SUBSCRIBE TODAY!
Subscribing entitles a reader to complete stories on all topics released as they happen, special features, confidential documents and access to the complete, searchable story archive online back to 2004.
IP-Watch Briefs

Advertisement


Inside Views

Contribute your views! Submit an Inside Views idea to info [at] ip-watch [dot] ch.

We welcome your participation in article and blog comment threads, and other discussion forums, where we encourage you to analyse and react to the content available on the Intellectual Property Watch website.

By participating in discussions or reader forums, or by submitting opinion pieces or comments to articles, blogs, reviews or multimedia features, you are consenting to these rules.

1. You agree that you are fully responsible for the content that you post. You will not knowingly post content that violates the copyright, trademark, patent or other intellectual property right of any third party or which you know is under a confidentiality obligation preventing its publication and that you will request removal of the same should you discover that you have violated this provision. Likewise, you may not post content that is libelous, defamatory, obscene, abusive, that violates a third party's right to privacy, that otherwise violates any applicable local, state, national or international law, that amounts to spamming or that is otherwise inappropriate. You may not post content that degrades others on the basis of gender, race, class, ethnicity, national origin, religion, sexual preference, disability or other classification. Epithets and other language intended to intimidate or to incite violence are also prohibited. Furthermore, you may not impersonate others.

2. You understand and agree that Intellectual Property Watch is not responsible for any content posted by you or third parties. You further understand that IP Watch does not monitor the content posted. Nevertheless, IP Watch may monitor the any user-generated content as it chooses and reserves the right to remove, edit or otherwise alter content that it deems inappropriate for any reason whatever without consent nor notice. We further reserve the right, in our sole discretion, to remove a user's privilege to post content on our site. IP Watch is not in any manner endorsing the content of the discussion forums and cannot and will not vouch for its reliability or otherwise accept liability for it.

3. By submitting any contribution to IP Watch, you warrant that your contribution is your own original work and that you have the right to make it available to IP Watch for all purposes and you agree to indemnify IP Watch, its directors, employees and agents against all damages, legal fees and others expenses that may be incurred by IP Watch as a result of your breach of warranty or of these terms.

4. You further agree not to publish any personal information about yourself or anyone else (for example telephone number or home address). If you add a comment to a blog, be aware that your email address will be apparent.

5. IP Watch will not be liable for any loss including but not limited to the following (whether such losses are foreseen, known or otherwise): loss of data, loss of revenue or anticipated profit, loss of business, loss of opportunity, loss of goodwill or injury to reputation, losses suffered by third parties, any indirect, consequential or exemplary damages.

6. You understand and agree that the discussion forums are to be used only for non-commercial purposes. You may not solicit funds, promote commercial entities or otherwise engage in commercial activity in our discussion forums.

7. You acknowledge and agree that you use and/or rely on any information obtained through the discussion forums at your own risk.

8. For any content that you post, you hereby grant to IP Watch the royalty-free, irrevocable, perpetual, exclusive and fully sub-licensable license to use, reproduce, modify, adapt, publish, translate, create derivative works from, distribute, perform and display such content in whole or in part, world-wide and to incorporate it in other works, in any form, media or technology now known or later developed.

9. These terms and your posts and contributions shall be governed and interpreted in accordance with the laws of Switzerland (without giving effect to conflict of laws principles thereof) and any dispute exclusively settled by the Courts of the Canton of Geneva.

Occupy IP: New Economy Businesses Clash With Old

It may be too much, too late for content providers finally trying to tame the internet, and a fresh approach is needed, writes Bruce Berman.




Special Reports

Non-Communicable Diseases Issue Energises Public Health Policymakers Read More >


Latest Comments
  • I deeply apprecite the initiative to combat agains... »
  • 1. Cuál es el problema principal que se plantea en... »

  • For IPW Subscribers
    A guide to Geneva-based public health and intellectual property organisations. Read More >

    Monthly Reporter

    The Intellectual Property Watch Monthly Reporter, published from 2004 to January 2011, is a 16-page monthly selection of the most important, updated stories and features, plus the People and News Briefs columns.

