You are here:
NZLII >>
Databases >>
New Zealand Ad Hoc Government Discussion Papers >>
2018 >>
[2018] NZAHGovDP 1
Database Search
| Name Search
| Recent Documents
| Noteup
| LawCite
| Download
| Help
Issues paper. Review of the Plant Variety Rights Act 1987 [2018] NZAHGovDP 1 (7 September 2018)
Last Updated: 26 April 2020
![2018_100.png](2018_100.png)
![2018_101.png](2018_101.png)
![2018_102.png](2018_102.png)
![2018_103.png](2018_103.png)
Issues Paper
Review of the Plant Variety Rights Act 1987
September 2018
MBIE 3976
![2018_104.png](2018_104.png)
Permission to reproduce
![2018_105.png](2018_105.png)
Crown Copyright ©
This work is licensed under the Creative
Commons Attribution 4.0 International License. To view a copy of this license,
visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/.
Important notice
The opinions contained in
this document are those of the Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment
and do not reflect official
Government policy. Readers are advised to seek
specific legal advice from a qualified professional person before undertaking
any
action in reliance on the contents of this publication. The contents of this
discussion paper must not be construed as legal advice.
The Ministry does not
accept any responsibility or liability whatsoever whether in contract, tort,
equity or otherwise for any action
taken as a result of reading, or reliance
placed on the Ministry because of having read, any part, or all, of the
information in
this discussion paper or for any error, inadequacy, deficiency,
flaw in or omission from the discussion paper.
ISBN 978-1-98-853588-3 (online)
![2018_106.png](2018_106.png)
How to have your say
Submissions process
The
Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment (MBIE) seeks written
submissions on the issues raised in this document by 5pm on Friday, 21
December 2018.
Your submission may respond to any or all of these issues. Where possible,
please include evidence to support your views, for example
references to
independent research, facts and figures, or relevant
examples.
Please use the submission template provided at: http://www.mbie.govt.nz/info-
services/business/intellectual-property/plant-variety-rights/review/issues-paper.
This will help us to collate submissions and ensure that your views are
fully considered. Please also include your name and (if applicable)
the name of
your organisation in your submission.
Please include your contact details in the cover letter or email accompanying
your submission. You can make your submission:
Business Law
Building, Resources and Markets
Ministry of Business, Innovation & Employment PO Box 1473
Wellington 6140 New Zealand
Please direct any questions that you
have in relation to the submissions process to PVRActReview@mbie.govt.nz
Engagement
In
addition to receiving written submissions, we will be holding regional hui and
public meetings across the country in October-December
2018 to hear views about
the issues covered in this paper and any other issues in the plant variety
rights regime. You can find further
information and register your interest in
attending one of these hui or public meetings at: http://www.mbie.govt.nz/info-
services/business/intellectual-property/plant-variety-rights/review/issues-paper
This paper includes discussion of how the Crown should meet its
Treaty of Waitangi obligations in the plant variety right regime.
We have
developed a Māori Engagement Plan for the issues stage of the Plant
Variety Rights Act 1987 review, which can be found here: http://www.mbie.govt.nz/info-
services/business/intellectual-property/plant-variety-rights/review/maori-engagement-plan.
We are interested in your feedback as to how we engage with Māori as this
review progresses.
i
![2018_106.png](2018_106.png)
Use of information
The
information provided in submissions will be used to inform MBIE’s policy
development process, and will inform advice to
Ministers on whether any changes
need to be made to the Plant Variety Rights Act 1987. We may contact
submitters directly if we require clarification of any matters in
submissions.
Release of information
MBIE
intends to upload PDF copies of submissions received to MBIE’s website at
www.mbie.govt.nz. MBIE will consider you
to have consented to uploading by making a submission, unless you clearly
specify otherwise in your submission.
If your submission contains any information that is confidential or you
otherwise wish us not to publish, please:
- indicate this on
the front of the submission, with any confidential information clearly marked
within the text
- provide a
separate version excluding the relevant information for publication on our
website.
Submissions remain subject to request under the Official Information Act
1982. Please set out clearly in the cover letter or email accompanying your
submission if you have any objection to the release of any
information in the
submission, and in particular, which parts you consider should be withheld,
together with the reasons for withholding
the information. MBIE will take such
objections into account and will consult with submitters when responding to
requests under the
Official Information Act.
Private information
The
Privacy Act 1993 establishes certain principles with respect to the
collection, use and disclosure of information about individuals by various
agencies,
including MBIE. Any personal information you supply to MBIE in the
course of making a submission will only be used for the purpose
of assisting in
the development of policy advice in relation to this review. Please clearly
indicate in the cover letter or e-mail
accompanying your submission if you do
not wish your name, or any other personal information, to be included in any
summary of submissions
that MBIE may publish.
ii
Contents
Glossary and Acronyms
Descriptions
of key terms here are not intended to be definitions.
2005 draft Bill
|
consultation in 2005
|
biological resources
|
Includes genetic resources, organisms, parts of organisms, populations and
any other biotic component of an ecosystem with actual
or potential use or value
for humanity (CBD definition) (e.g. honey)
|
bioprospecting
|
The collection of biological material and the analysis of its material
properties, or its molecular, biochemical or genetic content,
for the purpose of
developing a commercial product
|
botanical variety
|
A naturally occurring plant grouping within a species. They are generally
used to distinguish groups of plants of a species that have
a common single
characteristic or one or more defining common sets of characteristics. Some
botanical varieties are known as subspecies
|
CBD
|
Convention on Biological Diversity
|
Commissioner
|
The Commissioner of Plant Variety Rights. The Commissioner is part of the
Plant Variety Rights Office, within the Intellectual Property
Office of New
Zealand
|
CPTPP
|
Comprehensive and Progressive Agreement for Trans-Pacific Partnership
|
cultivated variety
|
A plant grouping within a single botanical taxon of the lowest rank, whose
horticultural or agricultural origin is primarily due to
intentional human
activity, and is defined by traits which are consistently expressed, and can be
propagated unchanged (e.g. the
kiwifruit variety ‘Zesy002’ which is
commonly sold under the brand SunGold®). Includes any clone, hybrid, stock,
or line, of a plant, and excludes botanical varieties
|
DUS
|
Distinct, uniform and stable (requirement)
|
EDV
|
Essentially derived variety
|
EU
|
European Union
|
genetic resources
|
Genetic material of actual or potential value. ‘Genetic
material’ is any material of plant, animal, microbial or other
origin
containing functional units of heredity (CBD definition) (e.g. mānuka
plant)
|
genotype
|
The genetic makeup of an organism
|
hybridise
|
To cross-breed two different varieties or species of plant, often to
attain desired characteristics in the parent plants
|
IPONZ
|
Intellectual Property Office of New Zealand
|
ITPGRFA
|
International Treaty on Plant Genetic Resources for Food and
Agriculture
|
kaitiaki
|
Guardian, protector, caretaker
|
kaitiaki relationship recommendations
|
The Waitangi Tribunal’s two main recommendations in the Wai 262
report:
- that the
Commissioner be empowered to refuse a PVR that would affect the kaitiaki
relationship; and
- that the
Commissioner be supported by a Māori advisory
committee in
his/her consideration of the kaitiaki interest
|
kaitiakitanga
|
The obligation to nurture and care for the mauri of a taonga; ethic of
guardianship, protection (Wai 262 report)
|
mātauranga Māori
|
The Waitangi Tribunal referred to mātauranga Māori as “the
unique Māori way of viewing the world, incorporating
both Māori
culture and Māori traditional knowledge” (Wai 262 report)
|
mana
|
Authority, prestige, reputation, spiritual power (Wai 262 report)
|
mauri
|
The life principle or living essence contained in all things, animate and
inanimate (Wai 262 report)
|
MBIE
|
Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment
|
Nagoya Protocol
|
Nagoya Protocol on Access to Genetic Resources and the Fair and Equitable
Sharing of Benefits Arising from their Utilization to the
Convention on
Biological Diversity
|
phenotype
|
The set of observable characteristics of an organism resulting from the
interaction of its genotype with the environment (e.g. leaf
shape)
|
PVR Journal
|
A journal published quarterly by the Plant Variety Rights Office. It
includes notice of every decision to make or decline a grant,
and all prescribed
particulars relating to applications and grants
|
PMAC
|
In this paper, PMAC refers to the Patents Māori Advisory Committee
(not the Plant Market Access Council, which will be familiar
to farmers)
|
propagating material
|
Any part of a plant that is normally or traditionally used to propagate
plants, including reproductive (e.g. spores, seeds) and vegetative
(e.g.
cuttings) propagating material
While the term ‘reproductive material’ is used in the PVR Act
to describe all propagating material, we consider that ‘propagating
material’ is more accurate and have used this term in this paper
|
PVR
|
Plant variety right
|
PVR Act
|
|
PVR regime
|
New Zealand’s plant variety rights regime
|
PVRO
|
Plant Variety Rights Office
|
reproductive material
|
Any part of a plant that is normally or traditionally used to reproduce a
plant (e.g. seeds). Reproductive material is a subset of
propagating material.
See ‘propagating material’
|
RMA
|
Resource Management Act 1991
|
rangatiratanga
|
Chieftainship, self-determination, the right to exercise authority; imbued
with expectations of right behaviour, appropriate priorities,
and ethical
decision-making (Wai 262 report)
|
rongoā
|
Traditional Māori medicine, including herbal medicine made from
plants, physical techniques like massage, and spiritual healing
|
taonga
|
A treasured possession, including property, resources and abstract concepts
such as language, cultural knowledge, and relationships
(Wai 262 report)
|
taonga species
|
Taonga species are native birds, plants and animals of special cultural
significance and importance to Māori
|
tino rangatiratanga
|
The greatest or highest chieftainship; self-determination, autonomy;
control, full authority to make decisions (Wai 262 report)
|
TPP
|
Trans-Pacific Partnership Agreement
|
Tribunal
|
Waitangi Tribunal
|
TRIPS Agreement
|
World Trade Organization Agreement on Trade Related Aspects of Intellectual
Property Rights
|
UNDRIP
|
United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples
|
UPOV
|
International Union for the Protection of New Varieties of Plants
(Union Internationale pour la Protection des Obtentions
Végétales)
|
UPOV Convention
|
International Convention on the Protection of New Varieties of Plants
|
UPOV members
|
Countries that have ratified the International Convention on the Protection
of New Varieties of Plants
|
UPOV 78
|
The 1978 revision of the International Convention on the Protection of New
Varieties of Plants
|
UPOV 91
|
The 1991 revision of the International Convention on the
Protection of New Varieties of Plants
|
variety
|
See ‘cultivated variety’
|
variety denomination
|
A generic name which allows the protected variety to be identified
|
vegetative propagation
|
A form of asexual reproduction of plants (e.g. reproduction by bulbs or
tubers, the planting of cuttings, or grafting and budding
of fruit trees)
|
Wai 262 report
|
Waitangi Tribunal report entitled Ko Aotearoa Tēnei: A Report into
Claims Concerning New Zealand Law and Policy Affecting Māori Culture and
Identity
|
whakapapa
|
Genealogy, ancestral connections, lineage (Wai 262 report)
|
whanaungatanga
|
Ethic of connectedness by blood; relationships, kinship; the web of
relationships that embraces living and dead, present and past,
human beings and
the natural environment (Wai 262 report)
|
![2018_107.png](2018_107.png)
Foreword
As the
Minister for Commerce and Consumer Affairs, I am proud to announce the release
of this Issues Paper as part of the review of
the Plant Variety Rights Act
1987.
New Zealand’s intellectual property rights regime for plant varieties is
designed to encourage the development and dissemination
of new plant varieties.
Plant breeding improves the range and performance of plant varieties and has a
number of desirable outcomes,
including providing growers
with higher yields of better quality, and providing consumers with a wider
choice of products. A robust plant variety rights regime
rewards innovation in
plant breeding and encourages international breeders to bring new varieties to
New Zealand.
As a country with a strong track record in agriculture and horticulture, a
high-functioning plant variety rights regime can have
significant economic
benefits for New Zealand. However, the regime is now over 30 years old, and much
has changed in the industry
during this time. I want New Zealand to achieve the
maximum benefit from the regime while meeting our international and Treaty of
Waitangi obligations. To do that, we need to ensure our plant variety rights
regime strikes the right
balance between the interests of rights holders, Māori, farmers and
growers, and our wider economy.
Meeting our obligations under the Comprehensive and Progressive Agreement for
Trans-Pacific Partnership (CPTPP) is a key driver for this review. Under
the CPTPP, New Zealand has an obligation to either ratify the most recent
version of the
International Union for the Protection of New Varieties of Plants
(UPOV 91), or put in place a regime that gives effect to it, within three
years of the CPTPP coming into force. This obligation will mean
that plant
breeders’ rights are strengthened under any new regime. This Issues Paper
covers key issues and areas of flexibility
under UPOV 91.
It is also important that we meet our obligations to Māori under the Treaty
of Waitangi in relation to the PVR regime. New Zealand
negotiated a specific
exception in the CPTPP to be able to adopt any policy it considers necessary to
give effect to these obligations.
The Government recognises the importance to
Māori of kaitiaki relationships with taonga species and mātauranga
Māori.
The Government also acknowledges the Waitangi Tribunal’s
recommendations in its report on the Wai 262 inquiry, Ko Aotearoa Tēnei:
A Report into Claims Concerning New Zealand Law and Policy Affecting Māori
Culture and Identity, which reflect its conclusions that the kaitiaki
relationship with taonga species is entitled to a reasonable degree of
protection.
These recommendations provide a valuable framework for considering
some of the PVR issues, and are explored in this Issues Paper.
Ensuring that there is adequate protection and recognition of Māori
interests within the plant variety rights regime will be
an important outcome of
this review. I encourage you to have your say on the matters covered in this
Issues Paper, whether by written
submission or by participation in MBIE’s
consultation hui. The information and evidence you provide will help the
development
of a reformed and fit-for-purpose plant variety rights regime.
Hon Kris Faafoi
Minister of Commerce and Consumer Affairs
Part 1 – Purpose and context of the
review
Introduction
- The
Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment (MBIE) is reviewing the
plant variety rights regime (PVR regime). The Plant Variety Rights Act
1987 (PVR Act) provides for the grant of intellectual property rights
called ‘plant variety rights’ (PVRs). Plant breeders and
developers may apply for PVRs over new plant varieties that they have developed.
The purpose of the PVR regime
is to incentivise the development and importation
of new varieties of plants.
- The
release of this Issues Paper initiates the first stage of public consultation in
the review of the PVR regime. We are seeking
your views on whether there are
problems with the PVR regime that should be addressed. The issues canvassed in
this paper are potential
issues with the PVR regime that have been raised by in
our pre-consultation engagement.
- Our
coverage of the problems in this issues paper is intended to be exploratory. At
this stage, we are seeking to better understand
how the PVR regime operates in
practice, the key issues and opportunities for change.
Your submissions will help inform the development of policy
options
- We
seek your views to improve our understanding of how the PVR regime operates in
practice, how Māori interests are protected
in the regime, and the key
issues and opportunities for change. Your responses will inform our development
of policy options for
reform of the PVR regime. We intend to test those options
with the public through an Options Paper, scheduled for release in the
first
half of 2019.
- We
would like to hear from you if you have an interest in any of the matters
covered in this Issues Paper. We are also interested
in hearing about other
issues with the PVR regime not covered in this paper. Some of you may want to
respond to all of the questions
in this Issues Paper. Others may want to respond
only to one or a small number of questions. Please provide evidence or examples
to support your views where possible.
- This
Issues Paper has been released concurrently with a Māori Engagement Plan
which can be found here: http://www.mbie.govt.nz/info-services/business/intellectual-
property/plant-variety-rights/review/maori-engagement-plan.
- Submissions
are due by 5pm on Friday, 21 December 2018.
The review process
- An
outline of the intended review process is below. The stages in green represent
opportunities for you and other members of the public
to provide your input into
the process.
![2018_108.png](2018_108.png)
- Each
stage in the above process (other than the Select Committee process) is subject
to a decision by Cabinet. Cabinet may also decide
whether consulting on an
exposure draft of the amendment bill is necessary after we have consulted on the
Options Paper.
1 What does this Issues Paper cover?
- In
Part 1, we explain the purpose and context of the review, and provide an
overview of the PVR regime.
- In
Part 2, we outline our proposed objectives for the PVR Act and seek your
views on the overall regime in the context of those objectives.
- In
Part 3, we cover the key potential issues raised by industry
stakeholders, including PVR owners and farmers/growers.
- In
Part 4, we seek your views on matters relating to the Waitangi
Tribunal’s recommendations on the PVR regime resulting from the Wai
262
inquiry and feedback received from Māori in our pre-consultation
engagement.
- In
Part 5, we provide a high-level outline of additional issues with the PVR
regime that we are aware of and may warrant further
consideration.
- Part
6 is a recap of the questions we have asked in this Issues Paper.
2 Background to the review
- The
PVR Act was passed in 1987 to bring New Zealand’s PVR regime into line
with the 1978 version of the International Convention
on the Protection of New
Varieties of Plants (UPOV Convention). The UPOV Convention is the
principal international agreement relating to intellectual property protection
over plant varieties.
- The
PVR Act is now over 30 years old and has only had minor amendments since it was
first passed. The plant breeding industry has
changed significantly during this
time as research and development is increasingly carried out by private
organisations or Crown
Research Institutes (which are Crown-owned companies).
Certain industry groups (mainly plant breeders) have been calling for a review
for some time, in particular because the majority of our main trading partners
(including Australia, the United States of America,
Japan, the European Union
(EU) and Canada) have ratified the most recent (1991) version of the UPOV
Convention (UPOV 91). Bringing our legislation more in line with UPOV 91
members is expected to encourage investment in the New Zealand plant breeding
industry, as well as the importation of new varieties into New
Zealand.
- A
review of the PVR Act began in the late 1990s, largely focusing on the issue of
whether New Zealand should accede to UPOV 91. UPOV
91 strengthens plant
breeders’ rights, for example by extending their rights to cover export,
conditioning and stocking of
propagating material and extending the minimum term
of the right for woody plants from 23 to 25 years.1
- The
review culminated in a draft Plant Variety Rights Amendment Bill (the
2005 draft Bill), which the then Ministry of Economic Development2 released as an exposure draft for public
consultation.3 The 2005 draft Bill would
have brought the PVR Act closer to, but not quite in compliance with, UPOV 91.
However, work on that bill
was put on hold in 2007 because the Government was
expecting the Waitangi Tribunal (the Tribunal) to release its report on
the Wai 262 inquiry (the Wai 262 report). The Wai 262 report was released
in 2011 and, significantly for the PVR regime, emphasised the importance of the
kaitiaki relationship
between Māori and mātauranga Māori in
general, and taonga species in particular.
1 Annex 1 provides a
comparison of the rights under the current PVR regime in New Zealand with those
under UPOV 91.
2 The Ministry of Economic Development
was one of the predecessors of MBIE.
3 Initial public input to the review was
sought through a discussion document, Review
of the Plant Variety
Rights
Act 1987: A Discussion Paper (https://www.mbie.govt.nz/info-services/business/intellectual-
property/plant-variety-rights/documents-and-images/review-of-the-plant-variety-rights-act1987-discussion-
paper.pdf),
released March 2002. Submissions closed in July 2002 (a summary of
submissions was released in November 2002). In July 2003, Cabinet
agreed to policy proposals (https://www.mbie.govt.nz/info-
services/business/intellectual-property/plant-variety-rights/documents-and-images/review-of-the-plant-
variety-rights-act1987-discussion-paper.pdf)
arising from the review, and the Draft
Plant Variety Rights Amendment
Bill (https://www.mbie.govt.nz/info-services/business/intellectual-property/plant-variety-
rights/documents-and-images/draft-plant-variety-rights-amendment-bill.pdf)
to amend the PVR Act was drafted.
- Reviewing
the PVR Act was further delayed because of the Trans-Pacific Partnership
Agreement (TPP) negotiations. This was because a requirement to ratify
UPOV 91 was being negotiated. The TPP negotiations concluded in October 2015
and
the TPP was signed in February 2016. It included a requirement for New Zealand
either to ratify UPOV 91 or to update the current
PVR regime so that it gives
effect to UPOV 91 within three years of the TPP coming into force, subject to
such conditions as may
be necessary for New Zealand to comply with its Treaty of
Waitangi obligations.
- In
August 2016, Cabinet decided to launch a review of the PVR Act. MBIE began the
review in February 2017. The first stage of the
review was the pre-consultation
phase. This included information-gathering, planning, engagement with some
interested groups, and
development of this Issues Paper.
- Following
the US withdrawal from the TPP, on 8 March 2018 the Comprehensive and
Progressive Agreement for Trans-Pacific Partnership
(CPTPP) was signed.
