外文翻譯----基于植物新品種保護聯(lián)盟（upov）協(xié)議的保護進展

1、<p><b>　　浙江工業(yè)大學法學院</b></p><p>　　畢業(yè)論文外文資料翻譯</p><p>　　學院（系）： 法學院 </p><p>　　專 業(yè)： 知識產權二專業(yè)09年級 </p><p>　　姓 名：

2、 魏爽 </p><p>　　學 號： 200905911027 </p><p>　　外文出處：World Patent Information 27 (2005) 232–243；</p><p>　　Biotechnology and Development M

3、onitor , No.23，2005</p><p>　　附 件 1.外文資料翻譯譯文；2.外文原文 </p><p>　　附件1：外文資料翻譯譯文一：</p><p>　　基于植物新品種保護聯(lián)盟（UPOV）協(xié)議的保護進展</p><p>　　植物新品種保護聯(lián)盟（UPOV）慣例的適用及其1972，1978和1991年的修訂</p

4、><p>　　該國際協(xié)定的序言的第一句是在1961年12月2日，在巴黎寫下，內容是：“我們深知保護植物新品種的重要性，不僅是對于農業(yè)發(fā)展而言，對于育種者的切身利益也是至關重要……”植物育種者確實對農業(yè)的發(fā)展貢獻良多。舉個例子，在法國，每公頃平均小麥產量從1910年的1.3公噸躍升到2002年的7公噸。在美國，每公頃玉米產量從1940年1.8公噸躍升到2000年8.5公噸，在南非，每公頃玉米產量從1950年1噸躍升到2

5、001年2.7噸，小麥產量從0.5噸躍升到2.4噸。依據(jù)不同的作物和地理位置，因為植物遺傳基因的改進使得產量平均有30%到60%的漲幅。在對法國政府的倡議進行了大量的準備工作之后，終于在1961年12月2日的外交會議上修成正果，UPOV得以簽署和實行。以下13個歐洲國家加入該聯(lián)盟：奧地利，比利時，丹麥，芬蘭，德國，法國，意大利，荷蘭，挪威，西班牙，瑞典，瑞士和英國，外加歐洲經濟共同體和國際知識產權保護局，聯(lián)合國糧農組織和經合組織，還有以

6、下的非政府組織：ASSINSEL，AIPPI，CIOPORA，CIOPORA，F(xiàn)IS。</p><p>　　UPOV協(xié)定是最初由比利時、法國、德國、意大利和荷蘭的全權代表簽署，并且在以后的時間里仍然歡迎新的成員簽署加入。同樣簽字的還有丹麥、瑞士和英國。在認清植物新品種是增強農業(yè)和促進整體經濟發(fā)展的重要武器后，簽署UPOV協(xié)定的國家們希望對可持續(xù)的植物育種提供激勵。他們的目標是以明確定義并獲得國際社會協(xié)調一致的原則

7、，來保證育種者擁有對其新品種精神和物質上的權利。在UPOV協(xié)定之下，為獲得對新品種的保護，該新品中必須滿足下面三個技術標準：</p><p>　　其必須與現(xiàn)有品種明確區(qū)分開</p><p>　　同一品種必須充分一致</p><p>　　在持續(xù)繁殖生產之后其根本特點必須始終保持穩(wěn)定</p><p>　　此外，該品種還必須歸屬于某一種類。保護即意

8、味著任何對新品種繁育技術和材料的商業(yè)化必須經由育種者授權批準。</p><p>　　在三個正式文件由英國、瑞士和德國提出以后，UPOV協(xié)定正式在1968年8月10日生效。以上便是UPOV的起源，該組織選擇日內瓦作為其總部。</p><p>　　1972年的附加法案</p><p>　　UPOV協(xié)定在第27條款聲言：改動案必須定期檢查，以提高該組織的運作效率，為此，每

