1. ’ APSA Position on IPR - the Genesis ’ N. Anand Director Research, Namdhari Seeds Pvt Ltd

2. Structure of presentation  Important to understand the present  Sound understanding of the past  Learn about the problems we now face  Prepare for the future

3. APSA and IPR Justification In the Asia-Pacific region the seed business is more susceptible to the risk of IPR infringement Many plant varieties easily reproduced and propagated Seed production and plant propagation commonly done by third parties not under the direct control of the variety owner Require more efforts and expenses into research for developing superior varieties

4. APSA and IPR APSA recognizes the need for plant variety protection through IPR Indispensable for sound development of seed industry in Asian region Protection of new varieties provides impetus for increased research efforts This will go a long way in improving productivity in this region Expected outcome: improvement in quality of life of growers Need to address IPR issues unique and critical to APSA member countries

5. APSA’s mission Mission  To improve production and trade of quality seeds and planting materials of agricultural and horticultural crops …”  It is APSA’s mission and in interest of seed industry to have protection of breeders and seed company’s IP

6. Chronology of events APSA 2011 Thailand: Position paper prepared by Mr. Uday Singh. Presented & discussed during APSA Sept 2012 Mr. Uday Singh appointed Chairperson for IPRWG, ToR circulated. Members list drawn up Nov 2012 IPRWG meeting during APSA Bali May 2013 IPRWG meeting during ISF Greece Nov 2013 IPRWG meeting APSA Kobe Mr. Uday Singh. Presented on progress of position paper Macau APSA Nov 2014: Dr Arvind Kapur Chairperson. Presents a status paper. Chairperson. Presents a status paper.

7. IPR meeting in APSA 2011  APSA 2011: decided to develop a position paper on IPR and patent on plants  Decision taken by EC to form a working group to develop the position paper  Accordingly a position paper prepared by Mr Uday Singh for circulation

8. Terms of Reference (ToR) and target  Executive Committee (EC) in May of 2012 set up IPRWG  Task of Development of a position paper on Intellectual Property Protection of Plants in the Asia-Pacific  EC appoints Mr. Uday Singh as Chair Person  EC authorised Mr. Uday Singh to confirm and convene members of the working group of up to 15 members  ToR prepared by Tom Burns and circulated to the group  Several comments offered taken on board and final version circulated and approved by members

9. ToR  First meeting planned on 7th November 2012 during Bali Congress; to discuss scope of the paper and various responsibilities  Timelines: Initial paper to be ready for discussion by May 2013  Final version of position paper by November 2013; depending upon decision of EC to be presented to the general body and approved ….. contd

10. Members As per EC decision following members were suggested to be on the group: Following members were requested & accepted to join the group: Uday Singh (to Chair the group), India Dr.Orlando De Ponti, Dr.Anand, India Francois Burgaud, France Dr.Arvind Kapur, India Mary Ann Sayoc, Thailand Mr.Wang Zhipang (from China) JJ Chen, Taiwan Mr.Osamu Sugimura, Anke van den Hurk, The Netherlands Ms.Christiane Duchene Hinderwati Ir, Indonesia

11.  Breeder’s rights,  Patents  UPOV and PVP  Use of technologies  Farmer’s exception  Essential derivation  Other forms of protection  IP for genetic resources Scope of position paper to address aspects relevant to IP

12. Reporting  The EC authorises the OB to consider any proposal from the IPRWG, approve requests or other materials requested in the proposal as well as offer guidance  A draft report will be submitted to OB for consideration which will be referred to EC  The report and recommendations from EC will be referred to General Assembly of APSA for endorsement

13. APSA 2012 in Bali Start of formal activities IPRWG constituted met on Nov. 7 Discussed on confirmation of IPRWG, agreement on ToR and plans on finalizing the draft of the position paper on IPR for Asia Pacific region The scope of the review in ToR to be as follows a. Utility patents, - dropped b. UPOV and PVP – draft required c. Use of technologies - dropped d. Farmer’s rights – combined with other topics e. Other forms of protection – draft required f. Genetic resources and access and benefit sharing – redrafted as IP and genetic resources g. Co-existence between plant breeder’s rights and patent – draft required

