No description available.

The freedom to operate (FTO) and the costs of acquiring and protecting intellectual property (IP) has become a major concern among both private and public plant breeders, especially in the IP intensive transgenic crops. Despite the developments in biotechnology, crop breeding still remains a sequential process where the best new varieties build on the successful varieties of the past. Given this breeding process, if FTO reduces the ability of breeders to access the best germplasm this could slow the rate of global crop improvement in both transgenic and non-transgenic crops. This potential problem has led many agricultural science leaders to raise concern about the possibility of an anti-commons developing because of growing freedom to operate issues.<p>One of the solutions that is proposed for the growing FTO issue in plant breeding is the development of open source research platforms similar to those that led to the development of the Linux computer operating system. With an open source research process anyone is able to use the research platform to develop commercial products but any improvements made to the research platform become part of the platform for future users. The proponents of this approach, such as CAMBIA, argue that it will maintain access to critical intellectual property and allow optimal sharing of knowledge to take place.<p>In this paper we examine the intellectual property rights associated with crop germplasm and varieties in Canada. We show that the breeder rights that are built into many current systems of breeder rights systems create a de facto open source system. This system allows breeders to use previously released varieties as breeding material for their own breeding programs allowing them to improve their own germplasm base. Once this is done, and a new variety is released from the program, it then becomes available for other breeders to use in the same manner. Few would argue that this system has not had a long history of success.<p>As a counterfactual we consider the case where provisions of the UPOV 1991 act are used to give plant breeders the rights to not only protect their current varieties from being illegally copied but would also give them claim over any future varieties developed that use their variety as breeding material. In the factual, a three stage model has two public sector breeders seeking to maximize the benefits of their varieties over a heterogeneous group of iii farmers. In the first stage of the model the breeders decide the optimum amount of germplasm to share between each other. The second stage of the model requires the breeders to decide the optimal level of yield it should set as a plant breeding target. In the final stage farmers make an adoption choice basing their decision on the variety that best suits their farm. Backward induction is then used to solve both of the models. Applying the results of this simulation to the wheat plant breeding system in western Canada, shows that such a revised breeders rights system would quickly lead to a large number of potential owners for each variety released, which would then increase transactions costs and eventually lead to an anti-commons or FTO issue. In the case where there are no intellectual property rights on varieties breeders are able to produce a variety that more farmers will adopt because breeders costs will be lower due to germplasm sharing. Once intellectual property rights are introduced into the system, breeders choose to reduce the amount of variety sharing, which then reduces the number of farmers who would adopt the new variety, thus decreasing the benefits for farmers. Given this outcome, jurisdictions that implement the provisions of UPOV 1991 which may hinder FTO, may find benefits from developing other legal measures to maintain an open source type access to germplasm.

The freedom to operate (FTO) and the costs of acquiring and protecting intellectual property (IP) has become a major concern among both private and public plant breeders, especially in the IP intensive transgenic crops. Despite the developments in biotechnology, crop breeding still remains a sequential process where the best new varieties build on the successful varieties of the past. Given this breeding process, if FTO reduces the ability of breeders to access the best germplasm this could slow the rate of global crop improvement in both transgenic and non-transgenic crops. This potential problem has led many agricultural science leaders to raise concern about the possibility of an anti-commons developing because of growing freedom to operate issues.<p>One of the solutions that is proposed for the growing FTO issue in plant breeding is the development of open source research platforms similar to those that led to the development of the Linux computer operating system. With an open source research process anyone is able to use the research platform to develop commercial products but any improvements made to the research platform become part of the platform for future users. The proponents of this approach, such as CAMBIA, argue that it will maintain access to critical intellectual property and allow optimal sharing of knowledge to take place.<p>In this paper we examine the intellectual property rights associated with crop germplasm and varieties in Canada. We show that the breeder rights that are built into many current systems of breeder rights systems create a de facto open source system. This system allows breeders to use previously released varieties as breeding material for their own breeding programs allowing them to improve their own germplasm base. Once this is done, and a new variety is released from the program, it then becomes available for other breeders to use in the same manner. Few would argue that this system has not had a long history of success.<p>As a counterfactual we consider the case where provisions of the UPOV 1991 act are used to give plant breeders the rights to not only protect their current varieties from being illegally copied but would also give them claim over any future varieties developed that use their variety as breeding material. In the factual, a three stage model has two public sector breeders seeking to maximize the benefits of their varieties over a heterogeneous group of iii farmers. In the first stage of the model the breeders decide the optimum amount of germplasm to share between each other. The second stage of the model requires the breeders to decide the optimal level of yield it should set as a plant breeding target. In the final stage farmers make an adoption choice basing their decision on the variety that best suits their farm. Backward induction is then used to solve both of the models. Applying the results of this simulation to the wheat plant breeding system in western Canada, shows that such a revised breeders rights system would quickly lead to a large number of potential owners for each variety released, which would then increase transactions costs and eventually lead to an anti-commons or FTO issue. In the case where there are no intellectual property rights on varieties breeders are able to produce a variety that more farmers will adopt because breeders costs will be lower due to germplasm sharing. Once intellectual property rights are introduced into the system, breeders choose to reduce the amount of variety sharing, which then reduces the number of farmers who would adopt the new variety, thus decreasing the benefits for farmers. Given this outcome, jurisdictions that implement the provisions of UPOV 1991 which may hinder FTO, may find benefits from developing other legal measures to maintain an open source type access to germplasm.

