• Home
  • About Us
    • About Us
    • Subscribe
    • Privacy Policy
  • Advertise
    • Advertise On IP Watch
    • Editorial Calendar
  • Videos
  • Links
  • Help

Intellectual Property Watch

Original news and analysis on international IP policy

  • Copyright
  • Patents
  • Trademarks
  • Opinions
  • People News
  • Venues
    • Bilateral/Regional Negotiations
    • ITU/ICANN
    • United Nations – other
    • WHO
    • WIPO
    • WTO/TRIPS
    • Africa
    • Asia/Pacific
    • Europe
    • Latin America/Caribbean
    • North America
  • Themes
    • Access to Knowledge/ Open Innovation & Science
    • Food Security/ Agriculture/ Genetic Resources
    • Finance
    • Health & IP
    • Human Rights
    • Internet Governance/ Digital Economy/ Cyberspace
    • Lobbying
    • Technical Cooperation/ Technology Transfer
  • Health Policy Watch

New ARIPO Plant Protocol: Conflict Of Farmers’ And Breeders’ Rights?

10/07/2015 by Hillary Muheebwa for Intellectual Property Watch 3 Comments

Share this:

  • Click to share on Twitter (Opens in new window)
  • Click to share on LinkedIn (Opens in new window)
  • Click to share on Facebook (Opens in new window)
  • Click to email this to a friend (Opens in new window)
  • Click to print (Opens in new window)

KAMPALA, UGANDA — Member states of African Regional Intellectual Property Organization (ARIPO) have adopted a protocol for the protection of new varieties of plants. The measure is aimed at modernising African agricultural practices, but some say it comes at the expense of age-old traditional farming practices, such as saving and re-using seed.

The protocol adopted during a diplomatic conference held in Arusha, Tanzania, on 6 July is called the Arusha Protocol for the Protection of New Varieties of Plants. [Note: The final text is not yet publicly available.]

Negotiators of the Arusha Protocol at ARIPO, photo credit ARIPO

Negotiators of the Arusha Protocol, photo credit ARIPO

According to the ARIPO website, “the Protocol seeks to provide member states with a regional plant variety protection system that recognizes the need to provide growers and farmers with improved varieties of plants in order to ensure sustainable agricultural production.”

The protocol is modelled on the 1991 Act of the International Union for the Protection of New Varieties of Plants (UPOV 1991). UPOV 1991 provides the strongest international standard for plant variety protection.

Supporters of the protocol say that strong protection of breeder’s rights will incentivize plant breeders leading to the introduction of new varieties of plants for farmers; while those against it argue that the proposed protection framework is unsuitable for African countries as it may affect traditional rights for farmers to save, exchange or sell farm-saved seeds.

Article 9 of the International Treaty on Plant Genetic Resources for Food and Agriculture (ITPGRFA) recognises this right “to save, use, exchange and sell farm-saved seed and other propagating material” as being “fundamental to the realization of farmers’ rights, as well as the promotion of farmers’ rights at national and international levels.” The ITPGRFA is an adoption of United Nation Food and Agriculture Organisation.

The ITPGRFA requires its contracting parties to take measures to protect and promote farmers’ rights. Fourteen ARIPO member states are contracting parties to the ITPGRFA.

Strong Concerns for Traditional African Farmers

A press release by the Alliance for Food Sovereignty in Africa (AFSA), released after ARIPO members had signed the protocol, stated:

“[C]rucially, the ARIPO PVP Protocol proposed extremely strong intellectual property rights to breeders while restricting the age-old practices of African farmers freely to save, use, share and sell seeds and/or propagating material. These practices are the backbone of agricultural systems in Sub-Saharan Africa; they have ensured the production and maintenance of a diverse pool of genetic resources by farmers themselves, and have safe-guarded food and nutrition for tens of millions of Africans in the ARIPO region.”

AFSA is a Pan African platform comprising networks and farmer organizations working in Africa. According to AFSA, the UPOV 1991 is a restrictive and inflexible international legal precept, totally unsuitable for Africa.

