Adequacy of Protection Provided by the PVRA 87
6. Most submitters considered that changes were required to the Act. PVR owners and supporters considered that the protection provided under the Act should be increased. These submitters considered that to ensure continued investment in the development of new varieties the scope of the exclusive rights granted to plant variety owners be increased.
7. Jeff Miller's submission suggested that the lack of a definition of "breeding" in the Plant Variety Rights Act could cause uncertainty as to the eligibility of new plant varieties for plant variety rights. He suggested that such a definition be incorporated into the Act. Mr Miller also suggested that the description of a "variety of common knowledge" in UPOV 91 should be incorporated into the Plant Variety Rights Act whether or not New Zealand ratifies UPOV 91.
8. Greenpeace argued that the PVRA 87 needed to be amended to address Māori concerns regarding the granting of intellectual property rights over traditional knowledge and indigenous plants. Lewis Barristers and Solicitors and Bio Gro New Zealand submitted that essentially derived varieties1 should not be protected and emphasised that there needed to be a balance between intellectual property rights, biodiversity, and farmers' rights. ARENA was opposed to any review of the PVRA that pre-empts or constricts the outcome of the Wai 262 claim.
1 An essentially derived variety is one that is derived from an initial variety, while retaining the expression of the essential characteristics of the initial variety, but is clearly distinguishable from the initial variety.
Back to Top