[Pirateninfo] Fwd: [BIO-IPR] Mauritius adopting UPOV as opposed to African Union Model Law

Mit Okt 20 14:42:03 CEST 2004

>Date: Wed, 20 Oct 2004 03:03:04 -0400 (EDT)
>From: bio-ipr at grain.org
>BIO-IPR docserver | http://www.grain.org/bio-ipr
>________________________________________________________
>
>TITLE: Plant Breeder's Right: Mauritius Adopting UPOV Model Law as Opposed
>to the African Union Model Law
>AUTHOR: Selva Appasawmy
>DATE: 19 October 2004
>NOTE: The author can be contacted at mailto:ratnum2000 at yahoo.co.uk
>________________________________________________________
>
>PLANT BREEDER'S RIGHT
>MAURITIUS ADOPTING UPOV MODEL LAW AS OPPOSED TO THE AFRICAN UNION MODEL LAW
>
>By Selva Appasawmy
>19 October 2004
>
>Mauritius is in the throes of joining UPOV and adopting a Plant Breeder's
>Right law. The Bill is now in front of the UPOV, (The International Union
>for the Protection of New Varieties of Plants), and will be decided upon by
>UPOV Council on the 21 October 2004, as to whether it is compatible with its
>convention before admitting Mauritius as a member.[1] It is believed that
>once the UPOV Council gives a positive answer on our Plant Breeder's Right
>Bill,[2] it will be a matter of rubberstamping the Bill into law at the
>Mauritian National Assembly.
>
>Just as was the case for the GMO Act,[3] for our proposed adhesion to UPOV
>and the adoption of the Plant Breeder's Right Bill also there have been no
>information given, let alone consultation with civil society and with the
>public in general. Apart from the proponents of this Bill hardly anyone in
>Mauritius is aware either of our application for adhesion to UPOV, along
>with its consequences or what the Plant Breeder's Bill is about.
>
>For those of us who have memories that span more than the latest soundbite
>would recall that in the 70's, while Sir Satcam Boolell was Minister of
>Agriculture of the then labour government, instructions were given by his
>department to uproot all the imported citrus fruit plants (oranges and
>tangerines) in Mauritius and Rodrigues under the pretence that those trees
>were vulnerable to certain diseases. In fact the only motive for such an act
>was to safeguard the monopoly of the fruit importers and the interest of the
>soft drink manufacturers. This episode is one in a long list of wicked acts
>against the interest of this population.
>
>Then about a decade ago, the Ministry of Agriculture in collaboration with
>the French government imported selected plants of vines to sell to the
>population. All those plants were snatched up by the Sugar Industry ensuring
>that not a single plant went 'out' and by an incredible about turn the
>Ministry told the public that vines do not grow well on Mauritian soil,
>while the Sugar Industry were selling grapes produced locally onto the local
>market.
>
>More recently the MSIRI and other research institutes have discovered what
>was known for years by our grandmothers that many of the indigenous plants
>of Mauritius have medicinal properties. These institutes set up seed banks
>and plant nurseries [4] -- then the present government came up with some
>extraordinary measures. War on fallow lands ('terrain en friche') was
>declared. Anyone who left a bit of wild grass on his plot of land was fined
>Rs. 10,000 [5] -- the term used by the local authorities in fining the
>people was that they allowed 'noxious vegetation' to grow on their land.
>People were thus forced to 'clean up' their plots of land, every three
>months, by using either herbicide or just cutting down the overgrowth and
>burning them. This, on an overpopulated and overbuilt island is causing a
>terrible loss of habitat for wildlife. No indigenous plants or wild grass is
>allowed to grow on any bit of land found on the island except on nature
>reserves (mountains and forests).
>
>Significantly, in April 2003, the government presented a Bill for an
>amendment to the Forests and Reserves Act 1983 [6] -- that amendment was
>voted less than a week later -- the amendment goes thus:
>
>"3A Control of access to nature reserves
>The authorised officer may prohibit or restrict access to any nature
>reserve, and shall cause signs to be displayed in the nature reserve
>indicating the prohibition or restriction of access.
>
>4. Section 14 of principal Act amended
>Section 14 of the principal Act is amended by adding the following new
>subsection -
>(5) Except with the authorisation of the authorised officer, no person shall
>enter into or remain in a nature reserve in which a sign prohibiting or
>restricting public access is displayed pursuant to section 3A, otherwise
>than in compliance with the indication in that sign."
>
>Prior to this amendment, the Forest Reserves Act simply said that people
>should respect the natural environment and not behave noisily or cause
>damage in nature reserves. Now with this amendment at any moment, without
>any notice, any of our mountains, hills or bits of forest can be prohibited
>access to the public, by just putting a sign up!
>
>The Government seems to have put all the right legislation in place for what
>is about to happen to this population.
