Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Access to Plant Genetic Resources for Food and Agriculture

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Local Knowledge, Intellectual Property and Agricultural Innovation

  • 429 Accesses

Abstract

This chapter looks at the contribution of plant genetic resources to agricultural innovation and concerns about the appropriation of those resources by unauthorized persons. It details ‘biopiracy’ episodes which have involved patents and plant variety rights. The chapter looks at the role of the traditional knowledge of indigenous peoples and farmers in identifying useful genetic resources. The international conventions regulating access to genetic resources are described, including the Convention on Biological Diversity, the Nagoya Protocol, the International Treaty on Plant Genetic Resources for Food and Agriculture and the World Trade Organization Agreement on Trade Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPS). The chapter concludes with an examination of the negotiations for a treaty on genetic resources at the World Intellectual Property Organization.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 119.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 159.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 159.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Notes

  1. 1.

    US Patent US5411736 A.

  2. 2.

    US Patent 5,663,484.

  3. 3.

    U.S. Patent No. 5,663,484, Reexamination Certificate C1 (4525th) (reissued Jan. 29, 2002).

  4. 4.

    U.S. patent 5,859,339.

  5. 5.

    Patent 5,663,484 (USPTO).

  6. 6.

    US Patent 5,894,079.

  7. 7.

    US patent No. 5,276,268.

  8. 8.

    CIMMYT, Policy on Intellectual Property, Article III.4.v, available at www.cimmyt.org/resources/obtaining/seed/ip_policy/htm/ip-policy.htm, accessed 18 October 2019.

  9. 9.

    US Patent 7175862.

  10. 10.

    WO/2007/084998.

  11. 11.

    The Examination Report is available at http://pericles.ipaustralia.gov.au/ols/auspat/applicationDetails.do?applicationNo=2007205838, accessed 18 October 2019.

  12. 12.

    ‘Bonn Guidelines on Access to Genetic Resources and Fair and Equitable Sharing of the Benefits Arising out of their Utilization’ in Report of the Sixth Meeting of the Conference of the Parties to the Convention on Biological Diversity, UN Doc. UNEP/CBD/COP/6/20 (2002).

  13. 13.

    UNEP/CBD/COP/10/L.43/Rev.129 October 2010.

  14. 14.

    Eg Seventh session of the Governing Bodies held in Kigali, 30 October to 3 November 2017, International Treaty Doc., IT/GB-7/17/L12 Rev.1

  15. 15.

    Global Consultation Conference on Farmers’ Rights held in Addis Ababa in November 2010, reproduced in IT/GB-4/11/Circ.1, Annex 1, para.11.

  16. 16.

    Ibid., para 12.

  17. 17.

    WTO Doc. IP/C/W/228, IP/C/M/32, para. 128, IP/C/M/33, para. 121 (Brazil).

  18. 18.

    https://www.wipo.int/export/sites/www/tk/en/igc/pdf/igc_mandate_2020-2021.pdf, accessed 22 October 2019.

  19. 19.

    Section 6(1), Indian Biodiversity Act of 2002.

References

  • Blakeney, M. (1997). Protection of traditional medical knowledge of indigenous peoples. European Intellectual Property Review, 19, 298–302.

    Google Scholar 

  • Blakeney, M. (1998). Intellectual property rights in the genetic resources of international agricultural research institutes- some recent problems. Biosci Law Rev, 1, 3–11.

    Google Scholar 

  • Blakeney, M. (2000). Protection of traditional knowledge under intellectual property law. European Intellectual Property Review, 22, 251–261.

    Google Scholar 

  • Blakeney, M. (2001) ‘Intellectual property aspects of traditional agricultural knowledge’, in IP in Blakeney, M. and Drahos, P. (eds.) Biodiversity and agriculture: Regulating the biosphere, London, Sweet & Maxwell, 29–52.

    Google Scholar 

  • Blakeney, M. (2004). Bioprospecting and biopiracy. In B. Ong (Ed.), Intellectual property and biological resources (pp. 393–424). Singapore, Singapore: Marshall Cavendish.

    Google Scholar 

  • Blakeney, M. (2016). The negotiations in WIPO for international conventions on traditional knowledge and traditional cultural expressions. In J. C. Lai & A. M. Dominicé (Eds.), Intellectual property and access to im/material goods. Cheltenham, UK: Edward Elgar.