A cana-de-açúcar é a cultura mais importante na formação do Brasil que conhecemos: presente desde o surgimento da Colônia Portuguesa até os dias atuais, foi protagonista da agroindústria brasileira em diversos momentos da história. Nesse ínterim papel fundamental tem a cana-de-açúcar, que é o vegetal de onde se originam os subprodutos da cana o açúcar, o etanol e, mais recentemente, a energia elétrica de biomassa. Como tantas outras culturas, a cana-de-açúcar teve uma diversificação de espécies com o fim de combater pragas, doenças, adaptação a diversos climas e solos, tempo de produção, aumento de sua eficiência, adequação às novas técnicas de cultivo, e muitas dessas alterações (a maçante maioria, sejamos sinceros) são fruto de pesquisas que fizeram surgir diversas espécies transgênicas, que reúnem características específicas com o fim de atender a necessidades dos produtores. A cana-de-açúcar, bem como todas as outras cultivares transgênicas hoje existentes no Brasil, são protegidas pela Lei de Proteção de Cultivares (LPC) Lei n. 9.456, de 25 de abril de 1997, lei esta feita com base nos termos propostos pelo Tratado da UPOV, em sua versão de 1978, união da qual o Brasil passou a fazer parte após a elaboração da referida lei. A LPC, contudo, trouxe em seu texto uma exceção à cana-de-açúcar, que não recebe o mesmo tratamento que as outras cultivares no país, mas sim um tratamento superior, que institui um super regime de proteção à cultivar da cana-de-açúcar, não se aplicando ao seu regime de proteção as exceções cabíveis a todas as outras cultivares, inclusive as exceções tratadas no texto da UPOV 1978. O presente trabalho discorre sobre o regime de propriedade intelectual da cana-de-açúcar no país, e aborda desde a introdução das primeiras espécies de cana no país, trazidas pelos colonizadores, e sua influência na lavoura, economia e cultura do Brasil, até os dias atuais, com a análise da evolução histórica tanto da cultivar em si, como de sua regulação pelo Estado brasileiro, inclusive pelos órgãos especializados criados ao longo da história para cuidar da cultura e comercialização da cana-de-açúcar. É feita ainda análise da legislação atual que rege a proteção à tecnologia da cana-de-açúcar no país, a Lei de Proteção de Cultivares, com breve histórico de sua elaboração, e suas determinações frente ao texto da UPOV 1978. Também são abordados aspectos relacionados ao impacto desse regime especial no mercado de cultivar no país, e eventuais efeitos desse regime, principalmente relacionados à concorrência e ao eventual abuso de direito. Com isso, pretende-se estabelecer quais são os parâmetros que efetivamente regem a proteção às cultivares transgênicas de cana-de-açúcar, e seus aspectos que extrapolam ou não os limites legais impostos pelo ordenamento jurídico nacional. / Sugarcane is the most important farming in the formation of Brazil as we know: it is found in the country since the emerging of the Portuguese Colony until nowadays, and played main role in the agribusiness in several moments of history. We main point out then that the plant of sugarcane itself has essential part in this farming, because from it comes the products derived of sugarcane sugar, sugarcane alcohol and, more recently, biomass electric energy. As many other cultures, sugarcane had a diversification of species along time in order to prevent plagues, plant diseases, to adapt to different climate and soil conditions, timing of production, increase of efficiency, to fit to new planting techniques, and many of these changes (the great majority, sincerely) are product of research that allowed the creation of several transgenic species, which gather specific characteristics aiming to fulfill the needs of producers. Sugarcane, as the other transgenic plants existing in Brazil, found themselves under the protection of the Cultivar Protection Law (CPL) Law n. 9.456, dated April 25, 1997, law based on the terms of UPOV 1978 Treaty, Union of which Brazil is part nowadays under such terms. CPL, nevertheless, conferred an exception to some of its terms to sugarcane, which do not get the same treatment as the other transgenic plants in the country, but has a superior regimen, which confers a super protection to sugarcane transgenic plants, to which do not apply the exceptions that affect all other transgenic plants, including the exceptions contained in UPOV 1978. This paper aims to discuss the regimen of intellectual property of sugarcane in Brazil, and examines since the introduction of first species of sugarcane in the country, brought by the Portuguese, and