>
>We have already had a glimpse of what is about to take place. We all know
>the story with what is known locally as Mazanbron (Aloe Vera), which was a
>'nuisance' plant that grew everywhere on the island and that today not a
>single plant can be found, except in 'forest reserves'. The private sector
>is now planning to cultivate Mazanbron to sell to the public due to high
>demands.
>
>What has happened to the population in general has also been the fate of the
>small vegetable growers. All types of vegetable have been grown on the
>island for the last two centuries on the fertile soil of Mauritius. In the
>70's the 'private sector' (corporations) started to make incursions in this
>field to the point where today the vegetable growers have to pay exorbitant
>amounts for their seeds. Many of the excellent indigenous or imported
>varieties have disappeared leaving no other choice to the growers than to
>buy hybrid seeds from the seed company -- which seeds often do not always
>produce good seedlings to be saved from one crop to the next.
>
>Now, with the advent of Genetic Engineering and requirements from the WTO,
>those who have had a traditional and natural tendency towards monopolies
>have found an excellent alibi -- thus to put the final nail in the coffin of
>freedom, the government is coming up with the Plant Breeder's Right Bill.
>
>This bill if passed into Act will put in the hands and for the exclusive
>benefits of a few individuals all the traditional knowledge brought to this
>island by our ancestors from various parts of Africa, Madagascar, India,
>China and Europe, along with the knowledge that our ancestors have adapted
>to the local native plants as well as all the plants nature so generously
>provided for us on this speck of land.
>
>When the government talks about our affinity and belonging to Africa --
>these only seem to be used as a screen for local political advantages or
>used as a lever to take whatever advantages we can gain from the continent
>for the benefits of a select few Mauritians.
>
>If there were any sincerity there, we would have abided by what we have
>signed and show a minimum of solidarity to our African counterparts. The
>African Union has painstakingly, with the support of various specialists,
>drafted a model Plant Breeder's Right legislation which is supposed to be
>followed as a model by all African countries and which is a far fairer model
>than the one presented by the government.
>
>The Mauritius Prime Minister who is also the actual President of the SADC
>has totally ignored the African Union model legislation, quite appropriately
>named "For the Protection of the Rights of Local Communities, Farmers and
>Breeders, and for the Regulation of Access to Biological Resources"[7] to
>adopt instead, lock, stock and barrel the UPOV model law,[8] for the
>benefits of a handful of powerful Mauritians, who seem to work in cahoots
>with the US and European multinationals.
>
>This law would give the right to an individual or an organisation classified
>as a breeder and to his descendants to own all the rights on a plant and its
>use for profits and this law classifies as a plant breeder:
>
>"the person who bred, or discovered and developed, a variety,
>- the person who is the employer of the aforementioned person or who has
>commissioned the latter's work, where the laws of the relevant Contracting
>Party so provide, or
>- the successor in title of the first or second aforementioned person, as
>the case may be"
>
>Is this not incredible! If someone discovers a plant that has not been
>catalogued yet, but still a creation of nature or God, then that person if
>he registers it first, will have the sole economic benefit from that plant!
>If that is not the colonisation mentality, then what is it?
>
>Significantly the proposed legislation takes absolutely no account of the
>rights of farmers (planters), the community and its ownership of traditional
>knowledge -- a Bill TOTALLY biased in favour of plant breeders!
>
>Adopting the Bill in its present form would represent one of the biggest
>frauds ever undertaken against the Mauritian people in general and towards
>small planters in particular, for the benefits of the few.
>
>A quick glance at the African Union model legislation would point to us that
>the whole philosophy behind the proposed Mauritian legislation is at the
>opposite pole to the African Union model, to which we are party. The former
>based on UPOV model is only concerned with Plant Breeder's Rights whereas
>the African Union Model law provides a balance between the Right of the
>Community, that of the Farmer and the Breeder's right.
>
>Yet the African Union Model law is clear and starts without any ambiguity
>thus,
>
>"the State and its people exercise sovereign and inalienable rights over
>their biological resources"
>
>"the rights of local communities over their biological resources, knowledge
>and technologies that represent the very nature of their livelihood systems
>and that have evolved over generations of human history, are of a collective
>nature and, therefore, are a priori rights which take precedence over rights
>based on private interests"
>
>"...all forms of life are the basis for human survival, and, therefore, the
>patenting of life, or the exclusive appropriation of any life form or part
>or derivative thereof violates the fundamental human right to life"
>
>"it is the duty of the State and its people to regulate access to biological
>resources and to community knowledge and technologies"
>
>"the State recognizes the necessity of providing adequate mechanisms for
>guaranteeing the just, equitable and effective participation of its citizens
>in the protection of their collective and individual rights and in making
>decisions which affect its biological and intellectual resources as well as
>the activities and benefits derived from their utilization"
>
>And it recognises the Rights of Farmers:
>
>"Farmers' Rights are recognized as stemming from the enormous contributions
>that local farming communities, especially their women members, of all
>regions of the world, particularly those in the centres of origin or
>diversity of crops and other agro-biodiversity, have made in the
>conservation, development and sustainable use of plant and animal genetic
>resources that constitute the basis of breeding for food and agriculture
>production; and For farmers to continue making these achievements,
>therefore, Farmers' Rights have to be recognized and protected."