9、五年就要開會一次，除非理事會取消了會議。于是對協(xié)定的第一次修訂就在1972年發(fā)生了。</p><p>　　經驗顯示，因組織的經費開支帶來的費用分攤問題需要完善一下。根據(jù)第26條款第二條，組織的成員國被分成三個等級，相當于一級進貢者，三級進貢者和五級進貢者。1972年11月的外交會議，目的就是引進一種五級的進貢系統(tǒng)，取代原先的三級，同時授權理事會有權決定哪些國家可以只承擔0.5個進貢者的責任。</p>

10、<p>　　這個額外的法案在1977年2月11日年正式生效。在那時，一個新的協(xié)議修正案又在籌劃之中了。</p><p><b>　　1978年修正案</b></p><p>　　在1973年成員國們意識到還是有必要對協(xié)定的實際的條例修訂一下。在UPOV理事會的支持之下做了大量的準備工作之后，在1978年再次召集了一次外交會議。在遍撒請?zhí)?，聚攏了10個成

11、員國和27個非成員國，分別是阿根廷、澳大利亞、孟加拉、巴西、保加利亞、加拿大、芬蘭、匈牙利、伊朗、伊拉克、象牙海岸、日本、利比亞、盧森堡、墨西哥、摩洛哥、新西蘭、挪威、巴拿馬、秘魯、沙特、塞內加爾、西班牙、泰國、美國、南斯拉夫，會議在10月23日舉行。會議采用了10個成員國一致通過的修正文本和兩個提議。</p><p>　　最重要的改動案牽涉到UPOV作為一個政府間組織的身份。UPOV被授予合法的身份以及在各成員

12、國境域內為達成目標喝履行職責必要的權利，同時也允許他和瑞士聯(lián)邦一同進入總部協(xié)議。</p><p>　　另外的協(xié)議旨在方便非成員國接觸UPOV。同時在第37條款內增加了一個例外，就是允許美國保留其二元體系，該二院體系旨在對新品種繁衍方式的應用領域進行保護和分類。</p><p>　　1978年的修訂文本最終和1961年起早的那份相差有限。對于原來協(xié)議成員國，一條重要的增補條例是針對藤本植物和

13、樹木及二者的根莖，原先在不損害其新穎性的前提下允許在國外銷售4年，現(xiàn)在延長為6年。</p><p>　　有關優(yōu)先權的條例也完善了。針對不同作物種類的規(guī)則也得到修訂，當然根本的原則還是不能變的。</p><p>　　原先由瑞士聯(lián)邦政府確立、并與牽涉其中的聯(lián)盟取得一致的，用于管理UPOV和WIPO之間技術和管理合作之程序的相關規(guī)定，如今被廢。所幸合作本身并未受影響。眼下相關合作事宜由在1982

14、年11月26日所簽署的一份文件來統(tǒng)一管理。根據(jù)該文件，WIPO要提供UPOV以后勤支持來應對管理紊亂。該文件同時授權UPOV理事會任命WIPO的總負責人來擔任UPOV的總秘書長。最終，依照主要的根本原則，WIPO負責管理全體職員和財政供應來支持UOPV的人事和財務。</p><p><b>　　1991年法案</b></p><p>　　到了1991年，對UPOV協(xié)議

15、的實施已經累積了近三十年的經驗，而且成員國們也認識到了所取得的進步。DNA的結構在1953年宣布發(fā)現(xiàn)了。在1961年到1991年的這段時間里，相繼的科學發(fā)現(xiàn)接踵而至，這些發(fā)現(xiàn)極大地影響了植物品種的改善和對植物新品種的保護。在1991年根據(jù)經驗所發(fā)現(xiàn)的和科學技術進步所帶來的各種挑戰(zhàn)，聯(lián)盟正在努力做出改變以應對之。</p><p>　　UPOV協(xié)議的所有法案都有五個主要特征。它們是：</p><p

16、>　　獲得保護的確實標準（新穎性，品種種類，區(qū)別于在先品種，特征一致性和穩(wěn)定性）</p><p><b>　　保護范圍力求最小</b></p><p><b>　　保護期限力求最短</b></p><p>　　為獲得新品種保護所需提供的植物基因和品種力求最少</p><p>　　協(xié)議準入規(guī)定，