    The Intellectual Property Watch Monthly Reporter is available in an online archive on the IP-Watch website, available for IP-Watch Subscribers.

    Access the Monthly Reporter Archive >


    Farmers’ Advocacy Groups Rejected As Observers In Plant Rights Organisation

    Published on 10 November 2009 @ 6:24 pm

    By , Intellectual Property Watch

    The International Union for the Protection of New Varieties of Plants (UPOV) has denied two farmers’ advocacy organisations observer status to its governing Council on grounds that they have not demonstrated expertise relevant to the intergovernmental body’s work, stirring concern that opposition groups are being denied participation. Meanwhile, the functional head of UPOV will step down this spring after a decade of leadership, with several candidates in the running for his replacement.

    The two groups, the Association of Plant Breeding for the Benefit of Society (APREBES) and the European Farmers Coordination (now known as the European Coordination of Via Campesina, or ECVC), were told by UPOV at the end of October that their applications for observers status “could not be considered further” until they demonstrate “competence in areas of direct relevance in respect of matters governed by the UPOV Convention.”

    The UPOV Secretariat, housed at the World Intellectual Property Organization, would not provide information aside from what is contained in the report of its Council session on 22 October [pdf], but it appears the matter of competence was based on political positions over intellectual property on agricultural products. UPOV has 68 members [pdf], who have signed up to different versions of the Convention .

    “The decision shows that UPOV is neither inclusive nor supportive of farmers and civil society organisations that work in the interests of small and medium scale farmers and the broader public,” Teshome Hunduma from the Development Fund, a Norwegian nongovernmental environment organisation said in a press release [doc] by members of APREBES and ECVC.

    The purpose of the UPOV Convention, according to its website, is to protect new varieties of plants via intellectual property rights. Its rules on observer status [pdf] say that organisational statutes or treaties are to be used to determine such competence, but does not provide a specific list of desired criteria. Article 34 of the UPOV Convention says that intergovernmental agencies wishing to accede to the Convention must provide for the grant and protection of breeders’ rights that are binding on member states.

    Observer status is decided by a consultative committee; the records of this committee – and the records of all UPOV committees with the exception of the Council – are not publicly available.

    international-ngo-observers-upov1The current list of nongovernmental observers to UPOV (see table) consists almost entirely of plant-breeding or biotechnology companies, associations of such companies, and intellectual property protection groups. The General Committee for Agricultural Co-operation in the European Union (COGECA) is an association of farmers’ unions in Europe, but there is no equivalent organisation from the developing world that is an accredited observer at UPOV.

    Via Campesina is “the international movement of peasants” and claims to represent indigenous people, landless workers, and the small-scale, rural and agrarian populations. The group promotes family-farm-centred agriculture and opposes large-scale, transnational industrialised agriculture, saying that it is not sustainable and tends to exploit workers.

    At a 1-5 June, 2009 meeting of the International Treaty on Plant Genetic Resources for Food and Agriculture (a Food and Agriculture Organization project intended to facilitate exchange of genetic materials in the hopes of maintaining, and increasing, biodiversity), Via Campesina issued a call for full recognition of farmers’ rights to preserve, use and sell seeds – as defined in the international treaty.

    However, the statement said, those rights had been replaced “with private intellectual property laws on seeds.” The statement requested a suspension of IP rights on seeds among signatories to the treaty to allow farmers more freedom to use genetic resources.

    This statement was read in the UPOV meeting, at which time Rolf Jördens, vice secretary general of UPOV argued against accreditation of both civil society groups, according to the press release from the farmers’ groups. Hunduma told Intellectual Property Watch that during the Council meeting Jördens stated the UPOV office does not traditionally give findings to influence decisions of the committee in granting observer status, but that in this case they had wanted to present findings.

    Jördens also told the Council that a member of APREBES had prevented Nepal from acceding to the UPOV Convention, but did not specify which one, Hunduma added.

