-----Original Message-----
From: Biotech-Mod2
Sent: 04 May 2001 09:02
To: 'biotech-room2@mailserv.fao.org'
Subject: Re: Universities and IPR
I am a lecturer in a developing country and work in the field of Animal Breeding and Genetics.
The contribution made by J.F. Gallego-Beltran of Colombia [30 April] could have come from me or anybody else in the Universities in Nigeria. What he has described is the feeling of most of us in the third world countries about this IPR thing. In fact, one can conclude that such clever international laws are really made to continue the exploitation of the underdeveloped world.
It is hoped that this kind of forum sponsored by FAO will create more opportunity to hear from the scientists from the third word. I appreciate the work FAO is doing in this regard.
Dr. Olusanya Olutogun
Division of Animal Breeding & Genetics
Department of Animal Science
University of Ibadan
Ibadan, Nigeria
Phone:
Home (234) 2 2411929
Office (234) 2 810 1346
olutogun@steineng.net
[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: 04 May 2001 09:04
To: 'biotech-room2@mailserv.fao.org'
Subject: Re: Universities and IPR
I would like to applaud what J. F. Gallego-Beltran had to say [30 April] about the exploitation of the so-called developing countries. What makes his comments hit home so hard is that he comes from a different continent to where I currently operate, yet what he is saying is also true in Africa.
Brenda Wingfield
Dept. Genetics
University of Pretoria
South Africa
Phone +27 12 420 3946
Fax +27 12 420 3947
Brenda.Wingfield@fabi.up.ac.za
[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: 04 May 2001 10:04
To: 'biotech-room2@mailserv.fao.org'
Subject: Re: TRIPS
This is Chela Vazquez again. Thanks to Rose Ndegwa and Edo Lin [both on 3 May] for their comments.
Yes, the World Trade Organization agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPS) promotes a harmonization of IPR laws that allows transnational corporations also to file patents in developing nations. [Note, this is the correct meaning of the acronym TRIPS - in recent messages I have mistakingly put the word "Matters" in place of "Rights"...Moderator]. Without patent systems similar to the North, corporations may not be able to file patents in developing nations on genetically-engineered organisms. Biotechnology companies are urging "capacity building" in the Third World aimed at introducing patent systems that cover living organisms. We can guess where most of the patent holders are going to be located.
TRIPS states that plant varieties should be protected either by patents or by an effective sui generis system (sui generis is Latin for "their own kind"). However, it is feared that sui generis systems will be challenged by the United States. Under TRIPS, adherence to US patent and copyright laws seems to be considered respect for intellectual property rights.
Chela Vazquez
vazquez.3@osu.edu
The Ohio State University, United States
[Note, to give background information on TRIPS and on comments contained in this and other TRIPS-related messages posted recently, we present some material taken directly from a relevant document by IPGRI, 1999, which can be downloaded from the web by searching at http://www.ipgri.cgiar.org/system/page.asp?frame=catalogue/select.asp and which is entitled Key questions for decision-makers. Protection of plant varieties under the WTO Agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights. Decision Tools, October 1999. International Plant Genetic Resources Institute, Rome, Italy.
"1.What is TRIPS?
The Agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights
(TRIPS) of the World Trade Organization (WTO) is Annex 1C of the Marrakech
Agreement, which came into force on 1 January 1995. This international
agreement is binding upon all members of the WTO and sets certain minimum
standards for the implementation of intellectual
property rights (IPR) at national level. Under Art. 27 of TRIPS, members of
WTO are required to provide patent protection for inventions in all fields
of technology, whether products or processes, provided that they are new,
involve an inventive step and are capable of industrial application.
However, Article 27.3(b) of TRIPS allows for certain exclusions from patent
protection and states: "Parties may also exclude from patentability: (b)
plants and animals other than micro-organisms, and essentially biological
processes for the production of plants or animals other than non-biological
and microbiological processes. However, Members shall provide for the
protection of plant
varieties either by patents or by an effective sui generis system or by a
combination thereof. The provisions of this subparagraph shall be reviewed
four years after the date of entry into force of the WTO Agreement."
2.What is a sui generis system?
The Latin term sui generis means 'of its own kind'. However, as the TRIPS
Agreement does not define what an effective sui generis system is, nor does
it refer to any specific existing rights regime or treaty, the term sui
generis can mean different things to different people. For example, to some
indigenous communities it signifies a new system of legal rights
encompassing concepts such as traditional resources rights and the right to
self-determination. To others, a sui generis system balances the traditional
objectives of Intellectual Property Rights (IPR) with sustainably conserving
and using biodiversity through a mixture of IPR and other instruments. In
this document sui generis is used in its narrow sense to signify a system of
IPR for the protection of plant varieties.".....Moderator]
[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: 04 May 2001 10:41
To: 'biotech-room2@mailserv.fao.org'
Subject: Defining a role for developed countries
I am Geertrui Van Overwalle. I am Senior Researcher at the Centre for Intellectual Property Rights, Faculty of Law, Catholic University of Leuven and Professor at the Catholic University of Brussel.
With regard to the current discussion, I would like to share some thoughts with regard to the question of how the negative impacts of the dominant IPR position of developing countries might be remedied.
In an attempt to offer some solutions to the constraining effects of the strong IPR position of developed countries, one could turn to the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) for some guidance. In particular, one could turn to Article 16 (5) of the CBD which stipulates that "The Contracting Parties, recognizing that patents and other intellectual property rights may have an influence on the implementation of this Convention, shall cooperate in this regard subject to national legislation and international law in order to ensure that such rights are supportive of and do not run counter to its objectives." [For those with access to the web, the text can be found at http://www.biodiv.org/convention/articles.asp?lg=0&a=cbd-16 ...Moderator]
On the basis of this provision, a few scenarios can be envisaged to remedy some effects of the dominating IPR position of developed countries. Those scenarios might serve as a starting point for constructing a balanced policy on the IPR issue in agricultural research by the governments of developed countries.
1. Free Access to and Transfer of Patented Gene Technology
Governments of developed, technologically-rich countries should stimulate their universities, research institutes and private companies to provide the access to, and the transfer of, gene technology subject to patents, to developing countries free of charge ("free licence") if the technology is only going to be used for local, small scale commercialisation and marketing. With regard to the contribution of such an approach to biodiversity, it can be argued that transfer of gene technology under advantageous terms can lead to the affordable use of genetic engineering tools and techniques for the adaptation of local crops in developing countries as well as to the conservation of biological diversity: local crops can be genetically engineered to meet the problems within a given community.
2. Free Use of Transgenic, Patented Saved Seed
Governments of developed countries should also encourage universities, research institutes and private companies to offer their transgenic seeds subject to patents, to developing countries free of charge for small scale commercialisation and distribution on local markets in developing countries and to allow small farmers to retain harvested seed for planting and exchanging. With regard to the contribution of the aforementioned approach to biodiversity, it should be taken into account that free use of transgenic seeds would probably lead to higher yields at affordable prices, but that one of the negative side effects of the import of new transgenic seeds from developed countries might be the loss of local varieties and hence biological diversity in developing countries.
Geertrui Van Overwalle, Belgium
Geertrui.VanOverwalle@law.kuleuven.ac.be
[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 ]