17、國民待遇和優(yōu)先權的應用</p><p>　　接下來的這一段為1991年的重要新增條例提供了一個整體概觀。</p><p>　　對于保護的確定技術標準，在1991年沒有重大變化。但在當時卻引入了一系列重要詞匯的定義例如“種植者”和“新品種”，這種做法進一步明確了UPOV的體系和促進了其內部組織之間的和諧。有關保護范圍、新品種和為育種者權力所保護的新品種的材質的相關分類也都得到了確立。<

18、/p><p>　　在當時的環(huán)境下，新品種的本質衍生（EDV）的概念的得到重要發(fā)展：EDV暗示著一個由已受保護的品種所衍生出來的新品種一樣可以受到保護。這種權利的衍生取決于在先受保護品種的育種者授權與否。其目的在于為各種形式的育種提供激勵，同時也方便生物技術發(fā)明之間的整合，一般生物技術發(fā)明在應用于育種時都會受到專利權的保護。</p><p>　　育種者權利的免責條款之范圍得到重新定義?，F(xiàn)在更具體

19、地聲明如果對新品種的相關的行為是用于實驗目的或私下里進行的并且非商用，那么此時是不受到育種者權利約束的。其后的免責條款與此相同，例如在私人花園里或是為了維生而種植。</p><p>　　對于使用受保護品種來繁育新品種的行為，在1978年和1991年的法案中均不要求得到育種者的授權，均屬于免責條例。所繁育出的新品種用于其他用途，比如銷售，也都不需要得到被利用的新品種的育種者的授權，不過在一些1978年和1991年的

20、法案中明確規(guī)定的情形下另當別論。1991年的法案明確說倘若將新品種的本質衍生品種用于商業(yè)，包括育種者授權在內的其他東西還是必要的。</p><p>　　作為一個非強制性的育種權免責條例，一條針對農用種子的條例被加入UPOV條例中，該新條例允許UPOV成員國在一定條件下，允許農民依照合理的限制來保存一些種子，當時也不能侵犯原育種者的合法權益。</p><p>　　對藤本植物和樹木的最短保護期

21、限被延長至25年，其他的作物也延長到20年。與本文的背景有特定相關的是那一個確定獲取新品種保護所要有的最少數(shù)量的作物基因和種類的條例。當協(xié)議在1991年修訂的時候，一條具體的用來檢驗育種者權利之應用的規(guī)定引入到協(xié)議中，從而為育種者權利實施的檢驗方法提供了廣泛的選擇，比如讓育種者與其他的權威機構在國家的和國際的層面上開展合作。因此，在保護任何品種的植物基因和種類的新品種之時，沒有遇到特別困難的地方。相應的，1991年的法案便要求對任何植物

22、基因和品種均可授予保護權利。保護聯(lián)盟內現(xiàn)有成員要求在五年內達成這一目標，而新進成員則要求在十年內需要達標。</p><p>　　考慮到未來還有新的成員加入到協(xié)議中來，一些新的方便政府間組織也加入到協(xié)議中來的條例也被提了出來。</p><p>　　外文資料翻譯譯文二：</p><p>　　植物育種權孕育勝者與敗者</p><p>　　植物育種者

23、權利（PBR）</p><p>　　植物育種者權利（PBR）廣泛應用于經合組織國家和一些發(fā)展中國家，但它充滿爭議。私營種子公司宣揚該種權利因為它可以刺激在植物育種方面的創(chuàng)新。有些人則爭辯說該種權利會妨礙農民的種子供應，同時削弱植物的基因多樣性。在這場爭論中一個顯著的問題是目前對PBR會產生的影響還缺乏觀察得來的證據(jù)。最近一個研究組織在拉丁美洲收集一些相關的經驗，其中重心放在阿根廷。</p><

