w w w . a c b i o . o r g . z a

SLAVISHLY FOLLOWING UPOV 1991

A Critique of Mozambique’s Plant Variety Protection Law

Contents

Acronyms and Abbreviations 3

Introduction 4

Summary 4

Key agriculture issues at a glance 5

Restructuring seed laws 6

Mozambique and International Treaty Obligations 7

Mozambique’s PVP Law – what kind of “effective sui generis system?” 7

Overview of Key Provisions 8

Objectives and Scope (Articles 2 and 3) 8

Chapter II of the Mozambique PVP law (read together with definitions in Article 1) 9

Criteria for protection 9

Chapter III-Application for plant breeders’ rights 11

No exceptions to the eligibility for breeders’ protection 11

Information to be furnished by applicant hopelessly insufficient; no disclosure requirements 11

Publication of Information and pre-grant objections 12

Chapter V Plant Breeders’ Rights 13

Exclusive rights, exceptions and limitations 13

Chapter VI Compulsory licencess 16

Enforcement 17

Conclusion 17

References 18

The African Centre for Biosafety (ACB) is a non-profit organisation, based in Johannesburg, South Africa. It was established to protect Africa’s biodiversity, traditional knowledge, food production systems, culture and diversity, from the threats posed by genetic engineering in food and agriculture. It, has in addition to its work in the field of genetic engineering, also opposed biopiracy, agrofuels and the Green Revolution push in Africa, as it strongly supports social justice, equity and ecological sustainability.

The ACB has a respected record of evidence-based work and can play a vital role in the agro-ecological movement by striving towards seed sovereignty, built upon the values of equal access to and use of resources.

©The African Centre for Biosafetywww.acbio.org.zaPO Box 29170, Melville 2109 South AfricaTel: +27 (0)11 486 1156

Design and layout: Adam Rumball, Sharkbouys Designs, Johannesburg

Original cover image: http://robinhesselgesser.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/04/Plant-the-seed.jpg

S l a v i s h l y F o l l o w i n g U P O V 1 9 9 1 – A C r i t i q u e o f M o z a m b i q u e ’ s P l a n t V a r i e t y P r o t e c t i o n L a w 3

Acronyms and abbreviationsACB AfricanCentreforBiosafety

AFSA TheAllianceforFoodSovereigntyinAfrica

AGRA AllianceforaGreenRevolutioninAfrica

ARIPO AfricanRegionalIntellectualPropertyOrganisation

AU AfricanUnion

CAADP ComprehensiveAfricaAgriculturalDevelopmentProgramme

CGIAR ConsultativeGrouponInternationalAgriculturalResearch

GDP Grossdomesticproduct

Ha Hectare

IPR Intellectualpropertyrights

LDC LeastDevelopedCountry

NDUS New,distinct,uniformandstable

NEPAD NewPartnershipforAfrica’sDevelopment

PESDA StrategicPlanforDevelopmentoftheAgriculturalSector

PNISA CAADPNationalInvestmentPlanforAgricultureandFoodsecurity

PVP Plantvarietyprotection

R&D Researchanddevelopment

SADC SouthernAfricanDevelopmentCommunity

SSA Sub-SaharanAfrica

TRIPS AgreementonTrade-RelatedAspectsofIntellectualPropertyRights

UN UnitedNations

UNAC UniãoNacionaldeCamponeses

UPOV InternationalConventionfortheProtectionofNewVarietiesofPlants

WIPO WorldIntellectualPropertyOrganization

WTO WorldTradeOrganisation

4 A F R I C A N C E N T R E F O R B I O S A F E T Y

IntroductionWe(AfricanCentreforBiosafety(ACB))havebeenrequestedbytheUniãoNacionaldeCamponeses(UNAC)toprovideanopiniononMozambique’sNormsontheProtectionofNewPlantVarieties,asapprovedbyDecreeno.58/2006of26thDecember,(yearunknown)(hereinafterreferredtoasthePVPlaw).ThisPVPlawwasostensiblyapprovedintermsof“currentdevelopmentsinthefieldofplantvarietyprotection,andpursuanttosubparagraph(f)ofparagraph1ofArticle204oftheConstitutionoftheRepublic”.WewerenotgivenanyinformationaboutthescopeandnatureofthepublicconsultationthatisrequiredtobeundertakenbythegovernmentofMozambiqueinthedraftingandapprovalofthePVPlawandwhetheranysuchpublicconsultationhasindeedtakenplace.TheseareissuesforUNACtoexplorefurther.

Inthispaper,wehavedealtonlywiththemostimportantprovisionsoftheMozambiquePVPlawthataffectsmall-scalefarmers.TheACBhasworkedfromtheversionofthePVPlawtranslatedfromPortuguesebytranslator,MrDuduCoelhofromMozambique.

Summary Mozambique,asamemberoftheG8NewAllianceonFoodSecurityandNutrition,hasundertakentorestructureitsseedsystemtoenabletheproductionanddistributionof

improvedseeds,withaparticularemphasisonhybridseed,ineffortstoincreaseagriculturalyields.

ThecountryhasalreadydevelopedasetofseedlawstitledRegulation On Seed Production, Marketing Quality Control And Certification(MinisterialOrderNo.184/2001).Thissetofseedlawscreatesanexclusiveseedmarketforcertified,improved,commercialvarietiesofseed.Itexcludesfarmers’varietiesfromthemarket,asitmakesitimpossibleforthesevarietiestobeofficiallyrecognisedandregistered.

ThisPVPlawispartofthepackagetorestructureMozambique’sseedsystemtoprovidesecuremarketsforprivateinvestment,including,andespeciallythrough,theprotectionofprivateownershipoverseedintheformofintellectualpropertyprotection,basedontheprovisionsofUPOV1991(InternationalConventionfortheProtectionofNewVarietiesofPlantsofDecember2,1961,asrevisedatGenevaonNovember10,1972,andOctober23,1978).

MozambiqueisnotdissimilartomanyAfricancountries;desperateforinvestmentandfinancialrelief,itiswillingtomakewhateverpolicychangesarenecessarytobringcapitalintothecountryonthetermssetbythearrayofactorsbehindtheGreenRevolutionpushunderwayinAfrica.

ThearchitectureofMozambique’sPVPlawisbasedonUPOV1991signallingthegovernment’ssupportandpromotionofa

“Seed is the first link in the food chain and embodies millennia of evolution and thousands of years of farmers breeding as well as the culture of freely saving and sharing seed. It is the expression of earth’s intelligence and the intelligence of farming communities

down the ages.” The Law of the Seed1

S l a v i s h l y F o l l o w i n g U P O V 1 9 9 1 – A C r i t i q u e o f M o z a m b i q u e ’ s P l a n t V a r i e t y P r o t e c t i o n L a w 5

particulartypeofplantbreedingsystem,namelyindustrialbreedingforcultivationinlarge-scale,mono-cropping,commercialfarmingsystems.Thesesystemsareheavilydependentonhighirrigationandsyntheticfertiliserandpesticideuse.ThereisnoevidenceintheMozambiquePVPlawthatpolicymakersinMozambiquelookedatsui generis(ofitsownkind)systemsfromdevelopingcountriesforguidance.Sui generissystemsseektoincludeandsupporttheinterestsofallaffectedgroups,includingfarmers,consumers,indigenouscommunitiesandlocalindustries.Indeed,Mozambique’sPVPhaspointedlysnubbedtheAfricanModelLaw.Thisisallthemoretragic,asMozambiqueisclassifiedasanLeastDevelopedCountry(LDC)andisnotobligedtoimplementitsobligationsintermsofArticle27.3(b)oftheWorldTradeOrganisation’s(WTO)AgreementonTrade-RelatedAspectsofIntellectualPropertyRights(TRIPS)agreementforanothereightyears.Article27.3(b)requirescountriestoprovideprotectionforplantvarietiesthroughaneffectivesui generissystem.

Thisorientationtowardsindustrialbreedingismostclearlyepitomisedintherequirementthatregistrationofaplantbreeders’rightwillonlybegrantedifavarietyisnew,distinct,uniformandstable(NDUS).ThisrequirementismodelledonUPOV1991.Thesecriteriaencouragegenetichomogeneityandcannotbeusedtoprotectmorediverseplantvarieties,traditionalvarietiesorcultivatedlandraces.

ThegovernmentofMozambiquehasturnedablindeyetoitssmall-scalefarmersandtheirseedandfarmingsystems.Theprovisionsdealingwiththeexclusiverightsgrantedtoplantbreeders’andtheexceptionstothoserightsrenderthecenturies-oldAfricanfarmers’practicesoffreelyusing,exchangingandsellingseeds/propagatingmaterialillegal.ThePVPlawalsoforbidsfarmersfromfreelyexchangingorsellingfarm-savedseedandpropagatingmaterialevenincircumstanceswherebreeders’interestsarenotadverselyaffected,forexampleinsmallamountsorforlocalruraltrade.Thismustbefiercelyandurgentlyresisted.