“Multinational seed companies intend to lay claim to seed varieties as their private possessions and to prevent others from using these varieties without the payment of royalties,” AFSA added.

The group also claimed that local civil society groups were purposely excluded from the negotiations, while the commercial seed industry and foreign groups such as the World Intellectual Property Organization and European and United States governments were allowed to be involved.

Four ARIPO member states signed the protocol after its adoption: The Gambia, Ghana, Mozambique, and São Tomé and Príncipe. All the four are categorised as least developed countries (LDCs), along with a further 10 of the 19 members of ARIPO.

“LDCs are currently not under any international obligation to provide any form of plant variety protection until 2021, let alone one based on UPOV 1991,” the AFSA press release said.

But the report on the ARIPO website said, “The Diplomatic Conference has called on the Member States to take the necessary steps to ensure a rapid ratification or accession to the Protocol and the Administrative Council of ARIPO to make the necessary implementing regulations in order to ensure a prompt and efficient implementation of the Protocol.”

According to AFSA, “all countries have an option to develop sui generis plant variety protection systems that cater for their specific conditions. Acceptance of the Arusha Protocol for the Protection of New Varieties of Plants will eliminate this option. Smaller countries are bullied into accepting their subordination to regional bodies that are dominated by more powerful foreign countries and multinational corporate interests.”

Promoting Innovation and Variety?

Prof. Tukamuhabwa Phinehas is a lecturer at Makerere University, Kampala, and a plant breeder with experience in agricultural plant science. He says “farmers also have rights, but these rights should not infringe on rights of breeders. Innovators should be rewarded for it, including plant breeders.”

“If we have more varieties on the market, farmers will have a greater choice for which variety to plant,” he added. “This will in the long run lead to agricultural development and since most of our population depend on agriculture, the development will flow into the other community sectors.”

According to Phinehas, farmers’ rights which agencies seem to be fighting for are always catered for. “Governments do appoint people to develop and multiply new and improved breeds, these new varieties belong to the government which is free to distribute them to the general public. Then seed companies also develop their plant varieties which they may sell to farmers. While at other times, the government may subsidize a seed company to work on improving existing plant varieties. With all these, the farmer always has a choice on which plant variety to use on his farm.”

Phinehas added: “At times, we haven’t had any plant varieties to begin with. For instance, most of the vegetable plant varieties, like cabbages, were brought into the region. If we have a regulation framework that rewards breeders, then we shall have more companies bringing their plant varieties into the region. Once we have access to these new plant varieties, there’s a potential to use them and develop even better varieties.”

Phinehas said he is convinced there is an increasing demand for new varieties of plants as farmers, even small farmers, want increased harvests, pest and disease free seeds and resistant varieties.

Opening the Conference, Tanzania Vice President Mohamed Gharib Bilal said that “effective demand for improved seed is targeted to be 60,000 metric tons annually. However, the formal seed sector in Tanzania produces about 25 per cent of the total potential seed requirement.”

“Tanzania is convinced that the proposed ARIPO protocol will provide suitable motivation to encourage plant breeders to work hard in developing new varieties for the benefit of the ARIPO countries and the society as a whole,” he said.

The Arusha Protocol for the Protection of New Varieties of Plants shall remain open for signature by member states of ARIPO, other States and members of the African Union until 31 December 2015.

Share this:

  • Click to share on Twitter (Opens in new window)
  • Click to share on LinkedIn (Opens in new window)
  • Click to share on Facebook (Opens in new window)
  • Click to email this to a friend (Opens in new window)
  • Click to print (Opens in new window)

Related

Hillary Muheebwa may be reached at info@ip-watch.ch.

Creative Commons License"New ARIPO Plant Protocol: Conflict Of Farmers’ And Breeders’ Rights?" by Intellectual Property Watch is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International License.

