Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-gb8f7 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-26T09:55:36.244Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Regulatory options for exchange, use and conservation of animal genetic resources: a closer look at property right issues1

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 August 2011

M.W. Tvedt
Affiliation:
The Fridtjof Nansen Institute, P.O. Box 1326, N-1326 Lysaker, Norway
S.J. Hiemstra
Affiliation:
Centre for Genetic Resources (CGN), Wageningen University and Research Centre, Wageningen, The Netherlands
A.G. Drucker
Affiliation:
School for Environmental Research, Institute of Advanced Studies, Charles Darwin University, Ellengowan Drive, NT 0909, Australia
N. Louwaars
Affiliation:
Centre for Genetic Resources (CGN), Wageningen University and Research Centre, Wageningen, The Netherlands
J.K. Oldenbroek
Affiliation:
Centre for Genetic Resources (CGN), Wageningen University and Research Centre, Wageningen, The Netherlands
Get access

Summary

Three main areas for further development of policies or regulatory options for animal genetic resources (AnGR) were identified in a study on the exchange, use and conservation of AnGR (Hiemstra et al., 2006):

1. how to halt the further erosion of genetic diversity and promote sustainable breeding and use,

2. whether there is a need to further regulate the exchange of genetic material and

3 how to balance different systems of property and use rights.

This paper provides an in-depth analysis regarding the third challenge, that of addressing the problems and options available for balancing the different property right systems for AnGR.

Résumé

On a identifié trois domaines principaux pour le développement futur de politiques ou règlements pour les ressources génétiques animales (AnGR) dans une étude sur l'échange, l'utilisation et la conservation des AnGR (Hiemstra et al, 2006):

1. Comment empécher l'érosion de la diversité génétique et promouvoir une amélioration et utilisation durable.

2. Quand est-il nécessaire de réglementer les échanges de matériel génétique.

3. Comment harmoniser les différents systèmes de propriété et droits.

Cer article présente une analyse détaillée du troisième point, c'est à dire, comment approcher les problèmes et quelles sont les options disponibles pour harmoniser les différents systèmes de droits de propriété dans le domaine de AnGR.

Resumen

Se han identificado tres áreas principales para futuros desarrollo de políticas o reglamentos para los recursos zoogenéticos (AnGR) en un estudio sobre el intercambio, la utilización y conservación de AnGR (Hiemstra et al, 2006):

1. Cómo impedir la erosión de la diversidad genética y promover una mejora y utilización sostenible.

2. Cúando es necesario reglamentar el intercambio de material genético.

3. Cómo harmonizar los distintos sistemas de propiedad y derechos.

Este artículo presenta un análisis detallado del tercer punto, es decir, cómo enfocar los problemas y cuales son las opciones disponibles para harmonizar los distintos sistemas de derechos de propiedad en el campo de AnGR.

Type
Research Articles
Copyright
Copyright © Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations 2007

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

List of References

Correa, C.M. 2007. Trade Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights: A Commentary on the TRIPS Agreement, Oxford University Press, Oxford.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
de Carvalho, N.P. 2005. The TRIPS Regime of Patent Rights, 2nd edition. Kluwer Law International, The Hague.Google Scholar
Hiemstra, S.J., Drucker, A.G., Tvedt, M.W., Louwaars, N., Oldenbroek, J.K., Awgichew, K., Abegaz Kebede, S., Bhat, P.N. & da Silva Mariante, A.. 2006. Exchange, Use and Conservation of Animal Genetic Resources: Identification of Policy and Regulatory Options. CGN Report 2006/06. Centre for Genetic Resources, Wageningen, The Netherlands.Google Scholar
Nuffield Council on Bioethics. 2001. The Ethics of Patenting DNA. London: The Nuffield Foundation of Bioethics.Google Scholar
Rosendal, K.G., Olesen, I., Bentsen, H.B., Tvedt, M.W., & Bryde, M.. 2006. Access to and legal protection of aquaculture genetic resources: Norwegian perspectives, Journal of World Intellectual Property 9, 392412.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rothschild, M.F. & Newman, S. (Eds). 2002. Intellectual Property Rights in Animal Breeding and Genetics. New York: CABI PublishingCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rothschild, M.F., Plastow, G.. & Newman, S.. 2004. Patenting in animal breeding and genetics, in Rosati, A.et al. (Eds) WAAP Book of the Year 2003. Wageningen Pers, for World Association for Animal Production (WAAP)Google Scholar
Tvedt, M.W., Hiemstra, S.J., Drucker, A.G., Louwaars, N. & Oldenbroek, K.. 2007. Legal Aspects of Exchange, Use and Conservation of Farm Animal Genetic Resources. FNI Report 1/2007. The Fridtjof Nansen Institute, Lysaker, Norway.Google Scholar
Tvedt, M.W. 2007 forthcoming. Patent protection in the field of animal breeding and farm animal genetic resources, ACTA Scandinavia.Google Scholar
Tvedt, M.W. 2005. How will a substantive patent law treaty affect the public domain for genetic resources and biological material? Journal of World Intellectual Property 8, 311344.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tvedt, M.W. 2007. 2005. Monsanto files for new invention: the pig, www.greenpeace.org/international/news/monsanto-pig-patent-111#.Google Scholar
Westerlund, L. 2001. Biotech Patents -Equivalency and Exclusions under European and U.S. Patent Law. Faculty of Law, Stockholm University, Stockholm, Sweden.Google Scholar