MINUTES draft

Committee : Novelty Protection Date : March 18, 2015

Place : , France Reference : 2015_Paris _Novelty_Protection_Minutes_Draft Chairman : Bernard Oosterom, Netherlands Secretary : Mia Buma, AIPH

1. Opening

The chairman of the AIPH Committee for Novelty Protection (NP), Mr. Oosterom, welcomed all the members and the attendants of this meeting. He specially welcomed the speaker Mr. Martin Ekvad, president of the European Community Plant Variety Office, located in Angers (France). Mr. Ekvad has been asked to tell us more about the functioning of the UPOV Administrative and Juridical Committee (CAJ), in which AIPH has observership, and about how UPOV in general and the CAJ in particular work together with breeders organisations and observers.

2. Minutes of the Novelty Protection Meeting September 16, 2014.

The minutes of the Novelty Protection, September 16, 2014, Qingdao (China) were proved without any remarks.

3. Involving Stakeholders in the EU PVR System

Mr. Martin Ekvad, President of the European Community Plant Variety Office gave the key issues of the CPVO, namely: • Plant Variety Protection is crucial for the industry and society • The objectives of protecting plant varieties in the EU is being fulfilled by the CPVO • CPVO is a self-financed, efficient EU agency, and therefore the ideal way of dealing with the well-defined EU PBR policy • In this perspective it is logical that the CPVO takes on new tasks in the area of plant varieties. • The speaker gave an overview of the benefits of an IP system for plant varieties. Other important points to know, in relation to the EU level: the EU system co-exists with the national systems of those 24 EU Member States. It is the applicant’s choice to obtain for national or EU plant variety rights. In relation to the UPOV level: the EU system is in line with the UPOV 1991 Act. 24 out of 28 EU Member States are UPOV members. The EU is a full member of UPOV as an inter-governmental organisation. The speaker quickly went through the DUS test criteria, scope of and the enforcement of the breeders right and the organisations of CPVO itself and its staff. He specially focussed on the observership, which relevant (breeders) organisations can have in CPVO. The observers are allowed to: - observe comments on documents in writing and/or orally in meetings - participate in seminars and events - pre-meetings with the AC - ad hoc meetings on specific subjects - R&D Projects

The following organisations: UPOV, ESA, Plantum and CIOPORA participate as observers. and Norway are observers as well, but as candidate countries to the EU. To gain the CPVO observership you have to apply and to fulfil the relevant regulation. One of the criteria is that you have to be an organisation representing breeders.

The chairman asked Mr. Ekvad about CPVO’s opinion about the raised relation between PBR and patents in the world. Mr. Ekvad explained that the situation has arisen because of the development of biotechnology, which is a technical development, for which the Patent system is the suitable IP protection. CPVO has to stay independent because of its position as a governmental organisation, so it can’t ventilate any opinion. Possibilities for closer exchange of information between AIPH and CPVO were mentioned and will be worked out in cooperation. The chair thanked Mr. Ekvad very much for his coming and presentation.

4. Novelty Protection report The chairman informs the attendees that the Sparing Partner Group (SPG), the working group of the Committee for NP, has had fruitful further exchanges of information and knowledge during the last months. As known, SPG’s aim is to increase the involvement of AIPH members and to create their better use and profit from the knowledge, lobby and network concerning PBR and Intellectual Property (IP), which is available within AIPH.The group had an informal meeting last night where the secretary gave the state of the art and where the SPG members made final preparations for this NP meeting. Mr. Bill Stensson and Mr. Gery Heungens will join the SPG as well. The SPG has 15 participants now. The activities, done since the spring meeting in London, are reported in the NP half year report.

Sparring Partner Group (SPG) in action/function Since the SPG is functioning, there has been more interaction via e-mail about and focus on the work for the NP and on the importance of a good working PBR system. Subjects were: 1. Looking back on the AIPH Nagoya intervention action and further procedure/ expectations. 2. The joint lobby with CIOPORA, resulting in the letter to UPOV about the ‘minimum distances’ issue. 3. Preparing/working out the idea to get observer status at CPVO. 4. Martin Ekvad’s (President of CPVO) presence and presentation in the NP, Paris. 5. Relevant issues UPOV meetings (CAJ and Council) 26 and 27 March 2015. 6. State of the art of the problem finding balance between the use of PBR and patents in plant breeding. 7. Idea’s to use/working out Thomas Leidereiter’s very informative presentation ‘Utilization of Intellectual Property outside the Horticultural Industry’.

5. Cooperation with other international organizations and lobby in the PBR field The improvement of the cooperation with other international organizations has given its positive results. Contacts and joint activities with CIOPORA and CPVO were already mentioned - Jaap Kras and Mia Buma have discussed with CIOPORA’s SG (Mr Edgar Krieger) it’s draft Position Papers on PVR. These discussions needed two sessions (one in January 2014, another in February 2014) and gave a clear outcome where AIPH can cooperate with CIOPORA to lobby for better PVR law and regulations at the international platforms (think of UPOV and CPVO). First lobby issue will be ‘minimum distances’ between crops to justify that a new variety will be granted with PBR.

6. Progress items or working topics for the SPG/ NP committee To defend the interest of growers with national and international legislators, like UPOV, supranational authorities (EU) and national governments at the following subjects: - clearness about a unique variety definition, what is a new variety? - scope of the PBR is propagating material (the scope should not be extended to harvested material). - ensure sufficient propagating material is available on reasonable terms - ensure sufficient enforcement regulations (compulsory license) - to achieve joint forces and lobby with breeders on the subjects on which we agree on (like minimum distances with CIOPORA) - if we get clearness about the minimum distances, it will be easier to get the EDV regulation out of UPOV and the PBR-laws - to maintain the breeders exemption in full strength (the PBR-patent discussion). - to avoid negative effects of the Nagoya Protocol (Convention of Biodiversity) on the PBR system (namely on the breeders exemption).

6. Other matters No other subjects are brought to the table.

7. Next meeting The Committee for Novelty Protection will meet in Stresa, Italy at the AIPH congress 2015.

8. Closing The chairman closed the meeting, thanking all delegates for their participation and attention.