>
>In India where they adopted the "Plant Breeder's, Farmer's Right bill", [9]
>which in fact falls far short of the necessary protection for the rights of
>communities, there has at least been consultation on the issue with Civil
>Society since 1993 over there.
>
>The Rights of the community and that of Farmers (planters) are the very
>basic requirements that need to be RESPECTED by the Mauritian Bill before
>any meaningful consultation with civil society can even begin.
>
>The Mauritian Plant Breeder's Right Bill in its present form is extremely
>dangerous and detrimental to the population as a whole and our adhesion to
>UPOV would not be in the interest of Mauritians.
>
>It is hoped that our Prime Minister, who is also the present President of
>the SADC will set aside this Bill and adopt the African Union model law to
>which Mauritius is party to, and withdraw our application to join UPOV,
>otherwise we would understand that only the interests of a few are
>safeguarded and that all the noises made in terms of the importance attached
>to our membership of the African Union and that of preserving our
>traditional knowledge (culture) are just hot air meant only to fool some of
>us. It would also be a most extraordinary irony that it was Mauritius
>itself, which presented to the WTO (TRIPS Council) in September 2000, the
>Africa Group position,[10] on Article 27.3 (b) of the TRIPS agreement
>relating to Plant Breeder's Rights, as reflected in the African Union Model
>legislation!
>
>Selva Appasawmy
>19 October 2004
>
>
>[1] Agenda of 38th session of UPOV council on 21 October 2004:
>http://www.upov.int/en/documents/c/index_c38.htm
>
>[2] Mauritius Plant Breeder's Rights Bill:
>http://www.grain.org/brl/?docid=688&lawid=2145
>
>[3] The Mauritian Paradox -- GMO legislation:
>http://www.biosafetyafrica.net/Comments_Biosafety_Law_Mauritius.pdf
>
>[4] Ministry of Agriculture -- Horticultural:
>http://ncb.intnet.mu/moa/hort_anx.htm
>
>[5] Measures by the Ministry of Environment to control fallow land:
>http://www.lexpress.mu/display_article_sup.php?news_id=655
>
>[6] Forest and Reserves Amendment Act:
>http://mauritiusassembly.gov.mu/bills/2003/bill8.doc
>
>[7] AU Community Rights Model Law:
>http://www.grain.org/brl/?docid=798&lawid=2132
>
>[8] UPOV convention:
>http://www.upov.int/en/publications/conventions/1991/w_up910_.htm
>
>[9] Comments by Suman Sahai on India's Plant Variety Protection and Farmer's
>Right Act: http://www.iprsonline.org/ictsd/docs/SahaiBridgesYear5N8Oct2001.pdf
>
>[10] Document IP/C/W/206 sent by Mauritius presenting the AU position to
>TRIPS council on 20 September 2000:
>http://www.geneva.quno.info/pdf/27.3b%20proposals.pdf
>
>
>________________________________________________________
>ABOUT BIO-IPR -- BIO-IPR is an irregular listserver produced by GRAIN. Its
>purpose is to circulate news and information about recent developments in
>the field of intellectual property rights related to biodiversity and
>associated knowledge. BIO-IPR is a strictly non-commercial and educational
>service for nonprofit organisations and individuals active in the struggle
>against IPRs on life. The views expressed in each post are those of the
>indicated author(s).
>ARCHIVES -- The full archives are online at http://www.grain.org/bio-ipr.
>SUBSCRIPTIONS -- To subscribe or modify your subscription details, please go
>to http://www.grain.org/subscribe/bioipr.cfm and either join or login.
>(Those without web access can send a blank message to
>mailto:subscribe-bio-ipr at grain.org.)
>SUBMISSIONS -- To submit material for posting on BIO-IPR, or any questions
>about the list, please contact us at mailto:bio-ipr at grain.org.
>ABOUT US -- GRAIN is a small international NGO working to strengthen
>farmers' control over agricultural biodiversity and local knowledge,
>particularly in developing countries. For more information about GRAIN,
>please visit http://www.grain.org.
>________________________________________________________
>
>To unsubscribe from BIO-IPR click here: 
>http://www.grain.org/unsub.cfm?id=3980&e=a.riekeberg@freenet.de&list=2

...............................
  Andreas Riekeberg
    Räubergasse 2a
  38302 Wolfenbüttel
      05331/77370