This retains the obligations relating to UPOV 91 that were negotiated in the
TPP. The CPTPP is likely to come into force
for New Zealand in late 2018 or
early 2019. This means an updated PVR regime would need to be in place by late
2021 or early 2022.
- The
CPTPP terms protect the right of the New Zealand government to adopt any policy
it considers necessary to give effect to its obligations
under the Treaty of
Waitangi.
- The
UPOV Convention and the Wai 262 report have informed our approach to this
review. We discuss them further in Chapter 6.
- Reviewing
the current PVR regime presents an opportunity to:
- find
the right balance between strengthening plant breeders’ rights to
encourage innovation (consistent with our international
obligations) and
preserving the interests of growers, consumers and New Zealand as a whole;
- ensure
the regime is consistent with New Zealand’s Treaty obligations; and
- modernise
the regime consistent (where appropriate) with other intellectual property
legislation.
3 What are Plant Variety Rights?
- A
PVR is an intellectual property right designed to encourage people to develop
and disseminate new varieties of plants. Under the
PVR Act, plant breeders and
developers may be granted an exclusive right to commercialise the propagating
material (e.g. spores, seeds or cuttings) of new varieties they develop, for
up to 23 years.
- PVRs
are granted by the Commissioner of Plant Variety Rights on the advice of the
Plant Variety Rights Office (PVRO), which is part of the Intellectual
Property Office of New Zealand (IPONZ).
What is the purpose of the PVR regime?
- Plant
breeding improves the performance of plant varieties, enabling growers and
farmers4 to gain higher yields of better
quality (e.g. disease resistance) that meet commercial and consumer needs.
Harvested material from
new plant varieties may lead to the production of new,
improved products (e.g. craft beer from hops), more nutritious fruit and
vegetables
and more choice in general for consumers.
- The
development of new plant varieties can be time and resource-intensive. It can
take several years of developing, breeding, selecting,
and trialling for
desirable characteristics before a new variety can be commercialised. For
example, the development of a new ryegrass
cultivar can take 8-10
years.
- If
no intellectual property protection were provided for new plant varieties,
anyone would be able to take a new variety as soon as
it became available and
reproduce, grow and sell it in competition with the person who developed it.
This would limit the benefits
that plant breeders can gain from the new
varieties they have developed.
- The
PVR regime is predicated on the notion that if local plant breeders cannot make
a meaningful return on their investment to develop
new varieties, they will be
less likely to invest time, money and effort in the development of new
varieties. In addition, foreign
plant breeders might not be willing to bring new
varieties to New Zealand if the level of protection provided for those varieties
is not in line with other countries. The PVR regime is intended to provide
incentives for plant breeders to develop new varieties
and to make new varieties
available in New Zealand for the benefit of the public.
- In
order for the PVR regime to provide benefits to New Zealand, the incentives to
create new varieties must be appropriately balanced
with the costs of providing
a commercial monopoly over these new varieties to PVR owners. If the commercial
rights PVRs grant are
too strong, costs may include reduced competition, higher
prices (e.g. for farmers) and restricted access to protected varieties.
The PVR
regime should strike the right balance between the
interests
4 We use the terms
‘farmers’ and ‘growers’ interchangeably in this paper,
unless the context requires more specificity
(as, for example, when we discuss
the issue of farm-saved seed for arable farmers in Chapter 7).
of plant breeders, Māori, growers, consumers and other interested groups
– such that there is a net benefit to society
as a whole.
- We
seek your feedback on the objectives of the PVR Act in Part
2.
Case study
|
Breeders in New Zealand have developed a grass that deters birdlife. This
has proved to be a success throughout the world –
particularly with
airports, to prevent bird strike (birds hitting airplanes). The grass is also
used in parks and sports fields such
as Christchurch’s Hagley Park cricket
venue.
The bird-deterrent grass was bred with a symbiotic fungus to lower the
amount of insects it harbours, which dissuades birds from eating
it.
The grass was developed a few years ago after decades of trials funded by a
local seed company and a Crown Research Institute. There
is both a PVR and a
patent associated with this grass.
|
What can be protected by a PVR?
- A
PVR may be granted over any cultivated variety of plant, except alga. We
discuss the issue of whether alga should be protectable subject-matter under the
PVR Act in Part 5.
In the PVR Act (and this Issues Paper), the term
‘variety’ means ‘cultivated variety’.5
36.
The diagram below shows the main
taxonomic ranks of plants:
35.
In the plant kingdom, cultivated varieties
(or cultivars) are a subset of species. Within a
species, there can be a wide
range of different types of plants (e.g. different coloured roses). A cultivated
variety is a defined
group of plants within a species, with a common set of
characteristics (e.g. flower colour or drought survival). These characteristics
are selected through plant breeding.
34.
![2018_109.png](2018_109.png)
5 Section 2 (all
‘Section’ references refer to clauses in the PVR Act unless
otherwise stated).
- Protection
provided by a PVR covers the phenotype; the morphological characteristics
(e.g. flower colour or leaf shape) or physiological characteristics (e.g.
disease resistance or
drought survival) of the cultivated variety. PVR
protection does not protect the genotype, the underlying genetic
material.
What is the scope of protection under the PVR Act?
Content of the rights
- A
PVR gives the person who bred a new plant variety the exclusive right
to:
- sell,
or offer for sale, propagating material of the protected variety; and
- produce
propagating material of the protected variety for the purposes of
sale.
- In
addition, the PVR owners of some vegetatively reproduced varieties
(fruit-producing, vegetable-producing, or ornamental varieties)
have exclusive
right to propagate the variety for the commercial production of fruit, flowers
or other products.6 This right is limited
to the production of the fruit, flowers or other products, but does not provide
the PVR owner with control over
the sale of the fruit, flowers or other
products.
- PVR
owners do not have any rights under the PVR Act over any harvested material
itself (where it is not intended to be used for propagation)
or any products
made from the harvested material (though it is not uncommon for these rights to
be established contractually).
Term of grant
- The
term of protection is 20 years, unless the variety is a ‘woody
plant’. These are protected for 23 years.7 ‘Woody plants’ include grape
vines, large shrubs, roses, trees, and rootstock.8 They have a longer term because they
typically take longer to grow and are generally more difficult to propagate.9
- During
the term, PVR owners must pay an annual renewal fee. Failure to pay the renewal
fee will result in the PVR lapsing, at which
point it will be cancelled by the
PVRO. Once a PVR is cancelled, or expires at the end of the term, the variety
enters the public
domain and becomes free for anyone to
use.
6 Section 17
“Products of the harvested material” is not defined in the PVR Act.
A definition from UPOV 91 states that this
is product made directly from the
harvested material. This could include juice from fruit.
7 Section 14.
8 Rootstock is a root, and its
associated growth buds, which is used as a stock in plant propagation for
grafting. 9 The terms
‘woody’ and ‘non-woody’ in the Act reference
morphological features, determined by the presence
or amount of lignin in a stem
on a plant in a genus or species. (Lignin is an organic substance binding the
cells,
fibres and vessels that constitute wood and the ‘lignified’
elements of plants, like straw.) According to IPONZ, this
is the standard
botanical view on ‘woody’ and ‘non-woody’ plants.
Provisional protection
- Examination
of a PVR application can take several years. If a person other than the PVR
applicant were able to exploit a variety for
which a PVR has been applied for,
but not yet granted, it could significantly reduce the profits the applicant
could make from the
variety after the PVR is granted. To deal with this issue,
the PVR Act provides for ‘provisional protection’. This allows
a PVR
applicant to take action against any person exploiting a variety for which a PVR
has been applied for, before the PVR is granted.
Exceptions
- The
PVR Act provides for some exceptions from the exclusive rights granted to PVR
owners.10 Any person may do what is set
out in the exceptions in relation to protected varieties without seeking the PVR
owner’s permission.
In particular, any person may:
- propagate,
grow, or use a protected variety for non-commercial purposes – for
example, in private gardens.
- use
any variety for breeding, to hybridise and produce a new variety from one or
more protected varieties – this is known as the breeder’s
exemption and is intended to ensure that plant breeders can use protected
varieties to
breed new varieties even if they are not the PVR owner. If the
production of the hybrid or new variety does not require repeated
use of the
protected variety, sale of the new variety is permitted without the permission
of the PVR owner.11
- use
propagating material from a protected variety for human consumption or other
non-reproductive purposes – for example, a person can sell harvested
sunflower seeds for human or animal consumption without the PVR owner’s
authorisation,
as the seeds are not being sold as propagating
material.
What are the requirements to gain a PVR?
- There
are a number of requirements that plant breeders must meet to gain PVRs for new
varieties.
- A
plant variety must be new to be eligible for protection. A variety is
‘new’ if it has not been sold in New Zealand for more than a year
before the
PVR application was made, or more than 4-6 years for sale overseas.12
- A
person applying for a PVR must also show that their plant variety is distinct,
uniform (or homogeneous) and stable (DUS requirements):13
- A
variety is distinct if it is distinguishable from any other known variety
by one or more (morphological or physiological) characteristics – for
example, colour of flowers, time of flowering, dimensions of leaves.14
10 Section 18.
11 However, if production of a hybrid
seed variety requires the repeated use of a protected variety as a parent, then
selling the hybrid
seed variety would infringe the PVR right for the protected
variety used as a parent.
12 Section 10(4)(a).
13 These terms are defined in sections
10(4) and (5).
14 Section 10(4)(b).
- A
variety is uniform if the degree of difference between plants within a
particular generation of the variety is within reasonable limits, taking into
account the way it is reproduced.15
- A
variety is stable if successive generations of the variety remain true to
the variety description.16
- In
addition to the requirements for the variety itself, the person applying for a
PVR must also supply an acceptable variety denomination.
The denomination acts
as the name of the protected variety and the variety must always be labelled
accordingly.17
- An
illustration of the DUS requirements is in the diagram
below.
![2018_110.png](2018_110.png)
15 Section 10(5).
16 Section 10(4)(c).
17 Alongside general criteria about use,
it is a requirement that the denomination is not misleading or does not
convey false impressions as to the origin of the variety, characteristics
which the variety exhibits, or the person who bred the variety.
Applying for a PVR
- PVRs,
like other intellectual property rights, are geographically limited rights. To
gain protection over a variety in New Zealand,
the owner or their authorised
agent must apply to the PVRO in New Zealand.18
- The
application must meet acceptance criteria at the time of application. This
includes the provision of the information required
for the PVRO to conduct an
examination of the variety. Following acceptance, the PVRO carries out a
preliminary examination. At this
stage, the PVRO may request more information or
clarification regarding newness, ownership of the variety and technical
matters.
- The
plant variety must be tested and evaluated to determine if it meets the DUS
requirements. The DUS evaluation is carried out through
growing trials of the
variety, either in New Zealand or in another UPOV country. The growing trial may
take a number of years to
complete depending on the nature of the variety. For
example, growing trials for potatoes may be completed in a little over a year,
while apple varieties may take five years.
- Once
the DUS evaluation is complete and the application has been fully examined, the
PVRO will recommend to the Commissioner whether
or not the variety is eligible
to be granted a PVR. If the Commissioner is satisfied that the variety meets the
criteria, the variety
will be granted a PVR.
- If
the Commissioner is not satisfied that the variety meets the criteria for
a PVR, the Commissioner will send the applicant a proposal to refuse a grant of
rights. The applicant has an opportunity to respond to the proposal before the
Commissioner either confirms the refusal or returns
the variety to
examination.
- If
a person believes that a grant should not be or should not have been provided
for a variety, they may write to the Commissioner
with their objection. The PVR
Act sets out the grounds for these objections – for example, if a variety
is not new, distinct,
uniform or stable.19
The Commissioner will provide both parties with the opportunity to be heard
and to state their cases before making a decision. The
Commissioner’s
decisions are also appealable through the courts.
18 See https://www.iponz.govt.nz/about-ip/pvr/pvr-process/
for more information on the PVR assessment process.
19 Sections 6 and 15.
- The
application process is set out in the diagram below.
![2018_111.png](2018_111.png)
How do PVRs compare to other forms of intellectual property
protection?
- PVRs
are a form of intellectual property right. The table below sets out the main
types of intellectual property rights, their maximum
term of protection and how
they are registered.
Type of intellectual property right
|
What’s protected?
|
Term
|
Registrable with
|
Plant variety rights
|
Protects new cultivated varieties of plants
|
Up to 23 years
|
IPONZ
|
Patents
|
Protects new inventions – protects products and how they are
manufactured
|
Up to 20 years
|
IPONZ
|
Trade marks
|
Protects branding (e.g. logos/words) – protects use in trade
|
Renewable indefinitely
|
IPONZ
|
Registered industrial designs
|
Protects new features of shape, configuration, pattern or ornament as
applied to an object
|
Up to 15 years
|
IPONZ
|
Geographical indications
|
Protects origin labelling for wine and spirits products
|
Renewable indefinitely
|
IPONZ
|
Copyright
|
Protects new works, including written content (including software code),
artworks, music, films etc. Protects expression of ideas
|
Up to life plus 50 years
|
Not registrable
|
4 The PVR regime has a narrow
application
Plant varieties that are eligible for protection do not exist
in the wild
- Some
people have expressed concern about the possible protection of plant varieties
that have been ‘discovered’ in the
wild. The definition of
‘variety’ and the requirements for protection require significant
human input in the development
of a variety. It is not possible to discover a
variety that is eligible for a PVR in the wild. We discuss this further in Part
4,
Chapter 14.
Few plant varieties are protected
- Most
plant varieties are ‘varieties of common knowledge’ that exist in
the public domain. This includes varieties that
have never been protected (e.g.
the ‘Granny Smith’ apple) and plant varieties that are no longer
protected (e.g. the
potato variety, ‘Nadine’). There are no
restrictions on the use of these varieties.
If a plant variety cannot be legally grown, a grant of PVRs is
unlikely
- Some
people have expressed concerns about certain kinds of plant varieties —
for example, noxious or genetically modified plants
— being eligible for
protection. Though theoretically possible, it would be very difficult to gain
protection over a variety
that, legally, cannot be grown in New Zealand. And
even if protection was granted, the variety could not be
cultivated.
- For
example, a breeder may seek to gain protection of an overseas variety of heather
– a species designated as an ‘unwanted
organism’ under the
Biosecurity Act 1993. As it is not possible to import heather, the
breeder would not be able to provide plant material for growing trials. The
examination
would not be able to occur, and the application would lapse. In some
circumstances PVR examiners in New Zealand may rely on overseas
test reports
when considering a grant of a PVR.
- Even
if a PVR were granted in these circumstances, a grant of PVR does not confer a
positive right to grow the variety. PVRs only
provide PVR owners with the right
to prevent others from commercialising the propagating material of the protected
variety. PVR owners
cannot do anything – including grow, develop or
commercialise the protected variety – that would be unlawful under other
legislation.
- Legislation
relevant to the development and use of plant varieties include:
- Hazardous
Substances and New Organisms Act 1996, which regulates the use and
development of genetically modified organisms and importation of new
organisms;
- Forests
Act 1949, which provides guidelines for sustainable logging and control over
indigenous timber;
- Native
Plants Protection Act 1934, which enables regulations to be made to declare
indigenous plant species to be protected, making it an offence to remove those
plants
from Crown land; and
- Biosecurity
Act 1993, which allows the Ministry for Primary Industries to create
requirements for importing plants and restrict the growing and dissemination
of
certain varieties to respond to biosecurity
risks.
PVR ownership does not entail ownership of the individual
plants, or the harvested material, of a protected variety
- The
PVR Act does not provide that PVR owners are the owners of all plants or
individual specimens of protected varieties or of the
propagating material from
their protected varieties. The PVR Act provides PVR owners with a right to
prevent other people selling,
or producing or offering for sale, the propagating
material of protected varieties only. This allows the PVR owner to have some
control
over commercialisation of the variety, but not ownership of the plants
themselves – or the harvested material. For example,
if a consumer were to
buy a tomato plant of a protected variety, the PVR owner would have no rights
over the tomatoes produced.
- In
a commercial context, PVR owners may seek commercial control over harvested
material through contract. If a commercial grower were
to buy tomato cuttings
(propagating material) of a protected variety directly from a PVR owner, the PVR
owner may seek control of
the tomatoes produced as a condition of providing the
cuttings. This control would have to be achieved through contract, as there
is
no such right to harvested material under the PVR Act.
PVRs are not permanent rights
- PVRs
only provide a temporary right in protected varieties (20 or 23 years).20 Once the term of grant expires, varieties
that were protected by a PVR enter the public domain and may be freely used in
the same
way as any other variety that has never been
protected.
20 Depending on whether the
variety is a ‘woody plant’. See paragraph 41 above.
5 PVRs in New Zealand
- Most
of the varieties protected by PVRs in New Zealand are varieties of species
originally found outside New Zealand like kiwifruit,
apples and potatoes. Some
species indigenous to New Zealand, such as horopito (Pseudowintera
colorata), have cultivated varieties which are
protected.
- PVR
applications in New Zealand will be made by mix of domestic and overseas
breeders. Over all plant types, the approximate split
is generally around 40%
(domestic), 60% (overseas).
- As
of 7 June 2018, there are 1301 current PVR grants in New Zealand. In total, 3807
grants have been made since the regime began.
The remainder have either expired
(i.e. the term of the grant has finished) or been cancelled or
surrendered.
- The
following table sets out the number of applications made in New Zealand in the
last four full financial years, broken down by
broad plant
groups:
Year to 30 June
|
Crop +
Vegetable
|
Pasture
|
Fungi
|
Fruit
|
Ornamentals
|
Total
|
2013/14
|
31
|
12
|
5
|
49
|
73
|
170
|
2014/15
|
25
|
5
|
1
|
37
|
68
|
136
|
2015/16
|
22
|
7
|
4
|
32
|
54
|
119
|
2016/17
|
27
|
10
|
2
|
37
|
55
|
131
|
- The
following table sets out the number of grants made in New Zealand in the last
four full financial years, broken down by broad
plant
groups:
![2018_112.png](2018_112.png)
Year to 30 June Crop +
Vegetable
Pasture Fungi Fruit Ornamentals Total
2013/14
|
40
|
12
|
-
|
3
|
102
|
157
|
2014/15
|
17
|
10
|
9
|
26
|
71
|
133
|
2015/16
|
28
|
3
|
-
|
22
|
62
|
115
|
2016/17
|
20
|
6
|
2
|
26
|
46
|
100
|
Indigenous species
- It
is hard to put a figure on the number of indigenous plant species in New
Zealand. Estimates vary between 2,50021
and 7,00022. We estimate that around
20 of these have had PVRs derived from them. The number of current PVR grants
relating to these species
is 98.
- These
approximate figures are represented in the diagrams below.
![2018_113.png](2018_113.png)
- The
most common indigenous species to which PVRs relate are harakeke (flax), ti
kōuka (cabbage tree), karamū (coprosma),
kōkōmuka (hebe),
mānuka (tea tree) and kōhūhū
(pittosporum).
21 https://teara.govt.nz/en/native-plants-and-animals-overview/page-1
22 http://www.nzpcn.org.nz/page.aspx?help_faqs_NZ_plants
6 Constitutional and international
obligations
that inform our approach
- In
this chapter, we set out the key obligations and consideration that inform our
approach.
The Treaty of Waitangi
- The
Treaty of Waitangi is a constitutionally significant document and the foundation
of the Crown-Māori relationship.
- Article
2 of the Treaty refers to the Crown guaranteeing Māori (including iwi,
hapū and whānau) “the full, exclusive
and undisturbed possession
of their...forests...and other properties” (English version) and “te
tino rangatiratanga o
o ratou wenua o ratou kainga me o ratou taonga
katoa” (Māori version).
- We
have heard from Māori interested in the PVR Act about the significance of
indigenous plant species as taonga in te ao Māori.
PVRs have a temporary
effect on what people, including Māori, can do with the propagating
material of newly-bred varieties of
indigenous plant species. It is important
that the Crown’s Treaty obligations are carefully considered before the
Crown seeks
to modify the PVR regime.
The Wai 262 report
- The
findings and recommendations in the Wai 262 report on PVRs provide a useful
structure for a conversation between the Crown and
Māori about how the PVR
regime could be reformed in a way that is consistent with the Treaty of
Waitangi.
- In
the Wai 262 inquiry, the Waitangi Tribunal (the Tribunal) examined the
claims of six iwi (Ngāti Wai, Ngāti Kuri, Te Rarawa, Ngāti Porou,
Ngāti Kahungunu and Ngāti
Koata), who sought to establish “who
owns or controls three things”23:
- mātauranga
Māori (Māori traditional knowledge);
- the
“tangible products of mātauranga Māori” –
traditional artistic and cultural expressions that the Tribunal
referred to as
“taonga works”;24
and
- the
things that are “important contributors to mātauranga
Māori” – including the unique characteristics
of indigenous
flora and fauna, which the Tribunal referred to as “taonga
species” and New Zealand’s natural environment more generally.25
23
Waitangi Tribunal Ko Aotearoa Tēnei: A Report into Claims
Concerning New Zealand Law and Policy Affecting
Māori Culture and Identity: Te Taumata Tuatahi (Wai 262, 2011) at
17.