    Google Scholar 

  • Blakeney, M. (2019). Remedying the misappropriation of genetic resources. In H. B. Singh, C. Keswani, & S. P. Singh (Eds.), Intellectual property issues in microbiology (pp. 147–162). Singapore, Singapore: Springer.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Brazil (2006) WIPO Doc, SCT/16/9.

    Google Scholar 

  • Brody, B. A. (2010). Intellectual property, state sovereignty, and biotechnology. Kennedy Institute of Ethics Journal, 20(1), 50–73.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cabrera, J. et al. (2012). Survey of future just biodiversity laws & policies. Available at https://www.worldfuturecouncil.org/file/2016/01/WFC_CISDL_2012_Survey_of_Future_Just__Biodiversity_Policies_and_Laws.pdf. Accessed 22 Oct 2019.

  • CGIAR. (1998). CGIAR urges halt to granting of intellectual property rights for designated plant germplasm. Press Release, February 11, quoted in Blakeney, (2001).

    Google Scholar 

  • Chandler, M. (1993). The biodiversity convention: Selected issues of interest to the international lawyer. Colorado Journal of International Law and Policy, 4(1), 140–175.

    Google Scholar 

  • Chen, J. (2000). Diversity and deadlock: Transcending conventional wisdom on the relationship between biological diversity and intellectual property. CASRIP Publication Series: Rethinking Int’l Intellectual Property, No.6 (pp. 167–217).

    Google Scholar 

  • Chen, J. (2005). There’s no such thing as biopiracy … And It’s a good thing too. McGeorge Law Review, 36, 1–35.

    Google Scholar 

  • CIAT. (2008, May 2). US Patent Office rejects US company’s patent protection for bean commonly grown by Latin American Farmers. Press Release. Available at www.cgiar.org. Accessed 18 Oct 2019.

  • Cohen, J., Falconi, C., Komen, J., & Blakeney, M. (1998). The use of proprietary biotechnology research inputs at selected CGIAR centres. The Hague, The Netherlands: CGIAR.

    Google Scholar 

  • De Pace, C., et al. (2011). Deployment of either a whole or dissected wild nuclear genome into the wheat gene pool meets the breeding challenges posed by the sustainable farming systems. Plant Genetic Resources: Characterization and Utilization, 9(2), 352–356.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dias, J. S. (2015). Biodiversity and plant breeding as tools for harmony between modern agriculture production and the environment. In M. Caliskan, et al. (Eds.), Molecular approaches to genetic diversity (pp. 3–44). Rijeka, Croatia: Intexch.

    Google Scholar 

  • Edwards, R., & Anderson, I. (1998). Seeds of wrath. New Scientist, 157(2121), 14–15.

    Google Scholar 

  • Efferth, T. (2019). Biopiracy of medicinal plants: Finding fair solutions for the use of natural resources. Phytomedicine, 53, 294–295.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • ETC Group. (2005). ETC Group Web Site. Available at: http://www.etcgroup.org/text/txt_key_defs.asp. Accessed 14 Oct 2019.

  • FAO. (1994). The State of the World’s Plant Genetic Resources for Food and Agriculture. Rome: FAO.

    Google Scholar 

  • FAO. (2006). Report of the First Session of the Governing Body of the International Treaty on Plant Genetic Resources for Food and Agriculture (IT/GB-1/06/Report). Madrid, Spain.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fowler, C., & Hodgkin, T. (2004). Plant genetic resources for food and agriculture: Assessing global availability. Annual Review of Environmental Resources, 29, 10.1–10.37.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Glowka, L. (1998). A guide to designing legal frameworks to determine access to genetic resources. Gland, Switzerland: IUCN.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gorman, J. T., Griffiths, A. D., & Whitehead, P. J. (2006). An analysis of the use of plant products for commerce in remote aboriginal communities of northern Australia. Economic Botany, 60(4), 362–373.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hajjar, R., & Hodgkin, T. (2007). The use of wild relatives in crop improvement: A survey of developments over the last 20 years. Euphytica, 156, 1–13.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Halewood, M., & Nnadozie, K. (2008). Giving priority to the commons: The international treaty on plant genetic resources for food and agriculture. In G. Tansey & T. Rajotte (Eds.), The future control of food. A guide to international negotiations and rules on intellectual property, biodiversity and food security (pp. 115–140). London: Earthscan.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hansen, S. A., & Van Fleet, J. W. (2007). Issues and options for traditional knowledge holders in protecting their intellectual property. In A. Krattiger, R. T. Mahoney, L. Nelsen, et al. (Eds.), Intellectual property management in health and agricultural innovation: A handbook of best practices (pp. 1523–1538). Oxford: MIHR, and PIPRA.