its influence in the farming, economy and culture in Brazil, until nowadays, examining the historical evolution of the plant itself, as well as of its regulation by the Brazilian State, including the specialized organs created through time to regulate the farming and commercialization of sugarcane. It is also made an analysis of laws and acts which regulate the protection of sugarcane technology in the country, the Cultivar Protection Law, with a brief examination of historical conditions and law making process of the CPL, and its directives considered from a UPOV 1978 point of view. Aspects related to the impact of such regulation in the market of sugarcane in Brazil are evaluated as well, including eventual effects of law dispositions, mostly related to antitrust aspects and abuse of rights. Therefore, it aims to stablish the parameters that effectively regulate the protection of transgenic sugarcane in Brazil, and the aspects that go beyond or do not the limits imposed by the Brazilian legal system.

This thesis explores debates around seed governance in the context of Tanzania’s recent changes to its seed policies and laws, in order to critically examine the framings and discourses employed. Three narratives emerge, Seed Capitalism, Seed Pluralism, and Seed Sovereignty. Consistent with Westengen (2017), Seed Capitalism and Seed Sovereignty rely on, and are entrenched in, binary opposition, despite the complexity of the problems involved, and put forward singular solutions that risk harming smallholder resilience. Seed Capitalism portrays scientist-bred certified seed as superior to farmer varieties, and as optimal for smallholders, despite evidence to the contrary. Seed Sovereignty constructs rigid distinctions between peasant seeds and industrial seeds, failing to engage with the phenomenon of creolized seed, the intermixing of farmer varieties with scientist-bred varieties. Creolized seed presents a narrative threat to Seed Sovereignty’s rejection of industrial seed. Both Seed Capitalism and Seed Sovereignty narratives obscure evidence relating to seed quality and yield that is in tension with their underlying agendas. A third discourse, Seed Pluralism, not previously identified as such by the literature, resists binary framings and recommends a multiplicity of approaches informed by the nuance of relevant facts. Tanzania’s seed governance framework predominantly reflects the Seed Capitalism discourse. While Seed Pluralism has a small foothold in Tanzania’s seed governance, through the Quality Declared Seed (QDS) system, overall Tanzania’s seed laws are threatening smallholder resilience. Positive reform under Tanzania’s current political settlement is unlikely. Pro-poor donors should withdraw support for governance frameworks rooted in Seed Capitalism, and instead promote seed governance reforms grounded in Seed Pluralism, including eliminating restrictions on smallholder seed exchange in low income countries.

The majority of wheat research in the world and in Canada is conducted by the public sector. The government of Canada has introduced legislation to update its plant breeder’s rights (PBR) legislation, making Canada compliant with the International Union for the Protection of New Varieties of Plants (UPOV) 91 convention, with the goal to stimulate private investment in wheat variety research. International experience with UPOV 91 reveals a wide range of outcomes depending on the specific royalty setting mechanisms allowed within their domestic legislation. This thesis compares Canada’s existing policy to three very different international examples (France, United Kingdom, and Australia) of UPOV 91 compliant royalty collection systems for wheat. The model presented is one of a monopolistic competitive wheat-breeding industry with the introduction of a new certified seed variety. Farmers have the option to use farm saved seed (FSS) or certified seed on their farm. The additional economic benefit created from the innovation and its distribution is analyzed and interpreted for both, farmers (social benefit) and breeders (private benefit). The results of the analysis show that while each UPOV 91 compliant model generates more revenue for farmers and breeders than Canada’s current policy, they tend to generate less than expected revenue in the short-run. If a country has strong intellectual property rights (IPRs), it will attract some domestic and foreign investment and possibly a beneficial collaboration between the public, private, and producer sector, also known as P4 (public-private-producer-partnerships).

