Please note - this article was originally published on the id21 website which has now closed. This and other articles produced by id21 were archived by Eldis in 2009 and are not actively maintained. If you find links and references which are no longer valid please email eldis@ids.ac.uk.

Challenges and lessons in plant variety protection for Africa

What are the challenges that African countries face in adopting plant variety protection through intellectual property rights regimes? What lessons can African countries draw from the Indian experience? Africa Centre for Technology Studies (ACTS) research suggests that the introduction of monopoly rights is not appropriate for most sub-Saharan countries. What plant variety protection regime would be suitable?

The issue of plant variety protection has become prominent since the adoption of the Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPS) agreement. The Agreement requires that patents should be available for inventions in all fields of technology and specifically orders the introduction of a form of legal protection on plant varieties, but does not impose their protection through patents. However, African countries have generally been slow in taking up the challenges of devising plant variety protection measures.

The study suggests that African states should take advantage of the potential they have to devise a property rights system adapted to their own needs and conditions and should avoid any system involving the introduction of monopoly or exclusionary rights, such as patents or plant breeders’ rights. Generally, monopoly rights are likely to have a number of impacts on farmers’ agricultural practices and lives in sub-Saharan countries, including the following:

Since in most sub-Saharan countries, subsistence agriculture remains dominant, it is impossible in this situation to assume that farmers innovate only to make a monetary profit.
Farmers’ knowledge is often less individualistic than scientific knowledge produced in laboratories.
One of the most direct impacts of patents is to raise the price of patented seeds compared to other seeds.
Monopoly rights have the potential to conflict with established agricultural management practices of small holder farmers.
Monopoly rights have generally not been known to foster conservation of biological diversity or promote its sustainable use.

In India, in the field of plant variety protection, the necessity to develop a response to TRIPS has led to a number of proposals by governmental and non-governmental institutions. The Indian experience is rich in lessons for the development of property rights regimes in African countries, including:

Operating within a monopoly rights system which only regards state-of-the art knowledge, it is unlikely that local communities will substantially benefit from this new opportunity.
Biodivesrity registers are an excellent tool to counter groundless patent applications.
While plant variety legislation is the central element of a plant variety protection regime at the domestic level, it is not the only relevant piece of legislation.

Policy implications include:

Inclusion of biosafety provision as part of plant variety protection legislation.
A system aiming at providing food security and broadly fostering sustainable environmental management should establish property rights whose holders are not limited to one specific category of actor in agricultural management.
An alternative system should recognise that the different actors do not all have the same motivation for innovating.

Source(s):
‘Plant Variety Protection in Africa: Towards Compliance with TRIPS Agreement’, Biopolicy International 23, by P. Cullet, 2001

Funded by: African Centre for Technology Studies

id21 Research Highlight: 4 November 2002

Further Information:
Phillipe Cullet
International Environmental Law Research Centre
14, rue Lissignol
1201 Geneva
Switzerland

Tel: + 41 22741 0442
Fax: + 41 22741 0442
Contact the contributor: pcullet@ielrc.org

International Environmental Law Research Centre, Switzerland

Views expressed on these pages are not necessarily those of DfID, IDS, id21 or other contributing institutions. Articles featured on the id21 site may be copied or quoted without restriction provided id21 and originating author(s) and institution(s) are acknowledged. Copyright © 2009 IDS. All rights reserved.

id21 is funded by the UK Department for International Development. id21 is one of a family of knowledge services at the Institute of Development Studies at the University of Sussex. id21 is a www.oneworld.net partner and an affiliate of www.mediachannel.org. IDS is a charitable company, No. 877338.