24 Ibid.
- The
Wai 262 inquiry was the Tribunal’s first whole-of-government inquiry,
spanning almost 20 years – reflecting the significant
breadth and
complexity of the claims. It has been said26 that the inquiry was about the place of
Māori culture, identity and traditional knowledge in New Zealand's laws,
government
policies and practices. Part of the inquiry examined the interface
between te ao Māori (the Māori world) and New Zealand’s
intellectual property regimes, including the PVR regime.
- In
2011, the Tribunal released its report, Ko Aotearoa Tēnei: A Report into
Claims Concerning New Zealand Law and Policy Affecting Māori Culture and
Identity.
- In
relation to the PVR regime, the Tribunal recommended changes to recognise and
protect
Māori interests in plant taonga species. These
were:
- that
the Commissioner of Plant Variety Rights (the Commissioner) be empowered
to refuse a PVR that would affect the kaitiaki relationship;
- that
the Commissioner be supported by a Māori advisory committee in
his/her
consideration of the kaitiaki interest;
- to
clarify the level of human input into the development of a plant variety for the
purposes of PVR protection; and
- to
enable the Commissioner to refuse a proposed name for a plant variety if its
use
would be likely to offend a significant section of the community, including
Māori.
Convention for the Protection of New Varieties of
Plants
- ‘UPOV’27 is the French acronym for the
International Union for the Protection of New Varieties of Plants. UPOV is an
international organisation
that was established by the UPOV Convention. Since
1981, New Zealand has been a party to the 1978 version of the UPOV Convention
(UPOV 78). The PVR Act is consistent with UPOV 78.
- In
1991, the UPOV Convention was further revised. Changes were intended to deal
with issues arising from UPOV 78, including the interface
between PVRs and
patents, developments in plant breeding techniques, and essentially derived
varieties28.
- New
Zealand has signed but not ratified UPOV 91 and is therefore not legally bound
by it. The PVR Act is not consistent with UPOV
91 and would need to be amended
if New Zealand decided to accede to UPOV 91. This may be required under the
Comprehensive and Progressive
Agreement for Trans-Pacific Partnership
(CPTPP).
25 Ibid.
26 https://waitangitribunal.govt.nz/news/ko-aotearoa-tenei-report-on-the-wai-262-claim-released/
27 Union Internationale pour la
Protection des Obtentions Végétales, www.upov.int.
28 Essentially derived varieties are
discussed in Chapter 9.
- As
compared to the PVR Act, UPOV 91 strengthens PVRs, and narrows the exceptions to
PVRs. The differences between UPOV 91 and the
PVR Act/UPOV 78 are outlined in a
table in Annex 1 and briefly summarised below:
Key differences between UPOV 91 and the PVR Act/UPOV 78
Stronger
rights
UPOV 91 provides PVR owners with more rights over propagating material, giving
them greater control of their protected varieties.
It broadens the exclusive
rights PVR owners have over the sale, offer for sale, or importation of
propagating material (regardless
of intended use) to cover an extended number of
acts.29
PVR owners’ rights may also extend:
- to harvested material or products made directly from harvested material
(discussed in Chapter 8); and
- to new varieties that are ‘essentially derived’ from their
protected varieties (discussed in Chapter 9).
Under UPOV 91, the minimum term of grant for woody varieties rises to 25 years
(from 23 years), and remains 20 years for all other
varieties (term of grant is
discussed in Part 5).
Narrower exceptions
The exceptions to PVR owners’ rights are slightly narrower under UPOV 91
than under the PVR Act. Under the PVR Act, reproduction
and use of a protected
variety is permitted for non-commercial purposes. Under UPOV 91, the use must be
non-commercial and private (discussed in Part 5).
Otherwise, the exceptions are the same in practice:
- Protected varieties can be used to breed new varieties without the PVR
owner’s permission
(unless the new variety is considered an essentially derived variety).
- PVR owners do not have rights over the use of the variety for reasons other
than propagation.
UPOV 91 also provides an optional exception which would allow farm-saved seed
(discussed at Chapter 7).
Comprehensive and Progressive Agreement for Trans-Pacific
Partnership
- The
CPTPP is a free trade agreement between 11 Pacific-rim countries: New Zealand,
Australia, Brunei Darussalam, Canada, Chile, Japan,
Malaysia, Mexico, Peru,
Singapore and Viet Nam. It was signed on 8 March 2018.
- The
Government has signalled its intention to ratify CPTPP, which would require New
Zealand to either:
- accede
to UPOV 91; or
- implement
a PVR regime that gives effect to UPOV 91.
29 For more information,
see Article 14(1)(a) of UPOV 91.
- When
implementing either option, the Crown can adopt measures it deems necessary to
protect indigenous plant species in fulfilment
of its obligations under the
Treaty. This option was negotiated specifically by New
Zealand.
- It
enables the Crown, in consultation with Māori, to decide what type of PVR
regime for indigenous plant species would be necessary
to fulfil its obligations
under the Treaty.
The TRIPS Agreement
- New
Zealand is a party to the World Trade Organisation Agreement on Trade Related
Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPs Agreement). The TRIPs
Agreement requires parties to provide for the protection of plant varieties
either through the patent regime, through
a regulatory regime designed
specifically for plant varieties, or a combination of the two.
- New
Zealand has chosen to comply with the TRIPs Agreement through the plant
varieties- specific regime under the PVR Act. Plant varieties
cannot be patented
in New Zealand under the Patents Act 2013.30
United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous
Peoples
- New
Zealand supports the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous
Peoples (UNDRIP). Unlike the other agreements referred to in this
chapter, UNDRIP is not a treaty and therefore not legally binding. Nevertheless,
UNDRIP can help guide our approach to reviewing the PVR
Act.
- The
rights in Article 31 are those most directly relevant to the PVR Act
review:
Indigenous peoples have the right to maintain, control,
protect and develop their cultural heritage, traditional knowledge and
traditional
cultural expressions, as well as the manifestations of their
sciences, technologies and cultures, including human and genetic resources,
seeds, medicines, knowledge of the properties of fauna and flora, oral
traditions, literatures, designs, sports and traditional games
and visual and
performing arts. They also have the right to maintain, control, protect and
develop their intellectual property over
such cultural heritage, traditional
knowledge, and traditional cultural expressions.
- This
review is an opportunity to consider how to give effect to Article 31 in the PVR
regime.
Biodiversity agreements
- New
Zealand is a party to the 1992 Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD).
The objectives of the CBD are the conservation of biological diversity, the
sustainable use of the components of biodiversity and
the fair and equitable
sharing of the benefits arising from the utilisation of genetic
resources.
- The
CBD recognises the sovereign rights of states over their natural resources.
Parties to the CBD have the authority to determine
access to their genetic
resources and the obligation to
30 However, underlying
genetic material in plants may be granted a patent – if it meets the
patentability requirements (e.g. a
gene that makes the plant resistant to
certain herbicides).
take appropriate measures with the aim of sharing in a fair and equitable way
the benefits arising from their commercialisation or
other use.
- Article
8(j) of the CBD relates to the use of traditional knowledge that is relevant to
the conservation and sustainable use of biological
diversity. It encourages the
equitable sharing of benefits arising from the utilisation of this knowledge.
Parties to the Convention:
...shall, as far as possible and as
appropriate:
Subject to national legislation, respect, preserve and maintain knowledge,
innovations and practices of indigenous and local communities
embodying
traditional lifestyles relevant for the conservation and sustainable use of
biological diversity and promote their wider
application with the approval and
involvement of the holders of such knowledge, innovations and practices, and
encourage the equitable
sharing of the benefits arising from the utilisation of
such knowledge, innovations and practices.
- The
Nagoya Protocol on Access to Genetic Resources and the Fair and Equitable
Sharing of Benefits Arising from their Utilization (Nagoya Protocol) is a
supplementary treaty to the CBD that came into force in 2014. It is intended
to:
- create
greater legal certainty and transparency for providers and users of genetic
resources and associated traditional knowledge;
- establish
more predictable conditions for access to genetic resources;
and
- help
to ensure benefit-sharing when genetic resources leave the country where the
genetic resources originated.
- New
Zealand is not yet party to the Nagoya Protocol. Key issues that would require
consideration before New Zealand could become a
party include how New Zealand
regulates the discovery and subsequent use of genetic resources and protects
mātauranga Māori
in this context. These issues are outside of the
scope of this review.
- A
third relevant treaty is the International Treaty on Plant Genetic Resources for
Food and Agriculture (ITPGRFA). The ITPGRFA was negotiated by the UN Food
and Agriculture Organization, and operates in harmony with the CBD. Its
objectives are:
- the
conservation and sustainable use of all plant genetic resources for food and
agriculture; and
- the
fair and equitable sharing of the benefits arising out of their use for
sustainable agriculture and food security.
- New
Zealand has not yet determined whether it will become a party to the ITPGRFA.
Should it do so, the government would need to make
certain plant genetic
resources held in its public sector gene banks (e.g. held by Crown Research
Institutes) available on terms
agreed under the ITPGRFA. The ITPGRFA applies to
a list of species that are regarded as significant food crops.
Part 2 - Objectives of the PVR regime
- We
consider that the main objectives of a modern, fit-for-purpose PVR regime
are:
- to
promote innovation and economic growth by incentivising the development and
dissemination of new plant varieties while providing
an appropriate balance
between the interests of plant breeders, growers and society as a whole;
- compliance
with New Zealand’s international obligations; and
- consistency
with the Treaty of Waitangi.
- We
discuss these objectives below. We intend to use these objectives to help us
assess both whether there are problems with the regime
and the merits of any
options for addressing any problems. It is therefore important that we get these
objectives right. We welcome
your feedback on the
objectives.
- At
the options stage of this review, it will be important that we understand what
the potential costs and benefits of any potential
changes to the PVR regime are.
We will be seeking to ensure the new PVR regime provides a net benefit to New
Zealand as a whole.
Promoting innovation and economic growth
- PVRs
are intended to provide an incentive for plant breeders to develop or
disseminate new varieties in New Zealand for the benefit of society as a
whole. Without the protection that the regime provides, local plant breeders may
be
unable to make a meaningful return on their investment in the development of
new varieties. Foreign plant breeders may also be unwilling
to bring their new
varieties to New Zealand. However, in order for the PVR regime to provide
benefits to New Zealand as a whole,
this incentive must be balanced with the
costs of providing a commercial monopoly. This balance is discussed further in
paragraphs
114-118 below.
Compliance with New Zealand’s international
obligations
- We
have canvassed relevant obligations in this area for New Zealand in Chapter 6 of
Part 1, above.
- An
important potential international obligation for this review is the CPTPP. If
the Government decides to ratify the CPTPP, and it
enters into force for New
Zealand, we will have an international obligation to either accede to
UPOV 91 or give effect to UPOV 91 (without accession) through a sui generis
(standalone) PVR regime.
- International
obligations limit the scope of policy options available to the Government. While
UPOV 91 generally strengthens PVRs,
it does give UPOV members some flexibility
in some of the key areas of the PVR regime – such as farm-saved seed and
scope of
rights issues relating to harvested materials. We explore some of these
areas of flexibility throughout Part 3.
Consistency with the Treaty of Waitangi
- The
Crown’s obligations to Māori under the Treaty of Waitangi in
the PVR context are a key component of this review. At this stage, the Waitangi
Tribunal’s four recommendations for changes
to the PVR regime in the Wai
262 report inform how we consider of the Crown’s Treaty of Waitangi
obligations in the PVR Act
review. We explore the recommendations and other
relevant considerations in Part 4.
- In
relation to its PVR obligations, New Zealand negotiated a specific exception in
the CPTPP relating to the Crown’s Treaty
of Waitangi obligations. Under
the CPTPP, New Zealand has the policy space to adopt “measures it deems
necessary to protect
indigenous plant species in fulfilment of its obligations
under the Treaty of Waitangi, provided that such measures are not used
as a
means of arbitrary or unjustified discrimination” against another party to
CPTPP. This would apply whether the Government
chooses to accede to UPOV 91 or
give effect to UPOV 91 without becoming a party to it.
- Whether
becoming a party to UPOV 91 would be consistent with the Crown’s Treaty of
Waitangi obligations in relation to indigenous
plant species is an important
issue in this review. If acceding to UPOV 91 would not be consistent with the
Crown’s Treaty
of Waitangi obligations in relation to indigenous plant
species, New Zealand could choose not to accede to UPOV 91 under the CPTPP.
New
Zealand could instead implement changes consistent with the Crown’s Treaty
of Waitangi obligations, and make the requisite
changes to give effect to UPOV
91 in the remainder of the PVR regime.
Questions
Do you think the PVR regime is meeting these
objectives? Why/why not?
Do you think the objectives correctly state what the purpose of the PVR
regime should be? Why/why not?
2
1
Is there a lack of incentive under the current PVR
regime?
- We
have heard from some PVR owners that the current PVR regime does not provide
enough incentive for the breeding and development
of new plant varieties. They
claim that the limited exclusive rights provided for in the PVR Act restrict the
revenue that they can
earn from their new varieties. They argue that this makes
it difficult for them to make a return on their investment in developing
new
varieties and that the PVR Act should provide PVR owners with enhanced rights,
such as those provided for in UPOV 91.
- The
differences between UPOV 91 and the PVR Act are outlined in Annex
1.
- Plant
breeders argue that if the PVR Act was amended to provide for the enhanced
rights in UPOV 91, this would result in:
- opportunities
for improved variety management;
- improved
product quality and availability;
- the
development of more new varieties by local plant breeders;
and
- the
release of more new varieties of in New Zealand by foreign plant
breeders.
- Plant
breeders argue that access to a greater range of new varieties could assist in
retaining or improving New Zealand’s competitive
position in world
agricultural markets and improve the contribution of plant breeding to New
Zealand’s economic development.
Consumers may benefit from a greater
availability of improved varieties of fruit and vegetables. Home gardeners may
also benefit
from the availability of a wider range of ornamental
plants.
- However,
we have heard from users of plant varieties that strengthening rights for PVR
owners along the lines of UPOV 91 could result
in increased costs for them.
Higher costs may negatively affect the efficiency of the regime and its benefit
to society as a whole.
For example, a requirement to pay licence fees or
royalties for a wider range of uses of varieties could lead to higher costs for
growers. And consumers could face higher costs if growers pass those costs on
(though some growers, e.g. arable farmers, note that
they are generally
‘price- takers’ and are unable to pass costs on). Stronger
protection may also discourage plant breeding
activities, as these activities
often depend on making use of existing protected varieties to develop new
varieties.
Questions
Do you think there would be a material difference
between implementing a sui generis regime that gives effect to UPOV 1991
(as permitted under the CPTPP) and actually becoming a party to UPOV 91? If so,
what would the
costs/benefits be?
What are the costs and benefits of New Zealand’s PVR regime not being
consistent with UPOV 91 (e.g. in terms of access to commercially
valuable new
varieties, incentives to develop new varieties)? What is the size of these
costs/benefits? What are the flow on effects
of these costs/benefits? Please
provide supporting evidence where possible.
4
3
Part 3 – The PVR regime
- In
Part 3, we describe our understanding of the main potential issues raised by
industry about the PVR regime. We do this by describing
the current situation
for each issue and, where relevant, outlining how they relate to UPOV 78 (which
New Zealand has ratified) and
UPOV 91 (which New Zealand will be required to
become compliant with should the Government ratify CPTPP). We seek your views,
and
any evidence you have to support your views, to help us get a better
understanding of these potential issues.
- This
part seeks your feedback on the following key issues identified by industry with
the current PVR regime:
- rights over
harvested material;
- rights over
similar varieties (distinctness and essentially derived varieties);
- compulsory
licences; and
- enforcement:
Infringements and offences.
- Other
key issues raised by industry were the ‘discovery’ of plant
varieties and the Waitangi Tribunal’s Wai 262
recommendations on PVRs.
These issues are discussed in Part 4.
7 Farm-saved seed
- Farm-saved
seed is seed from a farmer’s31 own
harvested crop which is used, by the same farmer, to sow next season’s
crop. By using farm-saved seed, farmers do not have
to rely exclusively on
buying new seed to meet their sowing requirements each year. In this chapter, we
look at the rules relating
to farm-saved seed.
The current situation
- The
PVR Act provides that people must obtain the PVR owner’s permission before
they can:
- sell,
or offer for sale, propagating material of the protected
variety;
a. produce propagating material of the protected variety for sale as propagating
material.32
- Anybody
who does these things without the PVR owner’s permission, during the
period for which the variety is protected, infringes
the PVR owner’s
rights.
- Seed
of a protected variety that is saved by a farmer to grow future seasons’
crops is not produced for sale, offered for sale
or sold. This means that
farmers do not have to get the permission of the PVR owner to save seed of a
protected variety and use it
for future seasons under the PVR Act. Farmers have
been saving seed in various ways for centuries. This practice is known as
‘farm-saved
seed’.33
- While
there is no legislative requirement for farmers to pay a royalty to the PVR
owner in relation to the purchase of seed of a protected
variety (including in
relation to farm-saved seed), there is nothing preventing royalties being agreed
contractually. These royalties
are generally either ‘seed point’
royalties (a one-off payment made at the time the original seed is sold) or
‘end
point’ royalties (paid according to the amount of produce
resulting from the seed). If a farmer uses farm-saved seed and pays
an end point
royalty to the PVR owner, the PVR owner will effectively be receiving a royalty
in relation to that farm-saved seed.
- Farmers
cannot, however, sell or trade saved seed of a protected variety to other people
to grow without permission from the PVR owner.
If a variety is not a protected
variety, farmers can freely use saved seed or sell it to other
growers.
31 Farmer in this chapter
includes anyone who grows a protected plant variety.
32 Propagating material is not always
sold as propagating material: e.g. grain sold for consumption. See Chapter 8 on
rights over harvested
material for more details.
33It is worth noting that the rule for
using saved seed for commercial harvest is different for the rules
concerning vegetative propagating material (e.g. cuttings) (see paragraph
39). The difference exists because it is quicker and easier
to propagate
varieties vegetatively than reproduce them by seed.
International considerations
UPOV 78
- UPOV
78 is silent on the subject of farm-saved seed. It requires Parties to provide
plant breeders with the exclusive right to produce
for sale, offer for sale and
to sell, propagating material of their protected varieties. As explained in
paragraph 125 above, because
saved seed is not produced for sale, offered for
sale or sold, using it to sow the next season’s crop is not in conflict
with
the rights afforded to PVR owners under UPOV 78.
UPOV 91
- UPOV
91 requires Parties to give PVR owners more extensive exclusive rights over
their protected varieties than UPOV 78.
- PVR
owners must give their permission for the following activities (among others) in
respect of propagating material of protected
varieties:
- reproduction
of the protected variety;
- conditioning
for the purposes of reproduction; and
- stocking
of propagating material for any of the above purposes.
- These
new rights may affect growers’ ability to both save seed and use saved
seed. However, UPOV 91 has a specific exception
that allows UPOV 91 Parties to
permit farmers to use harvested material as propagating material on their own
holdings “within
reasonable limits and subject to safeguarding of the
legitimate interests of the breeder”34. Parties can therefore decide whether or
not farmers can use saved seed and, if they are permitted to save seed, the
conditions under
which they can use it, subject to the condition stated
above.
How do other countries address farm-saved seed in their PVR
regime?
- Nearly
all UPOV 91 Parties have used the flexibility UPOV 91 provides to limit PVR
owners’ rights over farm-saved seed. Some
allow growers to use saved seed
of protected varieties without paying a fee to the PVR owner. Others allow
growers to use saved seed
if they pay a royalty, which may be less than the fee
paid for purchased seed. Detail on various countries’ approaches to
farm-saved
seed can be found in Annex 2.
Questions
|
Are there important features of the current situation regarding farm-saved
seed that we have not mentioned?
|
6
|
Can you provide any additional evidence/information that would assist us to
understand this issue? For example, the nature and extent
of royalties that are
currently paid in different sectors, and the proportion of crops planted each
year using farm-saved seed.
|
34 Article 15(2), UPOV
91
Is there a problem with the current situation?
- There
is a range of views on the impact of the farm-saved seed. We outline below some
of the main concerns we have heard about the
current regime and the potential
for change.
Breeders
- The
concerns we have heard from plant breeders have tended to focus on payments
relating to farm-saved seed rather than the use of
farm-saved seed per
se. Many plant breeders who own PVRs over varieties grown from seed, such as
cereal crops or grass, consider that farmers should pay
to use saved seed of
protected varieties. They estimate that they are missing out on approximately $2
million in annual royalties
because farmers do not have to pay to use saved seed
from their protected varieties.
