2011 CIOPORA Chronicle - the 50th Anniversary Edition

More documents

Info

Working Group The effective enforcement of Intellectual Property Rights is of utmost importance for breeders. CIOPORA actively promotes the elaboration of a standard modus operandi of DNA analysis, in order support the enforcement of Intellectual Property Rights. CIOPORA recognises that the use of molecular markers for the enforcement of IP rights, the determination of Essentially Derived Varieties and variety examination can be useful. However, its application must be sound and in line with the currently applied standards and systems. Jan de Riek by Jan de Riek Focus on molecular techniques for PVR The Working Group was initiated in December 2009. In its composition, a balanced mix was made between breeder-members and lawyers, combining expertise on both the technical, application oriented and legal aspects of the complex subject dealt with. Previous actions within CIOPORA have already brought two ‘hanging issues’ on our agenda: (1) the use of molecular markers for variety identification, description, testing, IP protection etc. and (2), Essentially Derived Varieties (EDV) and how to cope with them. In these domains alone, many open questions could already be defi ned that might justify the action of a CIOPORA Working Group. As a breeder’s association, we need positions that can influence our daily business and that we can use in our contacts with “regulators” i.e. EU, UPOV or whatever national or international body that is dealing with our plant varieties. CIOPORA position paper on the use of Molecular Markers for variety testing Due to the progress made at the UPOV-BMT Working Group and also because of national plant variety examination offices that are starting to deeply evaluate molecular marker based decision support in their daily action, all participants confi rmed the urgent need of such a position by CIOPORA. A draft version of this position paper has already been submitted to the CIOPORA Board and will progress through the CIOPORA bodies to be approved. Guidelines for the application of Molecular Markers Recent disputes between breeders resulting into court cases and decisions, have again shown the need for harmonization and a kind of industry-standard for the use of Molecular Markers in cases of putative EDVs and the enforcement of IPR. The Working Group is fully aware that besides CIOPORA, many other players are in the field: governments, trade organizations, testing authorities, UPOV bodies, plant breeders associations, international initiatives for establishing testing guidelines for seeds, plant material and harvested material. For the assessments of EDV, the Working Group will draft technical guidelines to come to a crop specific protocol for EDV assessment and Guidelines are needed for the application of molecular markers. will list legal issues concerning the EDV position that need further specification. The application to other domains (variety testing, infringements) is merely a redefinition of appropriate thresholds and boundaries. It is in our advantage to come together with the other relevant partners in the field to a consensus approach; therefore, the Working Group will take contact with different experts in the field and will try to bring forward decisive criteria for evaluating procedures that rely on Molecular Markers. In such a way, the Working Group is considering the introduction of a label “CIOPO- RA-approved” for marker labs that provide testing services to breeders for variety identification. ||| CIOPORA Chronicle April 2011 | www.CIOPORA.org 25
PBR and Patents In order to attract more states to adopt an effective Plant Breeders´ Rights regime throughout the world, a two pillar strategy might be helpful: Firstly, it is necessary to raise the awareness of the benefits and the business opportunities arising with ornamental and fruit production in developing and newly industrialised countries. Secondly, breeding companies and trade should apply a strict policy of non-acceptance of countries which do not provide an effective IP protection for plant innovations, and should use all means to prevent counterfeited products. by Dr. Edgar Krieger Plant Breeders´ Right – The world is changing permanently, sometimes faster, sometimes slower. In the ornamental and fruit business the world has changed significantly and rapidly in the past 25 years due to the economic globalisation. Globalization has brought new markets, new producers, new products and even a new calendar to the business. While in the past the industrialised countries had been the main consumer-markets for ornamental and fruit products, more and more countries with a high population and a high growth rate have joined that group. Production sites have also changed. Developing and newly industrialised countries with favourable environmental and production conditions are the new producers of ornamentals and fruits and are increasingly squeezing out the traditional producers of such crops. The range of products increases weekly and the old seasonal calendar for