14. APSA IPRWG meeting held in Bali Nov 7, 2012 Attendees Uday Singh (Chairperson) Osamu Sugimura Mary Ann Sayoc Francois Burgaud J.J. Chen Anke van den Hurk Mrs Hinderwati Anand Arvind Kapur Wang Zhipping Jean-Christophe Gouache Orlando de Ponti Mitsutaro Fujisaka Jinyoung Yoon Secretariat : Dr. Tom Burns (Dir) Absentees:Christiane Duchene

15. Assigning of Drafting Responsibilities  UPOV and PVP: Arvind Kapur, Mitsutaro Fujisaka, Anand, Mrs Hindawati  Co-existence between plant breeder’s rights and patents:, Sam Sugimura, Uday Singh, Anke van den Hurk, Christian Duchene,  Other Forms of Protection: Uday Singh, Anand, Arvind Kapur  IP of Genetic Resources: J.J. Chen, Francois Burgaud  First named will act as convener / leader Responsibilities: Initiating work on allotted topic: Collecting information from members either by subdividing topic among them or by any other convenient way and finally forwarding to Chairman with approval of other members of the group

16. Discussions in ISF meeting in Athens May 2013  The meeting discussed in general the progress to-date, the content of the drafts and the contributions of many of the members  It was agreed that the three sections of the position paper were sound  Reformatting suggested to align them to merge with each other.  They should have Executive Summary, Body and conclusions or positions – since done  Attendees: Uday Singh (Chairperson), Osamu Sugimura, Francois Burgaud, Christiane Duchene, Anand, Secretariat – Tom Burns (Director)

17. Drafting groups The following drafts ready and received: UPOV and PVP: Arvind Kapur, Mitsutaro Fujisaka, Anand, Mrs Hindawati Co-existence between plant breeder’s rights and patents: Anke van den Hurk, Christian Duchene, Sam Sugimura, Uday Singh Farmer’s Rights, IP of Genetic Resources: J.J. Chen and Francois Burgaud Of minor importance and will be included at a later date: Other Forms of Protection: Uday Singh, Anand, Arvind Kapur

18. Procedures to follow  To get comments from members of EC and not only from the office bearers.  To be initially be discussed within APSA  After formal approval as a policy, it will be circulated to others outside the region  Provision to amend the paper over time to reflect changing IP scenario  To be discussed in IPR SC (IPR standing committee), GAM (General Assembly Meeting); no veto rights preventing the submission at GAM  Deadlines for draft and EC submissions to be drawn up

19. Summary of the draft paper on UPOV and PVP  Position papers by ISF and UPOV 1991 consulted  To provide a uniform and well-balanced system for PBR  Breeder’s exemption and farmer’s exemption provided through this act  Protection based on DUS characteristics.  Standardized tests for disease resistances in various crops and disease codes essential  Use of DNA marker technology proposed  EDV and exceptions to breeder’s rights clearly spelt out  Uniform laws for farm saved seeds to be harmonized  APSA to play a significant role in bringing about this transformation

20. Summary of the draft paper on Co-existence of PBR and patents, other forms of protection  Balance between protection as an incentive for innovation and access to genetic material and technologies essential  Plant breeders’ rights appropriate in IP system  Provides breeder’s exemption to stimulate further innovation  Mere discovery of traits existing in plant germplasm not be patented  Patents for inventions with modern biotechnological tools  Innovations to be patented but not discoveries  Patents for inventions and PBR for the variety can co-exist  “Breeders’ exemption” should be considered as a built-in system for patents. Contd...

