Bridges Trade BioRes • Volume 4 • Number 2 • 6th February 2004
FARMERS’ RIGHTS — ENDANGERED BY THE CAFTA?
FARMERS’ RIGHTS — ENDANGERED BY THE CAFTA?
The civil society group Genetic Resources Action International (GRAIN) has criticised the US-Central American Free Trade Agreement (CAFTA) for pushing the International Union for the Protection of New Varieties of Plants (UPOV) and patents on life on Central American countries. After the US finalised the agreement with El Salvador, Guatemala, Honduras and Nicaragua in late December, Costa Rica has now also joined the coalition after initial disagreements (see BRIDGES Weekly, 17 December 2003).
According to the draft CAFTA text on Intellectual Property Rights — released on 28 January — the CAFTA parties El Salvador, Guatemala, Honduras and Nicaragua are requested to join UPOV Act 1991 by 1 January 2006 while the deadline for Costa Rica was set at 1 June 2007. If Parties already have effective patent protection for plants in place, they are required to make "all reasonable efforts" to join the UPOV 1991 Act. This also applies for countries that have signed up to the UPOV 1978 Act, ie Nicaragua. In addition to joining UPOV, parties have also agreed to make "all reasonable efforts" to allow patents on plants.
Background
The UPOV Convention was signed in 1961 with the aim of protecting new plant varieties of signatory countries. The UPOV Convention has since been amended in 1972, 1978 and 1991 each time strengthening the protection of plant breeders. NGOs from several developing countries, in particular from Nepal and India have warned that the UPOV agreement primarily promotes the interest of commercial plant breeders and multinational companies, limiting the rights of farmers in developing countries to freely save, exchange, reuse and sell agricultural seeds. This practice would be restricted under UPOV 1991 legislation (Article 15.2) that allows farmers to reuse protected material only if the breeder has been paid royalties. Under the UPOV 1978 Act farmers are not allowed to sell seeds obtained from protected varieties, however they can store seeds for cultivation, replanting and development of new plants. In recent news (see BRIDGES Trade Biores, 5 September 2003) NGOs applauded the government of Nepal for not signing up to the UPOV 1991 agreement in relation to their accession to the WTO despite pressure from the US. During the accession talks the US argued for Nepal to become a UPOV member in order to fulfil requirements under Article 27.3 (b) of the Agreement on Trade-related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPS) to provide protection for new plant varieties. Dinesh Pyakural, Nepal’s Chief Negotiator said Nepal rejected the kind of "WTO-plus" commitment the adoption of UPOV 91 would entail. NGO also highlight that the TRIPS Agreement does not make any mention to UPOV and does not limit countries to developing their own effective sui generis system protecting new plant varieties.
Additional Resources
"UPOV - Faulty Agreement and Coercive Practices," SAWTEE, 2004.
ICTSD reporting; "Cafta Pushes UPOV & Pantents Of Life In Central America," GRAIN, 29 January 2004.