Key agriculture issues at a glance

Mozambique,knownasLourencoMarquesduringthecolonialperiod,hasapopulationofabout25millionpeople.Mostliveinruralareasandmostrelyonfarmingforallorpartoftheirhouseholdincome.LocatedonAfrica’ssoutheasternseaboard,thecountryencompassesbiodiversitysitesofgreatsignificance.ThesesitesincludetheGorongosaMountains,theGreatInselbergArchipelagoofQuirimbasinNorthernMozambique,andtheChimanimaniMassif.Mozambiqueishometoaround5500plants,581birds,and205mammals,accordingtonationalestimates.2

Portuguesesettlerswereallocatedlargepiecesoflandduringthecolonialperiod,whilemostoftheworkingpopulationengagedinmanuallabour.AgriculturalproductionwasfocusedonincreasingthesupplyofrawmaterialstoPortugal.Inthetwoyearsfollowingindependencein1975andpriortotheoutbreakofcivilwarin1977,thenewMozambicanstateconcentratedontheagriculturalsectormakingprovisionforinputs,controllingpricesandsettingupmarketingchannels.Thecivilwarlastedfrom1977to1992andnearlydevastatedtheagriculturalsector.Floodsin1977and1978andathree-yeardroughtin1980almostbroughtthesectortocollapse.Thecountrybecamealmostentirelydependentonexternalaidforfoodandinputs.Attheendofthewar,donormoneyflowingintoMozambiquewascontingentonthegovernmentputtingstructuraladjustmentpoliciesinplaceandliberalisingthesector.3

Todayagricultureissaidtoaccountfor25%ofMozambique’sgrossdomesticproduct(GDP)andthesectoremploys80%ofitsworkforce.Oftheagriculturalworkforce,60%arefemale.4Cassava,sugarcaneandmaizearethemajorcropscultivatedinthecountry(seetablebelow).Averagegrainyieldsin2010werelessthan1tonperhectare(ha).AccordingtotheAllianceforaGreenRevolutioninAfrica(AGRA),Mozambiquehas49.4millionhaofagriculturalland(annual,perennialandpasture),5.4millionhaofwhichwascultivatedin2011.5AGRAestimatesthattheadoptionratefor“improved”maizeseedis11%andthat,between2005and2008,only4–5%ofsmall-scalefarmersusedfertiliserwiththebulkoffertiliseruse(90%)accountedforbytobaccoandsugarcane

6 A F R I C A N C E N T R E F O R B I O S A F E T Y

cultivation.6Spendingonagriculturalresearchislowcomparedtocontinentalaverages.In2008,Mozambiquehad11.8agriculturalresearchstaffpermillionpeopleincontrasttothesub-SaharanAfrica(SSA)averageof23.4andpublicspendingonresearchanddevelopment(R&D)asapercentageofagriculturalGDPwas0.4%comparedtotheSSAaverage0.9%.

Major crops cultivated in Mozambique in 2013

Crop Production (tons)

Cassava 10051364

Sugarcane 3393904

Maize 1177390

Sweetpotato 900000

Pulses 602406

Bananas 470000

Rice 280000

Sorghum 239000

Potatoes 205000

Groundnuts 112913

Mozambiqueisseenasahighpotentialagriculturalcountry.Consequently,AGRA,FeedtheFuture(aUSAIDinitiative)andGrowAfrica(ajointAfricanUnion(AU)Commission,NewPartnershipforAfrica’sDevelopment(NEPAD)andWorldEconomicForumInitiative)areallactiveinthecountry.Mozambique’sComprehensiveAfricaAgriculturalDevelopmentProgramme(CAADP)NationalInvestmentPlanforAgricultureandCAADPNationalInvestmentPlanforAgricultureandFoodSecurity(PNISA)andtheStrategicPlanforDevelopmentoftheAgriculturalSector(PESDA)guidetheseinitiatives.MozambiqueisaG8NewAlliancemembercountry.By2013,17companieshadsigned‘LettersofIntent’throughGrowAfrica,includingtheAfricanCashewInitiative,AGCO(tractors,machinery),CargillandSABMiller.

KeypolicycommitmentsunderMozambique’sG8Co-operationFrameworkincludecraftingpoliciesandregulationsforinputmarkets,reformingthelandtenuresystem,promoting

liberalisationofagriculturaltrade,increasingaccesstocreditandimplementinganationalplanonnutrition.

MembersoftheG8havestressedtheimportanceofconcentratingontheBeira,NacalaandZambeziValleyagriculturalcorridorsinthecountry.7Thecorridorswilleachfocusonaparticularcommodity.Beirawillfocusonsugarcane,fruit,potatoes,livestock,rice,horticulture,poultryandsoya;Nacalawillfocusonbanana,vegetables,grains,soybeans,sesame,tea,groundnuts,cottonandlivestock;andtheZambeziValleyoncotton,maize,riceandsoybeans.8

Despitetheseformalinterventions,Mozambique’sseedsectorremainscharacterisedbyafarmer-savedseedsystem,whichservesover70%offarmersandinformalexchange,whichcontributes20%totheseedsector.9SeedinAfricaisstillprimarilyproducedanddisseminatedthrough“informal”seedsystems,10thatis,throughon-farmseedsavingandunregulateddistributionbetweenfarmers.Thissystemhassurvivedforcenturiesandhasgeneratedawidediversityofseedadaptedtolocalagroecologicalconditions.

TheformalseedsectorinMozambiqueisrelativelysmallincomparisonandcomprisesnotmorethan10%oftheseedsector,whichisconcentratedinthehorticulturesectorand,tosomeextent,themaizesector.11Thefarmer-savedandcommunity-basedinformalseedsystemsareofmostrelevanceforcropsforfoodsecurity,forexamplethetraditionalcerealsandfoodlegumes.Theyarealsomostrelevantforvegetativelypropagatedcropssuchascassavaandsweetpotato.12

Restructuring seed laws

Mozambique,asamemberoftheG8NewAllianceonFoodSecurityandNutritionandintermsofAnnex1oftheCooperationFramework,13hasundertakentorestructureitsseedsystemtoenabletheproductionanddistributionofimprovedseedsaspartoftheobjectiveofincreasingagriculturalyields,withanemphasisonhybridseeds.AlreadythecountryhasdevelopedasetofseedlawstitledRegulation On Seed Production, Marketing Quality Control And Certification(MinisterialOrderNo.184/2001.14

http://africagreenmedia.co.za/wp-content/uploads/2013/06/African-farmer.jpg

S l a v i s h l y F o l l o w i n g U P O V 1 9 9 1 – A C r i t i q u e o f M o z a m b i q u e ’ s P l a n t V a r i e t y P r o t e c t i o n L a w 7

DonorsandpotentialinvestorshaveidentifiedweakgovernanceandregulatorysystemsandinstitutionsinAfricaasimmediateobstaclestotheexpansionofseedsystemsthatarebasedonqualitycontrolsandintellectualproperty.Akeypriorityinthecommercialagendaistofacilitateregionalharmonisationofpoliciesandlawstoregulateandsupportinvestmentinseedandagrochemicals.Towardstheendof2012,theACBpublishedareporttitled“Harmonisation of Africa’s seeds laws: a recipe for disaster – Players, motives and dynamics”15showinghowAfricangovernmentsarebeingco-optedintoreviewingtheirseedlawsandsupportingtheimplementationofPVPlawsthroughfast-trackedregionalharmonisationprocessesandtradingblocs.ThegovernmentofMozambiquehasactivelyparticipatedintworegionalharmonisationprocesseswithregardtodraftPVPprotocolsdevelopedundertheauspicesoftheAfricanRegionalIntellectualPropertyOrganisation(ARIPO)(theLegalFrameworkfortheProtectionofNewVarietiesofPlants)andtheSouthernAfricanDevelopmentCommunity(SADC)(theProtocolfortheProtectionofNewVarietiesofPlants(PlantBreeders’Rights)inSouthernAfricanCommunityDevelopmentRegion).Asisevidentfromthediscussionbelow,Mozambique’sPVPlawhasbeenheavilyinfluencedandinformedbythedraftSADCPVPProtocol.

HarmonisationofPVPlaweffortsaimtoprovidesecuremarketsforprivateinvestmentincludingandespeciallythroughtheprotectionofprivateownershipoverseedintheformofintellectualpropertyprotection,basedontheprovisionsofUPOV1991.Mozambique,notdissimilartomanyAfricancountries,desperateforinvestmentandfinancialrelief,iswillingtomakewhateverpolicychangesarenecessarytobringcapitalintothecountryonthetermssetbythearrayofactorsbehindthebiggerGreenRevolutionpushinAfrica.Theseactorsrangefrommultinationalcorporations,non-Africanstates,philanthropicinstitutions,multilateralinstitutionssuchastheWorldBank,theAfricanseedcompaniesandevennon-governmentorganisations.

Theoften-repeatedmantrainvariousregionalandnationalstakeholderworkshopsbypolicymakersis“harmonisation,freetradeandprotectionofprivateintellectualpropertyrightsornoinvestment”.Yet,a2005World

Bankstudyoffivedevelopingcountries(China,Colombia,India,KenyaandUganda)foundnoempiricalevidencethatplantbreeders’rightswouldinducenewresearch,newvarietiesorstrengthendevelopingcountryseedindustries,therebyquestioningthevalueofPVPregimesindevelopingcountries.16Indeed,theauthorsconcludedthatindevelopingcountrieswhereformalseedsystemsarejustemerging,theefficientandtransparentmanagementofregulationsforseedmarketing,varietyregistration,andseedcertificationandqualitycontrolcoulddomoretoencouragecommercialseeddevelopmentthantheestablishmentofPVP.17

Mozambique and International Treaty Obligations

MozambiqueratifiedtheConventiononBiologicalDiversityin1995andisaPartytotheCartagenaProtocolonBiosafety,butitisnotaContractingPartytotheInternationalTreatyonPlantGeneticResourcesforFoodandAgriculture(ITPGRFA)18.MozambiqueisalsonotamemberofeitherUPOV1978orUPOV1991.

