Final remarks. Creating a virtuous circle of innovation in cereal varieties is necessary for the benefit of farmers, consumers, and the society in general. The role of Community plant variety protection in fostering innovation in the European Union has been generously illustrated, as well as the importance of promoting innovation in cereal varieties. The first section of the chapter provided an overview of the research, useful to state the research problem and to highlight the significance of the research; whereas the second part introduced the key concept of plant variety protection. Interestingly, agriculture and intellectual property have always had a tricky relationship, especially with regard to seed ‘privatization’. The risks connected to the privatization of seeds, as one of the most important agricultural inputs, fed the dominant narrative describing the plant breeding industry. 109 CPVO is taken into account for a specific reason: the chosen contest of the current research is the European Union and, specifically, the Community plant variety protection. 110 See CPVO website, Our mission, xxxx://xxxx.xxxxxx.xx/xx/xxx-xxxxxxx. In particular, this narrative describes the breeding industry as exclusively governed by multinational enterprises, which monopolize the global seed market: those companies patent their seed-related innovations in order to prevent farmers from saving and re-using their seeds. This narrative is especially focused on the privatization of those crops highly used in agricultural production and customarily subject to the practice of farm-saving: in particular, cereal seeds. This research does not aim at denying the existence of this phenomenon. However, it wishes to demonstrate that this narrative, when translated into the European Union agricultural framework, does not take into consideration the role of SMEs in the breeding industry, the need to xxxxxx their innovations in cereal varieties, the challenges those enterprises face both when innovating and when marketing their varieties, as well as the idiosyncrasies of Community plant variety protection in the intellectual property context such as the ‘breeder’s exemption’ and the ‘xxxxxx’x privilege’, which are going to be analyzed in the third chapter. For the benefit of the research outcomes, it is important to frame the research in ways that are not conditioned by the dominant narrative. This is the reason why, in the current study, the Community plant variety protection is not only studied ‘in...
Final remarks. 1. The International Convention for the Protection of New Varieties of Plants
Final remarks. The UPOV Convention has been the first international agreement to provide a legal framework for the protection of plant varieties through a sui generis system. It has 180 UPOV, 1991, Records of the Diplomatic Conference for the Revision of the International Convention for the Protection of New Varieties of Plants, Geneva, UPOV/PUB/346, pp. 213-218. introduced and normalized several concepts concerning plant varieties, while leaving a certain degree of freedom to Member States to adapt such provisions to their national environment. The UPOV Convention has not been revised after 1991. Surely, some provisions could be clarified and improved but the difficulties to face in order to reach a new agreement on such elements might not be overcome: the interests at stake of the members of the Union are very different and sometimes potentially conflicting. As it has been said, ‘a review could have the character of opening the Pandora’s box’181. Hence, one could meaningfully assume that, without a review, the responsibility to carry on the harmonization and the implementation of the UPOV system might fall on jurisprudence. Of course, the impact of case law is indissolubly limited to the jurisdiction of the Courts. However, Member States might take into account the interpretation of vague concepts and provisions provided for by the judges of another Contracting Party when addressing the same questions. Indeed, the cooperation among UPOV membership, both on a legal and a technical level, is fundamental for a better implementation of the plant variety protection system and many countries became aware of the benefits of such cooperation. In this context, it is not surprising that the membership of the Union has experienced a significant evolution over the years: from thirteen States representing only industrialized European countries to seventy-five members, including developing countries and international organizations, such as the African Intellectual Property Organization and the European Union. It is indeed the implementation by the European Union of this sui generis plant variety protection system to be analyzed and discussed in the following paragraphs. 181 Statement of the pro tempore President of the CPVO, Xxxx Xxxxxxx. See: Xxxxxxx B., 2004, Evolution of the Legal Environment of Plant Breeders’ Rights, Angers, p. 2, available at the following website: xxxxx://xxxx.xxxxxx.xx/xxxxx/xxxxxxx/xxxxx/xxxxxxxxx/xxxxxxxx/XXXXxxxxx0000XX.xxx SUMMARY: 1. The Community plant...