    APREBES is an association made up of the Norwegian Development Fund, Local Initiatives for Biodiversity, Research and Development (Nepal), Southeast Asian Regional Initiatives for Community Empowerment (SEARICE), the Berne Declaration (Switzerland), the Community Technology Development Trust (Zimbabwe), the Third World Network and the Center for International Environmental Law (CIEL), according to the press release from APREBES about rejection of observer status. Some of these organisations have called for flexibilities in IP rights regimes for the benefit of public goods at the World Intellectual Property Organization and in other international fora.

    However , the competence of APREBES and Via Campesina is “is beyond question,” argued the press release, saying in particular Via Campesina “holds tremendous practical knowledge on seed issues as it represents the very people that plant and grow seeds.”

    UPOV Comments On Special Rapporteur Report

    UPOV also in October released a note [pdf] saying that “there are a number of matters that would benefit from further clarification” in a report delivered to the UN General Assemblies on 21 October [pdf] by the Special Rapporteur on the Right to Food Olivier de Schutter. In particular, the UPOV note ricepickingargues that the UPOV system aims to encourage new plant variety development and that there are exemptions from IP protection for those breeding new varieties. These exemptions, however, preclude sale of “essentially derived” varieties of plants, which may include the offspring of protected seed saved from harvest.

    De Schutter’s report said IP-related monopoly rights could cause poor farmers to become “increasingly dependent on expensive inputs” and at risk of indebtedness. Further, the system risks neglecting poor farmers’ needs in favour of agribusiness needs, jeopardising traditional systems of seed-saving and exchange, and losing biodiversity to “the uniformization encouraged by the spread of commercial varieties,” the report states.

    Leadership Change at UPOV

    Jördens will be leaving the post of vice secretary general next year, after serving since July 2000. Candidates competing for the post will interview in January. Peter John Button of the United Kingdom, currently technical director of UPOV; Antonia Ivaşcu of Romania’s government institute on plant varieties, and Raimundo Lavignolle, currently senior counsellor at UPOV, have been chosen as finalists for the position and will give presentations to member states at an informal meeting on 1 February.

    Kaitlin Mara may be reached at kmara@ip-watch.ch.

     

    Comments

    1. wackes seppi says:

      The title of the post may well echo the press release from six organisations (CPE and six members of APREBES), it remains that it is an abusive interpretation of the UPOV decision. “The request … could not be considered further until [the organisation] demonstrated…” does not mean “rejected”. It is now up to APREBES and CPE to remedy the shortcomings of their applications.

      Whatever the terms of the UPOV rules on the admission of observers, candidate organisations cannot expect the UPOV bodies to rubber-stamp each and every application whenever the statutes (possibly fabricated for the purpose, as seems to be the case for APREBES) suggest a relevant link.

      There is no doubt, however, that the reported reason for the UPOV Consultative Committee decisions sounds very odd in relation to CPE, which is clearly a grouping of farmers’ organisations. As to APREBES, one can only wonder about its reality since it appears to have the features of a Trojan horse, or an ad hoc gathering, for purposes of admission into UPOV as observers. The above-mentioned press release, which does not feature APREBES as one of its authors, but individual members, speaks volumes on this.

      If the UPOV decision is unfortunate, the rant in the press release is no better. For one, it is not Via Campesina’s application which failed, but that of a European gathering whose name does not seem to be stabilised. For another, say, Kenya in Africa, Brazil in America, Vietnam in Asia and Norway in Europe (as the champion of development) will be pleased to learn that they, as members of UPOV are “not interested in taking into account the issues that affect the most vulnerable communities, food sovereignty and biodiversity”.

      Moreover, one has yet to see, say, the French Confédération paysanne, an influential member of CPE (or ECVC) rallying to ensure that its members and friends stop growing the varieties from these evil seed companies that are allegedly “favoured and preferred” by UPOV.

      And, by the way, farmers are represented by observers in UPOV through the International Federation of Agricultural Producers (IFAP) and the International Association of Horticultural Producers (AIPH), not just by the European COGECA.