MozambiqueisamemberoftheWTOandisrecognisedbytheorganisationasaLDC.19ItisimportanttonotethatLDCsaregivenanextendedtransitionperiodofeightyearstoputinplacetheintellectualpropertyrightssystemsrequiredbyArticle27.3(b)oftheWTO’sTRIPSagreement.ThisisinrecognitionofthespecialrequirementsofLDCs,theireconomic,financialandadministrativeconstraints,andtheneedforflexibilitysothattheycancreateaviabletechnologicalbasis.20ThereisthusnointernationallegalobligationonMozambiqueforatleastanother7yearsto“provideprotectionforplantvarietieseitherthroughpatentprotectioneitherthroughpatentprotectionoraneffectivesui generissystemoracombinationofthetwo.”21

Mozambique’s PVP Law – what kind of “effective sui generis system?”

LeavingasideforthemomentthefactthatMozambiqueasanLDCisnotcurrentlyobligedtoimplementtheprovisionsof27.3(b)andassumingthattheMozambiquePVPlawrepresents“aneffectivesui generissystem”assetoutinArticle27.3(b)(intheviewofpolicymakersinMozambique),thenonehastoaskwhatkindofeffectivesui generis

8 A F R I C A N C E N T R E F O R B I O S A F E T Y

systemhasbeenputinplace.Sui generisrefersto“ofitsownkind”or“unique.”ItisworthnotingthatTRIPSdoesnotdefinewhatasui generissystementails,whichmeansthatWTOmemberstateshaveflexibilityincraftingsuchaneffectivesui generissystem,includingonethatarguablydoesnothavetobeanintellectual property rightsregime.However,thereisastrongprevailingviewthatArticle27.3(b)requiresmeetingminimumrequirements,whichmightbeinferredtoincludethatitshouldconferapropertyright,whichcanbeprotected.22

IthasbeenarguedthatwhereaPVPregimeisestablished,WTOmemberstateshavesufficientflexibilitytoseekabalancedapproach,onethatincludesandsupportstheinterestsofallaffectedgroupsincludingfarmers,consumers,indigenouscommunitiesandlocalindustries,inlightofthefactthatobligationswhichMozambiquehascommittedtothroughvariousinternationaltreatiesshouldbeofbenefittoall.23

ItisourviewthatthearchitectureofMozambique’sPVPlawisbasedprincipallyonthatofUPOV1991.Tothisextent,itisourrespectfulviewthatMozambique’sPVPlawhasnotadoptedanapproachthatseekstobalancetheproprietaryrightsgrantedtocommercialplantbreedersandtherightsoffarmersandtheimportanceofbiodiversityconservationandfoodsecurity.

TheAllianceforFoodSovereigntyinAfrica(AFSA)arguesthatUPOV1991isarestrictiveandinflexiblelegalregimethatgrantsextremelystrongintellectualpropertyrightstocommercialbreedersandunderminesfarmers’rights.IndeedAFSAisoftheviewthatAfricanseedlawsbasedonUPOV1991willlikelyincreaseseedimports,reducebreedingactivityatthenationallevel,facilitatemonopolisationbyforeigncompaniesoflocalseedsystems,anddisrupttraditionalfarmingsystemsuponwhichmillionsofAfricanfarmersandtheirfamiliesdependfortheirsurvival.24

ThegovernmentofMozambiqueappearstohaveturnedablindeyetotheenormousrolethatthediversityofanimalandplantkingdoms,speciesandgenepoolsplayintheproductivityoffarmingsystemsinarangeofgrowingconditions.Thereisincreasing

consensusthatdiversefarmingsystemsaregenerallymoreresilientinthefaceofclimatechangeandtheyenhancefoodsecurity.Diversityofplantlifecanmaintainandincreasesoilfertilityandmitigatetheimpactofpestsanddiseases.Diversityofdiet,foundedondiversefarmingsystems,deliversbetternutritionandgreaterhealth,withadditionalbenefitsforhumanproductivityandlivelihoods.25

ThisisallthemoretragicwhenoneconsidersthatWTOmemberstatesdonotneedtoadopttheprotectionrequiredbyboththeUPOVActs(UPOV1978and1991)forcompliancewiththerequirementforan“effectivesui generis”oftheTRIPSAgreement.ThisisbecauseArticle27.3(b)doesnotrequireplantvarietyprotectionlawstocontainthesamesubjectmatter,eligibilityrequirements,exclusiverights,termsofprotectionorotherdetailedprovisionsofeitherthetwoUPOVActs.26Indeed,theWTOdoesnotrequireanymemberstatetojointheUPOVsystematall!

ThevariouskeyprovisionsoftheMozambiquePVPlaw,whicharebasedonUPOV1991,thatareconcerningincludethefollowing:

• ChapterIIdealingwiththeconditionsforgrantingplantbreeders’rights,readtogetherwiththedefinitionssetoutinArticle1ofthePVPlawwithregardtotheNDUScriteria.

• ChapterVdealingwiththeplantbreeders’rights,inparticulartheprovisionsrelatingtothescopeofprotectionofplantbreeders’rightsinArticle27andtheexceptionstotheplantbreeder’srightsassetoutinArticle28.

Thekeyprovisionsinthesechaptersaredealtwithindetailbelow.

Overview of Key ProvisionsObjectives and Scope (Articles 2 and 3)

TheobjectiveoftheMozambiquePVPlawistoestablishrulesfortheprotectionofnewplantvarieties(Article2).Themainaimofasui generisPVPlawmustbetocreateabalancebetweentheinterestsofcommercialbreeders–thosethatdevelopnewvarieties–andto

S l a v i s h l y F o l l o w i n g U P O V 1 9 9 1 – A C r i t i q u e o f M o z a m b i q u e ’ s P l a n t V a r i e t y P r o t e c t i o n L a w 9

upholdpracticesoflocalbreeders,mainlyfarmersengagedinongoingcultivationof“domestic”varieties,whileatthesametime,accommodatingnewvarietiesthatfarmersmaydevelop.27

Bycontrast,theThaiPVP28lawdealswithdifferentcategoriesofvarieties:newvarieties,domesticandwildvarieties,andlocalvarieties,soastoaccorddifferentialprotectiontodifferentcategories.TheThaiPVPlawdoesnotaccordexclusiveprotectiontoallvarieties,butratherseekstoprovideincentivestobreedersofdomesticfarmers’varieties.Forgeneraldomesticandwildvarieties,theThaiPVPAct(Chapter5)detailsaccessandbenefitsharing(ABS)rulesandgivesmorespecificprotectionrightsforregisteredlocalcommunityvarieties(Chapter4).Thecommunitywouldthenreceiveexclusiverightstoconserve,use,research,sell,andcommercialiseifsodesired,similarlytonewplantvarietyrights.29TheMozambiquePVPlawdoesnotentertainanydifferentialprotectionforvarietyprotectionatall.

Article3oftheMozambiquePVPlawstatesthatthelawistoapplytoallgeneraandspeciesofplantvarieties.ThisprovisionisconsistentwithArticle2ofthedraftARIPOLegalFrameworkfortheProtectionofNewVarietiesofPlantsandArticle3(1)ofthedraftSADCPVPProtocol.

ItwouldhavebeenprudentforMozambiquetolimittheAct’sapplicationwithinaparticulargenusorspeciesandtherebyexcludecertainspeciesfromcommercialisationtoensurefoodsecurity,conserveagriculturalbiodiversityandlimitthetypeofplantbreeding,mannerofreproductionormultiplication,orcertainenduses,inthepublicinterest(forexample,geneticmodification,syntheticbiology,terminatortechnologyandsoforth).ItisinterestingtonotethattheprovisionsofArticle3gobeyondthatwhichisrequiredevenbyUPOV1991.Article3(2)ofUPOVrequiresStatestoprotectatleast15plantgeneraorspeciesuponratifyingtheUPOV1991Act(whichMozambiquehasnotdone)andtoextendprotectiontoallplantvarietieswithin10years.

Chapter II of the Mozambique PVP law (read together with definitions in Article 1)

Criteria for protectionThePVPlawpromotesandprotectsonlyonetypeofplant/seedbreeding,namelyindustrialbreedingforcultivationinlarge-scale,mono-cropping,commercialisedfarmingsystems,heavilyreliantonhighirrigation,syntheticfertiliserandpesticideuse.ImplicitintheMozambiquePVPlawistheviewthatagriculturalbiodiversityisvaluedonlyasasourceoftraitsthatcanbeusedinscientificbreedingprogrammestoimprovetheproductivityofcropvarieties.Seeforexampleinthisregard,thedefinitionof“variety”inArticle1.30Theemphasisisontheexpressionofcharacteristicsarisingfromthegenotype-thegeneticmake-upofthevariety,anditsprotectionratherthanonobservablephysicalorbiochemicalaspectsofthevariety.Thisimplicitlyrenderstheorientationofthelawtowardsindustrialbreedersthatengageinplantbreeding.ThisdefinitioninArticle1oftheMozambiquePVPlawisidenticaltothedefinitioninArticle1(vi)ofUPOV1991.

ThisorientationtowardsindustrialbreedingisfurtherepitomisedbytheprovisionssetoutinChapterIIofthePVPlawdealingwiththeconditionsforgrantingplantbreeder’srights.TheseprovisionsclearlystateinArticle7thatplantbreeder’srightswillbegrantedonlywhenavarietyisNDUS.TheseNDUScriteriaarebasedonUPOV1991.Civilsocietygroupshavecriticisedthesecriteriaasencouraginggenetichomogeneityandasbeingunabletoprotectmorediverseplantvarieties,traditionalvarietiesorcultivatedlandracesforvariousreasonsmorefullydiscussedbelow.31

TheMalaysianPVPlaw32bycontrast,grantsabreeder’srightiftheplantvarietyisNDUStocaterforcommercialbreeders,butthenprovidesthatwhereaplantvarietyhasbeenbred,discoveredanddevelopedbyafarmers,localcommunityorindigenouspeople,abreeder’srightisawardediftheplantvarietyisnew,distinct,andidentifiable.iThisisdone

i. Identificableisdefinedinsection14ofMalaysia’sPVPlawasfollows:aplantvarietyisidentifiableif–(i)itcanbedistinguishedfromanyotherplantgroupingbytheexpressionofonecharacteristicandthatcharacteristicis

identifiablewithinindividualplantsorwithinandacrossagroupofplants;and(ii)suchcharacteristicscanbeidentifiedbyanypersonskilledintherelevantart.

