{"title":"生物多样性和农业中植物品种和传统知识的特殊保护:菲律宾和印度的国际框架和国家方法","authors":"C. Antons","doi":"10.2139/SSRN.2617565","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"The so-called 'biotechnology clause' of Article 27.3(b) of the WTO-TRIPS Agreement requires from member states protection for plant varieties either via the patent system or via an 'effective sui generis system' or by a combination of the two. Many developing countries prefer forms of sui generis protection, which allow them to include exceptions and protection measures for traditional agricultural practices and the traditional knowledge of farmers and local communities. However, 'traditional knowledge' remains a vaguely defined term. Its extension to biodiversity has brought a diffusion of the previously clearer link between protected subject matter, intellectual property and potential beneficiaries. The Philippine legislation attempts a 'bottom-up' approach focusing on the holistic perceptions of indigenous communities, whereas national economic interests thus far receive priority in India’s more centralist approach. Administrative decentralisation, recognition of customary rights, disclosure requirements, registers of landraces and geographical indications are discussed as additional measures, but their implementation is equally challenging. The article concludes that many of the concepts remain contested and that governments have to balance the new commercial incentives with the biodiversity considerations that led to their introduction, so that the system can be made sufficiently attractive for both knowledge holders and potential users of the knowledge.","PeriodicalId":106680,"journal":{"name":"Indian Journal of Law and Technology","volume":"6 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"1900-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"10","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Sui Generis Protection for Plant Varieties and Traditional Knowledge in Biodiversity and Agriculture: The International Framework and National Approaches in the Philippines and India\",\"authors\":\"C. Antons\",\"doi\":\"10.2139/SSRN.2617565\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"The so-called 'biotechnology clause' of Article 27.3(b) of the WTO-TRIPS Agreement requires from member states protection for plant varieties either via the patent system or via an 'effective sui generis system' or by a combination of the two. Many developing countries prefer forms of sui generis protection, which allow them to include exceptions and protection measures for traditional agricultural practices and the traditional knowledge of farmers and local communities. However, 'traditional knowledge' remains a vaguely defined term. Its extension to biodiversity has brought a diffusion of the previously clearer link between protected subject matter, intellectual property and potential beneficiaries. The Philippine legislation attempts a 'bottom-up' approach focusing on the holistic perceptions of indigenous communities, whereas national economic interests thus far receive priority in India’s more centralist approach. Administrative decentralisation, recognition of customary rights, disclosure requirements, registers of landraces and geographical indications are discussed as additional measures, but their implementation is equally challenging. The article concludes that many of the concepts remain contested and that governments have to balance the new commercial incentives with the biodiversity considerations that led to their introduction, so that the system can be made sufficiently attractive for both knowledge holders and potential users of the knowledge.\",\"PeriodicalId\":106680,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Indian Journal of Law and Technology\",\"volume\":\"6 1\",\"pages\":\"0\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"1900-01-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"10\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Indian Journal of Law and Technology\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.2139/SSRN.2617565\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Indian Journal of Law and Technology","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.2139/SSRN.2617565","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
Sui Generis Protection for Plant Varieties and Traditional Knowledge in Biodiversity and Agriculture: The International Framework and National Approaches in the Philippines and India
The so-called 'biotechnology clause' of Article 27.3(b) of the WTO-TRIPS Agreement requires from member states protection for plant varieties either via the patent system or via an 'effective sui generis system' or by a combination of the two. Many developing countries prefer forms of sui generis protection, which allow them to include exceptions and protection measures for traditional agricultural practices and the traditional knowledge of farmers and local communities. However, 'traditional knowledge' remains a vaguely defined term. Its extension to biodiversity has brought a diffusion of the previously clearer link between protected subject matter, intellectual property and potential beneficiaries. The Philippine legislation attempts a 'bottom-up' approach focusing on the holistic perceptions of indigenous communities, whereas national economic interests thus far receive priority in India’s more centralist approach. Administrative decentralisation, recognition of customary rights, disclosure requirements, registers of landraces and geographical indications are discussed as additional measures, but their implementation is equally challenging. The article concludes that many of the concepts remain contested and that governments have to balance the new commercial incentives with the biodiversity considerations that led to their introduction, so that the system can be made sufficiently attractive for both knowledge holders and potential users of the knowledge.