24、p>　　在1995年早期，有27個國家通過立法強化PBR的保護并且成為UPOV的成員。除了上述國家外，津巴布韋和智利同樣也有PBR的操作系統(tǒng)，并且由于新的關貿總協(xié)定的訂立，越來越多的國家也會跟著做。雖然許多國家均在考慮PBR，但是其社會經濟方面帶來的影響仍未可知。除了一兩個關于PBR的研究在美國開展過以外，其他再沒有評估性的研究開展過。</p><p>　　眼下的情況促使IICA組織和阿姆斯特丹大學與荷蘭連

25、同研究者一起在五個拉美國家開展研究，收集PBR在拉美開展過程中的爭論和影響方面的信息。該研究在1994年開展，試圖在以下四個方面尋找可證實PBR影響的數(shù)據(jù)：</p><p>　　私營種子公司在育種方面的投資</p><p>　　作物材質的國際間轉讓</p><p><b>　　對公共胚質的易得性</b></p><p>

26、<b>　　農民中種子的傳播</b></p><p><b>　　PBR在拉美</b></p><p>　　阿根廷，智利和烏拉圭在15到20年前就建立了PBR保護體系。哥倫比亞則在1994年頒布了PBR法律，當時墨西哥快要引入PBR。在這五個國家中，許許多多利益集團都為PBR搖旗吶喊，他們分別是：</p><p>　　本地

27、種子公司，他們希望保護新品種來獲得專利費。</p><p>　　本地的花果培育者，他們希望以PBR的實現(xiàn)為契機，多多接觸國外育種生產線和國外新品種</p><p>　　本地的公共農業(yè)研究組織，他們正面臨巨大預算縮減，于是大力尋找財源</p><p>　　國外種子公司的子公司，他們希望保護PBR從而保護他們的育種生產線和新品種，從而打入拉美市場</p>

28、<p>　　國外政府，他們希望全面加強在拉美的知識產權保護。</p><p>　　在哥倫比亞和墨西哥，國外政治勢力賣力。比如墨西哥，要加入北美自由貿易體系就必須先引入PBR。反對聲音主要來自公共領域的研究者和一些與小農一起奮斗的非政府組織，但總的來說反對者勢單力薄。在大多數(shù)國家中愚氓大眾并未被告知有關在種業(yè)領域實行知識產權保護的計劃機器潛在影響。</p><p><b>

29、;　　輸家和贏家</b></p><p>　　PBR在拉美的實行時間還太短以至于不足以得出深刻的結論，無法了解PBR在這些國家未來究竟會如何。然而還是有一些暗示信號，顯示我們可以如何找到在PBR保護之下的贏家和輸家。首先，種業(yè)行業(yè)本身應當躋身贏家之列。PBR保護使種業(yè)公司控制其新品種的衍生并又獲得額外收益。至于這是否刺激他們更多地投資種業(yè)目前尚未可知。許多其他宏觀經濟因素將發(fā)揮舉足輕重的作用。種業(yè)全行

30、業(yè)總體上的盈利提升會促使更多的私人進入該領域。那些有條件在公開的國際研究中心得到胚質的育種著獲利最多，因為他們所投入的與PBR相對無關，但是其產出卻受到保護。根據(jù)阿根廷經的情況，跨國公司未必比本地公司在PBR保護下賺得多。然而打著知識產權的旗號方便人們動不動打官司來解決問題。本地公司和大型的跨國公司對簿公堂的時候顯然后者占便宜。保護知識產權能力的大小實際上成為權力擁有者財力大小的反映。</p><p>　　其次，

31、出口作物的培育者，比如鮮花和水果，可能最初是從PBR中獲利的，因為有機會得到國外的新品種。但是這些好處有可能被育種者向拉美牌照持有者提出的的限制條款所抵消，因為用于出口的花果對于出口市場的生產來說是個打壓。培育者能不能占便宜取決于他們能不能和出口市場的牌照持有者好好合作。</p><p>　　再次，公共機構可以從大公司的專利費中占一點便宜，因為后者將提供公共機構急需的資金來幫忙查看是否有違法行為。獲取傳統(tǒng)的公共胚