21. IPR and Plant Genetic Resources  Nagoya Protocol (Oct 2010) recognizes ITPGRFA conforming to CBD and obligations of protocol  Recognizes SMTA in addressing MTA and Prior Inform Concern (PIC) agreements and benefit sharing obligations.  Majority are parties to CBD with access to genetic resources to use in breeding  APSA to be convinced on access to genetic diversity and encourage members to adopt and implement the ITPGRFA  For species outside the IT, APSA to recommend that rules to implement Nagoya Protocol would be as close as possible from SMTA  Safeguarding legitimate interest of breeders of new varieties created and developed  APSA has to be cautious on role of farmers’ seeds of new protected variety without licensing by owner  APSA needs to favor full implementation of farmers’ rights.

22. Points for consideration in the final draft  UPOV 1991 as a common denominator for all countries in the region  Need for strong protection to ensure plant improvement innovation  Access to genetic resources as a principal basis to provide fast progress  Patenting of native traits / genes to be prohibited  IP protection systems such as PBR for discoveries and patents for inventions  Co existence of the two systems, patents for inventions and PBR for the variety  Breeder’s exemption for free access of protected variety for further research  Farmer’s exemption to be a significant major feature for the Asian region.

23. Work to be done  The drafts have been brought together  To be ready for final presentation during APSA 2015  Send for approval to concerned Committees  Initiate dialogues with National Seed Associations through select committee constituted by APSA  To work in close coordination with ISF, ASTA and ESA to resolve possible conflicts and issues

24. SC on IPR – APSA, Kobe 2013 Progress of APSA Position Paper on Patents of New Varieties - Uday Singh, Chair of the IPR Working Group Update on UPOV Developments -Peter Button Regional Cooperation Program on Implementing PVP Based on 1991 UPOV Convention -Mitsutaro Fujisada Experience of Joining UPOV -Nguyen Thanh Minh, Report on 5th Governing Body Meeting of the ITPGRFA -Francois Burgaud, Status of implementation of the Nagoya Protocol -Anke van der Hurk Presentations

25. APSA 2013 Kobe: Outline of priorities and activities for 2014  With issues on BR, patenting, etc during APSA NSA meetings proposed to organise NSA next year to tackle issues on IPRs  Confirmed committee members  Ms Inderwati and Mr Fujisada will not continue  Proposed that Dr A.Kapur as co chair and Tsukasa Kawikami as Secretary  Set up a larger group of participating members and propose follow up of meetings (conference calls)

26. Update on UPOV Activities - Ben Rivoire, Activities of EAPVP Forum - Akiko NAGANO, Implementation of Nagoya Protocol: Challenges for the Seed Industry - Anke van den Hurk, Update on the WG to Enhance the Functioning of the Multilateral System (ITPGRFA) - Bert Visser, Update on the Position Paper of APSA on IPR - Arvind Kapur, Chair of the IPRWG. SC on IPR – APSA, Macau 2014 Presentations

27. Activities of the SC on Intellectual Property Rights for 2015  Outline the priorities and activities for 2015: NSA meeting; symposium with EAPVP Forum  Confirm committee members (Chair, Co-Chair, Secretary)  Set up a larger group of participating members (advisory group) and propose follow up meetings (conference calls)

28. 2014 Activities of SC on IPR for 2015  Position paper to be put on web site  Process of adoption of paper: meeting of NSA – EC – proposal to vote at general assembly in 2015  SC will propose to EC a workshop targeting mainly NSA to work on the draft position paper on IPR  Chair will see if APSA may be represented at next EAPVP forum

29. Concerns  Readiness to talk about IPR  Limited knowledge and ideas on the matter  Further discussions are needed before the position paper is finalized  Lot of questions from their colleagues from Asia but they did not seem to know which direction/s to take  Seminars on IPR to be offered to discuss requirements in the region Cont…

30. Concerns  IPR is a complex issue with many facets to it  Dialogues either through workshops or webinars to get as much viewpoints  Not a lot of inputs from the participants  More talks on breeders’ rights and IPRs during the APSA-NSA meeting than during the SC IPR meeting  Idea of organizing NSA meeting with two parts—first to learn IPR concepts, secondly to have a detailed discussion on the IPRWG’s draft papers

31. Thank you