-----Original Message-----
From: Biotech-Mod2
Sent: 03 May 2001 08:54
To: 'biotech-room2@mailserv.fao.org'
Subject: Should developing countries comply with IPR regulations?
[Thanks to Chela Vasquez for this contribution. Because the Easter holidays seemed to have been responsible for the break in the conference where no messages were received from 13-29 April, the conference will be extended by a total of two weeks to cover that time period. The closing date is thus Sunday 13 May......Moderator]
I am Chela Vazquez, (originally from Ecuador), I have a doctoral degree in Enviromental Science from Ohio State University.
It has been very informative to read the various contributions to this electronic conference on the impact of IPRs in developing countries. Most participants agree on three points: 1) the lack of adequate mechanisms to protect indigenous genetic resources and knowledge, 2) the inequity (or lack of) in economic returns from biotechnological developments derived from indigenous germplasm, and 3) the negative impact of IPRs for farmers and research in developing countries. The Convention on Biological Diversity, as I understand it, is more a statement of principles towards a legal framework for the protection and use of biodiversity. However it does not provide the mechanisms to do it.
One issue raised in this conference has been the ongoing process in which powerful nations, such as the United States, intend to make patent laws universal. The tool being used is the Trade Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Matters (TRIPS) agreement, that is part of the World Trade Organization (WTO) agreements. TRIPS requires that country members (that have ratified the WTO) create a patent system that will allow companies to file patents in those countries. Without TRIPS enforcement, patents are only recognized in the country where patents are issued. Under TRIPS, a multinational company (MNC) can file patents in countries that have ratified the WTO and these countries are obliged to enforce the patent laws. Because of TRIPS, the farmer in Saskatoon, Saskatchewan, Canada was fined for having Monsanto's genetically engineered canola growing in his field [this case was first mentioned in the conference by Srinivasan, 2 April...Moderator]. Similar cases may occur in developing countries that have ratified the WTO (and/or the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) or the Free Trade Area of the America's (FTAA) in the future, in this continent) agreements.
Under the current value system, the situation is not good for developing countries because their biological diversity lacks or has little value in relation to the new developed product/s. Inequities will increase once TRIPS is ratified along with the other twenty-eight WTO agreements. It seems that it is in the interest of developing nations not to ratify the WTO until TRIPS is reviewed or eliminated from it. Reviewing TRIPS may lead to eliminating IPRs from it. Some nations have already proposed to ban all patents on life from TRIPS. Demanding the review of TRIPS should be part of a worldwide campaign that may serve to reach out and inform civil society at large. Forums like the present deserve a wider audience. Conference participants may serve civil society in their countries by sharing the ideas and the opinions expressed in this conference by means of letters to newspapers, seminars, etc.
Chela Vazquez
vazquez.3@osu.edu
The Ohio State University, United States
[To contribute to this conference, send your message to biotech-room2@mailserv.fao.org - the last day for receiving messages is Sunday 13 May. For further information on the FAO Electronic Forum on Biotechnology in Food and Agriculture see http://www.fao.org/biotech/forum.asp ]
-----Original Message-----
From: Biotech-Mod2
Sent: 03 May 2001 10:02
To: 'biotech-room2@mailserv.fao.org'
Subject: Re: Should developing countries comply with IPR regulations?
Chela Vazquez's contribution [3 May] with regard to the World Trade Organisation (WTO) agreement on Trade Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Matters (TRIPS) is a bit flawed. First, the WTO, as every one might very well know is a global international organization dealing with the rules of trade between nations. The core of the organisation is a bundle of agreements, covering goods, services and intellectual property (IP). (TRIPS is the agreement covering IP). Current membership stands at 140.
TRIPS is key in promoting harmonisation of national IPR laws, by providing minimum standards of IP protection and enforcement. Before, WTO patents were only enforceable in countries where they are protected. The TRIPS has not changed this. A patent owner can ONLY enforce his rights in countries where that protection has been sought and granted. This means that if a USA inventor seeks and obtains a patent in USA, but fails to do so in Venezuela, he cannot enforce his rights in Venezuela, even though the latter is a member of the WTO as the USA is. In fact, anyone can exploit the invention in Venezuela without infringing on the rights of the patent holder. What the TRIPS has done, however, is to ensure that Venezuela's IP regime meets a minimum standard of protection and enforcement (in this way it promotes harmonization of the national IP regimes.)
Rose Ndegwa
International Livestock Research Institute (ILRI)
PO Box 30709, Nairobi, Kenya
Tel: 254 2 630743; Fax 254 2 631499
Email: r.ndegwa@cgiar.org
Web address: http://www.cgiar.org/ilri/
ILRI is a Future Harvest Centre. Web address: http://www.futureharvest.org/
[To contribute to this conference, send your message to biotech-room2@mailserv.fao.org - the last day for receiving messages is Sunday 13 May. For further information on the FAO Electronic Forum on Biotechnology in Food and Agriculture see http://www.fao.org/biotech/forum.asp ]
-----Original Message-----
From: Biotech-Mod2
Sent: 03 May 2001 11:21
To: 'biotech-room2@mailserv.fao.org'
Subject: TRIPS
I refer to postings by Chela Vasquez and Rose Ndegwa [both on 3 May].
Rose Ndegwa is perfectly right in her assessment of the World Trade Organisation (WTO) agreement on Trade Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Matters (TRIPS). I would further like to add that the TRIPS agreement allows governments to refuse patents for an invention if its commercial exploitation is prohibited for reasons of public order or morality. They can also exclude from patent protection, plants and animals (other than micro-organisms) and biological processes (other than microbiological processes). This includes cells and seeds.
Plant varieties must be protectable but TRIPS does not specify that this has to be under patent protection. Plant varieties may be protected under Plant Variety Protection schemes, such as the International Union for the Protection of New Varieties of Plants (UPOV).
In short, TRIPS leaves individual governments scope to define what is patentable or not when it comes to substances existing in nature. For example, Argentina, Brazil and the Andean Group have already passed laws which exclude the patentability of materials found in nature (even if isolated).
Finally, I would like to mention an excellent backgound study paper on "Access to Plant Genetic Resources and Intellectual Property Rights" by Carlos M. Correa (April, 1999)which is available on the FAO web-site. [For those with access to the web, this publication (Background Study Paper No. 8) by the Commission on Genetic Resources for Food and Agriculture can be found at ftp://ext-ftp.fao.org/waicent/pub/cgrfa8/BSP/bsp8E.pdf ...Moderator]
Edo Lin
27, rte de Bombon
77720 Breau
France
tel & fax : +33 164397844
mobile : +33 671632666
e-mail : lin.edo@free.fr
[To contribute to this conference, send your message to biotech-room2@mailserv.fao.org - the last day for receiving messages is Sunday 13 May. For further information on the FAO Electronic Forum on Biotechnology in Food and Agriculture see http://www.fao.org/biotech/forum.asp ]