New Zealand Grain and Seed Trade Association general manager Thomas Chin said successive governments had dragged their feet when it came to updating this country’s 30-plus year old Plant Variety Rights Act.
However there was now an opportunity for breeders to push for changes to the act,as the government seeks industry submissions on options to reform it.
“Really what lawmakers have is a once in a lifetime opportunity to design a regime that is future focused.
“Present legislation fails to deliver rigid protection to breeders for the IP in their germplasm, with inadequate fines.
“The legislation as it stands also fails to require a royalty be paid to breeders by farmers who use farm-saved seed.”
Chin said with NZ now a member of the Comprehensive and Progressive Agreement for Trans-Pacific Partnership (CPTPP) it was apparent just how far behind the member countries NZ was in terms or protecting plant breeders.
“All other member countries comply with a plant variety standard, UPOV91. It is a globally accepted standard that NZ must fall into line with under the conditions of the CPTPP if we are to fulfil our obligations as a member.”
The protocol ensures far more rigid and enforced protection of breeders’ plant variety rights. It will give greater peace of mind to potential international providers of new germplasm suitable for use in NZ, knowing their Plant Variety Rights (PVR)s would be protected.
At present certain grain varieties, including barley, did not always have the very latest hybrids on offer to our growers as seed companies held back their offerings.
“At the moment in NZ it is almost like our growers in cereal crops in particular only have access to the equivalent of an iPhone 6, when the rest of the world can use an iPhone 10.”
Following Canada’s ratification of UPOV91, plant breeders experienced a spike in variety applications.
Chin was adamant NZ breeders would experience higher levels of long term investment by overseas plant breeding companies if the protocol was ratified here.
Flipping things around, Chin said at present it was similar to the hesitancy NZ seed growers may feel sending varieties to China, where a loose approach to legislation made theft of germplasm IP very possible.
Farm-saved seed royalties would also be reinforced under the protocol.
“In the cereal space in particular that loss of royalties is quite challenging when it comes to a funding source for R&D.”
Estimates were about $2 million in royalties a year were lost that could go into R&D. The cereal sector’s development of suitable hybrids was hit particularly hard.
Chin said because of its small size it was hard for the cereal sector to leverage R&D funds for hybrid development and that was fast approaching tipping point, with funds needed sooner than later.
“We have already had general agreement among all players in principal this is needed and the work now will be on a mechanism to deliver those royalties.”
The existing act was also woefully light on penalties for those ripping off plant varieties from seed companies.
Chin’s submission on the issue outlines costly and time consuming court processes, with inadequate fines of $500-$1000 an offence.
Typical illegal practices include fraudulent labelling of seed varieties and the misuse of farm-saved seed that is a proprietary brand, sold by farmers.
“In determining what penalties should be, we don’t have to look very far. Government has already reinforced copyright and patent legislation that deals with IP. Why not take that protection and use it as a base for seeds?”
The policy options paper is due for release in July.
