Ratification by New Zealand of UPOV 91
9. The submissions from PVR owners and supporters were strongly in favour of ratification of UPOV 91. Supporters of ratification considered that ratification was essential to encourage breeding in New Zealand and to encourage foreign plant breeders to release their new varieties in New Zealand. Most of the submissions that supported ratification of UPOV 91 also indicated that, if it were decided that New Zealand should not ratify, the provisions of UPOV 91 should still be incorporated into the Plant Variety Rights Act.
10. The NZIPA submitted that ratification of UPOV 91 by New Zealand would avoid the possibility that other countries that have ratified UPOV 91 would limit the protection that they would be willing to give to New Zealand developed varieties.
11. The environmental groups were opposed to ratification of UPOV 91. Greenpeace considered that the rights granted to plant breeders under UPOV 91 were excessive in the context of plants. ARENA submitted that New Zealand should quit UPOV 78 and repeal the Plant Variety Rights Act 1987. It was also submitted by ARENA that although TRIPS requires New Zealand to have a sui generis system for protecting new plant varieties, this does not have to be the UPOV system.
12. Greenpeace submitted that if New Zealand were to ratify UPOV 91, this would limit the ability of New Zealand to put in place a sui generis regime to protect Māori rights and interests and to protect New Zealand biodiversity.
Back to Top