    Google Scholar 

  • Heald, P. J. (2003). The rhetoric of biopiracy. Cardozo Journal of International and Comparative Law, 11, 519.

    Google Scholar 

  • Holcombe, S., & Janke, T. (2012). Patenting the Kakadu Plum and the Marjarla tree: Biodiscovery, intellectual property and indigenous knowledge. In M. Rimmer & A. McLennan (Eds.), Intellectual property and emerging technologies: The new biology (pp. 293–319). Cheltenham, UK: Edward Elgar.

    Google Scholar 

  • Huaman, Z. (2001). Unethical distribution to Japan of Yacon held in trust by CIP, quoted in Blakeney, 2001.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kloppenburg, J., & Kleinman, D. (1988). Seeds of controversy: National property versus common heritage. In J. Kloppenburg (Ed.), Seeds and sovereignty: The use and control of plant genetic resources (pp. 1–15). Raleigh: Duke University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lightbourne, M. (2003). Of rice and men. An attempt to assess the basmati affair. The Journal of World Intellectual Property, 6(6), 875–894.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mahop, M. T. (2006). Community rights and biodiversity regulations: Lessons from Cameroon and South Africa. PhD thesis, Queen Mary, University of London.

    Google Scholar 

  • Matthews, D. (2011). Intellectual property, human rights and development. The role of NGOs and social movements. Cheltenham, UK: Edward Elgar.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Maxted, N., & Kell, S. (2009). Establishment of a global network for the in situ conservation of crop wild relatives: Status and needs (Background study paper No. 39). Commission on Genetic Resources for Food and Agriculture, FAO, Rome.

    Google Scholar 

  • Maxted, N., et al. (2012). Toward the systematic conservation of global crop wild relative diversity. Crop Science, 52(2), 774–785.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • McChesney, G. (1996). Biological diversity, chemical diversity and the search for new pharmaceuticals. In M. Balick, E. Elisabetsky, & S. Laird (Eds.), Medicinal resources of the tropical forest: Biodiversity and its importance to human health (pp. 11–18). New York: University of Columbia Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • McGown, J. (2006). Out of Africa: Mysteries of access and benefit sharing. Washington, DC: Edmonds Institute and African Centre for Biosafety.

    Google Scholar 

  • McNeely, J. A. (2001). Biodiversity and agricultural development: The crucial institutional issues. In D. R. Lee & C. B. Barrett (Eds.), Tradeoffs or synergies? Agricultural intensification, economic development and the environment (pp. 399–412). Wallingford, UK: CABI.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Mittermeier, R. A. P., Robles. G., & Mittermeier, C. G. (Eds). (1989). Megadiversity: earth’s biologically wealthiest nations. Mexico City: Cemex.

    Google Scholar 

  • Micalizzi, J. (2017). Misappropriation of genetic resources in Africa. A study of: Pentadiplandra Brazzeana, Impatiens Usambarensis, and Combretum Micranthum. Journal of Law, Technology & the Internet, 8, 1–29.

    Google Scholar 

  • Nottenburg, C. (2009). The Enola Bean Patent Controversy. Harvest Choice. Available at http://harvestchoice.org/sites/default/files/downloads/publications/Nottenburg2009HarvestChoice%2D%2DEnolaBeanControversy-5S.pdf. Accessed 17 Oct 2019.

  • Peru. (2005, May 30). The patent system and the fight against biopiracy – The Peruvian experience. WTO Document: WIPO/GRTKF/IC/8/12..

    Google Scholar 

  • Peru. (2006, March 15). Analysis of Potential Cases of Biopiracy, WIPO Doc. WIPO/GRTKF/IC/9/10.

    Google Scholar 

  • Plant Variety Protection, International Agricultural Research and Exchange of Germplasm: Blakeney, M. (2000). Legal aspects of the new sui generis regimes. In W. Padolina (Ed.), Plant variety protection of Rice in developing countries (Impacts on Research and Development) (pp. 9–22). Los Banos, Philippines: IRRI.

    Google Scholar 

  • Prescott-Allen, R., & Prescott Allen, C. (1988). Genes from the wild: Using wild genetic resources for food and raw materials (2nd ed.). London: Earthscan Publications.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rattray, G. N. (2002). The Enola bean patent controversy: Biopiracy, novelty and fish-and-chips. Duke Law and Technology Review, 1, 1–8.