- Some
plant breeders argue that without royalties for farm-saved seed, their revenue
from protected varieties is not enough for them
to make a return on their
investment in breeding new varieties. This causes local breeders to develop
fewer new varieties and foreign
plant breeders to allow fewer of their new
varieties to be imported and grown in New Zealand. As a result, plant breeders
conclude
that the PVR Act should be changed so that farmers must pay a royalty
for the use of saved seed to improve the funding of plant breeding
in
New Zealand.
- Breeders
consider that a royalty collection system for farm-saved seed should be flexible
enough to accommodate the different circumstances
that can apply to different
crop types. They support a system which would accommodate both seed point and
end point royalties.
Arable farmers
- Most
arable farmers we have spoken to are happy with the current approach and oppose
any restrictions being placed on their ability
to use farm-saved seed. Benefits
of saving seed for farmers include lower costs, knowledge of seed quality,
maintaining access to
varieties that may no longer be on the market, and timely
seed availability. Farmers generally oppose any change to the PVR Act that
would
prevent them from saving seed without the permission of PVR owners, due to the
perceived higher costs and complexities this
would entail.
- Some
farmers have said they are open to the possibility of a regime where farmers are
free to save seed of a protected variety without
permission but must pay a
royalty for seed that is planted. These farmers have stressed to us the need to
ensure that any royalty
payment system was simple and fair for all parties. From
their perspective, this would entail the development of a mechanism for
royalties to be set at a reasonable level with grower consultation. They also
consider that the royalties should be applied to the
amount of seed saved (seed
point royalties), not the produce, as this penalises farmer crop
management.
Questions
7
|
Do you think there are problems with the current farm-saved seed
arrangements? What are they? What is the size of these problems?
What are the
consequences of these problems? Please provide evidence where possible.
|
8
|
Do you think there are benefits of the farm-saved seed arrangements? What
are they? What is the size of these benefits? What are the
consequences of these
benefits? Please provide evidence where possible.
|
9
|
Do PVR owners use mechanisms outside the PVR regime to control
farmers’ use or saving of the seeds of their protected varieties?
What are
these?
|
10
|
Do you think farmers should have to get permission from the PVR owner
before sowing the farm-saved seed of a protected variety? Why/why
not?
|
11
|
What do you think the costs and benefits of a mandatory royalty scheme
would be? What could such a scheme look like (e.g. should it
cover all, or only
some, varieties)?
|
8 Rights over harvested material
- This
chapter considers the rights that PVR owners have over the harvested material of
their protected varieties.
The current situation
- The
concept of ‘harvested material’ is not used in the PVR Act or UPOV
78. It appears in the UPOV 91, though it is not
defined. For the purposes of
this discussion, the term ‘harvested material’ includes entire
plants and parts of plants,
which have been grown and harvested,
and:
- are
not normally used for propagating the variety; or
- could
be used for propagating the variety, but is used for some other purpose (such as
human or animal consumption).
- Examples
are fruit, cut flowers, cereal grains, and vegetables.
- The
PVR Act gives PVR owners only very limited rights over the harvested material of
their protected varieties, which is referred
to as ‘produce’ in the
Act. These rights arise only when:
- produce
of a variety protected in New Zealand is imported into New Zealand;
and
- the
country from which the produce is imported is not a UPOV member, or, if it is a
UPOV member, does not grant PVRs over the variety
concerned.
- ‘Produce’
is not defined but may be understood in the context of ‘fresh
produce’, describing fruit and vegetables
intended for consumption. This
means that if an importer wants to import apples of a variety protected in New
Zealand from a country
that is either not a UPOV member, or cannot grant a PVR
over the apple variety, the New Zealand PVR owner’s permission is
required.
- Sometimes
harvested material can also be propagating material. For example, the harvested
material of a wheat crop (wheat grain) is
also seed that can be used to sow
another crop.35 In this situation, the PVR
Act gives rights over the material only when it is used as propagating material
(seed) to sow another crop
and explicitly excludes rights over the material if
it is used for other purposes.36 Under the
PVR Act, growers are free to sell harvested material to food processors,
supermarkets and others without the permission
of the PVR owner. A wheat grower
can, for example, sell their wheat grain to a miller to make into flour.
However, many PVR owners
use contracts to give them control over the harvested
material of their protected varieties – for example, as a condition of
providing the propagating material to the grower.
35 Not all harvested
material is routinely or commonly propagating material. For example, the
harvested material from a carrot crop is
the taproot of the carrot plant (this
is the part we eat). But the taproot is not normally used to reproduce a carrot
plant –
carrots are routinely grown from seed.
36 Section 18.
International considerations
UPOV 78
- The
PVR Act is consistent with UPOV 78, which requires Parties to give PVR owners
rights over the propagating material of their protected
varieties. If harvested
material of a protected variety is also propagating material, UPOV 78 only
requires PVR owners to be given
rights over the harvested material if it is used
to propagate the protected variety.
- UPOV
78 allows each Party to decide whether to provide PVR owners with more extensive
rights over the harvested material.37
UPOV 91
- Like
UPOV 78, UPOV 91:
- requires
Parties to give PVR owners rights over the propagating material of their
protected varieties; and
- only
requires PVR owners to be given rights over harvested material that is also
propagating material if the material is used to reproduce
the protected
variety.
- If
the harvested material of a protected variety is not also propagating material,
UPOV 91 requires PVR owners to be given rights
over the harvested material
if:
- it
was obtained through unauthorised use of the propagating material of a protected
variety; and
- the
PVR owner did not have a “reasonable opportunity” to assert their
rights in relation to the propagating material.
- In
these cases, UPOV 91 also gives Parties the flexibility to provide additional
rights over the products made directly from harvested
material.
- Like
UPOV 78, UPOV 91 also allows individual Parties to determine whether to provide
PVR owners with more extensive rights. We are
not aware of any UPOV Member State
that gives plant breeders rights over the harvested material of their protected
varieties that
are additional to the basic rights required under UPOV
91.
Questions
|
Are there important features of the current situation regarding rights over
harvested material that we have not mentioned?
|
13
|
Do you agree with our definition of ‘harvested material’?
Why/why not?
|
37 Article 5(4) of UPOV
78.
Is there a problem with the current situation?
What do PVR owners say?
- Some
PVR owners argue that because they do not have rights over harvested material
under the PVR Act, they cannot adequately control
the supply or the standards of
the harvested material of their protected variety. They consider that
controlling the supply and the
standards to which the plants are grown and
processed enables them to better protect the reputation of their protected
variety.
- Others
suggest that being able to collect a royalty at different points will encourage
investment in new varieties by enabling PVR
owners to get a better return on
their investment.
Potential issues with providing rights over harvested
material
- It
is unclear whether lack of control over harvested material in the PVR Act is
inhibiting PVR owners’ ability to commercially
exploit their plant
varieties. Many PVR owners use contracts to give them control over the harvested
material of their protected
varieties. Some PVR owners and some farmers we have
spoken to prefer the flexibility of being able to use contracts, rather than
having the PVR Act itself determine the issue.
- Providing
PVR owners with rights over harvested material of their protected varieties
under certain conditions may effectively give
them a monopoly over that
material, and might also enable them to prevent growers from selling to the
highest bidder. This may be
seen as giving PVR owners more market power than is
desirable, leading to reduced competition, and higher prices for
consumers.
- There
may, however, be benefit in providing PVR owners with the ability to enforce
their rights over harvested material under certain
conditions, in line with UPOV
91. This would be where the material was grown without authorisation and the PVR
owner has not had
an opportunity to take enforcement action before the material
was harvested. An example of this would be if the PVR owner did not
know that
the protected variety was being grown. Another example would be where produce of
a protected variety was imported into
New Zealand from a country where the variety could not be protected.
- UPOV
91 also gives Parties the flexibility to provide additional rights over the
products made directly from harvested material. An example is the use of
roses of a protected variety that have been grown from unauthorised
use of
propagating material being used for potpourri.
- Expanding
these rights may be seen as an enforcement mechanism, to help deter people from
using propagating material of protected
varieties without PVR owners’
permission. However, whether this is occurring in New Zealand – and
whether the resulting
harvested material is being used in products – is
unclear. Extending rights over harvested material and products could also
lead
to an increase in costs for manufacturers of plant-based products. Manufacturers
may not be aware that the plants they are sourcing
have been propagated without
the PVR owners’ permission.
Questions
|
Do you think there are problems with the current scope of PVR owners’
rights over harvested material? What are they? What is
the size of these
problems? What are the consequences of these problems? Please provide evidence
where possible.
|
15
|
Do you think there are benefits to the current scope of PVR owners’
rights over harvested material? What are they? What is the
size of these
benefits? What are the consequences of these benefits? Please provide evidence
where possible.
|
9 Rights over similar varieties
- In
this chapter, we look at how PVRs are granted over new varieties that are
similar to existing varieties. This chapter looks more
in depth at the rules
that relate to:
- whether
varieties which have close similarity to an existing variety should be eligible
for protection (the distinctness requirement);
and
- who
should benefit from protection when a new variety is bred using existing
protected varieties, where the new variety is very similar
to the parent variety
(this is referred to as ‘essentially derived variety’, which is a
concept introduced in UPOV 91).
The distinctness requirement
- The
distinctness requirement is set out in section 10(4)(b) of the PVR
Act:
A variety is distinct if it is distinguishable by 1 or more
characteristics from any other variety whose existence was a matter of
common
knowledge when the application [for a plant variety right] was made.
- In
New Zealand, assessment of distinctness is based upon international practices
agreed to by UPOV Members.
Distinctness based on phenotypical differences
- Distinctness
is assessed on phenotypical (expressed) differences rather than genetic
differences. Phenotypical differences are:
- morphological
(physical) characteristics, such as flower colour, stem length or leaf shape;
and
- physiological
characteristics, such as disease resistance or drought
resistance.
- To
be eligible for a PVR, a variety needs to vary sufficiently from commonly known
varieties in at least one of these phenotypical
characteristics. Distinctness is
intended to be assessed objectively rather than on a subjective assessment of
the benefit (commercial
or otherwise) the phenotypical difference may
provide.
- If
a variety is considered by the PVRO to be distinct, and the other requirements
for protection are met, the applicant will be granted
a
PVR.
International obligations
- Both
UPOV 78 and UPOV 91 require varieties to be distinct in order to be granted a
PVR. There is no practical difference between the
two standards.
Question
|
Are there other important features of the current situation regarding
distinctness that we have not mentioned?
|
Essentially derived varieties
- The
issues with the distinctness requirement (discussed below) are similar to the
issues that led to the development of the concept
of ‘essentially derived
variety’ (EDV) in UPOV 91. One of the justifications for
introducing the EDV concept was that it allowed the exclusive rights granted to
PVR owners
to be extended to varieties which differed from a protected variety
in relatively few ways.
- At
present, New Zealand’s PVR regime does not include EDVs. Under New
Zealand’s CPTPP obligations, we would have to extend
protection for
initial protected varieties to cover EDVs.
- Articles
14(5)(b) and (c) of UPOV 91 contain a definition of EDV:
Definition of essentially derived variety – UPOV 91 Article
14(5)(b) and (c)
|
A variety shall be deemed to be essentially derived from another variety
(‘the initial variety’) when:
- it is
predominantly derived from the initial variety, or from a variety that is itself
predominantly derived from the initial variety,
while retaining the expression
of the essential characteristics that result from the genotype or combination of
genotypes of the
initial variety;
- it is
clearly distinguishable from the initial variety; and
- except
for the differences which result from the act of derivation, it conforms to the
initial variety in the expression of the essential
characteristics that result
from the genotype or combination of genotypes of the initial
variety.
Essentially derived varieties may be obtained for example
by the selection of a natural or induced mutant, or of a somaclonal variant,
the
selection of a variant individual from plants of the initial variety,
backcrossing, or transformation by genetic engineering.
|
- In
order to be eligible to be granted a PVR, an EDV must be distinct from the
initial variety it is derived from. There is no requirement
for the initial
variety to be protected by a PVR in order for a subsequent variety to be an EDV
(though, of course, in this case
the developer of the EDV has no restrictions on
the exercise of their right over the EDV).
Rights given by UPOV 91 over EDVs
- UPOV
91 sets out the rights that Parties must provide to PVR owners over their
protected varieties.38 Those same rights
are extended in UPOV 91 to varieties essentially derived from a protected
variety.39
- If
a new variety is an EDV of a protected variety, anyone wanting to commercialise
the EDV must obtain the permission of the PVR owner.
This is the case whether or
not the EDV is itself a protected variety. The diagram below shows how this
works (based on the definition
of EDV in UPOV 91):
![2018_114.png](2018_114.png)
- Where
Variety A is not a protected variety (either because no PVR was applied for or
any PVR has lapsed or expired), breeders of any
varieties derived from Variety A
can commercialise these derived varieties without the need to obtain the
permission of the PVR owner
of Variety A.
The current situation
- The
PVR Act currently provides that the exclusive right of PVR owners extend beyond
the initial protected variety only in the following
circumstances:
- varieties
requiring repeated use of a protected variety (for example, a hybrid variety
produced using two parental varieties for which
one or both is protected);
and
- varieties
not clearly distinguishable from the protected
variety.
- If
a PVR is granted over a new plant variety under the PVR Act, the owner of the
PVR has the exclusive right to grow and sell propagating
material of the
variety. This means that anyone who wishes to grow or sell propagating material
of the variety must get a licence
to do so from the PVR owner. This will usually
involve paying a fee to the PVR owner.
38 Articles 14(1) –
(4), UPOV 91.
39 Article 14(5)(a), UPOV 91.
- The
rights of PVR owners in their protected variety do not extend to any varieties
derived from that protected variety.
Question
|
Are there other important features of the concept of EDVs that we have not
mentioned?
|
Is there a problem with the current situation?
Determining
whether a variety is distinct
- Some
PVR owners suggest that there are problems with the current approach to
determining distinctness. These include that the standard:
- only
requires small differences to meet the distinctness standard;
- does
not assess the commercial importance of the change; and
- allows
for changes that do not provide any additional benefits over existing
varieties.
- This
has led to suggestions that some plant breeders ‘piggy-back’ on the
efforts of genuinely innovative breeders. The
argument is that that they do this
by taking protected varieties and making minor changes to them, usually in
characteristics that
do not affect the commercial value of the variety. Because
the altered variety is distinct from the protected variety it was derived
from,
it does not infringe the protected variety’s PVR and the altered variety
is able to be granted its own PVR. The example
below illustrates how the current
situation might be considered problematic.
Example 1
|
Breeder A develops a new variety of pea, P1, which has greater disease
resistance than the pea varieties it was derived from. P1 is
protected by a
PVR.
Breeder B takes variety P1 and derives a new variety P2 from it. P2 has the
same disease resistance as P1 but has a different coloured
flower. The colour of
the flower does not contribute anything to the commercial value of P1.
Because it has different coloured flowers, it is clearly distinguishable
from P1, so the sale or reproduction of P2 does not infringe
the PVR on P1, and
Breeder B does not have to get the permission of breeder B to commercially use
P2.
|
- Some
plant breeders would argue that the derived variety P2 is no more than a copy of
P1 because the differences between P1 and P2
in Example 1 are minor and have no
commercial value. They consider that, in these circumstances, Breeder B is
‘free riding’
on Breeder A’s investment in developing greater
disease resistance in P1.
- Since
P2 may compete with P1 in the market, the revenue earned by Breeder A may be
significantly less than would otherwise be the
case. This could reduce the
incentive for plant breeders to develop new varieties that are a genuine advance
over existing varieties,
as
opposed to new varieties where the difference between the new variety and the
initial variety is minor.
- The
extension of the exclusive rights of PVR owners to EDVs in UPOV 91 was intended
to deal with the ‘free riding’ issue
identified above. Extending
rights in this way would mean that the breeder of the essentially derived
variety would have to get the
permission of the owner of the PVR in the initial
variety. This would usually involve the payment of a fee to that PVR
owner.
Alternate approaches to assessing distinctness
- Some
in the plant breeding industry have suggested that other approaches to
determining distinctness would be better than the current
approach,
including:
- assessing
distinctness based on ‘important’ characteristics for the species
concerned; and
- measuring
‘genetic distance’ between protected and altered varieties in order
to determine whether a variety is distinct.
- However,
whatever advantages there might be in using alternative approaches to
determining distinctness, there are also likely to
be (at least at present)
significant disadvantages:
- No
other country uses alternative approaches in their PVR regime. If New Zealand
were to adopt them, we would significantly increase
the differences between how
distinctness is treated in New Zealand and how it is treated overseas. Varieties
that might be considered
distinct and eligible for a PVR in other countries
might not be considered distinct or eligible for a PVR in New Zealand (and
vice-versa).
- For
some varieties developed overseas, the PVRO relies on examination reports from
other UPOV Members when deciding whether or not
to grant a PVR in New Zealand.
If the approach to distinctness in New Zealand differs from that used elsewhere,
the PVRO might not
be able to rely on foreign examination reports. This would
mean a greater use of growing trials in New Zealand, resulting in significant
additional cost and complexity for some foreign
applicants.
- It
is not clear that an alternate approach to distinctness would provide benefits
– to plant breeders or to society as a whole
– that would offset
these disadvantages.
- A
change in how we assess distinctness could also impact how we determine whether
a variety is an EDV (discussed below).
Questions
|
Do you think there are problems with the current approach for assessing
distinctness? What are they? What is the size of these problems?
What are the
consequences of these problems? Please provide evidence where possible.
|
19
|
Do you think there are benefits with the current approach for assessing
distinctness? What are they? What is the size of these benefits?
What are the
consequences of these benefits? Please provide evidence where possible.
|
20
|
How might technological change affect the problems/benefits of the current
approach for assessing distinctness that you have identified?
|
Determining
whether a variety is an EDV
- The
definition of EDV in UPOV 91 is not definitive, with key terms such as
“predominantly derived” and “essential
features”
undefined. The line between varieties that are non-EDVs and those that are EDVs
could, in theory, be drawn anywhere
on a continuum, and there is policy
flexibility as to where New Zealand chooses to draw that line (though similar
arguments as to
those presented for ‘distinctness’ above in para 182
would apply here too).
- However,
the definition of EDV in UPOV 91 and the way in which UPOV 91 Members have
implemented an EDV regime provide a starting point
for thinking about how any
EDV protection might work in New Zealand. A number of UPOV 91 Members, including
Australia, the EU, the
United States and Canada, have implemented EDVs in
domestic legislation. The definitions of EDVs used by these countries are very
close to the wording of UPOV 91, but there is very little case law relating to
EDVs. International experience seems to suggest that
the proportion of varieties
which may be considered an EDV may be relatively low as compared to the total
number of protected varieties.
Would EDVs help increase innovation?
- Plant
breeders also argue that because PVRs do not extend to EDVs of protected
varieties, foreign breeders may be reluctant to release
their new varieties in
New Zealand. This is because it would be easy for local breeders to
‘copy’ these foreign developed
varieties by making perceived minor
changes that would retain the original variety’s commercial value, but
would not infringe
any PVR on that original variety.
- Others
argue that extending PVR protection to cover EDVs of protected varieties could
have the effect of discouraging some investment
in plant breeding. Consider the
situation set out in Example 2 below.
Example 2
|
Breeder A develops a new variety of pea P1, which has essential
characteristics X and Y. P1 is protected by a PVR and is an initial
variety.
Under the legislation that extends PVR protection to cover EDVs, Breeder A has
exclusive rights over EDVs of P1.
Breeder B wants to invest in developing a new variety P2 from P1. Breeder B
does not need the permission of Breeder A to do this.
If P2 is considered an EDV of P1, Breeder B will need to get permission
from, and probably pay a fee to, Breeder A to commercially
use P2. This will
reduce the return that breeder B will earn from commercialising P2. As a result,
Breeder B may decide that it is
not worth investing in developing variety
P2.
If P2 is not considered an EDV of P1, Breeder B can freely exploit variety
P2. Breeder B may then decide that the return from exploiting
P2 makes it
worthwhile to invest in developing P2.
|
- Considering
Example 2, the extension of PVRs from the initial protected variety to EDVs of
the protected variety may discourage some
plant breeders from developing new
varieties from protected varieties. This example suggests that it is possible
that the greater
the number of derived varieties that are considered EDVs, the
more likely it is that some breeders will be discouraged from using
protected
varieties in their breeding programs. If so, EDVs may impede innovation. We
would be interested in more information on
how the plant breeding industry uses
protected varieties in the development of new varieties.
Questions
|
Do you have any examples of a plant breeder ‘free-riding’ off a
variety? How often does this happen? What commercial impact
did this have?
Please provide evidence where possible.
|
22
|
Do you think there are problems with not having an EDV regime? What are
they? What is the size of these problems? What are the consequences
of these
problems? Please provide evidence where possible.
|
23
|
Do you think there are benefits of not having an EDV regime? What are they?
What is the size of these benefits? What are the consequences
of these benefits?
