No abstract

The threats of climate change and rising food prices have stirred renewed attention for seed and food security in Africa, inviting new thinking on the role of seed sector development in coping with these concerns. One conceptual framework that has gained attention is the Integrated Seed Sector Development (ISSD) approach. The ISSD approach has evolved as a response to the almost exclusive focus on formal seed systems in seed sector development programs. Instead, ISSD aims to recognize and support all the diverse seed systems that exist in a particular country. An analysis of the evolution of seed policies and regulatory frameworks in Kenya since independence indeed exposes a continuous support for the formal seed sector while support given to the informal sector has merely been intended to transform it into formal. In reality, however, the formal and informal sectors appear to be made up of a plurality of seed systems, with the informal seed systems being the main source of seed for most crops. The article continues with analysing some of Kenya's recent policy shifts in order to explore how its new seed policy and legislative framework may fit within ISSD principles, and concludes with some recommendations on how the variety of seeds systems that exists on the ground and in particular local seed systems can be supported.

In this article, we will first give a historic overview of the concept of benefit sharing and its appearance in official agreements, particularly with respect to crop genetic resources. It will become clear that, at present, benefit sharing is primarily considered as an instrument of compensation or exchange, and thus refers to commutative justice. However, we believe that such a narrow interpretation of benefit sharing disregards, and even undermines, much of its (historical) content and potency, especially where crop genetic resources are concerned. We argue that benefit sharing should not be based merely on commutative justice but rather on a broader model that is also grounded in the concept of distributive justice. This has repercussions for the application of benefit sharing, which we try to clarify by distinguishing between downstream and upstream benefit sharing. Upstream benefit sharing is not so much inspired by compensation for actions done, or the distribution downstream of benefits developed, but by the idea of shared decision-making on the research and development of resources fundamental to human welfare. Going upstream in the research process of crop genetic resources, and determining research agendas and improving crops according to the needs of the poor, benefit sharing may well be a tool to contribute to world food security and global justice. We concretize our ideas on upstream benefit sharing by introducing a set of criteria that determine the success of consultations on agricultural research agenda setting.

Sub-Saharan African countries, through their regional organizations, have embarked on the harmonisation of plant variety protection (PVP) systems. These initiatives are largely modelled on the UPOV 1991 act, which claims to incentivize plant breeding and facilitate agricultural development. Civil Society Organisations (CSO), however, strongly criticise this process for being out of step with Sub-Saharan African agricultural realities, undermining smallholder farmers' agricultural practices and, ultimately, threatening food security. Among their main concerns are the fear that the proposed regimes facilitate biopiracy and lack recognition of farmers' rights. This article discussed three of the main CSO concerns in tandem with examples of alternative provisions from PVP systems from around the world. While it will be shown that the CSO concerns are not likely to be acted upon, this article aims to answer the pressing question whether a UPOV '91 based PVP system hampers farming practices in developing countries, and explores several legal avenues to accommodate the needs and traditions of smallholder farmers.

No abstract

No abstract

No abstract

Over the last few decades, the number of patents on plants and plant parts has greatly increased in various parts of the world. Most research, however, has focused exclusively on developed countries—the United States and European Union states in particular—while little is known about the extent to which plants are being patented in other parts of the world. This article aims to fill this information gap by providing an overview of the status of patenting plants in the developing countries and emerging economies of the Global South. The research is based on the analysis of legal provisions, patentability guidelines, court decisions (where they exist) and a sample of patents granted in the countries selected for this study. The findings indicate that despite the flexibilities of the World Trade Organization Trade‐Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights Agreement regarding the nonpatentability of plants, 60% of the 126 countries in the Global South for which data were available to allow for the patenting of plants or parts thereof, and many such patents have been identified. This situation warrants further reflection and, potentially, review of existing patent laws as developing countries search for ways of responding optimally to the needs of feeding a growing population while adapting to the challenges of climate change.