Advertisement

Intellectual Property and the Governance of Plant Genetic Resources in Mexico: Trends and Implications for Research and Innovation

  • David J. Jefferson
  • Ileana Serrano Fraire
  • Luis Felipe Beltrán-Morales
Chapter

Abstract

This chapter explores how the regulation of plant genetic resources intersects with legal regimes granting intellectual property rights in Mexico. Our analysis is directed towards addressing the argument that regimes governing access to plant genetic resources and the sharing of benefits derived from their commercial exploitation could discourage research and innovation in fields that rely on such resources as inputs. To engage with this critique, we examine the relationship between plant genetic resources and intellectual property, because trends in intellectual property protection may elucidate research and innovation dynamics. Our findings surrounding applications for patents and plant breeders’ rights in Mexico indicate that intellectual property activity related to plant genetic resources can intensify even as new frameworks for the governance of these resources are designed and popularized. However, it is important to note that it is still unknown whether the implementation of a national regime based on the Nagoya Protocol in Mexico might impact the activities of users and providers of genetic resources, including in relation to intellectual property protection.

Keywords

Plant genetic resources Intellectual property Nagoya Protocol Access and benefit sharing Mexican native plants 

References

  1. Aung LH, Ball A, Kushad M (1990) Developmental and nutritional aspects of Chayote (Sechium edule, Cucurbitaceae). Econ Bot 44(2):157–164CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Carrasco-Soulé H (2012) La Propiedad Intelectual y la Investigación Farmacéutica. Sociedad, Salud e Innovación. Porrua, Mexico CityGoogle Scholar
  3. Comisión Nacional para el Desarrollo de los Pueblos Indígenas (CDI) (2006) Indicadores Sociodemográficos de la Población Indígena 2000–2005. http://www.cdi.gob.mx/cedulas/sintesis_resultados_2005.pdf
  4. Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) of 5 June (1992) (1760 U.N.T.S. 69)Google Scholar
  5. Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) (2018) Parties to the Nagoya Protocol. Available at https://www.cbd.int/abs/nagoya-protocol/signatories/. Accessed 7 May 2018.
  6. Correa CM (1995) Sovereign and property rights over plant genetic resources. Agric Hum Values 12(4):58–79CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Estrategia Nacional sobre Biodiversidad de México (ENBioMex) y Plan de Acción 2016–2030. 1a edición (2016). Gobierno de México. ISBN: 978-607-8328-76-5Google Scholar
  8. Heller MA, Eisenberg RS (1998) Can patents deter innovation? The anticommons in biomedical research. Science 280(5364):698–701CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. UPOV (1978) International Convention for the Protection of New Varieties of Plants, Act of 1978. Geneva: October 23, 1978Google Scholar
  10. Iñiguez-Covarrubias G, Díaz-Teres R, Sanjuan-Dueñas R, Anzaldo-Hernández J, Rowell RM (2001) Utilization of by-products from the tequila industry. Part 2: potential value of Agave tequilana Weber azul leaves. Bioresour Technol 77(2001):101–108CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. Jinnah S, Jungcurt S (2009) Could access requirements stifle your research? Science 323(5913):464–465CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. Kamau EC, Fedder B, Winter G (2010) The Nagoya Protocol on access to genetic resources and benefit sharing: what is new and what are the implications for provider and user countries and the scientific community? Law Environ Dev J 6(3):246Google Scholar
  13. Lee BK, Sohn SY (2016) Patent portfolio-based indicators to evaluate the commercial benefits of national plant genetic resources. Ecol Indic 70:43–52CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Lei Z, Juneja R, Wright BD (2009) Patents versus patenting: implications of intellectual property protection for biological research. Nat Biotechnol 27(1):36–40CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. Ley de Propiedad Industrial (LPI) (27 June 1991) Diario Oficial de la Federación de México. (Reformed 9 April 2012)Google Scholar
  16. Ley Federal de Variedades Vegetales (LFVV) (25 October 1996) Diario Oficial de la Federación de MéxicoGoogle Scholar
  17. Martín-Martínez S (2013). Ecología y usos de especies forestales de interés commercial de las zonas áridas de México. SAGARPA. ISBN: 978-607-37-0177-8. Pp. 176Google Scholar
  18. Mittermeier RA, Robles-Gil P, Mittermeier CG (eds) (1997) Megadiversity: earth’s biologically wealthiest nations. CEMEX/Agrupación Sierra Madre, Mexico CityGoogle Scholar
  19. Nijar GS (2011) The Nagoya protocol on access and benefit sharing of genetic resources: analysis and implementation options for developing countries. South Centre Research Paper No. 36. South Centre and CEBLAWGoogle Scholar
  20. Nagoya Protocol on Access to Genetic Resources and the Fair and Equitable Sharing of Benefits Arising from their Utilization (ABS) to the Convention on Biological Diversity of 29 October 2010 (n.d.)Google Scholar
  21. Nelliyat P (2017) Bio-resources valuation for ensuring equity in access and benefit sharing: issues and challenges. In: Biodiversity for sustainable development. Springer, Cham, pp 135–153Google Scholar
  22. Raustiala K, Victor DG (2004) The regime complex for plant genetic resources. Int Organ 58(2):277–309CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Secretaria de Agricultura, Ganadería, Desarrollo Rural, Pesca y Alimentación (SAGARPA) y Servicio Nacional de Inspección y Certificación de Semillas (SNICS) (2017) “Proceso transitorio para la atención de solicitudes de acceso a recursos fitogenéticos para la alimentación y la agricultura conforme al Protocolo de Nagoya”Google Scholar
  24. Servicio Nacional de Inspección y Certificación de Semillas (SNICS) (2016) Gaceta Oficial de los Derechos de Obtentor de Variedades Vegetales. Septiembre, 2016Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing AG, part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  • David J. Jefferson
    • 1
    • 2
  • Ileana Serrano Fraire
    • 3
  • Luis Felipe Beltrán-Morales
    • 3
  1. 1.The Public Intellectual Property Resource for Agriculture (PIPRA)University of California, DavisDavisUSA
  2. 2.The Harnessing Intellectual Property to Build Food Security ProjectUniversity of Queensland TC Beirne School of LawBrisbaneAustralia
  3. 3.Intellectual Property and Technology Commercialization OfficeCentro de Investigaciones Biológicas del Noroeste, La PazBaja California SurMexico

Personalised recommendations