Please provide evidence where possible.
|
24
|
How might technological change affect the problems/benefits of not having
an EDV regime that you have identified?
|
10 Compulsory licences
- Compulsory
licences are a mechanism to ensure protected varieties are made available to the
public at reasonable prices and on reasonable
terms.
The current situation
- Section
21 of the PVR Act states that any person may apply to the Commissioner for a
compulsory licence for a protected variety. If
the application is accepted, the
Commissioner grants a licence to reproduce and sell propagating material of the
protected variety
to the licensee.
- A
compulsory licence is granted without the permission of the PVR owner. As part
of the licence conditions, the Commissioner can require
the PVR owner to sell
the propagating material of the protected variety to the licensee.40 The licensee must pay a royalty to the PVR
owner, which is set by the Commissioner.
- A
compulsory licence can be granted over a protected variety if:
- the
application for the licence was made at least three years after the PVR was
granted; and
- the
PVR owner has not made reasonable quantities of the protected variety’s
propagating material available to the public at
a reasonable
price.
- In
deciding whether condition (b) above is met, the Commissioner must ignore
propagating material that has been made available on
a limited basis or with
restrictive conditions (e.g. only allowed to be sold to specific
people).
International considerations
- Compulsory
licensing is permitted under Article 9 of UPOV 78 and Article 17 of UPOV 91,
which provides for the restriction of PVRs
for ‘reasons of public
interest’. Neither UPOV 78 nor UPOV 91 defines ‘public
interest’. Members must take
all measures necessary to ensure that the
breeder receives equitable remuneration.
Compulsory licences are rare in New Zealand
- Since
the introduction of plant variety rights in New Zealand in 1973, only two
compulsory licences have been granted. They were granted
in 1985 for two
varieties of feijoa, ‘Gemini’ and
‘Apollo’.
40 Without this power, the
right to use the protected variety would be of no practical use. The licensee
needs physical possession of
the propagating material as well as a legal right
to use it. The PVR Act therefore allows a compulsory licence to include a
requirement
that the PVR owner give propagating material to the licensee.
- Five
applications have been made for compulsory licences in recent years. All of
these applications related to PVRs over hop varieties
and were made by the same
company (one in 2015 and the other four in 2016). The applications were
withdrawn in August 2017 following
a confidential settlement between the
applicant and the PVR owner. No compulsory licences were issued and the
Commissioner was not
required to make a decision.
Why have compulsory licences?
- Compulsory
licence provisions are intended to provide a remedy for, and deterrent against,
abuse of intellectual property rights.
In addition to the PVR Act, compulsory
licence provisions also appear in the Patents Act and the Designs Act
1953. If an intellectual property rights holder refuses to make their
protected innovations available on reasonable terms and at reasonable
prices, it
is possible for anyone to apply for a compulsory licence.
- The
grant of intellectual property rights like PVRs is a social bargain. In return
for being given the exclusive right to exploit
the innovations protected by
their intellectual property rights, rights owners are expected to share some of
the benefits of their
innovations with society as whole. This is typically done
by making these innovations reasonably available to the
public.
- Rights
owners unreasonably refusing to make their innovations available can inhibit
innovation. Most innovation builds on previous
innovation. If previous
innovations are difficult to access because the price is too high, or because
rights owners restrict access,
follow-on innovation could be discouraged to the
detriment of society as a whole.
- This
can be a particular issue in the case of PVRs. If a plant breeder wants to use a
protected variety in their breeding programs,
they need propagating material of
the variety concerned.41 If they are
unable to gain access to the propagating material because the PVR owner will not
make it available to them, their ability
to develop improved varieties from
protected varieties can be severely curtailed. Additionally, where the owner of
a PVR unreasonably
limits the licences it provides to growers and nurseries, it
may result in higher prices for consumers or consumers may miss out
on products
developed from the protected variety.
- Compulsory
licences may also help to balance the differing bargaining power of PVR owners
and growers, particularly in situations
where:
- a PVR
owner is a much larger entity than a potential user or grower of a protected
variety; or
- a PVR
owner is limiting access to propagating material of their protected variety in
order to support a small number of growers or
downstream
enterprises.
- Compulsory
licences can limit the effect of monopolistic behaviour by PVR owners while
still providing PVR owners with a reasonable
return for their product.
Additionally, the threat of a compulsory licence may aid a user or grower in
negotiating with the PVR owner
for access to a protected variety or influence a
PVR owner’s decision to provide reasonable access to their protected
variety.
41 Other forms of
intellectual property, like copyright works and designs, are usually easier to
access and copy.
- Compulsory
licences may also support access to a protected variety where there is a public
interest in the variety. A protected variety
may have a particular medicinal
property or health benefit. If the owner chooses to limit the access to the
protected variety, the
public may be denied the benefits. The compulsory licence
regime enables the public to access the protected variety and receive the
benefits.
Question
|
Are there important features of the current situation regarding compulsory
licences that we have not mentioned?
|
Is there a problem with the current situation?
- PVR
owners suggest that granting compulsory licences has the potential to reduce
their return from their protected varieties. They
have told us that compulsory
licence provisions introduce uncertainty as to the value of a
PVR.
- Problems
suggested by different stakeholders include:
- the
PVR Act does not define what is meant by ‘reasonable quantities’,
‘reasonable quality’ or ‘reasonable
price’;
- there
is no explicit requirement for the Commissioner to take account of the
‘public interest’;
- the
PVR Act does not state that the Commissioner can take into account mitigating
factors. For example, the PVR owner may not have
been able to produce reasonable
quantities of propagating material;
- there
is nothing in the legislation to prevent compulsory licensees from exporting
propagating material obtained under a compulsory
licence;
- the
applicant for a licence does not need to show that they are capable of utilising
the variety concerned;
- there
is a lack of legal precedent because there have been few compulsory licence
applications and decisions issued by the Commissioner;
and
- there
is a low threshold for compulsory licence applications – any person can
apply if they pay the application fee of $600
+ GST.
- Some
of the problems identified above may reflect a lack of clarity in the PVR Act
and Regulations about the procedure the Commissioner
must follow when a
compulsory licence application is received. This may have led to a perception
that, if an application for a compulsory
licence is filed, it will probably be
granted, with the only cost to the applicant being the application fee.
- In
practice, however, before the Commissioner can make a decision on whether to
issue a licence, the applicant and the PVR owner will
need to prepare and submit
evidence supporting their cases. This may involve significant costs to both the
applicant and PVR owner.
The Commissioner would only grant a compulsory licence
if satisfied on the basis of the evidence submitted that the conditions for
grant of a compulsory licence were met.
Questions
|
Do you think there are problems with the current compulsory licence regime?
What are they? What is the size of these problems? What
are the consequences of
these problems? Please provide evidence where possible.
|
27
|
Do you think there are benefits with the current compulsory licence regime?
What are they? What is the size of these benefits? What
are the consequences of
these benefits? Please provide evidence where possible.
|
- Enforcement:
infringements and
offences
- In
this chapter, we look at the enforcement of PVRs – the action that PVR
owners can take against people who infringe their
PVRs and the remedies
available to them. We also look at offences under the PVR
Act.
The current situation
- Through
the grant of PVRs, PVR owners obtain certain exclusive rights over their
variety. The purpose of the exclusive rights is to
provide the PVR owner an
opportunity to make a return on their investment in developing the protected
variety, and to provide an
ability to control or manage that
variety.
- If
another person uses the protected variety in a way that is covered by the
exclusive rights without the PVR owner’s permission,
this action infringes
the PVR. The infringing action could reduce the return that the PVR owner could
gain from their new variety.
As a result, plant breeders might not be willing to
invest in developing new varieties. In addition, use of a variety without
permission
could reduce the ability of the PVR owner to enforce quality
standards and maintain control over the variety. Providing a means of
enforcing
PVRs forms part of the incentive in the PVR regime for breeders to develop and
introduce their varieties in New Zealand.
- PVRs
are private property rights. Because PVR owners receive the most benefits from
PVRs, they are responsible for enforcing their
rights (including any associated
costs). This approach is consistent with the other intellectual property regimes
such as the copyright,
patents, trade marks, industrial designs and geographical
indications regimes.
What is infringement under the PVR Act?
- The
PVR Act provides that people must obtain the PVR owner’s permission before
they can:
- sell,
or offer for sale, propagating material of the protected variety;
- produce
propagating material of the protected variety for sale as propagating
material;
- import
propagating material of a protected variety into New Zealand for use in
reproducing the variety;
- import
produce of a protected variety into New Zealand from a UPOV member whose laws do
not permit protection of that variety; or
- import
the produce of a protected variety into New Zealand from a country that is not a
party to UPOV.
- If
a person engages in any of the above activities without the permission of the
PVR owner, they are infringing the PVR owner’s
rights.
- In
other intellectual property regimes, such as patents and trade marks, the scope
and nature of what actions constitute infringement
is often refined and
clarified through case law. However, we are aware of only one PVR infringement
case that has gone to court.
This is Cropmark Seeds Ltd v Winchester
International Ltd42 and the subsequent
appeal.43
- In
this case, Winchester arranged the sale of the seed of a protected variety
without the PVR owner’s permission but had not
actually grown the seed for
sale, nor did they sell the seed directly. The courts determined that this
conduct had the effect of
“diminishing the grantee’s enjoyment of
its exclusive right”, and infringed the PVR. The decision clarified that
“arranging for sale” is also part of the scope of PVR owners’
rights.
How do PVR owners enforce their rights?
Private negotiations
- Infringement
is predominantly addressed through private negotiations. In cases where the PVR
owner and the alleged infringer have
an existing relationship, the PVR owner may
make contact directly. The parties may discuss what action should be taken, if
any, to
address the infringement. Commonly, the two parties will have an
existing contractual relationship. In these cases the discussion
regarding PVR
infringement will form part of the discussion alongside the contractual
breach.
- If
the situation escalates, or the two parties do not have a relationship, the PVR
owners may issue formal ‘cease and desist’
letters. However, these
letters are not legally binding.
Legal proceedings
- PVR
owners are able to take action for infringing behaviour through the courts. The
PVR Act does not specify which court must hear
infringement proceedings. The
Patents Act, the Trade Marks Act 2002, and the Designs Act
require infringement proceedings to be initiated in the High
Court.
Alternative dispute resolution services
- Alternative
dispute resolution potentially provides a simpler and cheaper way of enforcing
PVRs than going through the courts. As
the PVR Act is silent on alternative
dispute resolution, this will only be an option if all parties to a dispute
agree to it.
- Alternative
dispute resolution can include:
- negotiations
between the parties;
- mediation,
where a mediator assists the parties to resolve their dispute by reaching an
agreed settlement between them, but cannot
impose a solution;
and
42 HC Timaru
CIV-2003-476-8.
43 Winchester v Cropmark Seeds
Limited CA 226/04, 5 December 2005.
- arbitration,
where the dispute is heard by an arbitrator who assumes the role of a judge and
whose decision is binding on the parties.
- We
do not know the extent to which alternative dispute resolution is used to
resolve disputes involving PVR infringement, beyond direct
negotiations. We are
interested in information about your experiences with alternative dispute
resolution and whether there are any
features of the current PVR regime that
might prevent PVR owners using it.
Remedies for infringement
- If
a PVR owner proves in court that their PVR has been infringed, the court may
award the PVR owner damages.44 Damages are
awarded to compensate the owner for the loss the infringement caused. The court
may also award exemplary damages. Exemplary
damages are awarded to penalise the
infringer for their actions rather than to compensate the PVR owner. They are
normally only awarded
where the infringement has been
flagrant.
- In
deciding on the level of damages, a court is required to take account
of:
- any
loss suffered or likely to be suffered by the PVR owner as a result of the
infringement;
- any
profits or other benefits derived by any other person from the infringement;
and
- the
flagrancy of the infringement.
Provisional protection
- If
an applicant who has provisional protection for their variety45 takes action against an alleged infringer
before the PVR is granted but the application is then rejected,46 the right to take action is deemed never
to have been conferred. The PVR Act does not specify what remedies are available
to an alleged
infringer who has had proceedings taken against them and the
application was not later granted.
- This
can be contrasted with the Patents Act and the Trade Marks Act.
Under those Acts, owners can take action against infringement that occurs after
application but before the application has been
decided. However, they can only
start proceedings once the application has been decided.
Offences and Penalties
- Infringement
of a PVR is not a criminal offence. However, section 37 of the PVR Act does make
it an offence to:
- supply,
with intent to deceive, false or misleading information in connection with an
application for a PVR;
- falsely
represent that a person is a PVR owner or that a person has applied for a
PVR;
44 Section 17(4).
45 Provisional protection is described
in Chapter 3.
46 This can happen if the application is
refused, withdrawn or allowed to lapse.
- falsely
represent that a variety is a protected variety or that a PVR application has
been made in respect of that variety;
- falsely
represent that a variety is some other variety which is protected by a PVR or
that is the subject of a PVR application;
- sell
a variety that is a protected variety, or that was a protected variety (because
the PVR has been surrendered or expired), without
using the denomination
(variety name) approved with it when the PVR was granted; and
- represent
yourself as the PVRO or to suggest that you or your business is officially
connected to the PVRO.
- Enforcing
these offences requires an enforcement authority, such as the PVRO or the
Police, to take action. The PVR Act does not expressly
provide a way for civil
action to be taken against offenders by those who are adversely affected by
these activities. However, activities
(b) – (d) and (f) listed
above may well breach sections 9 – 11 of the Fair Trading Act 1986.
It is possible for civil actions to be taken for breaches of the Fair Trading
Act.
- It
is also an offence for a person to apply for a PVR or acquire an interest in a
PVR or a PVR application while employed by the PVRO
or for 12 months afterward
they have left the PVRO.
- The
maximum penalty for any of the offences in the PVR Act is a fine of
$1,000.
International considerations
- UPOV
78 and UPOV 91 only require parties to provide “appropriate legal
remedies” for the enforcement of PVRs. They do
not go into any further
detail about what those remedies should be.
Questions
|
Are there important features of the current situation regarding
infringements and offences that we have not mentioned?
|
29
|
Have you been involved in a dispute relating to the infringement of a PVR?
How was it resolved? How was it resolved (e.g. was alternative
dispute
resolution used)? How effective was the process?
|
30
|
How prevalent are PVR infringements and offences?
|
Are there any problems with the current situation?
- We
have heard from a range of PVR owners, who have expressed dissatisfaction with
the current enforcement provisions in the PVR Act.
Issues that one or more PVR
owners identified include:
- the
PVR Act lacks clarity on:
- what
constitutes infringement;
- what
action PVR owners can take against infringers;
and
- the
remedies or penalties that can be awarded against
infringers;
- it is
not cost effective to enforce PVRs;
- there
are difficulties in gathering evidence;
- there
is no provision that explicitly allows a counterclaim for invalidity as a
defence to an accusation of infringement; and
- it is
unclear what happens if action is taken against an infringer when a variety is
under provisional protection, but the right is
not subsequently
granted.
- We
deal with each of these in turn. We have also identified some issues with the
offence provisions.
It is not clear what constitutes infringement
- In
some areas, the PVR Act specifies the behaviour that infringes a PVR
owner’s rights. In others it gives little guidance to
the courts, PVR
owners or third parties.
- In
the Winchester case, the Court of Appeal determined that infringing
behaviour includes behaviour which has the effect of ‘diminishing the
grantee’s
enjoyment of its exclusive right’. Due to the lack of PVR
related case law in New Zealand, the scope of this determination
has not been
tested. It remains up to the courts to decide what conduct may have this
diminishing effect.
- We
have heard concerns about the lack of a precise definition of infringement in
the PVR Act. If it is unclear what activities might
constitute infringement,
third parties might develop an overly cautious approach to their conduct. An
overly cautious approach may
reduce innovation within the plant variety
industries.
The PVR Act is not clear on the process PVR owners can take
against infringers
- The
PVR Act does not specify how a PVR owner can take action against an alleged
infringer. Although the relevant part of the PVR Act
refers to a
‘court’ (section 17(4)), it is unclear which court. However, in New
Zealand intellectual property disputes
are generally within the jurisdiction of
the High Court.
The PVR Act is not clear on the remedies or penalties that
might be awarded against infringers
- The
PVR Act sets out the factors a court must take into account when awarding
damages or any other relief that a court may order but
does not go into any
further detail. This may cause uncertainty over just what remedies a court can
award. This uncertainty may affect
whether PVR owners take an infringement
allegation to court.
Cost of enforcing PVRs
- As
with all intellectual property rights, enforcement of a PVR through the High
Court can be costly. Gathering evidence and mounting
a High Court case can cost
tens of thousands of dollars, sometimes considerably more. There is a concern
that the costs of mounting
a High Court case, even if successful, may sometimes
be higher than any damages the PVR owner might be awarded. Some owners have
also
raised concerns that the costs of mounting a High Court case may sometimes be
higher than the overall profits a PVR owner can
earn from the protected
variety.
Difficulties in gathering evidence
- One
issue that has been raised by some PVR owners is the difficulty in gathering
evidence to support infringement proceedings.
- Given
the nature of plant material, evidence of infringement can easily be destroyed
or not be available if it is the wrong season.
Evidence is also likely to be
held on the property of the alleged infringer, which the PVR owner is unlikely
to have access to.
- PVR
owners can obtain a ‘Search Order’47 through the High Court to enable them to
obtain the evidence. However, this can be costly and the threshold for obtaining
the order
is high. PVR owners must make a strong prima facie case of
infringement and show that the potential or actual damage to the PVR owner is
very serious. There must also be clear evidence
that the alleged infringer
possesses the relevant evidence, and that they may destroy it before
infringement proceedings can be initiated.
Counterclaim for invalidity
- We
have heard concerns that there is there is nothing in the PVR Act that allows
alleged infringers to defend an allegation of infringement
of a PVR by arguing
that the PVR is invalid and should not have been granted.
- In
practice, it seems likely that a court dealing with an allegation of
infringement may well accept a defence that the PVR was invalid.
There may,
however, be value in explicitly stating that invalidity of the PVR is a defence
to an allegation of infringement. The
Patents Act explicitly provides that
invalidity of the patent concerned is a defence to an allegation of
infringement.
- Furthermore,
while the PVR Act provides a mechanism to cancel a grant, it does not provide a
mechanism to declare the grant null or
invalid more generally. The cancellation
of a grant stops the grant from being protected from the date of the
cancellation. This
is in contrast to nullity and invalidity, which treats the
variety as though it were never protected at all.
47 Also known as an Anton
Piller Order.
Provisional Protection
- As
discussed in paragraph 43, the PVR Act allows PVR owners to take action, to
prevent people exploiting a variety over which a PVR
application has been made
but not yet been granted.
- Provisional
protection may cause issues when the infringement case is successful, but
subsequently the PVR is not provided with a
grant of protection. This situation
creates confusion as it is not clear what status the infringement case has if,
subsequently,
no rights have been granted over a variety.
- In
these situations, the ‘infringer’ may have suffered financial loss,
for example if they were prevented from selling
the variety described in the PVR
application. However, there is no explicit protection to compensate them for
their loss. The court
considering the PVR application might require some sort of
security or bond to use in the case that the PVR application is not granted.
However, the PVR Act does not specifically require this and it has not been
tested before the courts.
Question
|
Do you think there are problems with the infringement provisions in the PVR
Act? What are they? What is the size of these problems?
What are the
consequences of these problems? Please provide evidence where possible.
|
Offences and Penalties
Providing false or misleading information to the Plant Variety
Rights Office
- It
is an offence to provide false or misleading information to the PVRO in
connection with an application for a PVR. This offence
is subject to a $1,000
penalty. Additionally, if the false or misleading information impacted the
Commissioner’s decision to
provide the variety with a grant, it may be
cancelled.48
- The
offence provision covers scenarios where false/misleading information does not
impact the decision to grant rights over the PVR.
However, it is unclear whether
the offence provision is a deterrent to false/misleading
behaviour.
- Instead,
the threat of cancellation may well be a more powerful deterrent than a fine, as
loss of a PVR may have a higher cost to
the PVR owner than a possible fine.
Under the Patents Act, the provision of false or misleading information in
connection with a
patent application is a ground for revoking the patent but is
not an offence.
Offences involving false representation
- It
is an offence under the PVR Act for someone to falsely represent:
- that
they have applied for, or have been granted, a PVR over a plant
variety;
48 Section 16(2)(a).
- that
material of a variety that they are selling is material of a protected variety
(including provisionally protected) or is material
of some other protected
variety;
- that
a person’s place of business is, or is officially connected with, the
PVRO.
- Enforcing
these offences requires the PVRO or other enforcement authorities to take
action. However, it may be possible for people
who are adversely affected by
these activities to take civil action under the Fair Trading
Act.
- The
Trade Marks Act contains similar offence provisions with a penalty of up
to 2 years imprisonment. The Patents Act 1953 contained similar
provisions, but these were not carried over into the Patents Act 2013.
