[SPICY IP] SpicyIP Tidbits: The UPOV Uprooting Participation?
0 views
Skip to first unread message
Kruttika Vijay
Nov 15, 2009, 2:23:47 PM11/15/09
to spi...@googlegroups.com
An interesting article in IP Watch caught the attention of the SpicyIP team this week. In keeping with our endeavour to increase transparency and discussion on intellectual property related topics, this article in IP Watch has provided us with ample information.
The International Union for the Protection of New Varieties of Plants this month to grant two advocacy groups, the "observer status" as has been provided for under the Union for the Protection of New Varieties of Plants (UPOV) Convention. What has raised considerable concern is the two fold level at which this decision can be termed problematic:
a. This indicates an increasing and disturbing trend against the participation of Advocacy Groups and those affected by the decisions taken by the UPOV.
b. This also is problematic in terms of the framework within which the Union makes its decisions. "The purpose of the UPOV Convention, according to its website, is to protect new varieties of plants via intellectual property rights. Its rules on observer status say that organisational statutes or treaties are to be used to determine such competence, but does not provide a specific list of desired criteria."
Furthermore, it is interesting to note that not all the records of the consultative committee that has been granted the power to decide who can be conferred with the "observer status" are not publicly available.
At best, this position of the UPOV can be called questionable. The two groups denied observer status in this case, Association of Plant Breeding for the Benefit of Society (APREBES) and the European Farmers Coordination (now known as the European Coordination of Via Campesina, or ECVC), were deemed not "competent" in the areas of direct relevance as required by the UPOV. And other questionable decisions include the fact that not a single group from the developing world is an "observer".
In terms of the general scheme of decision and policy making, it is understandable that administratively there must be certain checks in place to ensure a level of competence and expertise. However, where the criteria for such competence is not clearly defined, and participation- diversified, representative or otherwise- is seemingly sidelined, this blogger wonders if the decisions taken by the UPOV on important topics such as breeders' rights, seed issues and plant protection will be practicable without any input from those certain to be affected.
The International Union for the Protection of New Varieties of Plants this month to grant two advocacy groups, the "observer status" as has been provided for under the Union for the Protection of New Varieties of Plants (UPOV) Convention. What has raised considerable concern is the two fold level at which this decision can be termed problematic:
a. This indicates an increasing and disturbing trend against the participation of Advocacy Groups and those affected by the decisions taken by the UPOV.
b. This also is problematic in terms of the framework within which the Union makes its decisions. "The purpose of the UPOV Convention, according to its website, is to protect new varieties of plants via intellectual property rights. Its rules on observer status say that organisational statutes or treaties are to be used to determine such competence, but does not provide a specific list of desired criteria."
Furthermore, it is interesting to note that not all the records of the consultative committee that has been granted the power to decide who can be conferred with the "observer status" are not publicly available.
At best, this position of the UPOV can be called questionable. The two groups denied observer status in this case, Association of Plant Breeding for the Benefit of Society (APREBES) and the European Farmers Coordination (now known as the European Coordination of Via Campesina, or ECVC), were deemed not "competent" in the areas of direct relevance as required by the UPOV. And other questionable decisions include the fact that not a single group from the developing world is an "observer".
In terms of the general scheme of decision and policy making, it is understandable that administratively there must be certain checks in place to ensure a level of competence and expertise. However, where the criteria for such competence is not clearly defined, and participation- diversified, representative or otherwise- is seemingly sidelined, this blogger wonders if the decisions taken by the UPOV on important topics such as breeders' rights, seed issues and plant protection will be practicable without any input from those certain to be affected.
--
Posted By Kruttika Vijay to SPICY IP at 11/16/2009 12:26:00 AM
Reply all
Reply to author
Forward
0 new messages