). Farmers’ crop varieties and farmers’ rights: Challenges in taxonomy and law. Abingdon: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Halewood, M., & Lapeña, I. (2016). Farmers’ varieties and farmers’ rights: Challenges at the crossroads of agriculture, taxonomy and law. In M. Halewood (Ed.), Farmers’ crop varieties and farmers’ rights: Challenges in taxonomy and law (pp. 1–24). Abingdon: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Heitz, A. (1987). The history of plant variety protection. In The first twenty-five years of the international convention for the protection of new varieties of plants (pp. 53–96). Geneva: International Union for the Protection of New Varieties of Plants.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kingsbury, N. (2009). Hybrid: The history and science of plant breeding. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Kanniah, R. (2005). Plant variety protection in Indonesia, Malaysia, the Philippines and Thailand. Journal of World Intellectual Property, 8(3), 283–310.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kochupillai, M. (2016). Promoting sustainable innovations in plant varieties. Berlin: Springer.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Lertdhamtewe, P. (2013). Plant variety protection in Thailand: The need for a new coherent framework. Journal of Intellectual Property Law and Practice, 8(1), 33–42.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Louwaars, N. et al. (2005). Impacts of strengthened intellectual property rights regimes on the plant breeding industry in developing countries: A synthesis of five case studies. A study commissioned by the World Bank, Wageningen University.

    Google Scholar 

  • Louwaars, N. et al. (2009). Breeding business: The future of plant breeding in the light of developments in patent rights and plant breeder’s rights. Wageningen University.

    Google Scholar 

  • Louwaars, N., & De Boef, W. S. (2012). Integrated seed sector development in Africa: A conceptual framework for creating coherence between practices, programs and policies. Journal of Crop Improvement, 26, 39–59.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Montenegro, M. (2016). Banking on wild relatives to feed the world. Gastronomica: The Journal of Critical Food Studies, 16(1), 1–8.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mushegian, A. R., & Shepherd, R. J. (1995). Genetic elements of plant viruses as tools for genetic engineering. Microbiological Reviews, 59(4), 548–578.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pottage, A., & Sherman, B. (2010). Figures of invention: A history of patent law. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Prifti, V. (2015). The breeder’s exception to patent rights: Analysis of compliance with Article 30 of the TRIPS Agreement. Berlin: Springer.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Rangnekar, D. (2013). Geneva rhetoric, national reality: The political economy of introducing plant breeders’ rights in Kenya. New Political Economy, 19(3), 359–383.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sage, G. C. M. (2002). Intellectual property, agriculture and genetic resources. Commission on Intellectual Property Rights (Unpublished paper on file with author).

    Google Scholar 

  • Smith, S., Lence, S., Hayes, D., Alston, J., & Corona, E. (2016). Elements of intellectual property protection in plant breeding and biotechnology: Interactions and outcomes. Crop Science, 56, 1401–1411.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • UPOV. (2005). UPOV report on the impact of plant variety protection. International Union for the Protection of New Varieties of Plants.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wilson, T. M. (1989). Plant viruses: A tool-box for genetic engineering and crop protection. Bioessays, 10(6), 179–186.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • World Bank. (2006). Intellectual property rights: Designing regimes to support plant breeding in developing countries. World Bank Agriculture and Rural Development Department. Washington DC: The World Bank.

    Google Scholar 

  • Würtenberger, G., Van Der Kooij, P., Kiewiet, B., & Ekvad, M. (2015). European Union plant variety protection (2nd ed.). Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Graham Dutfield .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2019 Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd.

About this chapter

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this chapter

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. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-13-2856-5_13

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-13-2856-5_13

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Singapore

  • Print ISBN: 978-981-13-2855-8

  • Online ISBN: 978-981-13-2856-5

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

Publish with us

Policies and ethics