The ‘Plant Variety Protection Debates: Connecting Law, Science and Social Science’ conference organised by Dr Titilayo Adebola held at the University of Warwick on 14 June 2018. The key aims of the conference were to:
- Provide a platform for law, science and social science researchers to exchange knowledge about plant variety protection
- Bring together key organisations and stakeholders involved in plant variety protection to discuss recent developments
- Contribute to discussions on the pending review of the plant variety protection provision in article 27.3 (b) of the Agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights.
As planned, the conference brought together students, researchers, lawyers, plant breeders, as well as representatives of civil society organisations and international organisations interested in food, agriculture and intellectual property.
The conference delegates raised pertinent questions such as (i) the definition of breeders (are farmers breeders?), (ii) the suitability and/or adaptability of plant variety protection systems to different jurisdictions (to which contexts are patents, plant breeders’ rights systems and sui generis systems best suited?) and (iii) creative systems of reward (can we look to blockchain as an alternative way to monetise small-scale farmers innovations?).
Date: 14 June 2018.
Time: 09:00 – 16:00.
Venue: Room 1.07, Oculus Building, The University of Warwick, CV4 7AL.
Funding & Support: Warwick Food Global Research Priorities (GRP) and Warwick Law School.
Dr Rosemary Collier, Director, Warwick Crop Centre and Academic Lead, Warwick Food GRP opened the conference with a welcome address and an overview of the Warwick Food GRP.
Immediately after, Professor Carlos Correa, Executive Director, South Centre delivered the keynote address titled ‘A Regime of Plant Variety Protection adapted to Diverse Farming Realities.’
The rest of the conference was divided into four consecutive panels, with question and answer sessions after each panel.
Panel 1: Background on Plant Breeding
Origins and Conservation of Crop Diversity. Dr Charlotte Allender, School of Life Sciences, University of Warwick & Manager, UK Vegetable Genebank.
Why Plant Breeding Matters. Dr Penny Maplestone, Chief Executive, British Society of Plant Breeders.
The Role of Academic Plant Science in Crop Breeding – A Warwick perspective. Dr Graham Teakle, School of Life Sciences, University of Warwick.
Panel 2: Variations in Intellectual Property Rights Systems for Plant Varieties
Patents and the Control of Plant Variety Markets. Prof. Carlos Correa, Executive Director, South Centre.
Maximizing Benefits for Farmers through the 1991 Act of the UPOV Convention. Ms Yolanda Huerta, Legal Counsel, UPOV.
Systemic Interrelations between Plant Breeders’ Rights and Farmers’ Rights: Progress and Perspectives. Mr Daniele Manzella, Technical Officer, Secretariat ITPGRFA.
Panel 3: Traditional Varieties, Small Scale Farmers, and Sustainable Agriculture
Recognising, Recording and Rewarding Locally bred Seed Collections in Zambia. Dr Heather Sanders, Director, Crop Innovations.
Cashing in on Genetic Variability: Can Blockchain help Monetize Innovations by Small Farmers? Dr Mrinalini Kochupillai, Max Planck Institute for Innovation and Competition.
Intellectual Property Law, Corporate Social Responsibility and Agroecology: Towards a more Sustainable Future. Ms Jenny Hallam, Senior Lecturer London School of Business and Management.
Panel 4: Intellectual Property Protection for Plant Varieties in Practice
A Whistle-Stop Review of IP for New Plant Varieties. Dr Andrea Williams, Chartered UK and European Patent Attorney, Marks & Clerk LLP.
IP Protection in Practice: The Case of Tozer Seeds. Dr Frances Gawthrop, Director of Research and Development, Tozer Seeds.
The Right to Food Responsibilities of Agricultural Companies that Own Intellectual Property Rights. Dr Emmanuel Oke, Edinburgh Law School.
“Pay me Later”: A Proposal for Food Security in the Age of Synthetic Biology. Dr Viola Prifti (Video presentation).
The conference concluded with final comments and closing remarks by Flora IP’s Dr Titilayo Adebola.
See excerpts of delegates feedback below:
What did you enjoy about the conference?
Professor Carlos Correa (South Centre): The format, timing and quality of presentations, diversity of views.
Dr Chen Zhu (University of Birmingham): Very well organised and hugely informative, a good combination of top speakers in their respective fields and stimulating discussion from participants.
Dr Penny Maplestone (British Society of Plant Breeders): Good range of different speakers and plenty of time for conversation. Very well organised.
Dr Rosemary Collier (The University of Warwick): The tremendous mix of participants, the welcoming atmosphere, the relaxed approach to the sessions and the panel structure.
Anonymous: Everything! It was great to hear a variety of speakers from different disciplines. The food was also great and everything was well organised. Much thanks to the organisers and everyone who made it a success.
What key issues did the multidisciplinary discussions identify as pertinent to the debates on plant variety protection?
Professor Carlos Correa: Interpretation of UPOV 1991 as exempting a full category of ‘subsistence farmers’, complementarity of a sui generis system, the CBD and Nagoya in addressing farmers’ varieties; relevance and viability of sui-generis systems not based on the UPOV-model.
Dr Rosemary Collier: I was particularly interested in where ‘farmers as breeders’ fit in.
Dr Chen Zhu: The conflict between breeder’s right and farmer’s rights and the possibility of re-opening UPOV 1978.
Mr Jared Onsando (Maastricht University): The need for balanced IPR regimes that are sensitive to all stakeholders (farmers, public research institutes, small breeding enterprises and multinational agricultural companies) and the conservation of genetic resources.
Ms Julie Mansuy (The University of Warwick): Food security is a key and recurring notion in the field of plant variety protection.
Dr Penny Maplestone: What I took away one size doesn’t fit all as different countries will need systems that are adapted to their different circumstances. There was a strong case put by the key note speaker that this need not necessarily be the UPOV model. But I did not feel that there was always a good connection between the more academic, theoretical approach to designing a plant IP system and the practical realities of commercial plant breeding and how to attract inward investment.
I feel that a country needs to ask ‘how much plant breeding do we want to have and who is going to pay for it?’ and that was the question that was missing. If a country wants to attract investment from competitive commercial plant breeders (which has been shown to be the route to faster genetic gain) then it will not succeed unless its IP system is attractive to those companies. If it is content to rely on Government funding for plant breeding plus farmer participatory breeding, then it may be okay with a system designed for that approach.
I felt there wasn’t much meeting of minds between the academic views and the practical plant breeders – even to the extent of speaking very different languages and it sometimes being difficult to understand the points that were being put forward (as for example in the FAO presentation).
What would you like us to do in the future with this forum?
Professor Carlos Correa: Focus on some specific questions of key importance for policy design in developing countries.
Dr Rosemary Collier: I think it would have been good to have a workshop session, possibly on the following day to produce some collective ‘outputs’ – views/consensus – on the way forward for example. There is definitely scope for another ‘workshop’.
Dr Chen Zhu: It would be great to have a follow-up conference with the similar format.
Ms Valerie Azinge (University of Lincoln): I would like to see further collaborative research work in this area.
Dr Penny Maplestone: It might be good to identify specific questions and have a session in which these are debated. Maybe even a game approach to have a theoretical country and ask participants to design an IP system for it.
Following the feedback, Titilayo intends to organise further events in the future.