32、質的經費被嚴格限制。其影響對公共和私人育種者的影響尚未可知。</p><p>　　最后，可能是農民最終為PBR買單，盡管并非必要。PBR會使得種子更貴，因為PBR主要就是打擊非官方的種子流通交易。這樣會逼著農民每年在自己的田里省下更多的種子，而這種行為目前在拉美還是為法律允許的。在引入PBR之后，原本的留存種子的權利變成非法行為，被視為特權，這種留存種子的行為最終要留待行政力量裁決，并且還是會遭到限制。公共機構研

33、究方向的轉變一樣會影響到農民。這些機構在某些作物上遵循商業(yè)慣例來辦事僅僅是為了維護非商用作為的育種能力呢？還是說他們經費上的縮減導致他們對商業(yè)上不具吸引力的作物失去興趣？</p><p><b>　　附件2：外文原文一</b></p><p>　　Progress of plant variety protection based on the Internation

34、al Convention for the Protection of New Varieties of Plants (UPOV Convention)</p><p>　　The adoption of the UPOV Convention and its revisions in 1972, 1978 and 1991</p><p>　　The ?rst sentence of

35、the preamble to the International Convention for the Protection of New Varieties of Plants, signed in Paris on December 2, 1961, reads ‘‘Convinced of the importance attaching to the protection of new varieties of plants,

36、 not only for the development of agriculture in their territory, but also for safeguarding the interests of breeders, . . .’’. Plant breeders have indeed contributed a great deal to the development of agriculture. In Fra

37、nce, for example, the average wheat yie</p><p>　　? International Association of Plant Breeders for the Protection of Plants Varieties (ASSINSEL).</p><p>　　? International Association for the Pro

38、tection of Industrial Property (AIPPI).</p><p>　　? International Community of Breeders of Asexually Reproduced Ornamental Varieties (CIOPORA), which later became the International Community of Breeders of As

39、exually Reproduced Fruit Tree and Ornamental Varieties (CIOPORA).</p><p>　　? International Federation of Seed Trade (FIS).</p><p>　　The UPOV Convention was signed by plenipotentiaries from Belgi

40、um, France, Germany, Italy and The Netherlands and, during the following year when it remained open for signature, it was also signed by Denmark, Switzerland and the United Kingdom.</p><p>　　In recognition o

41、f the fact that new varieties of plants are a powerful tool to enhance agricultural and overall economic development, the States party to the UPOV Convention wished to provide incentives for sustainable plant breeding. T

42、heir aim was to guarantee the moral and material rights of breeders in respect of their varieties, in accordance with clearly de?ned and internationally harmonized principles.</p><p>　　Under the UPOV Convent

43、ion, in order to obtain protection of a new variety, it is required to ful?ll the following three technical criteria:</p><p>　　? It must be clearly distinguishable from existing varieties.</p><p&g

44、t;　　? It must be sufficiently uniform.</p><p>　　? It must be stable in its essential characteristics after repeated reproduction or propagation.</p><p>　　Furthermore, it must have a suitable den

45、omination.‘‘Protection’’ means that any commercialization of propagating material of the variety is subject to the breeders authorization.</p><p>　　The UPOV Convention entered into effect on August 10, 1968,

46、 when the ?rst three instruments of rati?cation were deposited by the United Kingdom, the Netherlands and the Federal Republic of Germany. This was the origin of UPOV, which chose Geneva for its headquarters.</p>

47、<p>　　The Additional Act of 1972</p><p>　　The UPOV Convention provided, in its Article 27, that it was ‘‘reviewed periodically with a view to the introduction of amendments designed to improve the worki

48、ng of the Union’’ and that, unless the Council decided otherwise, ‘‘for this purpose, conferences shall be held every ?ve years […]’’. The ?rst revision was thus to take place in 1972.</p><p>　　Experience ha

