Welcome to Scribd, the world's digital library. Read, publish, and share books and documents. See more
Download
Standard view
Full view
of .
Save to My Library
Look up keyword
Like this
0Activity
0 of .
Results for:
No results containing your search query
P. 1
Trade, Intellectual Property, Biodiversity

Trade, Intellectual Property, Biodiversity

Ratings: (0)|Views: 12 |Likes:
Published by Abhay Kumar
Trade, Intellectual Property, Biodiversity
Trade, Intellectual Property, Biodiversity

More info:

Published by: Abhay Kumar on Feb 21, 2013
Copyright:Attribution Non-commercial

Availability:

Read on Scribd mobile: iPhone, iPad and Android.
download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
See more
See less

02/21/2013

pdf

text

original

 
Key issues and options for the 1999 review of Article 27.3(b) of the TRIPS Agreement
 A Discussion Paper
by 
Geoff Tansey 
commissioned by 
Quaker Peace & Service, Londonin association with Quaker United Nations Office, Geneva with financial assistance from the Department for International Development (DFID), UK
Trade, Intellectual Property,Food and Biodiversity 
 
T h e re is a growing debate about intellectual property rights, food, farm i n g ,biodiversity, the Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPS) andother agreements. This paper aims to draw on the various perspectives presented inthe body of literature informing debate to:• highlight, clearly and concisely, the policy questions raised for developingcountry governments by Article 27.3(b) of the TRIPS Agreement, in particularthose concerning food security, and the options for the review of its provisions• examine the key ethical, economic, environmental and social issues surrounding its provisions - and their relation to other international negotiations• consider the possible contributions of overseas development assistance.This paper is written for policy makers, primarily in developing countries, ina g r i c u l t u re, environment and trade and those responsible for ensuring policy c o h erence across government departments. By outlining the differing perspectivessurrounding this key clause dealing with patents and other intellectual property rightsover plants, animals, micro- o rganisms and new plant varieties, and highlighting the various sources and technical materials available, we aim to contribute to informe dpublic debate about, and policy making concerning, this issue.The Environmental Intermediaries (EI) Programme of Quaker Peace & Service(QPS) links traditional Quaker concerns for peace and justice with a concern for theen vironment. In 1999, the Quaker United Nations Office (QUNO) in Geneva will carry  out part of the EI Programme work seeking to strengthen the capacity of developingcountries to safeguard the interests of their people and to bring these countries intodialogue with industrialised countries around issues raised by the review of Article27.3(b).
 Copyright
 We want this paper to be distributed widely. It is designed toi n f o rm debate and may be freely re produced for this and othern ot-or-profit purposes, but the attributions on the cover should be included. Please inform QPS about such uses. The paper may also be translated, but please contact us first in case this is already underway. Permission to reproduce documents which are quotedin the text or referred to in the bibliography should be requestedfrom the author as usual.
Quaker Peace & Service
,Friends House, Euston Road, London NW1 2BJ
Contact 
: Tim Montgomery, e-mail: qpsirs@quaker.org.uk
or 
Geoff Tansey, e-mail: g.tansey@zen.co.uk
Quaker United Nations Office
,Quaker House, Avenue du Mervelet 13, 1209 Geneva,Switzerland. Tel: +41 22 748 4800, Fax: +41 22 748 4819
Contact 
: Brewster Grace, e-mail: b.grace@mbox.unicc.org
or 
Caroline Dommen, e-mail: c.dommen@mbox.unicc.org
 Acknowledgements
Despite very tight deadlines, I have tried to consult widely duringpreparation of this paper. I am very grateful to all those who havespoken with me and have provided the detailed papers which Ihave drawn upon as well as to those who have commented on various drafts including Dr Arthur E Appleton, Nuno Carvalho,David Cooper, Carlos Correa, Kristin Dawkins, Caro l i n eDommen, David Downes, Biswajit Dhar, Edward Dwumfour,Tewolde Berhan Gebre Egziabher, Prof J A Ekpere, Bre w s t e rGrace, Laura Kelly, Jeff Kushan, Patrick Mulvany, Helena Paul,Hilary Pinder, Gurdial Singh Nijar, Tim Roberts, Imeru Ta m r a t ,Renee Velve and Oscar Zamora. I have also benefited from many off -the-record discussions held with representatives of diplomatic missions, international institutions, NGOs and industry. I amparticularly grateful to economist Carsten Fink of the University of H e i d e l b e rg for reviewing the draft and suggesting variousadditions and amendments, especially in section 1. The viewsexpressed in the paper, however, remain my own. Thanks also to graphic designer, Mike Barrett. I have tried to avoid any inaccuracies, but I am responsible for any that might remain.QPS is grateful for the financial assistance provided by the UK’sDepartment for International Development in producing thisdiscussion paper.
No part of this paper should be construed in any way as an expression of HM Government policy.Published by 
: Quaker Peace & Service, London, February 1999. Also available in electronic format and downloadable from theQUNO web site: http://www.quaker.org/qunoISBN 0-85245-311-6
 About the author 
: Geoff Tansey is a full-time writer andconsultant, co-author of 
The Food System: A Guide 
, (Earthscan,London, 1995) and honorary visiting professor in food policy atLeeds Metropolitan University. He helped found the journal
Food P l i c y 
in the mid 1970s and has worked in a number of agricultural development projects.
Design and typesetting 
: frogs graphic design, Hebden Bridge.
Printed by 
: PRINTOUT, Halifax on 75% recycled paper.
 Preface
Electronic edition(b&w)
This version of the paperwas publishedelectronically. It maycontain minor typographicvariations from the printedversion. Colours and tintshave been removed formonotone printing.
 
 Contents
Boxes
1. The concept of intellectual property32. Patents43. IPRs and competition54. UPOV95. UPOV and PBRs - a critique106. The Philippinessystem117. US litigation experience128.The Convention on BiologicalDiversity - CBD149.The International Undertaking onPlant Genetic Resources IU1510. An Indian view of the provisions1611. Geographical indications1712. Gene banks1713. Stakeholder consultations23
Executive Summary21.Intellectual property, food and farming3
1.1The IPRs trade-off3
1.2IPRs in developing countries4
2. The TRIPS Agreement and Article 27.3(b)6
2.1Patents on lifeforms62.2Article 27.3(b)72.2.1 Implementation requirements72.2.2 The patent option82.2.3 The
sui generi
system option82.2.4 The combination option112.3 Fiscal, legal and market implications11
3.Issues for the review of Article 27.3(b)13
3.1Timetable133.2Scope133.3Review options 133.4The developed countriespositions143.5The developing countriespositions143.6National policy coherence153.7Legal interpretations and dispute settlement17
4.The wider issues - ethical, economic, environmental and social18
4.1Moral and ethical concerns184.1.1 Invention - human or divine?184.1.2 The living world - shared inheritance or private property?184.1.3 The balance of interests184.1.4 Democratic deficit - need for a framework of ethical assessment184.1.5 Equity in international negotiations194.2Economic issues194.2.1 Technology transfer194.2.2 R&D priorities204.3 Environmental effects of patenting genetically-engineeredagricultural products214.4Social effects on farming systems21
5.Official Development Assistance22
5.1Short-term issues for the review of Article 27.3(b)225.2Longer-term issues for ODA22
6.Conclusion23Bibliography24 Acronyms
and
Glossaryinside back coveDates for 1999back cove

You're Reading a Free Preview

Download
/*********** DO NOT ALTER ANYTHING BELOW THIS LINE ! ************/ var s_code=s.t();if(s_code)document.write(s_code)//-->