Since 2000s, Africa and India severally rejected the notion that UPOV's 1991 standard of Plant Breeders Rights (PBRs) is the only route to fulfill their obligations under Article 27 of the TRIPs Agreement. Objecting to the exclusive focus of the UPOV regime on formal plant breeders, African countries, insisted on a holistic approach to plant breeders' rights to include protection for rights of communities, farmers and their indigenous knowledge, innovation and practices. Consequently, under the African Union's (AU) auspices, Africa proposed the Model Law for the Protection of the Rights of Local Communities and Breeders, and for Regulations of Access to Biological Resources. Self-evidently, the law not only recognizes the centrality of the smallholder indigenous and local community farmers on the continent's food production, it also underscores the interconnections of biodiversity conservation, farmers' rights, traditional knowledge, access and benefit sharing over genetic resources within then emergent international regimes. Nearly two decades after, Africa's resolve has proven to be fickle. The continent has reversed itself and fully embraced the UPOV regime. At about the same time as the Model Law, India enacted the Protection of Plant Varieties and Farmers' Rights Act, 2001 - an instrument consistent with the spirit of Africa's Model Law. Both regimes take into account the role of local farmers as the backbone of agricultural innovation, food production and food security in the developing world, including Africa and India, thereby further enhancing the idea of farmers' rights in food and agriculture law and policy. This Article juxtaposes the circumstances around Africa's failure of resolve and India's wobbly experience over farmers' rights. It calls attention to farmers' rights as a site for a missed and yet potentially redeemable opportunity for both Africa and India to advance South-South solidarity for food security.

In 2000, African countries expressed reservation over the adoption of UPOV Act of 1991 as a model of plant breeders' rights (PBRs) for TRIPS- compliance. For the continent, an acceptable system of PBRs protection would include the protection of the “rights of communities and their indigenous knowledge, as well as the rights of farmers and fishermen, and their innovations, technologies and practices”. One and half decades after, Africa has virtually reversed itself and embraced the UPOV-PBRs system notwithstanding the latter's narrow focus on breeders and marginal reference to farmers. This Article critically explores the concerted sites of pressures, especially free trade and economic partnership agreements, and related policies through which Africa appears to have capitulated and upturned its policy position on PBRs. The continent's present priority over the implementation of PBRs through various regional and national legal initiatives currently at the instance of African Intellectual Property Organization (OAPI), the African Regional Intellectual Property Organization (ARIPO), the Southern African Economic Community (SADC) and specific country initiatives are explored. The article highlights the basis for the incongruity of Africa's newfound interest in the UPOV-PBRs system - a regime not designed for the farmer-centered tenor of African agriculture. It calls attention to the continued relevance of Africa's 2000 Model Law, especially as it applies to PBRs and recommends reality assessment as an important step toward the formulation of IPRs system suited for stakeholders in African agriculture for the continent's food security and food sovereignty.

Community seed banks first appeared towards the end of the 1980s, established with the support of international and national non-governmental organizations. This book is the first to provide a global review of their development and includes a wide range of case studies. Countries that pioneered various types of community seed banks include Bangladesh, Brazil, Ethiopia, India, Nepal, Nicaragua, the Philippines and Zimbabwe. In the North, a particular type of community seed bank emerged known as a seed-savers network. Such networks were first established in Australia, Canada, the UK and the USA before spreading to other countries. Over time, the number and diversity of seed banks has grown. In Nepal, for example, there are now more than 100 self-described community seed banks whose functions range from pure conservation to commercial seed production. In Brazil, community seed banks operate in various regions of the country. Surprisingly, despite 25 years of history and the rapid growth in number, organizational diversity and geographical coverage of community seed banks, recognition of their roles and contributions has remained scanty. The book reviews their history, evolution, experiences, successes and failures (and reasons why), challenges and prospects. It fills a significant gap in the literature on agricultural biodiversity and conservation, and their contribution to food sovereignty and security.

The international intellectual property (IP) law system allows states to develop policies that reflect their national interests. Therefore, although there is an international minimum standards framework in place, states have widely varying IP laws and differing interpretations of these laws. This book examines whether pluralism in IP law is functional when applied to copyright, patents and trademarks on an international basis.

Over the last 50 years there has been a growing appreciation of the important role that farmers play in the development and conservation of crop genetic diversity, and the contribution of that diversity to agro-ecosystem resilience and food security. This book examines policies that aim to increase the share of benefits that farmers receive when others use the crop varieties that they have developed and managed, i.e., ‘farmers varieties’. In so doing, the book addresses two fundamental questions. The first question is ‘how do farmer management practices – along with other factors such as environment and the breeding systems of plants – affect the evolution and maintenance of discrete farmers’ varieties?’ The second question is ‘how can policies that depend on being able to identify discrete plant varieties accommodate the agricultural realities associated with the generation, use and maintenance of farmers’ varieties?’ This focus on discreteness is topical because there are no fixed, internationally recognized taxonomic or legal definitions of farmers’ varieties. And that presents a challenge when developing policies that involve making specific, discrete farmers’ varieties the subject of legal rights or privileges. The book includes contributions from a wide range of experts including agronomists, anthropologists, geneticists, biologists, plant breeders, lawyers, development practitioners, activists and farmers. It includes case studies from Asia, Africa, Latin America and Europe where, in response to a diversity of contributing factors, there have been efforts to develop policies that provide incentives or rewards to farmers as stewards of farmers’ varieties in ways that are sensitive to the cultural, taxonomic and legal complexities involved. The book situates these initiatives in the context of the evolving discourse and definition of ‘farmers' rights’, presenting insights for future policy initiatives.

This book brings together experts from within and outside Africa to discuss the current status of biotechnology in southern Africa, the conceptual framework for multistakeholder dialogues, the political and ethical issues surrounding biotechnology, food safety and consumer issues, biosafety, intellectual property rights, and trade involving genetically modified foods.