crops has been replaced by an year round availability of each and any product. Strawberries in winter, grapes in summer, passion fruit juice wherever you want, fruits to drink and flowers to eat – everything at any time. CIOPORA has been associated with the ornamental and fruit breeding business for the past 50 years, taking care of good IP protection of vegetatively reproduced ornamental and fruit varieties. CIOPORA has foreseen many developments and has requested solutions from politics and governments to cope with these developments. Therefore, it is also now up to CIOPORA to ask how to cope with the aforementioned developments in terms of IP protection. UPOV A look at Plant Breeders´ Rights automatically is a look at UPOV, the organisation, which governs this most important IP regime for plant varieties. Today, UPOV, after 50 years of existence, has 68 members – a relative success if compared to the overall number of states of 195 and compared, for example, to the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD), which, within one year after it was opened for signature on 5 June 1992, received 168 signatures of acceding states and now includes 193 members. Among the 68 UPOV members, 45 are bound by the 1991 Act, 22 by the 1978 Act and one is still bound by the 1961 Convention as amended by the 1972 Act. Looking at the last ten years it turns out that out of the 22 new members of UPOV, only five have significant horticultural production. Important countries such as Argentina, Brazil, Chile, China and Mexico are still bound by the UPOV 1978 Act. Highly professional UPOV is a highly professional, efficient and well-organised organisation. The reason for the apparent lack of UPOV´s popularity therefore cannot be found in its internal structure. But why there are still not more members acceding UPOV? A closer look shows that it is the content of the UPOV 1991 Act, which obviously prevents more states to join UPOV 1 . An example on how critical IPprotection and the UPOV 1991 Act are seen by many countries can be found in the Report of the Special Rapporteur on the right to food, transmitted to the General Assembly of the UN in July 2009, by Olivier De Schutter, who writes: Paragraph 39 “Intellectual property rights reward and encourage standardization and homogeneity, […]. In addition, intellectual property rights […] can constitute a direct impediment to innovation by farmers.” Paragraph 40 “The strengthening of breeders’ rights in the 1991 UPOV Convention is also a concern in this regard. This convention prohibits the commercialization of varieties which are essentially derived from a PVP-protected variety (article 14 (5)), and farmers are now prohibited from exchanging or selling seeds saved from the harvest of protected varieties (article 15). In order to circumvent these limitations, developing countries where the function of traditional, farmers’ seed systems is most important both for the prevention of genetic erosion and for the livelihoods of farming communities should design sui generis forms of protection of plant varieties which allow these systems to flourish, even if this means adopting non-UP- OV compliant legislation; and if they do join UPOV, they should use all the flexibilities available to them .” 2 Horticulture is no agriculture These statements, which have been contested by UPOV, refer to agriculture and specifically to small scale subsistence farming. Indeed, in developing and newly indus trialised countries, a big part of the population is dependent on small scale farming. This includes the saving of seed and –in some people's opinion– also its exchange with neighbours. Opponents of 26 www.CIOPORA.org | CIOPORA Chronicle April 2011
Page 1 and 2: March 2011 • www.ciopora.org The
Page 3 and 4: Your partner for sustainable growth
Page 5 and 6: April 2011 CIOPORA Chronicle 33 MEI
Page 7 and 8: About CIOPORA CIOPORA is the Intern
Page 9 and 10: Close relationships It is vital for
Page 11 and 12: Fleuroselect Nils Klemm, President
Page 13 and 14: Good relationship: Bilateral meetin
Page 15 and 16: Belgium The Belgian courts have rec
Page 17 and 18: Jurisdictions Furthermore, the cour
Page 19 and 20: the Working Group on Biochemical an
Page 21 and 22: Patents In the plant breeding world
Page 24 and 25: Patents their patent applications.
Page 28 and 29: Quo vadis? Breeders ask for clear a
Page 30 and 31: ISF On the occasion of CIOPORA’s
Page 32 and 33: Mexico 2007 Strassbourg, France 199
Page 34 and 35: Meilland Let’s get the facts stra
Page 36 and 37: AIPH AIPH, the International Associ
Page 38 and 39: naging hts flowers and plants that
Page 40 and 41: RAI are still on the 78 Act includi
Page 42 and 43: Fides Netherlandsbased Fides, a lea
Page 44 and 45: Birthday greetings CIOPORA Germany
Page 46 and 47: the Calibrachoa colour mix Trixi®
Page 48 and 49: S.B. Talee S.B. Talee, a leading br
Page 50 and 51: EUCARPIA Breeders rights are a good
Page 52 and 53: March 2011 • www.ciopora.org The

2011 CIOPORA Chronicle - the 50th Anniversary Edition

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?