Improvement of the practice of plant variety testing in Ukraine on the basis of international experience

Abstract

Purpose. To study the problems of the system of variety testing in Ukraine, to study the ways and to justify the directions of its improvement, taking into account the practice of different countries. Methods. The researchers used general scientific methods including hypothesis, observation, search with elements of extrapolation from the source database, analysis, comparative evaluation and synthesis to draw conclusions. Results. The practices of variety testing in Ukraine, the United States of America and the countries of the European Union (the Kingdom of the Netherlands and the Republic of Poland) were studied. It has been noted that the EU Common Catalogue of Plant Varieties consists of varie­ties which were tested on a common basis and included in the national catalogues of the EU countries. For other countries (non­EU members) there are no special conditions for registration without examination. Registration is based on the results of official examinations carried out by national offices authorised by state authorities (bureaus). In order to conduct an examination to allow a variety to be marke­ted, a significant number of uniform criteria and minimum requirements must be established, taking into account international rules for certain provisions. The varieties listed in the EU General Catalogue are authorised for certification and sale as seed in all Member States of the European Community. At the same time, the United States has a different national system of distribution and registration, where state registration is not required for commercial distribution of varieties. Information about them and their value is the responsibility of the owner who conducts variety trials.  This principle applies to both domestic companies and non­resi­dents. In accordance with the requirements of the current Law of Ukraine “On Protection of Rights to Plant Varieties”, varieties registered in the EU and/or the USA can be marketed in Ukraine without a qualification examination. Also, there are no official post­registration studies for varieties accepted and distributed in Ukraine. However, the majo­rity of varieties from domestic applicants are not registered in the EU and/or the US and are therefore subject to the requirement to undergo at least a two­year cycle of research to confirm their suitability for distribution in Ukraine. Such an interpretation of the conditions for registration of varie­ties in the territory of a Member State is contrary to the International Union for the Protection of New Varieties of Plants  (UPOV Convention), WTO requirements (GATT Agreement on Non­Discriminatory Trade Treatment), Article 6 of Council Directive 2002/53/EC, and violates the constitutional rights of domestic breeders, as it places national applicants and their varieties on an unequal competitive footing. Conclusions. The improvement of the national legi­slation, in particular the elimination of the simplified registration (without conducting official research in the soil and climatic zones of Ukraine), will make it possible to create a uniform approach and equal conditions for the commercial circulation of varieties and seed trade for domestic and foreign breeders. Without any alternative, Ukrainian norms and standards should not contradict those in force in the relevant international and European organisations. This will facilitate the fulfilment of the requirements for the exchange of examination results between the member states of the UPOV Convention.