O aumento do comércio e a facilidade de trânsito de informações entre os países no mundo, e o conseqüente crescimento da complexidade das relações entre Estados, seus jurisdicionados e empresas multinacionais, considerando-se principalmente o fluxo de capitais e transferência de tecnologia, geraram a necessidade de regulamentação destas relações, de modo que sejam conferidas segurança e confiabilidade nas transações nacionais e internacionais. O comércio de cultivares transgênicas, ou seja, plantas que possuem alguma alteração genética, de modo que adquiram características específicas de interesse dos produtores, envolve diversos aspectos que geram polêmica em múltiplos setores da sociedade mundial. Entre estes aspectos, está o relacionado à propriedade da tecnologia inserida nas plantas. Para a regulamentação da propriedade intelectual relacionada a cultivares, foi fundada a UPOV União para Proteção de Variedades Vegetais, em língua portuguesa , uma organização internacional que estabeleceu o sistema para regulamentação de propriedade de cultivares mais difundido no mundo hoje em dia, e que, ao longo de sua existência, elaborou três versões distintas subseqüentes de texto para a normatização do tema. Ocorre que o sistema da UPOV tem hoje duas versões diversas vigentes a versão de 1978 e a de 1991, concomitantemente, em países com perfis e interesses diferentes, para não se dizer contrastantes. Nesse contexto, diversas são as discussões sobre a sua efetividade como sistema de proteção de propriedade intelectual, considerando sua abrangência e exceções, gerando inclusive debates perante o Conselho para o TRIPS, na Organização Mundial do Comércio OMC. O presente trabalho discorre sobre as regras da UPOV, em ambas as versões, analisadas individual e comparativamente, abordando também seus paralelos com o artigo 27.3 (b) do TRIPS, que regulamenta direitos de propriedade intelectual naquele diploma. Ainda é analisada a legislação brasileira sobre cultivares, e o processo de ingresso do país na UPOV. Também são discutidas regras de direito internacional público e privado, e de tratados sobre comércio internacional e relações entre países, bem como regras sobre vigência de tratados perante leis nacionais, e conflitos de normas no plano nacional e internacional. O principal objetivo do trabalho é estabelecer regras claras sobre a formação das obrigações, sejam direitos a cobrança de royalties ou de recebimento de indenização, relacionadas a cultivares transgênicas, no plano nacional e internacional, de modo que fique claro quando, onde e em qual circunstâncias surge ou não a obrigação de remuneração pela utilização de cultivares transgênicas. / La crescita del commercio e il conseguente maggior scambio dinformazioni tra i paesi del mondo hanno inevitabilmente aumentato il già lungo elenco di problemi nelle relazioni tra Stati, cittadini e società multinazionali. Il flusso di grandi capitali e lo sviluppo della tecnologia hanno generato un bisogno di razionalizzare questi rapporti, con lobiettivo di dare sicurezza e attendibilità alle transazioni nazionali e internazionali. Il commercio di OGM (prodotti agricoli geneticamente modificati in modo da avere le caratteristiche specifiche dinteresse dei produttori) coinvolge vari aspetti, molti dei quali generano polemiche nei vari settori della società mondiale. Tra questi, quello relativo alla proprietà della tecnologia inserita nei prodotti. Per regolare la proprietà intellettuale relativa agli OGM è stata fondata unorganizzazione internazionale, lUPOV (in portoghese, lUnione per la Protezione della Varietà dei Vegetali) che ha stabilito il sistema per il regolamento di proprietà degli OGM più diffuso nel mondo. Nel tempo ha elaborato tre versioni successive e distinte per la regolazione del prodotto. A oggi due di queste, una del 1978 e una del 1991, valgono simultaneamente, in paesi con profili e interessi diversi e a volte anche contrastanti. In questo contesto ci sono diverse discussioni sulla sua efficacia di protezione della proprietà intellettuale e ci sono continui dibattiti presso il Consiglio per il TRIPS (Accordo sui diritti di Proprietà Intellettuale relativi al commercio) nell\'Organizzazione Mondiale del Commercio (OMC). In particolare alcune regole dell\'UPOV, in entrambe le versioni, vengono analizzate, individualmente e comparativamente, in parallelo con l\'articolo 27.3 (b) del TRIPS, quello relativo ai diritti di proprietà intellettuale in quella legge. Nondimeno è analizzata la sua legislazione brasiliana e lingresso del paese nell\'UPOV. Sono inoltre discusse delle regole di diritto internazionale, pubblico e privato, e dei trattati del commercio internazionale e delle relazioni tra i paesi. Sono poi considerate le regole dei trattati in relazione alle leggi nazionali, dei conflitti di norme in ambito nazionale e internazionale. Lobiettivo principale del lavoro è stabilire regole chiare sulla formazione degli obblighi, siano di diritti di compenso per royalties o di indennità, riguardo gli OGM, in ambito nazionale e internazionale, in modo che sia chiaro quando, dove e come debba sorgere, o meno, l\'obbligo di retribuzione per il suo utilizzo.