49、d already shown that the distribution of the ?nancial burden caused by the expenses of the Union needed re?nement. According to Article 26(2), the member States were divided into three classes, corresponding to one, thre

50、e and ?ve contribution units. The purpose of the Diplomatic Conference that was held in November 1972 was, therefore, to introduce a ?ve-class contribution system, with a span of contributions rising continuously from on

51、e to ?ve, the Council being empowered to author</p><p>　　The Additional Act entered into force on February 11, 1977. By that time, the work on a new revision of the Convention was already underway. </p>

52、;<p>　　The 1978 revision</p><p>　　The member States of UPOV had already realized in 1973 that there was a need to revise the substantive provisions of the Convention. After extensive preparatory work

53、under the auspices of the Council of UPOV, a Diplomatic Conference was convened in October 1978.Invitations were distributed widely and, together with the ten members of the Union, the following twenty-seven non-member S

54、tates took part in the Conference:Argentina, Australia, Bangladesh, Brazil, Bulgaria,Canada, Finland, Hungary, Ira</p><p>　　1978, the Conference adopted a revised text and two recommendations by unanimous vo

55、te of the 10 member States.</p><p>　　The most important amendment concerned the status of UPOV as an intergovernmental organization. UPOV was endowed with legal personality and also, on the territory of each

56、 member of the Union, the legal capacity necessary to achieve this aim and carry out its functions, and it was provided that it would also enter into a Headquarters Agreement with the Swiss Confederation.</p><

57、p>　　Other amendments were designed to facilitate the accession of States that were not yet members. An exception was incorporated into Article 37 to allow the United States of America to retain their dual system of pr

58、otection and the demarcation of the areas of application according to the manner of propagation of the variety.</p><p>　　The revised text adopted in 1978 ultimately differs little from the one drawn up in 19

59、61. For the ‘‘old’’ member States, an essential amendment was the prolongation</p><p>　　from four to six years of the period during which a variety could be marketed abroad without its novelty being affected

60、, in the case of vines, trees and their rootstocks.</p><p>　　The provision on priority was re?ned. Rules on variety denominations were also revised, although the fundamental principles remained unchanged.<

61、;/p><p>　　The provision under which the procedures for technical and administrative cooperation between UPOV and BIRPI (which in the meantime had become the World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO)) were

62、 to be governed by rules established by the Government of the Swiss Confederation, in agreement with the Unions concerned, was deleted. The cooperation itself was not thereby affected, however. It is at present governed

63、by an agreement, signed on November 26, 1982. According to that agreement, WIPO </p><p>　　The 1978 Act came into force on November 8, 1981.</p><p>　　The 1991 Act</p><p>　　By 1991, s

64、ome thirty years of experience had been gained in the application of the UPOV Convention and members of the Union were aware of some improvements that could be made. The discovery of the structure of DNA was announced in

65、 1953. During the period 1961–1991, consequential scienti?c discoveries and technological developments took place, which had profound implications for plant improvement and also for plant variety protection. Each of the

66、changes made in 1991 was to deal with a challenge </p><p>　　All Acts of the UPOV Convention have ?ve main features. They established the:</p><p>　　? standard criteria for protection (novelty, va

67、riety denomination, distinctness, uniformity and stability);</p><p>　　? minimum scope of protection;</p><p>　　? minimum duration of protection;</p><p>　　? minimum number of plant ge

68、nera and species for which variety protection must be provided;</p><p>　　? rules for accession to the Convention, national treatment and priority of applications.</p><p>　　The following section

69、provides a general overview on important amendments brought about by the 1991 Act.</p><p>　　With regard to the standard criteria for protection, no major changes were made in 1991. However, it was decided to

70、 introduce a number of de?nitions, among them de?nitions of ‘‘breeder’’ and ‘‘variety’’, which further clari?ed the UPOV system and contributed to harmonization in its operation.</p><p>　　Important clari?cat

