Back to the publications overview page.
| Title
|
The UPOV Convention, Farmers’ Rights and Human Rights
|
| Subtitle
|
An integrated assessment of potentially conflicting legal frameworks
|
| Author
|
Anja Christinck, Morten Walloe Tvedt
|
| Editor or Organisation
|
GIZ
|
| Year
|
2015
|
| Keywords
|
|
| Country
|
Germany
|
| Type
|
publication
|
| Language
|
English
|
| Table of Contents
|
Executive summary
1 Introduction and objectives of the study
2 Methodological approaches
3 Basic concepts and issues
3.1 A historical perspective on ‘intellectual property’ rights and protection of plant varieties
3.2 Different approaches to plant breeding
3.2.1 Traditional plant breeding done by farmers
3.2.2 ‘Scientific’ plant breeding
3.3 The importance of formal and farmer-managed seed systems
3.4 Agricultural conditions in developing countries
4 The 1991 Act of the UPOV Convention, and human rights
4.1 Human rights identified as relevant for the topic
4.2 Human rights enshrined in the ICESCR: Right to food and right to benefit from scientific progress and its applications
4.2.1 The right to adequate food
4.2.2 The right to enjoy the benefits of scientific progress and its applications
4.3 The United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (UNDRIP) and ILO Convention No. 169
4.4 The human rights principles
4.5 Concluding remarks: UPOV-based PVP law and human rights
5 The 1991 Act of the UPOV Convention, and Farmers’ Rights
5.1 Level of law and of rights to be explored
5.1.1 International obligations and implementation into domestic law
5.1.2 Overlap or conflict between different treaties
5.1.3 The status of the explanatory notes from UPOV in international and national law
5.2 Farmers’ Rights as a concept of law
5.2.1 The elements of Farmers’ Rights according to ITPGRFA
5.2.2 Farmers’ Rights as customary law
5.2.3 ‘Property rights’ of farmers to the plant genetic resources they use
5.3 The provisions for granting a plant breeder’s right in the UPOV system and Farmers’ Rights
5.3.1 Definition of ‘variety’ and ‘breeder’ under the 1991 Act of the UPOV Convention
5.3.2 Novelty and concerns for Farmers’ Rights
5.3.3 Distinctness and concerns for Farmers’ Rights
5.3.4 Uniformity and concerns for Farmers’ Rights
5.3.5 Stability and concerns for Farmers’ Right
5.3.6 Exhaustive list of criteria and concerns for Farmers’ Rights
5.4 The scope of a plant breeders’ right and Farmers’ Rights
5.4.1 The scope of plant breeders’ rights
5.4.2 Exceptions from plant breeders’ rights
5.5 Supra-national implementation of UPOV-based PVP law at regional level in developing countries
5.6 Other challenges to Farmers’ Rights
5.6.1 Limitations to the rights of farmers by the Multilateral System (MLS)
5.6.2 Challenges to the rights of farmers by seed laws
5.7 Concluding remarks: UPOV 91-based PVP law and Farmers’ Rights
6 Looking at alternatives. Elements of sui generis approaches to Plant Variety Protection
7 Final conclusions and resulting recommendations
7.1 Harmonising the goals and obligations from different treaties while implementing PVP law
7.2 UPOV-based PVP law and the progressive realisation of human rights
7.3 UPOV-based PVP law and Farmers’ Rights
7.4 UPOV-based PVP law and developing countries
7.5 Research priorities and needs
8Acknowledgements
9 References
|
| Abstract
|
This study explores the relations between the International
Convention for the Protection of New
Varieties of Plants (UPOV Convention), Farmers’
Rights as enshrined in the International Treaty on
Plant Genetic Resources for Food and Agriculture
(ITPGRFA), and human rights, particularly the right
to adequate food. These three legal frameworks,
though apparently referring to different fields of
law, have in common that they are all related to the
issue of seed and to rules that concern access to seed.
The interrelations among these legal frameworks,
including areas of overlap and of potential conflict,
are an important topic in current political processes
and debates.
The study focuses on the questions of whether the
regulations of the 1991 Act of the UPOV Convention
(1) support or oppose the right to food and
other human rights; (2) advance or hinder the
implementation of Farmers’ Rights as required by
the ITPGRFA; and (3) whether they are suitable for
the agricultural conditions in developing countries.
The study does not provide any judgments on other
issues, e.g. advantages or disadvantages of plant variety
protection (PVP) laws established based on the
UPOV Convention compared with patent laws, or
potential benefits for national economies or private
investors that may arise from membership in UPOV.
|
| Permission
|
Yes
|
| Category
|
|
| File
|
|