    Google Scholar 

  • Robinson, D. F. (2010). Confronting biopiracy: Challenges, cases and international debates. London: Earthscan.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Sharma, B., Maurya, S. S., & Brahmacharimayum, B. J. (2018). India’s fight against agricultural and medicinal plants’ biopiracy: Its implications on food security, traditional rights and knowledge degradation. International Journal of Agriculture, Environment and Biotechnology, 11(6), 881–887.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Shiva, V. (2000). Stolen harvest: The hijacking of the global food supply. London: Zed Books.

    Google Scholar 

  • Shiva, V. (2001). Protect or plunder? Understanding intellectual property right. London: Zed Books.

    Google Scholar 

  • Shiva, V. (2013). The neem tree – a case history of biopiracy. Available at http://www.twnside.org.sg/title/pir-ch.htm. Accessed 30 April 2020.

  • Shiva, V., & Holla-Bhar, R. (1996). Piracy by patent: The case of the neem tree. In G. Mander & E. Goldsmith (Eds.), The case against the global economy (pp. 146–159). San Francisco: Sierra Club Books.

    Google Scholar 

  • Srivastava, M., (2011). Bio piracy of medicinal plants & practices: Sacrilege of aboriginal Indian traditional knowledge. Available at https://ssrn.com/abstract=2149878. Accessed 16 Oct 2019.

  • Subbiah, S. (2004). Reaping what they sow: The basmati rice controversy and strategies for protecting traditional knowledge. Boston College. International and Comparative Law Review, 27, 529–559.

    Google Scholar 

  • ten Kate, K., & Laird, S. A. (2000). The commercial use of biodiversity: Access to genetic resources and benefit. London: Earthscan.

    Google Scholar 

  • UK Parliament. (1999). Appendix 7 to the minutes of evidence of the select committee on environmental audit, 1999. London: UK Parliament.

    Google Scholar 

  • UNEP. (2000, April 20). Progress report on the implementation of the programmes of work-information on marine and coastal genetic resources including bioprospecting. UNEP/CBD/COP/5/INF/7.

    Google Scholar 

  • WIPO. (2000, August 25). Matters concerning intellectual property genetic resources traditional knowledge and folklore. WIPO Doc, WO/GA/26/6.

    Google Scholar 

  • WIPO, IGC. (2001, September 10). WIPO Doc. WIPO/GRTKF/IC/2/3.

    Google Scholar 

  • WIPO, IGC. (2003). Patents referring to Lepidium meyenii (maca): responses of Peru. Document submitted by the Delegation of Peru, WIPO/GRTKF/IC/5/13.

    Google Scholar 

  • WIPO, IGC. (2019, April 9). Consolidated Document Relating to Intellectual Property and Genetic Resources, Rev. 2. WIPO Doc. WIPO/GRTKF/40/6.

    Google Scholar 

  • WIPO/UNEP. (2001). The role of intellectual property rights in the sharing of benefits arising from the use of biological resources and associated traditional knowledge (Selected case studies). Geneva, Switzerland: WIPO.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wright, B. D. (1998). Intellectual property and farmers’ rights. In R. Evenson, D. Gollin, & V. Santaniello (Eds.), Agricultural values of plant genetic resources (p. 228). Wallingford, UK: CABI.

    Google Scholar 

  • Yusuf, A. A. (1994). International law and sustainable development: The convention on biological diversity. In A. A. Yusuf (Ed.), African yearbook of international law (Vol. 2, pp. 109–137). The Hague, The Netherlands\Boston\London: Kluwer.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. School of Law, The University of Western Australia, Crawley, WA, Australia

    Michael Blakeney

Authors
  1. Michael Blakeney
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Michael Blakeney .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. School of Law, The University of Western Australia, Crawley, WA, Australia

    Michael Blakeney

  2. Hackett Professor of Agriculture Chair and Director of The UWA Institute of Agriculture, University of Western Australia, Crawley, WA, Australia

    Kadambot H. M. Siddique

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2020 Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd.

About this chapter

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this chapter

Blakeney, M. (2020). Access to Plant Genetic Resources for Food and Agriculture. In: Blakeney, M., Siddique, K. (eds) Local Knowledge, Intellectual Property and Agricultural Innovation. Springer, Singapore. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-15-4611-2_3

Download citation

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation