Shifting Common Spaces of Plant Genetic Resources in the International Regulation of Property

Abstract

The appellative “common heritage of mankind” is often used as a description of the property domain that governed plant genetic resources (PGR) at an international level up until the end of the twentieth century. However, the concept is rarely elaborated on. In this article we explore the origins of common property in PGR and the shifting content and shape of the genetic commons over the past several decades. Using the theoretical framework of diverse common property regimes developed by Peter Drahos, we chart the way in which the emergence and interaction of various international regulatory regimes related to PGR reshape common property spaces, rights and obligations. We argue that these international agreements do not regulate a single property domain in isolation, but rather modify the content and boundaries of the complex set of property domains that apply to PGR: private, state, common and public. More than a theoretical conundrum, we show that any realistic appraisal of the implementation of the international regulatory regimes in relation to PGR must acknowledge the conflicting and complex dynamics of these interrelated property domains, as well as the way in which they are being put into place on the ground.

Seeds as biosocial commons : an analysis of various practices in India

“…Studies on PGRs and commons widely recognise the informational content of the PGRs as commons (Dedeurwaerdere, 2012;Halewood et al, 2013;Kloppenburg, 2010;Roa-Rodríguez and van Dooren, 2008), but fail to pay attention to the concrete process through which the transformation of the PGRs into informational resources takes place. The second chapter contributed to filling this gap with an empirical description of how the process of seed collection, selection, storage and use within an ex situ genebank transforms the PGRs into informational resources and then into intellectual commons.…”

“…When reflecting on the governance of PGRs and the process through which they are common-ised, Roa-Rodríguez and van Dooren (2008) highlighted the difficulty to bring PGRs under one governance regime. The complexities were generally exacerbated through the introduction of IPRs, which established the governance of different components of PGRs (Drahos, 2006;RoaRodríguez and van Dooren, 2008).…”

“…Indeed, the scientific and technological development of plant breeding has led to the redefinition of seeds according to a distinction between the traditional biological (whole seeds) and contemporary scientific (genetic material). This distinction is expressed in the literature on common property resources and then commons as the tangible-intangible binary (Kloppenburg, 2010;Roa-Rodríguez andvan Dooren, 2008: van Dooren, 2009). …”

“…PGRs are also perceived as being composed of both tangible and intangible components, where the material seeds are the tangible components housing the DNA that carries genetic information (the genetic code), which is intangible in nature (Roa-Rodríguez and van Dooren, 2008). This study refers to these perspectives and their associated discourses.…”

“…In fact, PGRs were treated as a common heritage for mankind, prior to, the introduction of plant patenting (concomitant with the beginning of the industrialisation of agriculture in the first half of the twentieth century), and then, the extension of intellectual property rights (IPRs) (Brush, 1996;Kloppenburg, 2005;Raustiala and Victor, 2004;Roa-Rodríguez and van Dooren, 2008). With the introduction of IPRs, therefore, PGRs were reduced to properties to be owned under legal ambit and no longer perceived as a heritage for mankind to be governed and managed collectively (Aoki and Luvai, 2007;Kloppenburg, 2010Kloppenburg, , 2014.…”