Instead it was determined that offences relating to false representation were
best covered by the Fair Trading Act.
Officers of the PVRO not to apply for, or acquire an interest
in, a PVR
- Officers
of the PVRO are prohibited from applying for PVRs or acquiring an interest in a
PVR. This rule seeks to ensure that no conflict
between their commercial
interests and their official duties arises. However, it is unusual for
legislation to specifically deal
with this issue.
- Neither
the Trade Marks Act nor the Patents Act makes it an offence for
IPONZ officers to file, or acquire an interest in patent or trademark
applications. It may be more appropriate
to deal with the conduct of PVRO
officers through the public service code of conduct and through the provisions
of section 105A of
the Crimes Act 1961. The Crimes Act provides
that corrupt use of official information is an offence carrying a penalty of up
to 7 years imprisonment.
Penalties for committing an offence
- We
have heard concerns with the offence provisions that the penalty (maximum of
$1,000 fine) is too low. It is argued that some offenders
just see the fine as a
‘cost of doing business’ and therefore not a
deterrent.
- However,
as offences under the PVR Act rarely result in court proceedings, it is not
clear as to the extent to which people are committing
offences under the PVR
Act. Furthermore, it is not clear what, if any, impact the penalty has on
peoples’ behaviour.
Question
|
Do you think there are problems with the offence provisions in the PVR Act?
What are they? What is the size of these problems? What
are the consequences of
these problems? Please provide evidence where possible.
|
Part
4 - Plant variety rights and the
Treaty of Waitangi
- The
Crown’s obligations to Māori under the Treaty of Waitangi in the PVR
regime are a key component of this review. The
Waitangi Tribunal’s Wai 262
report provides a useful starting point for considering the PVR regime from a
Treaty perspective.
In Chapter 2 of the Wai 262 report, the Tribunal examined
law and policy relating to the genetic and biological resources of taonga
species and mātauranga Māori. This involved a close look at New
Zealand’s bioprospecting, genetic modification and intellectual
property regimes – including the PVR Act.
- In
this issues paper, we discuss the Wai 262 recommendations relating to PVRs.
Before going into the detail of the recommendations,
we provide context on the
key findings and concepts underlying them. Part 4 is structured as
follows:
- First,
we outline the Wai 262 claim, and the Tribunal’s high-level findings on
taonga species – including mātauranga
Māori relating to taonga
species (Chapter 12).
- We
then take a closer look at the concepts of kaitiakitanga and the kaitiaki
relationship, the keystone of the Tribunal’s recommendations
in the Wai
262 report (Chapter 13).
- Finally,
we consider the Tribunal’s recommendations on the PVR regime, and feedback
we received in our pre-consultation engagement
on protecting the kaitiaki
relationship (Chapter 14).
- We
seek your views, and any evidence you have to support your views, to help us get
a better understanding of how te ao Māori
interacts with the plant variety
rights regime, and the issues the Wai 262 recommendations are intended to
address.
- While
we have used the Wai 262 report to structure our discussion of these issues, we
are also interested in hearing about other Treaty
of Waitangi considerations
that we should be thinking about in this review. In this Part, we also discuss
feedback received in our
pre- consultation technical workshops with on
participation and transparency in the PVR regime.
- Definitions
of terms used by the Tribunal, and that we have applied here, are in the
glossary.
12 The Wai 262 claim and findings
The claim in brief
- In
the Wai 262 report, the Tribunal summed up the claim as being about “who
owns or
controls three things”:49
a. mātauranga Māori;
- the
“tangible products of mātauranga Māori” –
traditional artistic and cultural
expressions that the Tribunal referred to as “taonga works”;
and
- the
things that are “important contributors to mātauranga
Māori”. This includes the unique characteristics of
indigenous flora
and fauna, which the Tribunal referred to as “taonga
species”, and New Zealand’s natural environment more
generally.
- The
Wai 262 claimants argued that the Crown had denied Māori the full exercise
of their tino rangatiratanga over many aspects of their lives –
particularly in relation to natural resources, including indigenous flora and
fauna. The
claimants also sought recognition of their tino rangatiratanga over
“o rātou taonga katoa”, or all their treasured
things, as
guaranteed in the Treaty of Waitangi. The claimants saw this as:50
including but not limited
to matauranga, whakairo, waahi tapu, biodiversity, genetics, Maori symbols and
designs and their use and
development and associated indigenous, cultural and
customary rights in relation to such taonga.
- In
the claimants’ view, tino rangatiratanga in this context entitled
them to:51
- Decision-making
authority over the conservation, control of, and proprietorial interests in
natural resources including indigenous
flora and fauna me o ratou taonga
katoa;
- The
right to determine indigenous cultural and customary heritage rights in the
knowledge and use of indigenous flora and fauna me
o ratou taonga
katoa;
- The
right to participate in, benefit from, and make decisions about the application
of existing and future technological advances
as they relate to the breeding,
genetic manipulation and other processes relevant to the use of indigenous flora
and fauna;
- The
right to control and make decisions about the propagation, development,
transport, study or sale of indigenous flora and fauna;
- The
right to protect, enhance and transmit the cultural, medicinal and spiritual
knowledge and concepts found in the life cycles of
indigenous flora and
fauna;
- A
right to environmental well-being dependent upon the nurturing and wise use of
indigenous flora and fauna;
49 Waitangi Tribunal Ko
Aotearoa Tēnei: A Report into Claims Concerning New Zealand Law and Policy
Affecting Māori Culture and Identity: Te Taumata
Tuatahi (Wai 262,
2011) at 17.
50 Waitangi Tribunal Ko Aotearoa
Tēnei: A Report into Claims Concerning New Zealand Law and Policy
Affecting
Māori Culture and Identity: Te Taumata Tuarua (Wai 262, 2011) vol
1 at 4 (macrons omitted consistent with original).
51 Ibid, at 4 – 5 (macrons
omitted consistent with original).
- The
right to participate in, benefit from and make decisions about the application,
development, uses and sale of me o ratou taonga
katoa;
- The
right to protect, enhance and transmit the cultural and spiritual knowledge and
concepts found in me o ratou taonga katoa.
- The
PVR regime governs matters relating to cultivated varieties of plant species,
including taonga plant species and, potentially,
mātauranga Māori. On
these two matters, the Tribunal considered that what claimants were seeking from
the Crown could be
considered at four levels.52
![2018_115.png](2018_115.png)
The high-level findings on taonga species
The principle of tino rangatiratanga
- The
Tribunal’s key finding on taonga species was that the Treaty of Waitangi
does not guarantee ownership in taonga species
(or mātauranga Māori
relating to taonga species) but it does guarantee tino rangatiratanga.53
- The
Tribunal took the view that the flexible concept of tino rangatiratanga is to be
preferred over the rigid concept of exclusive
and undisturbed possession.54 The Tribunal gave further background on
the meaning of ‘rangatiratanga’ in its chapter on taonga works and
intellectual
property:55
52 Ibid, at
157.
53 Ibid, at 193.
54 Ibid, at 79.
55 Ibid, at 80.
Its root word is rangatira, meaning tribal
leader – literally, one who weaves together (ranga) a group of people
(tira). So
rangatiratanga carries expectations about right behaviour,
appropriate priorities and ethical decision-making that are deeply
embedded in Māori culture.
For example, rangatira would be expected to value kinship,
respect the tapu and mauri of the natural elements surrounding the community,
and above all be the embodiment of kaitiakitanga. Rangatira who behave in this
way are said to have great mana.
Tino rangatiratanga and taonga species
- The
Tribunal considered that the principle of tino rangatiratanga requires
recognition and protection of the kaitiaki relationship
with taonga species and
mātauranga Māori.
Taonga species
- The
Tribunal took the view that the principle of tino rangatiratanga justifies a
level of control by kaitiaki over the use of genetic
and biological resources of
taonga species. Such control must be sufficient for kaitiaki to protect their
relationship with those
species to a reasonable degree.56 The level of control will depend on the
nature of the kaitiaki relationship.
What is reasonable control
will depend very much on context. Kaitiaki relationships with their taonga
species vary according to the
priorities and perspectives of kaitiaki, the
nature of the taonga species, and the history of the relationship.57
This plurality has important implications for the way we must think about
protecting kaitiaki relationships with taonga species. It
means the needs of the
relationship can only be defined case by case. Each species will be different,
and even within each species,
contexts and kaitiaki may well drive different
priorities.... Whatever the intended use of a taonga species, the level of
protection
must be sufficient to keep the relationship safe and healthy.58
Mātauranga Māori associated with taonga
species
- The
Tribunal made the following findings about mātauranga Māori associated
with taonga species:59
- There
is a “just claim” against those who would seek to exploit
mātauranga Māori for commercial gain without
proper acknowledgement of
the prior rights of kaitiaki. The relevant mātauranga Māori will
always be a creation of the
kaitiaki community and it would be unfair to deprive
that community of a say in its commercial exploitation.
- Kaitiaki
have three rights over their mātauranga Māori:
- the
right to acknowledgment;
- the
right to have a reasonable degree of control over the use of mātauranga
Māori; and
56 Ibid, at
193.
57 Ibid, at 87.
58 Ibid, at 194.
- proper
recognition of the interests of kaitiaki for any commercial use
of
mātauranga Māori.
- The
Tribunal considered that what would constitute “proper recognition”
would depend on
the circumstances:60
Kaitiaki relationships
with their mātauranga will all be different, just as they often are with
taonga species. There will be
cases where a consent requirement is appropriate.
In others, disclosure or consultation will be sufficient. The answer will depend
on the balancing process in which the importance of the relationship will be
weighed against the interests of researchers or the
holders of IP rights on a
case-by-case basis.
- In
essence, the Tribunal’s findings aligned with second level of protection
shown in the diagram on page 55: protection of the
kaitiaki relationship with
taonga species. The Tribunal made four recommendations in relation to the PVR
regime, to ensure the kaitiaki
relationship with taonga species and
mātauranga Māori receives a reasonable degree of protection. These are
discussed in
detail in Chapter 14.
13 The kaitiaki relationship
- The
unique kaitiaki relationship held by Māori with taonga species and
associated mātauranga Māori is a foundational
concept in te ao
Māori, the Māori world, and the keystone for the Tribunal’s
proposed changes to the PVR Act (and
the broader intellectual property
system).
- In
this chapter, we take a closer look at how the Tribunal described that
relationship, before providing a few examples of how kaitiaki
relationships have
been incorporated into and recognised in New Zealand’s legal system thus
far.
Kaitiakitanga and the kaitiaki relationship as explained in the
Wai 262 report
The ethic of kaitiakitanga
- Before
looking at how the kaitiaki relationship works in practice, it is useful to
consider the ethic of kaitiakitanga that underlies
it. The concept of
kaitiakitanga relates to several other key concepts in te ao Māori –
in particular, whanaungatanga,
mauri and whakapapa.
- The
Tribunal explained the interconnection in this way:61
...the defining principle
is whanaungatanga, or kinship. In te ao Māori, all of the myriad
elements of creation – the living and the dead, the animate and inanimate
– are seen as alive and inter-related. All are infused with mauri
(that is, a living essence or spirit) and all are related through
whakapapa.
The people of a place are related to its mountains, rivers
and species of plant and animal, and regard them in personal terms. Every
species, every place, every type of rock and stone, every person (living or
dead), every god, and every other element of creation
is united through this web
of common descent, which has its origins in the primordial parents, Ranginui
(the sky) and Papa-tu-ā-nuku
(the earth).
This system of thought provides intricate descriptions of the
many parts of the environment and how they relate to each other. It
asserts
hierarchies of right and obligation among them...
- The
rights and obligations of whanaungatanga are encompassed in the ethic of
kaitiakitanga:62
Kaitiakitanga is the
obligation, arising from the kin relationship, to nurture or care for a person
or thing. It has a spiritual aspect,
encompassing not only an obligation to care
for and nurture not only physical well-being but also mauri.
61 Ibid, at 17.
62 Ibid.
It is a way of thinking and acting that seeks to express and
enhance whanaungatanga with taonga in the natural environment.
- Kaitiakitanga
is also related to the concepts of mana and, as outlined above,
rangatiratanga.63
...
those who have mana (or, to use Treaty terminology, rangatiratanga) must
exercise it in accordance with the values of kaitiakitanga
– to act
unselfishly, with right mind and heart, and with proper procedure. Mana and
kaitiakitanga go together as right and
responsibility, and that kaitiakitanga
responsibility can be understood not only as a cultural principle but as a
system of law.
The kaitiaki relationship in practice
- The
Waitangi Tribunal discussed how the kaitiaki relationship between Māori and
taonga
species and/or associated mātauranga Māori functions in practice.64
... the relationship
between kaitiaki and taonga species is often multi-layered. Species might be
emblematic of community identity,
used for their spiritual or medicinal power or
for technology such as building, carving, weaving and so forth.
... different taonga species have different roles in different contexts
(whether of time, place, or community), and in almost all
cases more than one
role. They will also be perceived differently by different iwi and
hapū.
- The
variation in kaitiaki relationships among different communities means that the
needs of each relationship must be assessed on
a case-by-case basis. This makes
it impractical to create blanket rules to manage impacts on these
relationships.65
Each
species will be different and, even within each species, contexts and kaitiaki
may well drive different priorities. For example,
many communities treat
particular taonga species as their own kaitiaki, or spiritual guardians. But a
species that is kaitiaki to
one community will not be kaitiaki to all.
In addition, different proposed uses may have different
effects. For instance, kaitiaki may say it is unacceptable to create a GMO
based
on a taonga species, but regard the commercial-scale production of
rongoā plants as beneficial for the survival of both the species and
the rongoā knowledge.
Recognition of kaitiakitanga in legislation
- There
are several examples of recognition of kaitiaki relationships with taonga plant
species in general legislation, and legislation
arising out of Treaty settlement
processes. They demonstrate the different mechanisms that can be used to
recognise and protect different
kaitiaki relationships. We outline a few of
these below.
63 Ibid.
64 Ibid, at 194.
65 Ibid.
General legislation
- The
Resource Management Act 1991 (RMA) is New Zealand’s main
legislation that sets out how we should manage our natural environment. Under
the RMA, decision-makers
are required to have particular regard to
kaitiakitanga.
- The
Fisheries Act 1996 regulates fisheries management in New Zealand. The Act
explicitly requires Ministers to have particular regard to kaitiakitanga when
making certain decisions. The Act also allows for the establishment of
mātaitai (traditional fishing grounds, to recognise the
use and management
practices of Māori in the exercise of non-commercial fishing rights) and
empowers Māori to declare rāhui
(traditional restrictions on depleted
resources). While not explicitly recognised as such in the legislation, these
are functions
of kaitiaki.
- While
there is no general law on bioprospecting in New Zealand, a number of pieces of
legislation administered by the Department of
Conservation, most notably the
Conservation Act 1987, provide varying degrees of Māori involvement
in decision-making relating to the conservation estate, marine reserves within
the territorial sea and (to a more limited extent) in the exclusive economic
zone.
- The
Hazardous Substances and New Organisms Act 1996 (which, among other issues,
regulates genetic modification) requires consideration to be given to Māori
perspectives and an advisory
group – Ngā Kaihautū Tikanga Taiao
– has been established under the Act to advise on
these.
Legislation arising from the Treaty settlement
process
Ngai Tahu Claims Settlement Act 1998
- The
Ngai Tahu Claims Settlement Act 1998 establishes obligations including
advising the rūnanga in advance of relevant conservation management
documents relating to taonga
species in its rohe (including harakeke,
kānuka, koromiko and pīngao), and consulting with the rūnanga on
policy decisions
concerning the protection, management or conservation of a
taonga species. Further obligations arise if a taonga species is the subject
of
recovery plan or species recovery group.
Te Urewera Act 2014
- The
Te Urewera Act 2014 establishes Te Urewera (a national park) as a
separate legal entity with the same rights and responsibilities as all New
Zealand citizens.
The Te Urewera Board acts on behalf of Te Urewera and is
responsible for approving a management plan for Te Urewera to reflect
mātauranga
Māori and tikanga in its management
approach.
- The
Board may grant permits for taking, cutting or destroying indigenous plants
within Te Urewera only if the preservation of the
species concerned is not
adversely affected, the effects on Te Urewera are minor and granting a permit is
in line with the management
plan.
Ngāti Kōata, Ngāti Rārua, Ngāti Tama
ki Te Tau Ihu, and Te Ātiawa o Te Waka-a-Māui Claims Settlement
Act
2014
- The
Ngāti Kōata, Ngāti Rārua, Ngāti Tama ki Te Tau Ihu,
and Te Ātiawa o Te Waka-a-Māui Claims Settlement
Act 2014 provides
for the appointment of Te Pātaka a Ngāti Kōata as statutory
advisers to the Minister of Conservation or the
Director-General of Conservation
on issues including the restoration of native plants in relation to certain
rohe.
The Tribunal’s general conclusions on protection of
the kaitiaki relationship
- The
Tribunal considered the extent to which current legislation protects the
kaitiaki relationship with taonga species and mātauranga
Māori along
the continuum of activities from bioprospecting through to commercialisation. In
general, the Tribunal concluded
that, despite some isolated examples of
meaningful Māori involvement in decision-making that could provide an
opportunity for
consideration of the kaitiaki relationship, the bioprospecting,
genetic modification and intellectual property systems as a whole
did not
provide adequate protection.66
- While
there were some rules around bioprospecting on the conservation estate, they
lacked cohesion and the lack of a more comprehensive
bioprospecting regime meant
that protection of the kaitiaki relationship was inadequate. The legislative
provisions relating to genetic
modification were a bit stronger, but again (in
this case because Māori interests were not given appropriate weight within
the
regime) the Tribunal concluded that protection of the kaitiaki relationship
was inadequate. Likewise for the intellectual property
system –
relevantly, patents and PVRs.
- The
Tribunal made a series of recommendations in Chapter 2, most of which are
outside the scope of the current review. It is important
to acknowledge that the
PVR recommendations sit in the broader context of the Tribunal’s
recommendations for protection of
the kaitiaki relationship with taonga species
and mātauranga Māori along the continuum of activities from
bioprospecting
through genetic modification to
commercialisation.
- These
recommendations are interrelated. For example, a comprehensive bioprospecting
regime that adequately protected the kaitiaki
relationship would also be likely
to have flow on effects. For example, if the initial gathering of a taonga plant
species was restricted,
the possibility of PVR protection of a variety derived
from that species may not even arise as the species would not be available
for
development in the first place. We would be interested to hear your views on how
the Chapter 2 recommendations are interrelated.
14 The kaitiaki relationship and the
PVR
Act
- This
chapter discusses the Tribunal’s assessment of the problems with the PVR
regime, and its recommendations for change to
provide recognition and protection
of the kaitiaki relationship within that regime.
Structure of this chapter
- First,
we consider the Tribunal’s analysis relating to its two main
recommendations to ensure protection of the kaitiaki interest
(the kaitiaki
relationship recommendations):
- that
the Commissioner of PVRs be empowered to refuse a PVR that would affect the
kaitiaki relationship; and
- that
the Commissioner be supported by a Māori advisory committee in
his/her
consideration of the kaitiaki interest.
- We
then consider the Tribunal’s analysis relating to the proposals it
supported in the 2005
Plant Variety Rights Amendment Bill:67
- to
clarify the level of human input into the development of a plant variety for the
purposes of PVR protection (‘discovered’ varieties); and
- to
enable the Commissioner to refuse a proposed name for a plant variety if its use
would be likely to offend a significant section
of the community, including
Māori (offensive names).
- We
also discuss feedback we received in our pre-consultation technical workshops on
transparency and participation in the PVR regime, and other Treaty of
Waitangi considerations outside of the Wai 262
recommendations.
The kaitiaki relationship recommendations
The Tribunal’s analysis and
recommendations
- The
Tribunal considered that:68
A general case for
exclusive proprietorial rights in the genetic and biological resources of taonga
species cannot be justified by
reason only of cultural association.
67 Those changes were
never enacted, however, as the work was put on hold in 2007 in anticipation of
the Wai 262 report.
- However,
the Tribunal did consider that the principle of tino rangatiratanga justified
some level of kaitiaki control over the use
of taonga species to protect the
kaitiaki relationship with those species.
Empowering the Commissioner to refuse a PVR that would affect
the kaitiaki relationship
- The
Tribunal found that the PVR regime did not provide sufficient protection for
kaitiaki interests. It recommended that the Commissioner
be empowered to:69
... refuse a PVR on the
ground that it would affect kaitiaki relationships with taonga species. The
Commissioner of Plant Variety
Rights would be required to understand the nature
of that relationship and the likely effects upon it, and then to balance the
interests
of kaitiaki against those of the applicant and the wider
public.
- The
Tribunal recommended a process for balancing the kaitiaki interest with other
interests, for a number of legislative regimes.