Filed Under: IP Policies, Language, Themes, Venues, Access to Knowledge/ Education, Africa, Biodiversity/Genetic Resources/Biotech, Development, English, Environment, Human Rights, Patents/Designs/Trade Secrets, Regional Policy, Technical Cooperation/ Technology Transfer, Trademarks/Geographical Indications/Domains, Traditional and Indigenous Knowledge, UPOV / CBD

Comments

  1. innomawire says

    10/07/2015 at 6:53 pm

    I do not think whoever wrote this article had time to reflect on the final Protocol that has been adopted at Arusha on the 6th of July 2015. I meticulous examination of the protocol would actually indicate that it deviated substantially from the initial draft protocol that had been presented to member states for consideration which many organisations felt that it was a replica of the UPOV 1991 Treaty. The final Protocol actually made it impossible for ARIPO to join UPOV because most of the provisions finally agreed upon by member states ran contrary to the many requirements of the UPOV, for example the issue of a unitary territory which initially was in Article 4 (1) and in Article 37 was changed to ensure that member states have a role in the grant of rights.

    The issue of farmer rights in regard to use of harvested material has been catered. In any case I do not see how this should feature much in a treaty that aims to promote plant breeding. Farmer rights are a subject that require its own treatment. I am yet to find grounded and empirical evidence that proves that most countries in sub Saharan region is heavily reliant on farm saved seeds for subsistence agriculture. That is fallacious especially for Zimbabwe. even during my childhood days farmed saved seeds were ONLY used for small gardening and not for the greater good of subsistence agriculture which again is an issue that is well accommodated in the Arusha Protocol. The majority of our population is now using the new plant varieties propagated by the plant breeding companies.

    I think it is important of the organisations especially these so called civil society organisations to at least embrace positive progress that has come out of this protocol rather than always proffering negative comments. That does not take us as African nations anywhere.

    Reply
    • Hillary says

      12/07/2015 at 6:38 am

      Groups against the protocol do admit there were some slight changes to the draft protocol, however all their major concerns in the draft were not addressed.
      Also civil society groups, like AFSA, were excluded from the negotiations, which partly led to their concerns being sidelined.

      Reply

Trackbacks

  1. Nibbles: Conservation genetics, African fish farming, Ecological intensification, Elderly diets, Organic breeding, Conference tweeting, African PBR says:
    06/08/2015 at 8:08 am

    […] Varieties (Plant Breeders’ Rights) adopted. Basically UPOV 1999 for Africa. But I suspect the polemics are only just […]

    Reply

Leave a Reply Cancel reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

  • Email
  • Facebook
  • LinkedIn
  • RSS
  • Twitter
  • Vimeo
My Tweets

IPW News Briefs

Saudis Seek Alternative Energy Partners Through WIPO Green Program

Chinese IP Officials Complete Study Of UK, European IP Law

Perspectives on the US

In US, No Remedies For Growing IP Infringements

US IP Law – Big Developments On The Horizon In 2019

More perspectives on the US...

Supported Series: Civil Society And TRIPS Flexibilities

Civil Society And TRIPS Flexibilities Series – Translations Now Available

The Myth Of IP Incentives For All Nations – Q&A With Carlos Correa

Read the TRIPS flexibilities series...

Paid Content

Interview With Peter Vanderheyden, CEO Of Article One Partners

More paid content...

IP Delegates in Geneva

  • IP Delegates in Geneva
  • Guide to Geneva-based Public Health and IP Organisations

All Story Categories

Other Languages

  • Français
  • Español
  • 中文
  • اللغة العربية

Archives

  • Archives
  • Monthly Reporter

Staff Access

  • Writers

Sign up for free news alerts

This site uses cookies to help give you the best experience on our website. Cookies enable us to collect information that helps us personalise your experience and improve the functionality and performance of our site. By continuing to read our website, we assume you agree to this, otherwise you can adjust your browser settings. Please read our cookie and Privacy Policy. Our Cookies and Privacy Policy

Copyright © 2022 · Global Policy Reporting

loading Cancel
Post was not sent - check your email addresses!
Email check failed, please try again
Sorry, your blog cannot share posts by email.