      And also by the way, CropLife International’s application for observer status in two UPOV committees failed as well.

      De Schutter’s report deserves more than the short reference at the end of the post, and also a critical analysis and rebuttal. It is quite ironical in this respect that Li-Bird, one of the APREBES members has posted a link to Biodiversity International (former IPBGR) explaining that, and how, “Modern crop varieties can increase local genetic diversity“ .(at http://www.bioversityinternational.org/news_and_events/news/news/article/modern_crop_varieties_can_increase_local_genetic_diversity.html?tx_ttnews%5BbackPid%5D=323&cHash=45815b1e86)


    Leave a Reply

    We welcome your participation in article and blog comment threads, and other discussion forums, where we encourage you to analyse and react to the content available on the Intellectual Property Watch website. By participating in discussions or reader forums, or by submitting opinion pieces or comments to articles, blogs, reviews or multimedia features, you are consenting to these rules.

    We welcome your participation in article and blog comment threads, and other discussion forums, where we encourage you to analyse and react to the content available on the Intellectual Property Watch website.

    By participating in discussions or reader forums, or by submitting opinion pieces or comments to articles, blogs, reviews or multimedia features, you are consenting to these rules.

    1. You agree that you are fully responsible for the content that you post. You will not knowingly post content that violates the copyright, trademark, patent or other intellectual property right of any third party or which you know is under a confidentiality obligation preventing its publication and that you will request removal of the same should you discover that you have violated this provision. Likewise, you may not post content that is libelous, defamatory, obscene, abusive, that violates a third party's right to privacy, that otherwise violates any applicable local, state, national or international law, that amounts to spamming or that is otherwise inappropriate. You may not post content that degrades others on the basis of gender, race, class, ethnicity, national origin, religion, sexual preference, disability or other classification. Epithets and other language intended to intimidate or to incite violence are also prohibited. Furthermore, you may not impersonate others.

    2. You understand and agree that Intellectual Property Watch is not responsible for any content posted by you or third parties. You further understand that IP Watch does not monitor the content posted. Nevertheless, IP Watch may monitor the any user-generated content as it chooses and reserves the right to remove, edit or otherwise alter content that it deems inappropriate for any reason whatever without consent nor notice. We further reserve the right, in our sole discretion, to remove a user's privilege to post content on our site. IP Watch is not in any manner endorsing the content of the discussion forums and cannot and will not vouch for its reliability or otherwise accept liability for it.

    3. By submitting any contribution to IP Watch, you warrant that your contribution is your own original work and that you have the right to make it available to IP Watch for all purposes and you agree to indemnify IP Watch, its directors, employees and agents against all damages, legal fees and others expenses that may be incurred by IP Watch as a result of your breach of warranty or of these terms.

    4. You further agree not to publish any personal information about yourself or anyone else (for example telephone number or home address). If you add a comment to a blog, be aware that your email address will be apparent.

    5. IP Watch will not be liable for any loss including but not limited to the following (whether such losses are foreseen, known or otherwise): loss of data, loss of revenue or anticipated profit, loss of business, loss of opportunity, loss of goodwill or injury to reputation, losses suffered by third parties, any indirect, consequential or exemplary damages.

    6. You understand and agree that the discussion forums are to be used only for non-commercial purposes. You may not solicit funds, promote commercial entities or otherwise engage in commercial activity in our discussion forums.

    7. You acknowledge and agree that you use and/or rely on any information obtained through the discussion forums at your own risk.

    8. For any content that you post, you hereby grant to IP Watch the royalty-free, irrevocable, perpetual, exclusive and fully sub-licensable license to use, reproduce, modify, adapt, publish, translate, create derivative works from, distribute, perform and display such content in whole or in part, world-wide and to incorporate it in other works, in any form, media or technology now known or later developed.

    9. These terms and your posts and contributions shall be governed and interpreted in accordance with the laws of Switzerland (without giving effect to conflict of laws principles thereof) and any dispute exclusively settled by the Courts of the Canton of Geneva.