10 A F R I C A N C E N T R E F O R B I O S A F E T Y

toaccommodatesmall-scalebreedersseekingprotectionfortheirvarieties.Inthisregard,thecriteriaforprotectionhavebeendistinguishedinsteadofthevarieties.

ThereisnoevidenceintheMozambiquePVPlawthatitlookedtosui generissystemsfromdevelopingcountriesforguidance.ThereisonlyevidenceofaslavishadoptionoftheprovisionsofUPOV1991.

When will a variety be considered to be new?Avarietyisdeemednewifitsatisfiesthenovelty criteriasetoutinArticle8oftheMozambiquePVPlaw.

NoveltyinArticle8(1)oftheMozambiquePVPlawisidenticaltothenoveltycriteriasetoutinUPOV1991,aswellasArticle8(1)ofthedraftSADCPVPProtocolthatdefinenoveltyintermsofwhetheravarietyhasbeenpreviouslysoldordisposedoff,withouttheconsentofthebreeder.AsinthecaseoftheSADCPVPProtocolprovisions,thevarietyundertheMozambiquePVPlawisconsiderednovelifthevarietyhasnotbeensold/disposedoffintheSADCregionearlierthanoneyearbeforethedateofapplication;andoutsideoftheSADCregionearlierthanfouryearsandsixyearsfortreesandvines.Itmustbenotedthattheconceptof“commonknowledge”isnotreferredtoinArticle8oftheMozambiquePVPlaw,butratherthisconceptisdealtwithinArticle9dealingwithdistinctness.Noveltyisoneofthecriteriaforpatentabilityinanyexaminationastosubstance.Aninventionisnewifitisnotanticipatedbypriorart.Priorartisingeneral,alltheknowledgethatexistedpriortotherelevantfilingorprioritydateofapatentapplication,whetheritexistedbywayofwrittenandoraldisclosure.

How is distinctness determined?MozambiquePVPlawArticle9setsoutthecriteriafordistinctness.Avarietyisconsidereddistinctifitisclearlydistinguishablefromanyothervarietywhoseexistenceiscommon knowledgeattheeffectivedateofapplication.ThiswordingistakenverbatimfromArticle7ofUPOV1991.

ThedeterminationoftheexistenceofavarietyofcommonknowledgeistobetestedagainstthefactorssetoutinArticle9(2)(a)-(g)oftheMozambiquePVPlaw(readtogetherwith

section1ofthedefinitions.)However,Article9issilentonwheresuchcommonknowledgeneedstoexist–inMozambique,theSADCregionortheentireworld.Oneofthefactorsconsideredisthe“inclusionofthevarietyinacollectionofvarietiesofplantsaccessibletothepublic”.Thisseemstorefertogenebanks,however,itshouldrefertoallgenebanksintheworld,includingunimprovedgermplasmalreadyinthepublicdomain,suchasthosefoundintheConsultativeGrouponInternationalAgriculturalResearch(CGIAR)seedcollections.

Anotherfactoristhe“existenceofaprecisedescriptionofthevarietyinanyprofessionalpublication”.AsimilarprovisionistobefoundinArticle9ofthedraftSADVPVPProtocol.Commentsmadebycivilsocietypointoutthatthewording,“anyprofessionalpublication”,istoorestrictiveandthattheprovisionshouldapplyto“allpublications”.33Themainconcernbeingtoavoidasituationinwhichacommercialentityseekstoobtainplantvarietyprotectionoverbiologicalresources,includingplantvarietiesthatbelongtoorareunderthecontroloffarmersandindigenouscommunities.Arecentexampleofsuchmisappropriationthroughthe“shoppingforintellectualpropertyatfarmers’markets”isthe“TurkeyPurpleCarrot”casewhereMonsanto’ssubsidiarySeminispurchasedfarmers’seedinsouthernTurkeyofacertainvarietyofpurplecarrotandafterasimpleprocessofselection,obtainedplantvarietyprotectioninboththeUnitedStatesandtheEuropeanUnion.34

Article9(2)(g)providesanopeningforthelistoffactorsagainstwhichdistinctnessistestedtobeexpandedbytheRegistrationEntity,anopportunitythatshouldbefullyutilisedbyUNACtoseekprotectionforfarmers’varietiesagainstmisappropriationincludingprotectionofunimprovedorwildgermplasmfoundinCGIARseedcollections.(seediscussionbelowondisclosure).

How is uniformity determined?Article10oftheMozambiquePVPlawdealswithuniformityandprovidesthat“avarietyisdeemedtobeuniformif,subjecttothevariationthatmaybeexpectedfromtheparticularcharacteristicsofitspropagation,itissufficientlyuniforminitsprincipalcharacteristics”.

S l a v i s h l y F o l l o w i n g U P O V 1 9 9 1 – A C r i t i q u e o f M o z a m b i q u e ’ s P l a n t V a r i e t y P r o t e c t i o n L a w 11

Thiscriterionisthemostblatantexpressionofsupportforgeneticuniformitybytherewardofaplantbreeder’srighttobreedersofuniform,homogenousplantvarietiesratherthanrewardingbreederswhocultivatelandracesthatexhibitdiversetraits.Suchaprovisionhastheeffectofactivelydiscouragingvariabilityinplantvarieties.Thisdiversityisabsolutelynecessarytoensurefoodsecurity.

How is stability determined?IntermsofArticle11oftheMozambiquePVPlaw,avarietyshallbedeemedtobestableifitsprincipalcharacteristicsdonotchangeoveranumberofgenerations,takingintoaccounttheseedchainandseedlingproductionsystem.ThiswordingisalittledifferenttothestabilitycriterioninArticle9ofUPOV1991andArticle11ofthedraftSADCPVPProtocol,whichareidenticaltoeachother:“avarietyshallbeconsideredtobestableifitsrelevantcharacteristicsremainunchangedafterrepeatedpropagationor,inthecaseofaparticularcycleofpropagation,attheendofeachcycle”.Nevertheless,Article11oftheMozambiquePVPlawisconsistentwiththeUPOVandSADCformulationsasitconveystheconsistentandcentralmessagethatabreederhastoshowthattheessentialcharacteristicsofitsvarietyarehomogenousoruniformovertime,evenafterrepeatedreproductionorpropagation.Hence,thesamecriticismsthatapplytotheuniformitycriteriaapplytothestabilitycriteria,asregardsitprecludingtheprotectionofcultivatedlandracesandothertraditionalplantvarietiesinasmuchassuchvarietiesareinherentlyunstableandinpermanentevolutionandadaptation.

UNACshouldseekamendmentofthePVPlawbyarguinginfavourofalessstrictcriteriontobeadoptednamely,”identifiability”insteadoftheUPOV1991style”uniformity”and“stability”.Identifiabilitywouldallowfortheinclusionofplantpopulationsthataremoreheterogeneous,andthuswouldtakeintoaccounttheinterestsoffarmerbreeders,aswellasserveasanincentivetoallbreederstobringmoregeneticallydiversevarietiestothemarket.

Chapter III-Application for plant breeders’ rights

No exceptions to the eligibility for breeders’ protectionAnapplicationforplantbreeders’rightswillbegrantedwhentheconditionssetoutinChapterIIdiscussedabovehavebeensatisfied(themeetingoftheNDUScriteria).Implicitinthelawisthattheapplicantwillbeartheburdenofprovingthatthevarietyinrespectofwhichaplantbreeder’srightisbeingsought,satisfiestheNDUSandotherproceduralrequirementsofthelaw.(SeealsointhisregardArticle25andthediscussionbelowwithregardtopre-grantobjections.)

ItmustbenotedthatArticle7(2)providesthatthegrantingofplantbreeders’rightsshallnotbesubjecttoanyadditionalcriteria,providedthattheapplicantcomplieswiththeformalitiesimposedintermsofthelaw.ThisisinlinewithUPOV1991,whichdoesnotallowanyexceptionstotheeligibilityforbreeders’protection.Forexample,itdoesnotallowprovisionsthatmaydisallowthegrantingofbreeders’rightswherethepublicorderormoralitymaybeadverselyaffectedandwheretherearereasonablegroundstobelievethatthecultivation,reproductionoranyotheruseofthatplantvarietymayhaveadverseenvironmentalimpactsandsoforth.ItisapitythattheMozambiquePVPlawhastakensuchapermissiveapproachtothegrantingofbreeder’srightsandisslavishlyfollowingtheprescriptionsofUPOV1991,aninternationalregimedesignedbyandfordevelopedcountries.Equity,socialandenvironmentaljusticewereobviouslynotprioritiesfortheMozambicangovernmentwhendraftingtheirPVPlaw.

Information to be furnished by applicant hopelessly insufficient; no disclosure requirementsTheformalitiesthatanapplicantforaplantbreeder’srightmustcomplywitharesetoutinArticle13ofthePVPlawincludingthefurnishingofcertaininformationabouttheapplicantandtheproposednameandtechnicaldescriptionofthevariety.Inaddition,theRegistrationEntity(definedastheorganresponsiblefortheadministrationofplantbreeders’rights)mayrequestanyinformation,documentationormaterialonthevarietyas

12 A F R I C A N C E N T R E F O R B I O S A F E T Y

mayberequiredforthepurposesofconductinganalyses(Article13(5)).Nevertheless,anumberofcriticalelementsaremissingfromtheprovisionsofArticle13.

