• 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

Farmers’ Advocacy Groups Rejected As Observers In Plant Rights Organisation

10/11/2009 by Kaitlin Mara for Intellectual Property Watch 2 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)

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 non-governmental 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 non-governmental 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.

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

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

Creative Commons License"Farmers’ Advocacy Groups Rejected As Observers In Plant Rights Organisation" by Intellectual Property Watch is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International License.

Filed Under: Features, IP Policies, Language, Themes, Venues, Biodiversity/Genetic Resources/Biotech, Development, English, Environment, Patents/Designs/Trade Secrets, Traditional and Indigenous Knowledge, WIPO

Comments

  1. wackes seppi says

    15/11/2009 at 8:13 pm

    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)

    Reply

Trackbacks

  1. British Official To Lead UPOV As Civil Society Interest Rises says:
    22/10/2014 at 7:48 pm

    […] at UPOV on the grounds they had not demonstrated the required competence in technical areas needed (IPW, WIPO, 10 November 2009). The groups plan to reapply, they have said, and they have sent an open letter signed by 39 […]

    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 © 2025 · 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.