71、ions were also made with regard to the scope of protection, to the varieties and to the material of these varieties covered by a breeders right.</p><p>　　In that context, the concept of Essentially Derived V

72、arieties (EDV) was developed: The EDV concept implies that a variety which is deemed to be essentially derived from a protected variety (the initial variety) may qualify for protection. Its exploitation, however, is subj

73、ect to the authorization of the breeder of the initial variety. The aim is to provide suitable incentives to all forms of plant breeding, thereby also facilitating the integration of biotechnological inventions, which ma

74、y be pr</p><p>　　In respect of the exceptions to the breeders right, their scope was rede?ned. It is now speci?ed that the relevant acts done for experimental purposes or done privately and for non-commercia

75、l purposes are not subject to the breeders right. The latter exceptions may be relevant, for example, in relation to subsistence farming or to private gardening.</p><p>　　With regard to the use of a protecte

76、d variety for breeding other varieties, the authorization of the breeder of the protected variety is not required in either the 1978 Act or in the 1991 Act (‘‘breeders exemption’’). In addition, acts done with these vari

77、eties (e.g. marketing) do not require the authorization of the breeder of the protected variety except for the circumstances speci?ed in the 1978 Act or in the 1991 Act. The 1991 Act speci?es that the authorization is re

78、quired, inter alia, for </p><p>　　As an optional exception to the breeders right, a provision on farm-saved seed was introduced which allows UPOV members to permit farmers, under certain conditions, to save

79、seed within reasonable limits and in a way which safeguards the legitimate interests of the breeder.</p><p>　　The minimum duration of protection was extended to 25 years for varieties of trees and vines and

80、to 20 years for other varieties. Of particular relevance in the context of this article is the provision on the minimum number of plant genera and species whose varieties must be protected. When the Convention was revise

81、d in 1991, speci?c provisions on the examination of the application for a breeders right were introduced which offered a broad range of options for variety testing involving cooperati</p><p>　　In respect of

82、the accession of future members, new provisions were adopted to allow certain intergovernmental organizations to become party to the Convention.</p><p><b>　　外文原文二：</b></p><p>　　Plant

83、 Breeders' Rights Create Winners and Losers</p><p>　　The plant breeders' rights (PBR) system is in use in most OECD countries as well as in some developing countries, but it is controversial. Private

84、 seed firms advocate PBR as it would stimulate innovation in plant breeding. Others argue that PBR may hamper the seed supply to farmers and may decrease genetic diversity. A notable problem in the controversy is that em

85、pirical evidence on the impact of PBR is lacking. A recent study has attempted to collect some experiences in Latin America, with an e</p><p>　　In early 1995, 27 countries had PBR legislation enforced and we

86、re member of the International Union for the Protection of New Varieties of Plants (UPOV). Apart from these countries, Zimbabwe and Chile also have an operational PBR system, and, due to the new GATT agreement, many more

87、 countries will follow suit. Even though the PBR system is being considered by many countries, knowledge about its socioeconomic effects is poor. Apart from one or two studies on the effects of PBR in the USA, no ass<

88、;/p><p>　　PBR in Latin America </p><p>　　Argentina, Chile and Uruguay established PBR protection some 15 to 20 years ago. Colombia promulgated a PBR law in 1994, while Mexico is on the verge of int

89、roducing it. In all of these five countries a variety of interests groups have been advocating PBR: (1) domestic seed companies which want to protect their new plant varieties in order to obtain royalty income; (2) domes

90、tic cultivators of fruit and cut flowers for whom PBR protection is a condition to improve access to breeding lines and vari</p><p>　　Winners and losers</p><p>　　The period that PBR has been enf

91、orced in the Latin American countries is too short to draw farreaching conclusions about the impact of PBR in these countries. There are enough indications, however, that give a clue about where the winners and losers o

92、f PBR protection can be found. Firstly, the seed industry will presumably be among the winners. PBR protection enables the companies to control the exploitation of their varieties and to obtain additional income. Wh