The 65-year-old US Plant Patent Act (PPA) has not succeeded in its purported aims of encouraging plant breeding or contributing to genetic diversity, according to a report by the Rural Advancement Fund International.
RAFI felt that an examination of the act was necessary since developing countries are under pressure from northern governments and the World Trade Organisation to adopt similar intellectual property systems for plants. WTO requires member developing countries to adopt plant patent systems by 2000; least developed countries have until 2004.
The Plant Patent Act, enacted in 1930, is the world's oldest system for patenting living things. It grants monopoly protection for 17 years to the "inventor" of new varieties of asexually propagated plants — primarily nuts, fruits and flowers.
RAFI states that the US market for PPA patented crops is worth more than US$16.9 billion per year. Since southern countries contain the vast majority of biodiversity in fruits, flowers and ornamentals worldwide, adopting similar plant patenting systems could have profound implications.
Early proponents of the Plant Patent Act contended that it would provide impetus for plant breeders to develop new and useful varieties. RAFI states that, to the contrary, breeders using PPA have tended to seek patents on increasingly minute variations; patents have been granted on hundreds or even thousands of varieties of a single species.
Twelve species, including rose, chrysanthemum, peach, dianthus and African violet, account for more than 68% of PPA patents.
In addition, many of the "new" varieties awarded patents are really traditional or naturally occurring varieties that were simply taken from developing countries. RAFI states that 88 of the first 200 patents were issued for such pirated plants.
RAFI states that the main beneficiaries of the act have been a relatively small number of highly specialised breeders. PPA breeders declined from a post-World War II average of 16 per million US residents to six per million in 1994.
In recent years, multinational corporations have amassed a significant share of the breeding and seed industries. Agrow World Crop Protection News recently reported that Novartis (Ciba and Sandoz) and Zeneca, both top pesticide companies worldwide, are positioned to become top seed companies as well.
RAFI notes that, compared to other plant patent systems, PPA does have some advantages as a model for developing countries, such as an inexpensive application process that does not require specialised technologies. In addition, it preserves farmers' rights to save and develop planting material for their own purposes.
Nonetheless, these advantages would not necessarily serve farmers in developing countries. RAFI points out that those with money and power will seek to amend any intellectual property system to strengthen their monopolies, even if the original legislation is written with the intent of defending farmers. In addition, rural farmers may simply lack time to apply for patents and may not have adequate legal and financial resources to defend their claims in international patent disputes.
[From Pesticide Action Network North America Updates Service.]