ForinstancetheMalaysian2004PVPAct(Section12)requiresanapplicationforPBRinter aliato:

• Specifythemethodbywhichtheplantvarietyisdeveloped.

• Besupportedbydocumentsandinformationrelatingtothecharacteristicsoftheplantvarietythatdistinguishtheplantvarietyfromotherplantvarieties.

• Containinformationrelatingtothesourceofthegeneticmaterialortheimmediateparentallinesoftheplantvariety.

• Beaccompaniedwiththepriorwrittenconsentoftheauthorityrepresentingthelocalcommunityortheindigenouspeopleincaseswheretheplantvarietyisdevelopedfromtraditionalvarieties.

• Besupportedbydocumentsrelatingtothecomplianceofanylawregulatingaccesstogeneticorbiologicalresources.

• Besupportedbydocumentsrelatingtothecomplianceofanylawregulatingactivitiesinvolvinggeneticallymodifiedorganismsincaseswherethedevelopmentoftheplantvarietyinvolvesgeneticmodification.

TheIndianPVPlaw(Section18)requiresanapplicationforPBRprotectiontoinclude:

• Anaffidavitswornbytheapplicantthatsuchvarietydoesnotcontainanygeneorgenesequenceinvolvingterminatortechnology.

• Completepassportdataoftheparentallinesfromwhichthevarietyhasbeenderivedalongwiththegeographicallocationfromwherethegeneticmaterialhasbeentakenandallsuchinformationrelatingtothecontribution,ifany,ofanyfarmer,villagecommunity,institutionororganisationinbreeding,evolvingordevelopingthevariety.

• Adeclarationthatthegeneticmaterialorparentalmaterialacquiredforbreeding,evolvingordevelopingthevarietyhasbeenlawfullyacquired.Theseelementsareimportanttosafeguardagainstmisappropriationofgeneticresourcesandassociatedtraditionalknowledgeandtooperationalisebenefitsharing.Africangovernmentshavelongchampionedin

variousinternationalforasuchastheWorldIntellectualPropertyOrganization(WIPO)andtheWTO,forintellectualpropertysystemstoincorporateamandatorydisclosureoforiginrequirementthatwouldincludeprovingpriorinformedconsentandbenefitsharing.

Requiringfulldisclosureofinformationonhowthevarietyisdevelopedinexchangeforreceivingplantvarietyprotectionisalsocriticaltotransfertechnologyandknowledgetothelocalcommunities.Moreover,fulldisclosureofinformationwillenableMozambiquetoensurethatvarietiesthatareinjurioustohealthandtheenvironmentdonotreceiveprotection.35

ItshouldbenotedthatAfricancivilsocietyrepresentativesparticipatedinaregionalworkshoptoreviewthedraftSADCPVPProtocol13-14thMarch2014,inJohannesburgSouthAfricawhentheotherworkshopparticipants,includingrepresentativesofSADCmemberstates,agreedtoincludeintheProtocol,aspartoftheapplicationrequirementsforaplantbreeder’srights,adeclarationtotheeffectthatthegeneticmaterialorparentalmaterialacquiredforbreeding,evolvingordevelopingthevarietyhasbeenlawfullyacquired.

Publication of Information and pre-grant objectionsArticle21dealswiththepublicationofinformationintheGovernmentGazetteatregularintervals,includinganyinformationofpublicinterest.ItwouldbeimportantforUNACtorequestthatpublicinterestinthiscontextbedefined,atleasttoincludeinformationrelatingtothedisclosureoforiginofthegeneticmaterialusedtodevelopthenewvarietiesinthelightthatnoprovisionondisclosureoforiginiscontainedinthePVPlaw.

IntermsofArticle21(2),confidentialinformationincludedintheapplicationforplantbreeders’rightsshallnotbepublishedwithouttheconsentoftheplantbreeder.Thereisreallynogoodreasonfortheprotectionof“information,”whichismuchwiderinscopethan“confidentialbusinessinformation.”Inanyevent,theRegistrationEntityshoulddecidewhatconfidentialbusinessinformationneedsprotectionforcommercialpurposesandwhatinformationshouldbeputinthepublic

S l a v i s h l y F o l l o w i n g U P O V 1 9 9 1 – A C r i t i q u e o f M o z a m b i q u e ’ s P l a n t V a r i e t y P r o t e c t i o n L a w 13

domain.Asthelawiscurrentlycrafted,thewithholdingofconfidentialinformationbytheapplicanttrumpsthepublicinterest.

Article22obligestheRegistrationEntitytopost,ineithertheGovernmentGazetteoranewspaperofwidestcirculationinthecountry,anoticeofeveryapplicationreceived.Thisnoticemustincludethenameoftheapplicant,effectivedateoftheapplication,theproposeddesignationofthevariety,plusanyinformationrelatingtotheapplicationthatmaybeneededtodescribethevarietyforpurposesofpubliccommentorthatmaybedetailedinthesupplementarynormswithoutprejudicetotheconfidentialityofinformationunderparagraph5ofarticle5oftheregulation.

Therequirementfor“informationrelatingtotheapplicationwhichmaybenecessarytodescribethevarietyforthepurposesofpubliccomment”istoovagueandmayresultinarbitrarydecision-makingonthepartoftheRegistrationEntity.Thisprovisionshouldbemorefullydefinedinsupplementarynormstoincludeinformationthatthepublicmayrequiretoenablemeaningfulcommentaryandparticipationinthedecision-makingprocess.

Article5(5)providesthat“TheRegistrationEntityshalldeterminewhatspecificinformationintheregistermaybeaccessibletothepublic,withduerespectfortheconfidentialityofcertaininformation,particularlythatwhichpertainstocompanysecrets”.ItisnotknownwhythereisthisdiscrepancybetweenArticle21(2)andArticle5(5),thelatterwhichattemptstosignifywhatkindofinformationmayqualityasconfidentialinformation,namelycompanysecrets.ReadingthroughtheprovisionsofArticle22(2),22(3)and22(4),itbecomesimmediatelyapparentthatthepre-grantcommentprocedureisaimedatother(perhapscompeting)commercialbreederswhoareconstitutedasorganisedentitiesandnotthegeneralpublic.

First,Article22(2)refersto“anyentity”asopposedto“anyperson”thatmaysubmitadulysubstantiatedwrittenobjection.Second,thewrittenobjectionistobeaccompaniedbythepaymentoffees.Small-scalefarmerswhomaywanttoobjecttoanapplicationwillbehardpressedtofindmoneytopayfeesormaybediscouragedtoobjectiftheyhave

topaysuchfees.Moreover,whyshouldtheyifitistheirdemocraticrighttoparticipateindecision-makingthataffectstheirorthepublic’sinterest?Third,thegroundstofoundanyobjectionassetoutinArticle22(4)(a)-( j)areburdensometosmall-scalefarmersandnotfocusedonissuesthattheyengagein.Thesearemoreinthenatureofgroundsthatcompetitorsintheplantbreedingindustrywouldbeinterestedin.Article22(4)(k)providessomesavinggraceinthatgroundsforanobjectionmayalsoincludeotherreasonablegrounds,toaccommodatetheinterestofsmall-scalefarmers.Whereanobjectionislodged,theapplicantisgivenanopportunitytocontesttheobjection.ThefinaldecisionismadebytheRegistrationEntity,“havingheardthepartiesconcernedandtheopinionoftheTechnicalCommittee”.ItappearsasifthelawcontemplatesanoralhearingthatthedecisionoftheRegistrationEntitynotbeaunilateralone,butonetakenaftersolicitingtheopinionoftheTechnicalCommittee.TheTechnicalCommitteeisestablishedbytheMinisterofAgriculturetoadvisetheRegistrationEntityonallmattersrelatingtoplantbreeders’rights,consistingofaplantbreedingspecialist,aspecialistaccordingtothenatureoftheissueandajurist.(Article6(1)).

Article25dealswiththegrantingandrejectionofplantbreeders’rights,whichisobligatoryontheRegistrationEntitywheretheapplicationmeetstheNDUSrequirements,theapplicationmeetswiththerequirementsofthelawwithregardtodesignationofvarieties,andwheretheRegistrationEntityconcludesthattheobjectionsreceivedprovidenogroundsforthepreventionofthegrantingoftheplantbreeders’rights.ThisappearstoimplythatdespitetheprovisionsofArticle7(2)discussedabove,objectionsmaywellstandinthewayofthegrantofplantbreeders’rights.Theonlyconcernhowever,isthattheprovisionsinArticle25(3)dealingwiththerejectionofanapplication,donotincludeanobjectionsubmittedasoneofthegroundsforrejection.

Chapter V Plant Breeders’ Rights

Exclusive rights, exceptions and limitationsTheprovisionsinthisChapter,particularlyArticles27and28dealwiththetensionsbetweenthegrantingofexclusiveintellectualpropertyrights(IPRs)toabreedertoexclude

14 A F R I C A N C E N T R E F O R B I O S A F E T Y

allthirdpartiesfromreproducing,modifyingordistributingtheplantvarietyinrespectofwhichtheIPRshavebeengrantedinordertoallowthebreedertorecoupitsinvestmenttocreatethesubjectmatteroftheintellectualproperty(thenewvariety)andexceptionstothoseexclusiverightsinthepublicinterestorinfurtheranceofsocialandpolicyobjectives.Theseexceptionsappearintwoforms:onethatpermitsthirdpartiestoengageinspecifiedusesofprotectedvarietywithoutthepermissionoftherightholderandwithoutremunerationbeingpaidtotherightholder.Thesecondformisknownas“compulsorylicences”,whichallowthirdpartiestousetheplantvarietywithouttherightholder’sconsent,butonlyuponthepaymentofadequatecompensation.36Compulsorylicencesaredealtwithbelow.

TheseprovisionsinArticles27and28alsoepitomisethestarktensionsbetweenexclusiveIPRsgrantedtothebreederandfarmers’rights.Theconceptoffarmers’rightswasdevelopedtoreflectthecontributionsthattraditionalfarmers,particularlyinthedevelopingworld,havemadetothepreservationandimprovementofplantgeneticresources.TheFoodandAgricultureOrganisationResolution5/89definesfarmers’rightsas“rightsarisingfromthepast,presentandfuturecontributionsoffarmersinconserving,improvingandmakingavailableplantgeneticresources,particularlyincentresoforigin/diversity.”37SuchrightsarealsorecognisedinArticle9oftheITPGRFA,towhichMozambiqueisnotacontractingstate.

Therearedifferentstrandstofarmers’rights.Theseincludeprovidingforfarmers’rightsasexceptionstotheexclusiverightsgrantedtoplantbreeders,discussedbelow.Asecondapproachisdevelopanappropriatesui generis lawinordertopermitfarmersthemselvestoclaimexclusiverightsintheplantvarietiestheydevelopwithintheirownbreedingsystems,alreadydiscussedabove.Athirdapproachistorecognisefarmers’rightsthroughbenefit-sharingmechanismssuchasfinancialpaymentsandtechnologytransfers,whichcompensatefarmersfortheircontributionstoplantgeneticdiversity.

Article27setsoutthescopeoftheexclusivenatureofplantbreeders’rightsandArticle28

dealswiththeexceptionstoplantbreeders’rights.

Article27(1)confersexclusiverightstoplantbreedersto:

• Produceandmultiplypropagatingmaterialoftheprotectedvariety

• Packageforpurposesofpropagation• Sell,market,export,importandstorethe

protectedvariety.

Anyonewhowantstoundertakeanyoftheaboveactivitiesmustobtaintheconsentoftheplantbreederintheformofalicencegrantedbytherightholder,andusuallyuponpaymentofroyalties.Article27(1)istosomeextentmodelledonArticle14(1)ofUPOV1991andArticle29ofthedraftSADCPVPProtocol.SimilarprovisionsarealsotobefoundinthedraftARIPOPVPProtocol,buttherearesomeimportantdifferences.Article27oftheMozambiquePVPlawdoesnothavethesamecontroversialanddraconianArticle27(2)thatisfoundintheSADCPVP,whichextendstheexclusiveplantbreeders’rightstoharvestedmaterialincludingentirepartsofplants.Thisisatleastasavinggrace.

Article27(4)alsoextendsexclusiverightstovarieties,whichareessentiallyderivedfromtheprotectedvariety,wheretheprotectedvarietyitselfisnotanessentiallyderivedvarietyandwhoseproductionrequirestherepeateduseoftheprotectedvariety.TheseprovisionsareconsistentwiththeprovisionsofArticle27(3)ofthedraftSADCPVPandArticle14(5)ofUPOV1991.

Theexceptionstotheplantbreeders’rightsassetoutinArticle28areasfollows(inotherwords,thefollowingactivitiesareallowedinrespectoftheprotectedvarietywithoutalicencehavingtobeissuedbytheplantbreederandwithoutthepaymentofroyalties):

(a)Theuseoftheprotectedvarietyinaprogrammeofimprovementofnewvarieties,exceptwheretheprotectedvarietyisrepeatedlyused.

(b)Experimentsorresearchactivities.(c)Activitiescarriedoutbysmallholdersfor

purposesofpropagationontheirownfields,andtheproductofthecultivationoftheprotectedvarietyintheirownfields.

(d)Anyotherprivateactivitycarriedoutfor

S l a v i s h l y F o l l o w i n g U P O V 1 9 9 1 – A C r i t i q u e o f M o z a m b i q u e ’ s P l a n t V a r i e t y P r o t e c t i o n L a w 15

non-commercialpurposes.

Points(c)and(d)affectsmall-scalefarmersdirectly.Butwhatdotheseexceptionsmean?

Dealingwith(c)first:

Activitiescarriedoutbysmall-scalefarmersforpurposes of propagation on their own fields,andtheproduct of the cultivation (harvest)oftheprotectedvarietyon their own fields.

“Small-scalefarmers”isnotdefinedandisabroadconceptthatcanincludefamilyfarmers,subsistencefarmers,small-scalecommercialfarmersandsoforth.

Thismeansthatsmall-scalefarmersareonlyallowedtore-plantfarmsavedseedsoftheprotectedvarietyontheirownfieldsandtousetheproductoftheharvestonlyontheirownfields.Suchfarmersarethusnotallowedtoexchange,barter,orselleitherfarm-savedseedsoftheprotectedvarietyortosharetheproductoftheirharvestwithanyoneelse(forexample,family,neighboursorthecommunity),excepttousethisontheirownfields.Small-scalefarmersarealsonotallowedtoexchange,barterorselltheproductoftheirharvestifitderivedfromthereplantingoffarmsavedseedsofaprotectedvariety.ThisprovisionismodelledontheoptionalexceptioncontainedinArticle15(2)ofUPOV1991.

Dealingwith(d):

Anyotherprivate activitycarriedoutfornon-commercial purposes.

ThisisidenticaltotheexceptionprovidedinArticle15(1)(i)ofUPOV1991.AccordingtotheUPOVguidancedocument,thismeansthat“...propagationofavarietybyafarmerexclusivelyfortheproductionofafoodcroptobeconsumedentirelybythatfarmerandthedependentsofthefarmerlivingonthatholding,maybeconsideredtofallwithinthemeaningofactsdoneprivatelyandfornon-commercialpurposes”.38Thismeansthatevenconsumptionbythefarmerandhis/herneighbourorcommunitywouldnotfallwithintheexception.

What is wrong with these provisions? Thefirstcrucialissueisthattheexclusiverightsgrantedtothebreeder,assetoutinArticle27,inconjunctionwiththeexceptions,

prohibitsthecenturies-oldAfricanfarmers’practiceoffreelyusing,exchangingandsellingseeds/propagatingmaterial.Thesepracticesunderpin90%oftheagriculturalsystemsontheAfricancontinent.Further,theseprovisionsforbidfarmersfromfreelyexchangingorsellingfarm-savedseedandpropagatingmaterialevenincircumstanceswherebreeders’interestsarenotaffected(forexample,insmallamountsorinlocalruraltrade).Farmerswantingtoengageintheseactivitieswouldhavetoobtainalicencefromthebreederandpayroyalties.

Wheresmall-scalefarmersbuyprotectedvarietiesforthepurposesofplantingforcommercialpurposes,theseprovisionswouldforcesuchfarmerstopayasecondchargeonsomethingtheyalreadypossess.Implicitintheseprovisionsisthemischievousobjectiveofreplacingtraditionalvarietieswithuniform,commercialvarietiesandincreasingthedependencyofsmall-scalefarmersoncommercialseedvarieties.Thissystemaimstocompelfarmerstopurchaseseedsforeveryplantingseasonorpayroyaltiestothebreederinthecaseofreusingfarm-savedseeds.Inaddition,farmersarerequiredtopayforexpensiveinputs,suchasfertiliser,sincetheperformanceofthesecommerciallyprotectedvarietiesisoftenlinkedtosuchinputs,therebycreatingviciouscyclesofdebtanddependence.

Suchasystemwillresultintheerosionofcropdiversityandreduceresiliencetothreatssuchaspests,diseaseandclimatechange.Itwillalsoresultinfarmerindebtednessinthefaceofunstableincomes(asrevenuewouldvarydependingonseasons).Additionally,thesecommercial,high-yieldingvarietiesareverylikelytobelesssuitedtothespecificagroecologicalenvironmentsinwhichfarmersworkthanlocallyadaptedtraditionalfarmervarieties.

FarmersinAfricarelyheavilyonseedthatissavedonthefarm,exchangedwithfamilymembersandneighbours,barteredorboughtonthelocalmarket.Thisrelianceontheseinformalseedsourcesisindependentofwhetherfarmerscultivatelocalormodernvarieties.Thereasonsforthisdependenceincludeinadequateaccesstomarkets;unfavourablemarketchannelsforfarmerslivinginremoteareas;limitedaccessto

16 A F R I C A N C E N T R E F O R B I O S A F E T Y

financialresourcesorcredittobuyseeds;theinabilityofaformalsystemtoprovidetimelyandadequateaccesstoqualityseedsofimprovedvarietiesandtovarietiesthatarespecificallyadaptedtolocalconditions.39

ThegovernmentofMozambiqueappearstohaveforsakenitssmall-scalefarmers.ItalsoappearstohaveforgottenaboutitsinternationalobligationsundertheConventiononBiologicalDiversity.Article10(c)compelseachParty,to“protectandencouragecustomaryuseofbiologicalresourcesinaccordancewithtraditionalculturalpracticesthatarecompatiblewithconservationorsustainableuserequirements”.

ThegovernmentofMozambiquehasturneditsbackontheAfricanModelLaw,40whichtriestobalancetheexclusiverightsgrantedtobreederswiththoseoffarmers’rights.Article30oftheAfricanModelLawgrantstherightholdertheexclusiverighttosellandproducetheprotectedvariety.Therightsdonotextendtoessentiallyderivedvarietiesortoharvestedmaterial.Article31oftheAfricanModelLawdealswiththeexceptionstotheplantbreeders’rightsandallowsfarmerstopropagate,growanduseplantsofthatvarietyforpurposesotherthancommerce:useoftheprotectedvarietyinfurtherbreeding,researchorteachinganduseofplantsorpropagatingmaterialofthevarietyasaninitialsourceofvariationforthepurposeofdevelopinganothernewplantvariety,exceptwherethepersonmakesrepeateduseofplantsorpropagatingmaterialofthefirstmentionedvarietyforthecommercialproductionofanothervariety.

Farmers’rightsunderArticle26and31oftheAfricanModelLawincludetherighttousetheprotectedvarietiestodevelopfarmervarietiesandtosave,use,multiply,processandexchangefarm-savedseedofprotectedvarieties.Thefarmersmayalsosellthefarm-savedseed/propagatingmaterialofaprotectedvarietyprovideditisnotonacommercialscale.

ItmustbenotedthattheAfricancivilsocietyrepresentativeswhoparticipatedinaregionalworkshoptoreviewthedraftSADCPVPProtocol13-14thMarch2014inJohannesburgwereable,aftermarathonanddifficultdiscussions,toconvincethestakeholders

present,includingSADCmemberstaterepresentatives,torevisetheprovisionsdealingwithexceptionstoplantbreeders’rightsinArticle28ofthedraftSADCPVPProtocol.Article28(d)41hasbeendeletedinitsentiretyandanewclausehasbeeninsertedasfollows:

“Acts done by a farmer to save, use, sow or resow, or exchange for non commercial purposes his or her farm produce including seed of a protected variety, within reasonable limits subject to safeguarding the legitimate interests of the holder of the breeder rights. The reasonable limits and the means of safeguarding of legitimate interests of the holder of the breeder rights shall be specified in the regulations made by the contracting parties.”

Chapter VI Compulsory licences

Theissueofacompulsorylicenceisanotherformofrestrictingtheexclusiverightsoftheplantbreeder.Article32oftheMozambiquePVPlawdoesprovidefortheissueofacompulsorylicenceinthepublicinterestorwheretheplantbreederunreasonablyrefusestograntthelicenceorimposesunacceptableconditions.Since“publicinterest”isnotdefined,itisnotknownwhethercompulsorylicenceswillbeissuedintheeventoftherightholderengaginginanti-competitivebehaviour.Thisisanissuethatmaybecomeveryrelevantgiventheincreasingcorporatecontrolandconsolidationoftheseedindustryinseveralcountries,includinginSouthAfrica.

ItisrecommendedthatUNACseekrevisionofthisArticletoincludethefactorsassetoutintheAfricanModelLaw.Thesefactorsincludeinstanceswherefoodsecurityornutritionalorhealthneedsareadverselyaffected;whereahighproportionoftheplantvarietyofferedforsaleisimported;wheretherequirementsofthefarmingcommunityforpropagatingmaterialofaparticularvarietyarenotmet;whereitisconsideredtopromotethepublicinterestforsocioeconomicreasonsandfordevelopingindigenousandothertechnologies;andanyotherreasonthatthegovernmentmaydeemnecessaryinthepublicinterest,insituationsofemergencyortoalleviatepoverty.

S l a v i s h l y F o l l o w i n g U P O V 1 9 9 1 – A C r i t i q u e o f M o z a m b i q u e ’ s P l a n t V a r i e t y P r o t e c t i o n L a w 17

Enforcement

Violationsoftheplantbreeder’srightsconstituteaninfringementofthePVPLawintermsofArticle41.IntermsofArticle42,infringementobligestheRegistrationEntitytoimposepenalties,including“necessarycorrectivemeasuresincludingwarnings,fines,temporaryorpermanentsuspensionandseizureofmaterial”.

Itisquestionablewhethertheviolationofprivatelawrightsshouldresultinanorganofstate,suchastheRegistrationEntity,imposingpunitivemeasures.TheseviolationsshouldonlybedealtwithintermsofcivillawremediesandintermsofArticle42ofthePVPLaw,whichprovidesthatany“entityviolatingplantbreeders’rightsmaybesuedbytherightholderinacompetentcourtwithaviewtoprohibitionoftheactivityand/orcompensationfordamages”.

ConclusionWestronglyrecommendthatUNACurgentlyseekatotalrevisionofMozambique’sPVPlawassoonaspossible.Therightoffarmerstoreuseallfarmed-savedseedisinviolable.Inthisregard,thewisecounselofoutgoingUNSpecialRapporteurontheRighttoFood,OlivierDeSchutter,shouldbebroughttotheattentionofthegovernmentofMozambique:

“... reliance by farmers on farmers’ seed systems allows them to limit the cost of production by preserving a certain degree of independence from the commercial seed sector. The system of unfettered exchange in farmers’ seed systems ensures the free flow of genetic materials, thus contributing to the development of locally appropriate seeds and to the diversity of crops. In addition, these varieties are best suited to the difficult environments in which they live. They result in reasonably good yields without having to be combined with other inputs such as chemical fertilizers. And because they are not uniform, they may be more resilient to weather-related events or to attacks

by pests or diseases. It is, therefore, in the interest of all, including professional plant breeders and seed companies which depend on the development of these plant resources for their own innovations, that these systems be supported.”42

18 A F R I C A N C E N T R E F O R B I O S A F E T Y

References1 Navdanya(2013)TheLawoftheSeed.[Online]

Availableat:http://www.navdanya.org/attachments/lawofseed.pdf.Accessedon23May2014.

2 ConventiononBiologicalDiversity(n.d).MozambiqueCountryProfile.[Online]Availableat:http://www.cbd.int/countries/profile/default.shtml?country=mz.Accessedon20May2014.

3 Mazvimavi,K.,Manussa,S.,Majuru,A.,Murendo,C.(2012)OpportunitiesforImprovingInputandOutputMarketsinMozambique:PerceptionsfromTraders.[Online]Availableat:ftp://ftp.cgiar.org/ifpri/Ella/MozSAKSS_project-completion-report_attachments/Project%20outputs/MozSAKSS-Traders%20Study%20in%20Mozambique%20REPORT.pdf.Accessedon16May2014.

4 AGRA(2013)AfricaAgricultureStatusReport.[Online]Availableat:http://www.agra.org/our-results/agra-status-reports/#.U4SwVvmSzuI.Accessedon20May2014.

5 AGRA(2013)AfricaAgricultureStatusReport.[Online]Availableat:http://www.agra.org/our-results/agra-status-reports/#.U4SwVvmSzuI.Accessedon20May2014.

6 Benson,T.,Kirama,S.L.,Selejio,O(2013)Thesupplyofinorganicfertilizerstosmall-holderfarmersinTanzania.[Online]Availableat:http://www.ifpri.org/publication/supply-inorganic-fertilizers-smallholder-farmers-tanzania.Accessedon16May2014.

7 G8NewAllianceforFoodSecurityandNutrition.Co-operationFrameworktosupporttheNewAllianceforFoodSecurityandNutritioninMozambique.http://feedthefuture.gov/sites/default/files/resource/files/Mozambique%20Coop%20Framework%20ENG%20FINAL%20w.cover%20REVISED.pdf

8 GrowAfrica(n.d)Agriculturalgrowthcorridors.[Online]Availableat:http://growafrica.com/initiative/mozambique.Accessedon19May2014.

9 Wageningenur(2012)ISSDAfricaBriefingNote–September2012,MozambiqueSeedSectorAssessment[Online]Availableat:https://www.wageningenur.nl/web/file?uuid=fa30a45e-32a0.Accessedon20May2014.

10 Smale,M.,Byerlee,D.&Jayne,T.(2011)Maizerevolutionsinsub-SaharanAfrica.Policy Research Working Paper5659.WashingtonDC,WorldBank,DevelopmentResearchGroup,p.7.

11 Wageningenur(2012)ISSDAfricaBriefingNote–September2012,MozambiqueSeedSectorAssessment[Online]Availableat:https://www.wageningenur.nl/web/file?uuid=fa30a45e-32a0.Accessedon20May2014.

12 Wageningenur(2012)ISSDAfricaBriefingNote

–September2012,MozambiqueSeedSectorAssessment[Online]Availableat:https://www.wageningenur.nl/web/file?uuid=fa30a45e-32a0.Accessedon20May2014.

13 FeedtheFuture(n.d.)Co-operationFrameworktoSupporttheNewAllianceforFoodSecurityandNutritioninMozambique.[Online]Availableat:http://feedthefuture.gov/sites/default/files/resource/files/Mozambique%20Coop%20Framework%20ENG%20FINAL%20w.cover%20REVISED.pdf.Accessedon13May2014.

14 SomeofACB’skeyfindingsofthislawincludethefollowing:1. TheprovisionsofArticle2readtogetherwith

thoseofArticle3appeartomakeitimpossibleforfarmers’varietiestobeofficiallyrecognisedandregistered.Further,Article2makesitclearthatfarmers’varietieswillnotbeabletobemarketedinMozambique.Thislawessentiallycreatesanexclusiveseedmarketforcertifiedimproved,commercialvarietiesofseedandexcludesfarmers’varietiesfromthismarketingsystem;

2. SmallfarmersinAfrica,seekingtodevelopormaintainvarieties,createlocalseedenterprisesorcultivatelocallyadaptedvarietiesareexcludedfromthesystem,unlesstheyabandontheirtraditionalseedandbecomeoneofthemanymillionsoffarmerswhowillbecooptedintoseedcertificationschemes(tobulkupregisteredimprovedseed);

3. Theregulationsdonotdealatallwiththeprotectionoffarmers’rights.

4.Theregulationsdonotcontainanymeasurestosafeguardthediversityon-farmandthecontinuedmaintenanceofheterogeneouscropvarieties,whichissovitaltoensurefoodsecurityandresilientfoodsystemsforthefuture.

5. TheimportationofGMseedsisstrictlyprohibited.ThisappearstosignifythatMozambiqueisintentonproducingonlyGM-freeseedinMozambique–possiblyforfurthersaleontheregionalandglobalmarkets.

6.Inspectorswillhavefreeaccesstoanyfarmsandtherighttoinspectseed.InspectorsmayseizeanyseedthatdoesnotmeettheconditionssetoutintheRegulationsandorderitsconfiscation.

7. Thesaleofnon-registeredseedvarieties,thatisfarmers’varieties,isacriminaloffenceandshallbepunishablewithafineof10millionmeticas.

15 ACBIO(2012)HarmonisationofseedlawsinAfrica.[Online]Availableat:http://www.acbio.org.za/images/stories/dmdocuments/Harmonisation-of-seed-laws-in-Africa.pdf.Accessedon5May2014.

16 Tripp,R.,Louwaars,N.&Eaton,D.(2007)Plantvarietyprotectionindevelopingcountries.Areportfromthe

S l a v i s h l y F o l l o w i n g U P O V 1 9 9 1 – A C r i t i q u e o f M o z a m b i q u e ’ s P l a n t V a r i e t y P r o t e c t i o n L a w 19

field.Food Policy32(3):354-371.17 Tripp,R.,Louwaars,N.&Eaton,D.(2007)Plantvariety

protectionindevelopingcountries.Areportfromthefield.Food Policy32(3):354-371.

18 PlantTreaty(n.d.)Listofcountries.[Online]Availableat:http://www.planttreaty.org/list_of_countries.Accessedon20May2014.

19 LDCsarethosecountrieswhichhavebeendesignatedassuchbytheUnitedNations(UN).Therearecurrently49least-developedcountriesontheUNList,includingthefollowingAfricancountries:Angola,Benin,BurkinaFaso,CentralAfricanRepublic,Chad,DRCCongo,Djibouti,Guinea,GuineaBissau,Lesotho,Madagascar,Malawi,Mali,Mauritania,Mozambique,Niger,Rwanda,Togo,Uganda,Zambia,Senegal,SierraLeone,Tanzania,

20 WorldTradeOrganisation(n.d.)Respondingtoleastdevelopedcountries’specialneedsinintellectualproperty.[Online]Availableat:http://www.wto.org/english/tratop_e/trips_e/ldc_e.htm.Accessedon13May2014.

21 WorldTradeOrganisation.Respondingtoleastdevelopedcountries’specialneedsinintellectualproperty.http://www.wto.org/english/tratop_e/trips_e/ldc_e.htm

22 Seeforexample,R.SilvaRepettoandM.Cavalcanti.ImplementationofArticle27.3(b):DraftingandEnactingNationalLegislation(Sui GenerisSystems).http://www.fao.org/docrep/003/x7355e/x7355e07.htm

23 UNDP(2008).Towardsabalanced‘suigeneris’PlantVarietyRegime:GuidelinestoEstablishaNationalPVPLawandanUnderstandingofTRIPS-PlusAspectsofPlantRights.[Online]Availableat:http://www.undp.org/content/dam/aplaws/publication/en/publications/poverty-reduction/poverty-website/toward-a-balanced-sui-generis-plant-variety-regime/TowardaBalancedSuiGenerisPlantVarietyRegime.pdf.Accessedon19May2014.

24 AFSA(2013)AllianceForFoodSovereigntyInAfrica.Aripo’sPlantVarietyProtectionLawBasedOnUPOV1991CriminalisesFarmers’RightsAndUnderminesSeedSystemsInAfrica.[Online]Availableat:http://www.acbio.org.za/images/stories/dmdocuments/Afsa-Aripo-Statement.Pdf.Accessedon23May2014.

25 Frison,E.A.,Cherfas,J.&Hodgkin,T.(2011).AgriculturalBiodiversityIsEssentialforaSustainableImprovementinFoodandNutritionSecurity.Sustainability.[Online]Availableat:http://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/3/1/238.Accessedon23May2014.

26 Helfer,L.R.(2004:55).Intellectualpropertyrightsinplantvarieties:Internationallegalregimesandpolicyoptionsfornationalgovernments.FoodandAgricultureOrganisation.[Online]Availableat:http://www.fao.org/docrep/007/y5714e/y5714e00.htm.

Accessedon16May2014.27 UNDP.(2008).Towardsabalanced‘suigeneris’Plant

VarietyRegime:GuidelinestoEstablishaNationalPVPLawandanUnderstandingofTRIPS-PlusAspectsofPlantRights

28 TheThailandPlantVarietiesProtectionAct,B.E.2542(1999)

29 DanielRobinson.ExploringComponentsandElementsofSui GenerisSystemsforPlantVarietyProtectionandTraditionalKnowledgeinAsia.http://www.ictsd.org/sites/default/files/research/2008/06/robinson20sui20generis20march07.pdf

30 Varietyisdefinedas“aplantgroupingwithinasinglebotanicaltaxonofthelowestknownrankwhichis:(1)definedbytheexpressionofcharacteristicsresultingfromagivengenomeorcombinationofgenotypes;(2)distinguishedfromanyotherplantgroupingbytheexpressionofatleastoneofthesaidcharacteristics,andconsideredaunitinregardtoitscapacitytobepropagatedwithoutchanging.”

31 Seeforexample,CivilSocietySubmissiononSADCPVPProtocol(2013).http://www.acbio.org.za/images/stories/dmdocuments/CSO-submission-SADC.pdf

32 LAWSOFMALAYSIAAct634,ProtectionOfNewPlantVarietiesAct2004.

33 CivilSocietySubmissiononSADCPVPProtocol(2013).http://www.acbio.org.za/images/stories/dmdocuments/CSO-submission-SADC.pdf

34 ThirdWorldNetwork.(2014)BiopiracyofTurkey’sPurpleCarrot.http://www.twnside.org.sg/title2/intellectual_property/info.service/2014/ip140212.htm

35 Seealso,similarargumentsrepeatedlybeenmadeinregardtoboththedraftSADCandARIPOPVPlaws:CivilSocietySubmissiononSADCPVPProtocol(2013).http://www.acbio.org.za/images/stories/dmdocuments/CSO-submission-SADC.pdf;SubmissionbyAfricanCSOstoARIPOonitsDraftPVPLawandPolicies,November2012http://www.acbio.org.za/images/stories/dmdocuments/CSOconcernsonARIPO-PVPframework.pdfandAFSA’sCommentsonARIPO’sResponsetoCivilSociety:DraftLegalFrameworkforPlantVarietyProtection,March2014.http://www.acbio.org.za/images/stories/dmdocuments/AFSA-letter-ARIPO-March2014.pdf.

36 Helfer,L.R.(2004:8).Intellectualpropertyrightsinplantvarieties:Internationallegalregimesandpolicyoptionsfornationalgovernments.FoodandAgricultureOrganisation.[Online]Availableat:http://www.fao.org/docrep/007/y5714e/y5714e00.htm.Accessedon16May2014.

37 ResolutionNo.5/89adoptedbyFAOConference,25thSession,Rome,11-20November1998.

38 GuidanceforthepreparationofLawsbasedonthe1991ActoftheUPOVConvention.UPOV/INF/6/2

20 A F R I C A N C E N T R E F O R B I O S A F E T Y

39 Seefurther,AllianceforFoodSovereigntyinAfrica(2013)ARIPO’sPlantVarietyProtectionLawBasedOnUpov1991CriminalisesFarmers’RightsAndUnderminesSeedSystemsInAfrica.[Online]Availableat:http://www.acbio.org.za/images/stories/dmdocuments/AFSA-ARIPO-Statement.pdf.Accessedon1May2014.

40 AfricanModelLegislationfortheProtectionoftheRightsofLocalCommunities,FarmersandBreeders,andfortheRegulationofAccesstoBiologicalResource.DuringtheSummitofHeadsofStateandGovernmentoftheOrganisationofAfricanUnity(nowreplacedbytheAfricanUnion)inMay-June1998,theMinisterialCounciloftheOrganisationofAfricanUnityrecommendedthattheAfricanModelLawbeusedasthebasisfornationallegislationintheAfricanstatesaswellasthebasisforthenegotiationofaConventioninordertocreatearegionalinstrument.SeveralArticlesdealwithbalancingtherightsofPlantBreederswiththoseofFarmers’Rights,anditisconsideredtobeasui generissystem,notwithstandingthatitdealswithcommunityrights,accessandbenefitsharingandsoforth.

41 ThepreviousArticle28(d)readasfollows:“actsdonebysubsistencefarmersfortheuseforpropagatingpurposes,ontheirownholding,theproductoftheharvestwhichtheyhaveobtainedbyplanting,ontheirownholdingstheprotectedvarietiescoveredbyArticle27(3)(a)(i)or(ii)ofthisProtocol.”

42 UnitedNations(2009)GeneralAssemblyDocumentA/64/170titled“SeedPoliciesandtherighttofood:enhancingagrobiodiversityandencouraginginnovation”.[Online]Availableat:http://www.srfood.org/images/stories/pdf/officialreports/20091021_report-ga64_seed-policies-and-the-right-to-food_en.pdf. Accessedon11May2014.

PO Box 29170, Melville 2109, South Africawww.acbio.org.za