The first step is
to:
- identify
a kaitiaki relationship with taonga species; and
- ensure
the effects of a proposed use of a taonga species on the kaitiaki relationship
were understood.
- The
interests of kaitiaki should then be weighed alongside the interests of
others.
- The
Tribunal explained the process as follows:70
To determine which
interests should take priority in a particular case, two key issues need to be
addressed. The first relates to
the relationship between kaitiaki and [the]
taonga species itself. What protection does the relationship need to keep it
safe and
healthy?
The second issue concerns external interests. Are there other valid
interests in the genetic and biological resources of taonga species
whose
protection is so important that the kaitiaki relationship should be compromised?
These other valid interests will include,
for example, the research and
development sector and IP right holders.
It is inherent in this two-stage balancing process that there
is no single answer to fit all circumstances. If conflict between competing
and
valid interests cannot be avoided, then those interests must be weighed fairly
and transparently... A genuine case-by-case analysis
is the only sound approach
to reconciling the needs of the kaitiaki relationship with those of other
stakeholders.
Enabling a Māori advisory committee to advise the
Commissioner on the kaitiaki interest
- To
assist with the Commissioner’s consideration of the kaitiaki interest, the
Tribunal recommended that the Commissioner be
supported by the same Māori
advisory committee that it recommended be part of the patents regime. In the
patents regime, this
included the Committee having a proactive, investigative
role in patent applications. At the time of the Tribunal hearings, there
was a
Patents Amendment Bill under consideration which had provision for such a
committee, but its role was not as broad as that
recommended by the Tribunal.
The Patents Act 2013, which largely follows the Bill in this respect,
allows the
69 Waitangi Tribunal Ko
Aotearoa Tēnei: A Report into Claims Concerning New Zealand Law and Policy
Affecting Māori Culture and Identity: Te Taumata
Tuarua (Wai 262, 2011)
vol 1 at 206.
70 Ibid, at 195.
Commissioner of Patents to refuse to grant a patent if the commercial
exploitation of the invention is contrary to public order or
morality.
- In
making a decision, the Commissioner of Patents may seek advice from the Patents
Māori Advisory Committee (PMAC) established under the Patents
Act. The PMAC advises the Commissioner of Patents on:71
- whether
the claimed invention is derived from mātauranga Māori or indigenous
plants or animals; and
- if
so, whether the commercial exploitation of that invention is likely to be
contrary to
Māori values.
- The
Tribunal also recommended that the Māori advisory committee advising on the
kaitiaki interest would publish guidelines and
codes of conduct for those
working in research and development.
How do the PVR regime and the kaitiaki relationship
interact?
- The
PVR regime may not provide sufficient protection for the kaitiaki interest in
taonga plant species.
- The
Tribunal considered that lack of explicit consideration of the kaitiaki interest
in the PVR Act currently may result in the grant
of PVRs that negatively affect
the relationship between kaitiaki and taonga species. We would like to get a
better understanding
of the practical issues that are created by lack of
consideration of the kaitiaki relationship in the PVR
regime.
- In
other words: how does the current PVR regime assist, or fail to prevent,
activity that is prejudicial to the kaitiaki relationship?
What are the negative
impacts of that activity on the kaitiaki relationship?
- We
can envisage two potential problems that could result from lack of explicit
consideration of the kaitiaki relationship in the PVR
regime:
- The
grant of a PVR over a taonga species-derived variety that does not fulfil the
‘distinctness’ requirement, because
the variety is known to
Māori. We discuss this further in the next section on
‘discovered’ varieties.
- The
grant of a PVR over a taonga species-derived variety, where the plant material
used to develop that variety should have been accessed
with the involvement of
kaitiaki. Involving kaitiaki in third-party access and use of plant material
may be required under legislation. For example, taking and use
of plant material
from Te Urewera must be authorised under the Te Urewera Act. (The PVR Act
does not put in place general legal requirements for accessing indigenous plant
material. This would be the role of
a bioprospecting regime, which New Zealand
does not currently have.)
- We
are not aware of any specific examples of the above scenarios, and would be
interested in any examples of them. We would also be
interested in hearing about
other instances where the grant of PVRs has negatively impacted the kaitiaki
relationship. It is important
that we understand how the PVR regime interacts
with the kaitiaki relationship currently. This will
71 Sections 225 and 226,
Patents Act 2013.
enable us to better consider the Tribunal’s recommendations, and how to
provide adequate protection for the kaitiaki relationship
in the PVR regime, at
the options stage of the review.
- It
is worth noting that it may be possible to prevent the above scenarios occurring
through the PVRO’s existing examination
process. This would be by
establishing lack of distinctness, or illegal taking and use of plant material,
respectively.
- Examination
is a comprehensive process. Breeders are often expected to provide more
information than is initially requested through
the application process. For
example, if examiners have concerns about whether plant material has been
accessed legally, they may
ask the breeder for evidence of documented
permissions to use the plant genetic material that is the basis of the variety.
The PVRO
makes these requests to ensure the requirements for protection are met
(although a specific information-gathering power is not explicitly
provided for
in the PVR Act). Failure by the applicant to provide this information would
result in the application lapsing, and no
grant of PVR.
- Another
consideration for kaitiaki is the impact of new, cultivated varieties on plant
species growing in the wild. We have heard
about the responsibility of kaitiaki
to ensure that native plants continue to survive in the environment in which
they belong, and
concerns about the introduction of cultivated varieties on
native plant species growing in the wild. While we acknowledge these concerns,
we consider at this stage that they are outside of the scope of the PVR regime.
The PVR regime does not regulate whether and how
varieties can be grown (see
Chapter 4, on the application of the PVR regime, above). Nonetheless, we welcome
your views on this issue.
International considerations
CPTPP
- New
Zealand is a party to UPOV 78. If New Zealand was to ratify the CPTPP, New
Zealand would have the option of either becoming a
party to UPOV 91, or giving
effect to UPOV 91 through a sui generis (standalone) regime. In
implementing either option, the Crown can adopt measures it deems necessary to
protect indigenous plant species
in fulfilment of its obligations under the
Treaty of Waitangi. This allows New Zealand to consider what protection of the
kaitiaki
interest over indigenous plant species is required under the Treaty of
Waitangi, before deciding whether to accede to UPOV 91. If
it is not possible to
protect the kaitiaki interest over indigenous plant species under UPOV 91, New
Zealand could provide this protection
and implement an otherwise UPOV
91-compliant regime – i.e. give effect to UPOV 91 through a sui generis
regime.
UPOV Convention
- Whether
becoming a party to UPOV 91 would be consistent with the kaitiaki relationship
recommendations is an important issue for this
review.
- The
international PVR system under the UPOV Convention does not provide an exception
for the grant of a PVR due to morality or public
order. This is in contrast with
the treatment of
patents under the TRIPS Agreement. The TRIPS Agreement permits Member States to
refuse to grant patents if they would be contrary
to morality or public
order.
- A
PVR must be granted if a plant variety meets the DUS, newness, and denomination
requirements for a PVR, subject only to formalities
(these requirements were
discussed in detail in Chapter 3). Additional requirements – such as the
Tribunal’s recommendation
that the grant of the PVR would not affect the
kaitiaki relationship – are not permitted.
- Also
significant is that UPOV 91 requires Parties to protect all genera and
species. This means it would not be possible to exclude taonga species from
coverage. This is not, however, a requirement under UPOV 78, though
New Zealand
currently covers all genera and species (except alga).
- UPOV
78 and 91 do, however, allow parties to restrict the free exercise of the PVR if
this is in the public interest.72 This
means that after a PVR is granted, appropriate restrictions can be placed on the
exercise of the right.
- ‘Public
interest’ is not defined in the UPOV Convention. The European Union, a
party to UPOV 91, has adopted the following
public interest provision:73
... the exercise of the
rights conferred by Community plant variety rights may not violate any
provisions adopted on the grounds of
public morality, public policy or public
security, the protection of health and life of humans, animals or plants, the
protection
of the environment, the protection of industrial or commercial
property, or the safeguarding of competition, of trade or of agricultural
production.
- Establishing
a clear understanding of the kaitiaki relationship, in the context of the PVR
regime, will allow us to better assess
the possibility of accession to UPOV 91
for New Zealand.
Questions
|
How does the current PVR regime assist, or fail to prevent, activity that
is prejudicial to the kaitiaki relationship? What are the
negative impacts of
that activity on the kaitiaki relationship?
|
34
|
What are the problems that arise from the PVR grant process, or the grant
of PVR over taonga species-derived varieties more generally,
for kaitiaki
relationships? Please provide examples.
|
35
|
What role could a Māori advisory committee play in supporting the
Commissioner of PVRs?
|
36
|
How does industry currently work with kaitiaki in the development of plant
varieties? Do you have any examples where the kaitiaki
relationship was been
considered in the development of a variety?
|
72 See Article 9(1) of
UPOV 78 and Article 17(1) of UPOV 91.
73 Article 13.8 of UPOV 91.
‘Discovered’ varieties
- In
this part, we discuss the Tribunal’s endorsement of a proposal in the 2005
Plant Variety Rights Act Amendment Bill to clarify that mere discovery is
insufficient to justify a claim to ownership of a new variety and that there
must be human input
into the development of a variety.
- The
proposed change in the 2005 draft Bill was to incorporate a definition of
‘breed’. It stated:
breed, in relation
to a variety, includes the process of selection within the natural variation of
a plant or plant population, together
with the process of propagation and
evaluation so as to enable the development of the variety.
- The
Tribunal commented that this proposed new definition would mean that, “if
someone ‘discovers’ a plant [variety]
that is already known to
Māori, it could not qualify for a PVR”.74 We would like to explore this concern
further, as the ‘discovered’ varieties proposal in the 2005 draft
Bill may not
address it directly.
- We
discuss below:
- the
policy effect of this proposed change; and
- the
Tribunal’s concerns about varieties known to Māori being granted PVR
protection.
Policy effect of the definition of
‘breed’
- The
above definition of ‘breed’ was proposed to clarify the level of
human input needed to produce a plant variety eligible
for PVR protection. While
presented as a policy change, this clarification actually reflected the policy
intent of the PVR Act, and
operational practice at that time (and
today).
- The
PVR Act currently allows a PVR to be granted to “a person who bred or
discovered” the new variety.75
There is no definition of ‘bred’ or ‘discovered’ in
the PVR Act. Variety is defined as “a cultivar,
or cultivated variety, of
a plant, and includes any clone, hybrid, stock or line, of a plant; but does not
include a botanical variety”.
- Some
have interpreted the words “bred or discovered” to mean that
naturally occurring plant populations or types in the
wild (i.e. mere
discoveries) may be eligible for PVR protection. This is a common
misunderstanding, and one that was reflected in
the 2005 Bill. Such an
interpretation is inconsistent with the definition of ‘variety’ in
the PVR Act, which requires
a variety to be cultivated and consist of more than
one seedling, plant or specimen.
74 Waitangi Tribunal Ko
Aotearoa Tēnei: A Report into Claims Concerning New Zealand Law and Policy
Affecting
Māori Culture and Identity: Te Taumata Tuarua (Wai 262, 2011) vol
1 at 175.
75 The PVR Act refers to this person as
the ‘owner’ of the PVR. Most other countries use the term
‘breeder’ of
the plant variety, rather than ‘owner’ of
the PVR.
- The
“bred or discovered” formulation was intended to clarify that new
varieties eligible for protection may be developed
using vegetative
propagation methods (like grafting) – that is, not just sexual
propagation.
- To
illustrate: a mutated shoot in a population of cultivated plants that expresses
different and desirable characteristics may be
‘discovered’ by a
breeder. When it is ‘discovered’, it is not yet a variety. However,
if the shoot is evaluated
and then vegetatively propagated76 several times to establish a group of
plants which appear essentially similar, further selection of those plants is
carried out and
then those selected plants may be considered a cultivar. The
cultivar may then be eligible for variety protection. This is the
‘discovery’
referred to in the “bred or discovered”
formulation, and is a common, long-standing method of plant
breeding.
- ‘Bred’
in the PVR Act was intended to refer to what some consider is breeding in the
strict sense, involving sexual propagation
(where one or more plants are crossed
with others in a controlled or partially controlled manner, allowing the
offspring to contain
the genetic material of the parent
plants).
- Rather
than representing a policy change, the proposed change in the 2005 draft Bill
may be better understood as a clarification of
the current settings. It is
important to note that the current PVR settings do not allow anyone to obtain a
PVR for a single plant
found in the wild. Plant material must be developed into
a variety that is distinct, uniform and stable to be eligible for a PVR.
Developing a PVR-eligible variety involves significant skill and know-how, and
generally requires several generations of propagation
and
evaluation.
Case study
|
Breeder A applied for a PVR after finding a single tussock bush with
purple, orange-scented leaves in the wild which Breeder A propagated,
further
selected and developed into a variety.
Breeder A made an application to the Plant Variety Rights Office,
highlighting the unique characteristics of the plant. An examiner
undertook a
preliminary investigation into the distinctness, uniformity and stability of the
variety. In this preliminary examination,
the examiner sought the advice of
Professor B, a plant biologist at Nature University, and consulted other
databases to inform their
examination.
Professor B advised that the purple, orange-scented tussock was not unknown
and that a few such plants had been identified in the
Otago region. The examiner
issued a preliminary examination report. The examiner found that the purple,
orange-scented tussock could
be found in the wild and as a result had the
opinion that some plants were already in cultivation.
Breeder A was informed of the possible doubt regarding the distinctness of
the variety and given information on what was required
for a growing trial to
determine distinctness, uniformity and stability. Breeder A was also advised
that a voluntary withdrawal of
the application could be made at any time.
Breeder A chose to withdraw their application.
|
76 As described above,
vegetative propagation is a process through which plants are essentially
‘cloned’ to ensure that the
plants that are produced are
true-to-type. Examples include grafting, cutting and tissue culture.
International considerations
- UPOV
78 does not define terms such as breed, breeder or variety, leaving it up to
Member States to decide on the minimum level of
human input necessary for a
variety to be eligible for protection.
- UPOV
91 is more prescriptive. It defines a breeder as a person who “bred, or
discovered and developed” a variety. The
explanatory note produced by UPOV
on the definition of ‘breeder’ in UPOV 91 sets out the following
guidance on what constitutes
“discovery and development” (emphasis
added):77
With regard to
“discovered and developed”, a discovery might be the initial step in
the process of breeding a new variety.
However, the term “discovered
and developed” means that a mere discovery, or find, would not entitle the
person to obtain
a breeder’s right. Development of plant material into
a variety is necessary for a breeder to be entitled to obtain a breeder’s
right. A person
would not be entitled to protection of an existing variety that
was discovered and propagated unchanged by that person.
- The
proposed definition of ‘breed’ in the 2005 draft Bill is consistent
with both UPOV 78 and UPOV 91.
The Tribunal’s concerns
- The
Tribunal’s support for the new definition of ‘breed’ in the
2005 draft Bill may have been to ensure that taonga
species-derived cultivated
varieties known to Māori could not receive PVR protection, and to ensure
that non-kaitiaki are not
able to gain protection for varieties developed over
time in a traditional context (traditional varieties). An example might be a
harakeke variety developed for its leaf length and suitability for
weaving.
- We
would like to explore this concern further, as it may not be adequately
addressed by the 2005 draft Bill’s definition of
‘breed’.
However, it may be addressed through the Tribunal’s kaitiaki relationship
recommendations discussed above.
- We
are not familiar with any examples of anyone seeking to gain a PVR over a
traditional variety derived from a taonga species in
New Zealand, or a variety
derived from such a traditional variety. We would be interested to hear of any
instances of this. If this
is an issue, the proposed Māori advisory
committee discussed above could play an important role in the examination
process by
identifying varieties as traditional and advising that the grant be
refused.
- Traditional
varieties will generally not be eligible for PVR protection.78 There is a range of factors that may
exclude traditional varieties from eligibility. Often there is no known breeder
or clear ownership
of the variety. If they had been traded at some stage, they
would not meet the criteria of being ‘new’ for the purposes
of the
PVR Act.
77 See http://www.upov.int/edocs/expndocs/en/upov_exn_brd.pdf.
78 In general, holders of traditional
varieties are unlikely to be disadvantaged by this. If they have an interest in
holding traditional
varieties within their community, rather than making the
varieties available to all, PVRs are unlikely to be an appropriate form
of
protection. The PVR regime is intended to encourage the development
and dissemination of plant varieties. Aspects of the regime, such as the
compulsory licensing and the limited term of grant, may be
at odds with the
community’s interests.
- Traditional
varieties may be treated as varieties of common knowledge. “Varieties of
common knowledge” is not defined
under the UPOV Convention, leaving this
matter largely to Member State discretion, informed by UPOV guidance.79 When new varieties are developed, they
must be distinguishable from all varieties of common knowledge. Most varieties
of common knowledge
would be ineligible for PVR
protection.
Questions
|
Are there examples of traditional varieties derived from taonga species
that have been granted PVR protection? Do you consider there
is a risk of this
occurring?
|
Offensive names
- The
Tribunal also endorsed a second proposal in the 2005 draft Bill: to enable the
Commissioner to refuse a proposed name for a plant
variety if its use would be
likely to offend a significant section of the community, including
Māori.
- Under
the PVR Act, applicants are required to provide the Commissioner with a proposed
name for the variety when they apply for a
PVR.80 The Commissioner must notify the proposed
name in the Plant Variety Rights Journal (PVR Journal) if it complies
with the prescribed requirements.81 To
comply, a proposed name “must conform with international usage relating to
the names of cultivated plants”, including
relevant UPOV
guidance.
- Any
person who considers that the Commissioner should not approve a proposed name
notified in the PVR Journal may object to its approval.82 However the grounds for opposition under
the PVR Act are not clear, affecting certainty for
objectors.
- The
proposed change in the 2005 draft Bill was intended to make it clear that the
Commissioner must not approve a proposed name if
he or she “considers that
its use or approval would be likely to offend a significant section of the
community, including Māori”.
This could cover situations where
Māori object to the inappropriate use of Māori words or symbols as
names for plant varieties,
or to inappropriate names for varieties of indigenous
species.
- Other
intellectual property regimes have rules regarding offensive names, including
the:
- Trade
Marks Act 2002: the Commissioner of Trade Marks cannot register a trade mark
if its use or registration would be likely to offend a significant
section of
the community, including Māori.83
79 See PVRO guidance: https://www.iponz.govt.nz/about-ip/pvr/technical-guidance/current/varieties-of-
common-knowledge-identification-and-usage/
and UPOV guidance: http://www.upov.int/edocs/infdocs/en/0_c_extr_19_2_rev.pdf.
80 Section 5(2)(b).
81 Section 5(7).
82 Section 6.
83 Section 17, Trade Marks Act
2002.
- Geographical
Indications (Wine and Spirits) Registration Act 2006: the Registrar of
Geographical Indications can prevent a geographical indication being registered
if it would be likely to offend
a significant section of the community,
including Māori.84
International considerations
- The
UPOV Convention outlines some requirements for variety names – for
example, that the name must not be liable to mislead
or to cause confusion
concerning the characteristics, value or identity of the variety or the identity
of the breeder. But in general,
UPOV 78 and UPOV 91 contemplate that Member
States will determine for themselves what a suitable name, consistent with UPOV
guidance
is.85
- Some
UPOV members have provisions preventing offensive variety names.
Australia’s Plant Breeder’s Rights Act 1994 states that names
must not contain scandalous or offensive matter. Australia is a party to UPOV
91.
Question
|
What characteristics might make a variety name offensive to a significant
section of the community, including Māori?
|
Transparency and participation in the PVR regime
- In
this section, we explore whether there are issues relating to transparency and
participation in the PVR system. This section reflects
concerns raised in our
pre-consultation workshops with Māori and industry
experts.
Lack of information on the PVR register
- Participants
in our technical workshops queried the accessibility of information about taonga
species in the PVR register. The PVR
register allows people to search for PVRs
that are registered or have been registered in New Zealand. The register can be
used to
check who owns a PVR, or whether a variety is
protected.
- Advice
on how to search the register (with a link to the search function) can be found
on the IPONZ website here.
- Often
the PVR register will be used by people who may have a commercial interest in
accessing information on the register –
for example, growers seeking to
find out whether a variety is protected. However, others may have a
non-commercial interest in accessing
information on the register – for
example, kaitiaki, who have an interest in the use of taonga species. As the
register is
not designed for these purposes, it does not contain information
that some may seek.
84 Section 13A,
Geographical Indications (Wine and Spirits) Registration Act 2006.
85 Article 13(5) of UPOV 78 and Article
20(5) of UPOV 91.
- Examples
of information that some of the workshop participants were interested in
included:
- Māori
names for plants;86
- whether
or not a variety derived from a taonga species was developed using indigenous
plant material (noting that the majority of
indigenous species are not endemic
to New Zealand);87
and
- whether
or not a breeder of a variety derived from a taonga species identifies as a
kaitiaki.