This thesis discusses the global regime complex concerning the management of plant genetic resources for food and agriculture, and how different regimes concerning these resources cooperate or stand in opposition to each other. Because of changes in US patent law and the establishment of TRIPS, patent claims over plant genetic resources has increased dramatically globally. This, amongst other things, in turn has lead to the development of CBD which in turn lead to the creation of access and benefit laws in many countries. To create a free flow of genetic resources for food and agriculture the ITPGRFA, with its multilateral system, were negotiated. The aim of this thesis is to investigate which consequences the regime complex concerning plant genetic resources for food and agriculture can have on the rights of small farmers, agricultural research and food security in the global South. The thesis shows how patents and strict access laws creates a situation where more and more actors has exclusive rights which excludes others from using these, for the global food security, essential resources. Further it is shown that there also are processes going on within the UPOV that risk to take away farmers right to save seeds, and thereby make them dependent on the more and more monopolistic global seed markets dominated by a few multinational corporations. It is established that ITPGRFAs multilateral system is an opening in this hyperownership of plant genetic resources for food and agriculture; but that the international community at the same time has to see to that the patent claims on plant genetic resources not violate farmers’ rights to their resources. / Denna uppsats behandlar det globala regimkomplexet för förvaltningen av växtgenetiska resurser för livsmedel och jordbruk, samt hur avtalen rörande dessa resurser samverkar eller står i motsättning till varandra. I och med förändringar i amerikansk patentlagstiftning och upprättandet av TRIPS har patentanspråk på växtgenetiska resurser ökat dramatiskt, vilket i sin tur påverkade tillkomsten av CBD vilken innefattar upprättandet av lagstiftning rörande tillträde till och den rättvisa fördelningen av nyttor härstammande från, genetiska resurser. För att möjliggöra ett relativt fritt flöde av växtgenetiska resurser har ITPGRFA med dess multilaterala system fram förhandlats. Syftet med denna uppsats är att undersöka vilka konsekvenser den nuvarande globala förvaltningen av växtgenetiska resurser för livsmedel och jordbruk kan få för jordbruksforskning, småbönders rättigheter och matsäkerhet i Syd. Uppsatsen visar på hur patent och tillträdeslagstiftningar skapar en situation där fler och fler parter innehar rättigheter att utestänga andra från att nyttja dessa, för den globala matsäkerheten, essentiella resurser. Vidare visas på hur det samtidigt pågår processer inom UPOV som riskerar att undanta bönder rätten att spara utsäde och därmed göra dem beroende av de i allt högre grad monopolartade frömarknaderna, vilka domineras av att fåtal multinationella företag. Här konstateras även att ITPGRFAs multilaterala system är en öppning i detta hyperägande, men att det internationella samfundet samtidigt måste försäkra att patentanspråk inte kränker bönders rättigheter till sina resurser.

What happens when resources get valuable and scarce? How is Intellectual Property dealing with market failures related to sub-patentable innovation or purely traditional knowledge with interesting applications? The protection of traditional knowledge and genetic resources (TKGR) has been one of the major modern challenges in international IP law. The entry into force of the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) and its implementation in national legislation has created more questions than the ones it answered. The objective of this dissertation is to assist in the evaluation of current national and regional implementation initiatives as well in the presentation and evaluation of different forms of entitlements that could be applicable in the case of TKGR. The dissertation has employed a theoretical framework for this evaluation, by combining the Coase Theorem and Rawls' theory of justice. The choice of these two theoretical models is not a random one. In order for the entitlement covering TKGR to be successful, it has to be efficient. It has to offer a stable and efficient marketplace where access to TKGR is possible without unnecessary frictions. However, efficiency could not be the only objective.  An entitlement focusing solely on efficiency would fall short of the needs and special considerations of TKGR trade. It would above all be counter to the objectives and major principles of the CBD, the “fair and equitable sharing of the benefits” and would certainly fail to address the very important North-South perspective.  Fairness is thus a necessary complement to the efficiency of the proposed entitlement. This dissertation proposes a thorough investigation of the special characteristics, of right-holders, subject-matter, market place as well as of the general expectations that an entitlement is supposed to fulfill. In parallel to that, it  looks into the meaning and scope of alternative entitlements in order to be able to propose the best alternative.