PBR for the fruit, vegetables and ornamental plants sector could see significant improvements after the launch of a 45-day public consultation

The Plant Breeders’ Rights Bureau (PBR) is seeking public comment on a number of amendments to the PBR, including clarifying that the farmers’ privilege does not extend to saving and reusing propagating material (including seeds) of PBR-protected and ornamental fruits and vegetables.

This week, the Ottawa-based PBR Office, led by Commissioner Anthony Parker, launched a public consultation focusing on several proposed amendments to the country’s PBR regulations. The proposed changes are intended to increase the accessibility of the intellectual property framework, facilitate the introduction of foreign plant varieties to the market, and stimulate investment and innovation in the Canadian horticultural and ornamental plant sector.

Key topics in the consultation, which run until July 12, include:

• Should Canada better align with similar jurisdictions such as the United States and the European Union by clarifying that varieties of fruit, vegetables and ornamental plants protected by plant breeders’ rights, as well as hybrids and inbred parental varieties, are not excluded under the “farmers’ privilege”? As a result, permission would be required from the rights holder to retain and reuse propagation material (e.g. cuttings, budding, grafting, seeds) for these varieties.
• Should the period of protection for growers of potatoes, asparagus and woody crops be extended from 20 to 25 years to encourage domestic breeding and facilitate greater access to new international varieties?
• Should a new application fee be introduced, offering a significantly reduced rate when submitting an application via UPOV PRISMA compared to the standard Plant Breeders’ Rights application fee?

According to Parker, the goal of the PBR Office is to strengthen PBR and intellectual property protection, which is critical to Canada’s plant breeding framework.

“High-quality, secure intellectual property rights drive investment and innovation and support public and private sector growers, as well as growers covered by partnership agreements between them,” he says.

“These recommendations came from our Ministry-appointed Plant Breeders Advisory Committee, which includes representatives from various sectors – ornamental plants, fruit and vegetables, fruit trees and cereals. This committee advises the government and it is the committee that recommended that we conduct these consultations.”

The three main goals of strengthening the regulation of plant breeders’ rights are:

• Improved accessibility: “We want to make it easier to apply for intellectual property protection in Canada to attract more foreign breeders interested in bringing new varieties to the Canadian market,” says Parker.
• Encourage innovation: By improving our intellectual property system, officials hope to encourage domestic and foreign breeders to innovate in Canada, says Parker. “This could mean establishing breeding programs here or providing stronger intellectual property rights for domestic breeders, comparable to those in jurisdictions such as the EU and the United States.”
• Level the playing field: Parker notes that in the U.S., breeders have access to a variety of intellectual property tools, including the Plant Variety Protection Act, plant patents for asexually propagated varieties (such as fruit trees), and utility patents for any variety. “In Canada, you can only get PBRs, not plant patents. Our goal is to provide our breeders with similar intellectual property protection benefits to their counterparts in other countries.”

The consultation does not cover agricultural crops such as cereals and legumes. While the seed industry has lobbied to include value creation in the PBR amendment process, Parker says there is currently not enough industry consensus for the government to continue working on these policy amendments.

“We actually consulted extensively on this issue. We observed a wide range of views without consensus. For example, when asked about royalties for seeds saved on the farm or for harvested material, different groups had different views, with some opposing any royalties at all. Prospects also varied by region,” notes Parker.

In eastern Canada, where the amount of seed saved by farms is lower and crops under technical use agreements (such as hybrid corn and soybeans) are more common, this concept was more comfortable. He says after moving to Western Canada, concerns arose, especially about the future of public breeding.

“Two clear messages have emerged: we need more dialogue and more time. We have therefore respected these views and have not included this issue in the current regulatory changes. We have listened to farmers and understand their need for further discussion,” adds Parker.

“However, there are other types of crops and groups of crops that need access to innovation, and these are the fruit, vegetable and ornamental plant sectors. They want Canada to be a desirable place to invest in plant breeding and access to new varieties. Since these issues are not that polarizing (in these sectors), we want to go ahead and support them through a 45-day public consultation.”

To participate in a consultation visit: https://inspection.canada.ca/en/about-cfia/transparency/consultations-and-engagement/share-your-thoughts-strengthening-plant-breeders-rights-regulations