- This
information was seen as providing a way for Māori and kaitiaki to find out
how the PVR regime interacts with taonga species
– for example, the number
of PVR grants for varieties derived from taonga species, or who holds an
interest in a protected
variety derived from a taonga
species.
Disclosure of origin requirements
- Some
countries require PVR applicants to disclose the origin of genetic resources
and/or traditional knowledge used in the development
of plant varieties.88 New Zealand does not have a disclosure of
origin requirement in its PVR regime.89
- A
disclosure requirement could be a means of collecting information on the use of
plant material – from taonga species, in particular
– or
mātauranga Māori used to develop new plant
varieties.
- Broadly,
the UPOV Convention allows disclosure of origin requirements in parties’
PVR regimes. However, parties cannot impose
additional requirements (beyond DUS,
newness and other formalities) in relation to the origin information disclosed.
For example,
parties could not refuse to grant a PVR simply because the
applicant cannot provide origin information.
- We
are aware that there can be particular practical challenges to disclosing the
origins of the genetic material used to develop new
plant varieties. This will
include cases where the exact geographic origin will be difficult to identify
– for example, where
germplasm originates from a combination of genes from
different countries. In some countries, if origin is not known to the breeder
or
cannot be disclosed due to confidentiality, a declaration to that effect may be
sufficient.
- We
are interested in understanding whether and how plant breeders gather
information on the origin of genetic material they use in
plant breeding. We are
particularly interested in relation to the genetic material of taonga
species.
86 Currently, the PVR
register can be searched by grant or case number; application number; or name.
Name may include the (proposed)
denomination, the plant ‘common’
name (e.g. flax), or commercial synonyms. Applicants are not required to
identify the
Māori name. For example, as of June 2018, searching
‘horopito’ returned no results, while its Latin name,
Pseudowintera colorata, returned four.
87 This information is held, but not
made public on the register.
88 Internationally, disclosure of
origin requirements are most commonly found in patents regimes but also appear
in some countries’
PVR regimes, e.g. Norway and Ecuador.
89 The Waitangi Tribunal recommended in
the Wai 262 report that a disclosure of origin requirement be implemented in the
patents regime.
This is discussed in the Disclosure of Origin Discussion
Document.
- Relatedly,
we are exploring whether New Zealand should adopt a disclosure of origin
requirements in the patents regime in a discussion
document that has been
released at the same time as this paper. It can be found here: http://www.mbie.govt.nz/info-
services/business/intellectual-property/patents/disclosure-of-origin-requirements-in-the-
patents-regime/consultation
Questions
|
What information do you think should/should not be accessible on the PVR
register? Why?
|
40
|
As a plant breeder, do you gather information on the origin of genetic
material used in plant breeding?
|
Other Treaty of Waitangi considerations
- At
our Māori technical workshops, we heard that while the Wai 262
recommendations are a good starting point for thinking about
the Crown’s
Treaty of Waitangi obligations in the PVR regime, it was important to not limit
the discussion to the Wai 262 report.
- We
are interested in hearing about other Treaty of Waitangi considerations that
were not discussed in the Wai 262 report or
recommendations.
Question
|
What else should we be thinking about in considering the Crown’s
Treaty of Waitangi obligations to Māori in the PVR regime?
Why?
|
Part 5 – Additional issues
- This
Issues Paper discusses a number of issues with the plant variety rights regime
that were identified as important during the pre-consultation
phrase. However,
these were not the only issues with the PVR Act that were raised. Some of the
additional issues are described briefly
below.
- We
would welcome any submissions on these areas. We also welcome submissions on any
other issues not mentioned which you feel should
be considered as part of the
review of the PVR Act. These issues may be considered in more detail in the
Options Paper which we intend
to release in the first half of
2019.
Export of propagating material
- Exporting
the propagating material of a protected variety from New Zealand without the
permission of the PVR owner is not prohibited
under the PVR Act. This is
prohibited under UPOV 91. We have heard from some PVR owners that this is
problematic, as they lose control
of the propagating material or the protected
variety. While in some cases the PVR owner may be able to take action for
breach of
contract, no action can be taken under the PVR Act. We are interested
in hearing about instances where propagating material of a
protected variety was
exported without the PVR owner’s permission, and what the commercial
consequences were.
Eligibility of alga for PVR Protection
- Under
the PVR Act, varieties of alga are not eligible for PVR protection. Many other
countries, including Australia, provide PVR protection
for algae. Some have
suggested
New Zealand may be missing out on new types of alga due to the lack of
protection for algae varieties. We are interested in your
views on whether there
are issues with the lack of protection provided for alga under the PVR Act.
Term of grant
- The
term of grant of a PVR under the PVR Act is 23 years from the date of grant for
woody plants or their rootstocks, and 20 years
for everything else. We have
heard some concerns from some breeders that the term of grant is not sufficient
for breeders and developers
of plant varieties to recoup their costs. We are
interested in your views on any issues arising from the current terms of
grant.
Use of a protected variety for non-commercial
purposes
- Some
plant breeders expressed concerns about the operation of the exception in the
PVR Act that any person may propagate, grow or
use protected varieties for
non-commercial purposes. Their particular concern was the propagation of
protected varieties by local
government organisations without payment to PVR
owners.
- UPOV
91’s exception for “private and non-commercial” use of a
protected variety may be narrower than the exception
in the PVR Act, which
applies to non-commercial use only. Examples of potentially infringing activity
under UPOV 91 might include
propagation of protected varieties by public or
community organisations, meaning those organisations would need to pay royalties
for use of protected varieties.
- We
are interested in hearing about problems or benefits arising from the current
exception for non-commercial use.
Access to propagating material for DUS Testing
- As
part of the process of examining a PVR application, the variety that is the
subject of the application will be compared with existing
varieties to determine
whether or not the variety is distinct from those varieties. Where the existing
varieties include varieties
that are protected by a PVR, the PVRO will need
access to the propagating material of those protected varieties so that they can
be grown alongside the variety under examination.
- There
is currently no provision in the PVR Act that allows the PVRO to require PVR
owners to supply propagating material of their
protected varieties for the PVRO
to use in growing trials. A lack of comparative material may cause delays to the
testing process,
increasing the costs for PVR applicants.
Restoration of PVRs cancelled through non-payment of grant
fee
- Once
granted, a PVR owner must pay an annual renewal fee to keep their grant in
force. The fee is due within one month of the anniversary
of the date the PVR is
granted. If the fee is not paid by this date, the Commissioner must give the PVR
owner 28 days to provide
reasons why the PVR should not be cancelled.90
- The
PVR Act does not explicitly state what discretion the Commissioner has in this
instance nor does it state the grounds upon which
the Commissioner may exercise
that discretion (if any). Furthermore, if the grant is cancelled, there is no
provision for the grant
to be restored, as there is in the Patents Act
and the Trade Marks Act. These situations may cause uncertainty for
users of the regime.
Grounds for objection and cancellation
- Section
15 of the PVR Act provides that any person can object to the continuation of a
PVR grant, and lists two grounds for objection.
Section 16 of the PVR Act
provides for cancellation
90 Sections 16(2)(g) and
(3), PVR Act and Regulation 19, Plant Variety Rights Regulations
1988.
of grants by the Commissioner. It is unclear whether third parties can apply to
the Commissioner for a grant to be cancelled on a
ground listed in section 16
that is not listed in section 15 – for example, if information supplied in
an application was incorrect
and the Commissioner would have declined the grant
if the information had been correct. We are interested in your views on whether
this or other aspects of the objection process are problematic.
Procedures
- There
are a number of provisions in the Act which allow third parties to engage with
the Commissioner over a PVR application or grant.
These include:
- Section
6: Objections before grant.
- Section
15: Objections after grant.
- Section
21: Compulsory licences and sales.
- However,
the PVR Act is largely silent on the procedures to be followed by the
Commissioner in making decisions under these provisions.
This leads to
uncertainty as to how the Commissioner should approach requests made under these
provisions. It may also lead to the
Commissioner and the parties involved
spending considerable time and money deciding on the procedures to be
followed.
Interface between patents and PVRs
- Under
section 16(4) the Patents Act, plant varieties are not a patentable
invention. However, patents can be granted for plants at a species level or over
underlying
plant genetic material, if it meets the patent requirements of being
new and inventive. An example of this might be a patent for
the genetic material
which enables a wheat plant to be resistant to particular herbicides. This kind
of patent would cover all varieties
of wheat which incorporated the
modification.
- The
effect of the exclusion of plant varieties from patent protection is that it is
not possible to protect a plant variety by both
a patent and a plant variety
right. It is only possible to protect a plant variety by a
PVR.
- We
are interested in your views on any issues that arise from the interface between
the patents and PVR regime.
Question
|
Do you have any comments on these additional issues, or wish to raise any
other issues not covered either in this section, or elsewhere
in this
paper?
|
Part 6 – Recap of questions
- Below
is a recap of the questions asked throughout this Issues Paper. Your submission
may respond to any or all of these questions,
or raise issues not covered by
these questions. Where possible, please include evidence to support your views,
for example references
to independent research, facts and figures, or relevant
examples.
Objectives of the PVR Act
|
1
|
Do you think the objectives correctly state what the purpose of the PVR
regime should be? Why/why not?
|
2
|
Do you think the PVR regime is meeting these objectives? Why/why not?
|
3
|
What are the costs and benefits of New Zealand’s PVR regime not being
consistent with UPOV 91 (e.g. in terms of access to commercially
valuable new
varieties, incentives to develop new varieties)? What is the size of these
costs/benefits? What are the flow on effects
of these costs/benefits? Please
provide supporting evidence where possible.
|
4
|
Do you think there would be a material difference between implementing a
sui generis regime that gives effect to UPOV 1991 (as permitted
under the CPTPP)
and actually becoming a party to UPOV 91? If so, what would the costs/benefits
be?
|
Farm-saved seed
|
5
|
Are there important features of the current situation regarding farm-saved
seed that we have not mentioned?
|
6
|
Can you provide any additional evidence/information that would assist us to
understand this issue? For example, the nature and extent
of royalties that are
currently paid in different sectors, and the proportion of crops planted each
year using farm-saved seed.
|
7
|
Do you think there are problems with the current farm-saved seed
arrangements? What are they? What is the size of these problems?
What are the
consequences of these problems? Please provide evidence where possible.
|
8
|
Do you think there are benefits of the farm-saved seed arrangements? What
are they? What is the size of these benefits? What are the
consequences of these
benefits? Please provide evidence where possible.
|
9
|
Do PVR owners use mechanisms outside the PVR regime to control
farmers’ use or saving of the seeds of their protected varieties?
What are
these?
|
10
|
Do you think farmers should have to get permission from the PVR owner
before sowing the farm-saved seed of a protected variety? Why/why
not?
|
11
|
What do you think the costs and benefits of a mandatory royalty scheme
would be? What could such a scheme look like (e.g. should it
cover all, or only
some, varieties)?
|
Rights over harvested material
|
12
|
Are there important features of the current situation regarding rights over
harvested material that we have not mentioned?
|
13
|
Do you agree with our definition of ‘harvested material’?
Why/why not?
|
14
|
Do you think there are problems with the current scope of PVR owners’
rights over harvested material? What are they? What is
the size of these
problems? What are the consequences of these problems? Please provide evidence
where possible.
|
15
|
Do you think there are benefits to the current scope of PVR owners’
rights over harvested material? What are they? What is the
size of these
benefits? What are the consequences of these benefits? Please provide evidence
where possible.
|
Rights over similar varieties
|
16
|
Are there other important features of the current situation regarding
distinctness that we have not mentioned?
|
17
|
Are there other important features of the concept of EDVs that we have not
mentioned?
|
18
|
Do you think there are problems with the current approach for assessing
distinctness? What are they? What is the size of these problems?
What are the
consequences of these problems? Please provide evidence where possible.
|
19
|
Do you think there are benefits with the current approach for assessing
distinctness? What are they? What is the size of these benefits?
What are the
consequences of these benefits? Please provide evidence where possible.
|
20
|
How might technological change affect the problems/benefits of the current
approach for assessing distinctness that you have identified?
|
21
|
Do you have any examples of a plant breeder ‘free-riding’ off a
variety? How often does this happen? What commercial impact
did this have?
Please provide evidence where possible.
|
22
|
Do you think there are problems with not having an EDV regime? What are
they? What is the size of these problems? What are the consequences
of these
problems? Please provide evidence where possible.
|
23
|
Do you think there are benefits of not having an EDV regime? What are they?
What is the size of these benefits? What are the consequences
of these benefits?
Please provide evidence where possible.
|
24
|
How might technological change affect the problems/benefits of not having
an EDV regime that you have identified?
|
Compulsory licences
|
25
|
Are there important features of the current situation regarding compulsory
licences that we have not mentioned?
|
26
|
Do you think there are problems with the current compulsory licence regime?
What are they? What is the size of these problems? What
are the consequences of
these problems? Please provide evidence where possible.
|
27
|
Do you think there are benefits with the current compulsory licence regime?
What are they? What is the size of these benefits? What
are the consequences of
these benefits? Please provide evidence where possible.
|
Enforcement: infringements and offences
|
28
|
Are there important features of the current situation regarding
infringements and offences that we have not mentioned?
|
29
|
Have you been involved in a dispute relating to the infringement of a PVR?
How was it resolved? How was it resolved (e.g. was alternative
dispute
resolution used)? How effective was the process?
|
30
|
How prevalent are PVR infringements and offences?
|
31
|
Do you think there are problems with the infringement provisions in the PVR
Act? What are they? What is the size of these problems?
What are the
consequences of these problems? Please provide evidence where possible.
|
32
|
Do you think there are problems with the offence provisions in the PVR Act?
What are they? What is the size of these problems? What
are the consequences of
these problems? Please provide evidence where possible.
|
The kaitiaki relationship and the PVR Act
|
33
|
How does the current PVR regime assist, or fail to prevent, activity that
is prejudicial to the kaitiaki relationship? What are the
negative impacts of
that activity on the kaitiaki relationship?
|
34
|
What are the problems that arise from the PVR grant process, or the grant
of PVR over taonga species-derived varieties more generally,
for kaitiaki
relationships? Please provide examples.
|
35
|
What role could a Māori advisory committee play in supporting the
Commissioner of PVRs?
|
36
|
How does industry currently work with kaitiaki in the development of plant
varieties? Do you have any examples where the kaitiaki
relationship was been
considered in the development of a variety?
|
‘Discovered’ varieties
|
37
|
Are there examples of traditional varieties derived from taonga species
that have been granted PVR protection? Do you consider there
is a risk of this
occurring?
|
Offensive names
|
38
|
What characteristics might make a variety name offensive to a significant
section of the
community, including Māori?
|
Transparency and participation in the PVR regime
|
39
|
What information do you think should/should not be accessible on the PVR
register? Why?
|
40
|
As a plant breeder, do you gather information on the origin of genetic
material used in plant breeding?
|
Other Treaty of Waitangi considerations
|
41
|
What else should we be thinking about in considering the Crown’s
Treaty of Waitangi
obligations to Māori in the PVR regime? Why?
|
Additional issues
|
42
|
Do you have any comments on these additional issues, or wish to raise any
other issues not covered either in this section, or elsewhere
in this
paper?
|
Annex 1: Comparison of the PVR Act and UPOV 91
Scope of protection (rights)
|
|
UPOV 91
|
Right to authorise propagation of protected variety
|
Yes, but only for the purposes of commercial
marketing.
|
Yes, for all protected varieties, and subject to
Article 15 exceptions.
|
Right to sell, or offer for sale, propagating material
|
Yes.
|
Yes.
|
Right to authorise import of propagating material
|
Yes, in limited circumstances.
|
Yes.
|
Right to authorise conditioning for the purposes of reproduction
|
No.
|
Yes.
|
Right to authorise export of propagating material
|
No.
|
Yes.
|
Right to authorise stocking of propagating material for any of the above
purposes
|
No.
|
Yes.
|
The above rights apply to varieties essentially derived from protected
varieties
|
No.
|
Yes.
|
Term of PVR
|
Minimum of 23 years for woody plants or their
rootstocks.
20 years for all others.
|
Minimum of 25 years for trees and vines.
20 years for all others
|
Exceptions and
limitations
|
PVR Act
|
UPOV 91
|
Exception for non-commercial use
|
Yes.
|
Yes, but only if the use is
private.
|
Exception for experimental use
|
No. But experimental use would not infringe if it was not for
commercial
purposes.
|
Yes.
|
Exception for use of a protected variety to breed other varieties
|
Yes, but only if the repeated use of the protected variety is not
required.
|
Yes, but only if the repeated use of the protected variety is not
required.
|
Exception for use of propagating material for human consumption or other
non- reproductive purposes
|
Yes.
|
Yes – no explicit provision, but provided for through an
‘exhaustion of rights’
provision.
|
Use of farm-saved seed allowed?
|
Yes, without restriction.
|
Yes, if optional exception
invoked by Member State.
|
]]]]
Annex 2: Farm-saved seed in other jurisdictions
Australia
- Australia
is a party to UPOV 91. Section 17 of the Australian Plant Breeder’s
Rights Act 1994 provides an exception for farm-saved seed. The exception
allows farmers to condition91 and sow
saved seeds of a protected variety without the PVR owner’s permission.
This effectively allows farmers to use saved
seed of protected varieties to sow
another crop without making a payment to the PVR owner. However, they are not
allowed to sell
the saved seed to others to grow.
- Section
17(2) of Australia’s Plant Breeder’s Rights Act provides for
regulations to be made declaring that the exception does not apply to particular
species specified in the regulations.
However, Australia’s Plant
Breeder’s Rights Act does not specify the criteria for determining
whether such regulations should be made. No regulations have yet been
made.
Canada
- Canada
is a party to UPOV 91. Section 5.3(2) of the Canadian Plant Breeder’s
Rights Act (2015) provides an exception for farm-saved seed. The exception
provides that farmers may produce, reproduce, condition and stock seed of
a
protected variety for the sole purpose of growing the variety. This means that
farmers do not have to pay to use saved seed of
a protected variety. However,
they are not allowed to sell the saved seed to others to
grow.
The European Union
- The
EU is a party to UPOV 91 (although not all EU members are party to UPOV 91). The
grant of PVR in the EU is governed by the Community Plant Variety Rights
Regulation (No 2100/94 of 27 July 1994). Article 14 of this Regulation
provides a limited exception for farm seed.
- The
exception only applies to specified species.92 In relation to the specified species,
farmers (except for ‘small’ farmers – see paragraph 7 below),
can use saved
seed without the PVR owner’s permission. However, they must
pay ‘equitable remuneration’ to the PVR owner. This
remuneration
must be ‘sensibly lower’ than the price charged for purchased
seed.
- For
species other than the specified species, the PVR owner retains the right over
farm-saved seed.
- ‘Small’
farmers may use farm-saved seed freely and are not required to pay any fee.93
91 Conditioning is defined
under the Australian Plant Breeder’s Right Act 1994 as
‘cleaning, coating, sorting, packaging or grading of the
material’.
92 Chickpea, yellow lupin, lucerne,
field pea, Egyptian clover, Persian clover, field bean, common vetch,
Italian
rye-grass (Portugal only), oats, barley, rice, canary grass, rye, triticale,
wheat, durum wheat, spelt wheat, potatoes, swede rape,
turnip rape, linseed
(except flax).
93 A small farmer is a farmer who does
not grow plants on an area bigger than that needed to grow 92 tonnes
of cereals, or a comparable criterion.
The United States of America
- The
United States is a party to UPOV 91. The United States’ Plant Variety
Protection Act of 1970 provides an exception to PVRs for farm-saved seed.
Section 113 provides that a farmer who saves and grows seed of a protected
variety
does not infringe the PVR owner’s rights. This means that farmers
do not have to pay a fee to the PVR owner to save and grow
seeds of a protected
variety. However, they are not allowed to sell or trade saved seed to others to
grow.
Japan
- Japan
is a party to UPOV 91. Article 22 of the Plant Variety Protection and Seed
Act No. 83 of May 29, 1998, provides an exception to PVRs for farm-saved
seed. Farmers do not have to pay a fee to save and grow saved seed of protected
varieties
unless there is a contract between the PVR owner and farmer to the
contrary. However, farmers are not allowed to sell saved seed
to others to grow.
The exception does not extend to vegetatively reproduced species that are
designated by the Japanese Ministry
of Agriculture, Forestry and
Fisheries.
China
- China
is a party to UPOV 78, though is working towards becoming a party to UPOV 91. As
in New Zealand, farmers in China do not have
to pay a fee to save and grow seed
of protected varieties. However, as in New Zealand, they cannot sell the seeds
to others to grow.
NZLII:
Copyright Policy
|
Disclaimers
|
Privacy Policy
|
Feedback
URL: http://www.nzlii.org/nz/other/NZAHGovDP/2018/1.html