plant-breeder’s rights is likely also to stunt the growth of the market itself. In the name of over –benevolence towards farmers, it is their own market that suffers. The attempt isagainst privatization and corporatisation of agriculture.
The Breeder as Discoverer?
The non-alphabetical organization of the definitions in the UPOV Convention
isindicative of its objects and concerns. The definition of a “breeder”
and the next one of “breeder’s rights”
is followed by the definition in sequence by that of “variety.”
Since it is the breeder’s exclusive rights in the plant variety “
” by it that areenshrined as protected in the UPOV Convention, the definition of who is or is not a breeder in respect of a correspondingly ‘denominated’ plant-variety, is a sensitive one.The definition of “breeder” in the UPOV Convention is basically as ‘the person who bred, or
ed and developed a variety.’ It is the notion of a breeder as a ‘
er and developer’ that has been clarified by the UPOV Council in a Position Paper adopted by it in 1992
-“…Breeding in its strict sense connotes a process involving sexual reproduction as asource of variability but in practical usage the activity of plant breeding is much wider and includes, in particular, selection within pre-existing sources of variation…It is alsoclear that, when the text of the UPOV Convention was adopted in 1961, it established asystem that was intended to provide protection for the fruits of all forms of plantimprovement, including selections made within natural, that is to say, pre-existingvariation.
ies accordingly, became eligible for protection as selections madewithin natural sources of variation…It should be noted that the 1978 Act contain nodefinition of ‘breeder’ or ‘breeding’’ so that these words have their natural meaning andinclude all classes of activity…There is equally no express reference to the protection of ‘
ies.’ The protection of
ies is inferred from a natural source of initialvariation, for example, a mutation…The UPOV Convention differs from the patentsystem in its treatment of
ies are not patentable. However, the‘
y’ of mutations or variants in a population of cultivated plants is indeed potentially a source of new improved varieties. The UPOV Convention would have failedin its mission if it had excluded such varieties from protection and withheld from
ers the incentive to preserve and propagate useful
ies for the benefit of the world at large...It has been suggested that the criterion of ‘development’ is onlysatisfied if the
ed plant itself is subsequently changed in some way and that the propagation of the plant unchanged would not constitute ‘development.’ This approach
The 1991 Act
Article 1 (iv)
Article 1 (v)
Article 1 (vi)
supra at 2