-----Original Message-----
From: Biotech-Mod2
Sent: 02 May 2001 10:46
To: 'biotech-room2@mailserv.fao.org'
Subject: Re: Universities and IPRs
My name is Rose Ndegwa, working for International Livestock Research Institute, Kenya.
I found Juan Gallego-Beltran on the above subject quite an interesting read [30 April]. Unfortunately, the situation described is repeated many times over in developing countries, and it gets worse by day.
The tension between 'south' and 'north' on the one hand and between universities/public research institutions and the private/commercial entities on the other can be attributed to various recent changes in the international intellectual property (IP) arena; the breadth of which is too wide to delve into here. These changes have dovetailed the trends of globalization and privatization. Recent notable changes include progressive privatization of agricultural research (formally a domain of public research institutions); expansion of 'traditional' IP protection to cover non-traditional fields like life forms; and increased disappearance of world market barriers.
There is increased harmonization (some will say a poor attempt!) of national/regional regimes governing IP protection through international legally binding treaties. The World Trade Organisation agreement on Trade Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Matters (TRIPS), which aims at harmonizing national IP regimes, sets out minimum standards of IP protection and enforcement. The Convention on Biological Diversity provides a legally binding framework for conservation, and sustainable use of biodiversity while seeking to establish benefit sharing mechanisms.
Unfortunately, these and other changes have tended to favour the 'north' more than the 'south', and the private more than public sectors. The developed countries have strong IP protection and enforcement systems. Most of the products for which IP protection is sought are developed in the north. The north obviously stands to gain from decreased trade barriers. But any manufacturer in the north wants more than protection in the 'home ground' and a more liberalized market. He wants assurance that his IP will be respected and enforced abroad... and in this regard, treaties like the TRIPS ensure predictability. The south therefore finds themselves having to change/enact national legislations to enforce IP, 99% of which is foreign. (There is an argument that strong IP protection encourages local innovation. While this may be true in the north, I strongly tend to disagree that this is the case in the south).
Regarding the private/public vs. private, strengthened IP protection plus opportunities afforded by advances in biotechnology has tended to favour private companies. Universities and other public institutions find that the formally free exchange of information (what's come to be referred to as open laboratory) is disappearing day by day. As more and more scientific findings become subject to IP protection, access to technologies that would help advance 'philosophy of science' has become more and more restricted. Some universities have resulted in devising mechanisms of working with private entities. To do this, they have had to become more 'private' in their dealings. Hence in the recent past, more and more universities have established technology transfer/IP units (or equivalents) to track down inventive activities within their campuses (what Juan Gallego-Beltran may be referring to as middlemen). As though this state of affairs is not confusing/complicated enough, the universities in the developing countries are operating in a different wavelength. They are still doing (trying to do) good ol' science, often times within unbelievable budget constraints (which to some extent may entice dons into scientific tourism etc). The universities in the south have always relied on collaboration with the north for their training needs (never mind that half the time it ended up in so called brain-drain!!)
In the end, the way I see it, you have the private sector who look at scientific information in terms of dollar value, the northern universities who are maximizing the moment by tending towards the 'private' in IP dealing (I leave it to others to say what this means for scientific progress) and the southern universities who are doing (or willing to do) science in the philosophy-of-science way but who are resource poor.
So where do we go from here? I think it is too optimistic to hope that this trend will change. The stage has been set; the possessive adjective 'my' is replacing 'our' day by day. Even if a reverse of the current state was thinkable, we cannot stand by and wait for an IP-free world. We have to make the best out of the current situation. Governments and institutions in developing countries have to invest in building the necessary IP and legal capacity. At least this would ensure that they are not ignorantly short-changed by developed countries or institutions. It is futile to fight a system that one does not understand. Most universities in the south will sign a collaborative research agreement without understanding provisions on IP contained therein, while those of the north will have a legal/IP unit to look at any agreements before signing. Governments would obviously be in a better position to understand international treaties before making a decision to sign them.
I strongly believe that this would have to be the starting point.
Rose Ndegwa
Intellectual Property Officer
International Livestock Research Institute (ILRI)
PO Box 30709, Nairobi, Kenya
Tel: 254 2 630743; Fax 254 2 631499
Email: r.ndegwa@cgiar.org
Web address: http://www.cgiar.org/ilri/
ILRI is a Future Harvest Centre
Web address: http://www.futureharvest.org/
[To contribute to this conference, send your message to biotech-room2@mailserv.fao.org For further information on the FAO Electronic Forum on Biotechnology in Food and Agriculture see http://www.fao.org/biotech/forum.asp ]
-----Original Message-----
From: Biotech-Mod2
Sent: 02 May 2001 14:11
To: 'biotech-room2@mailserv.fao.org'
Subject: Plant breeders rights and their impact for developing countries
My name is Ruchi Tripathi and I work as the Food Trade Policy Officer for ActionAid in the UK. I am presenting below the key findings from a March 2000 study ActionAid commissioned on plant breeders rights (PBRs) in the UK and US for discussion http://www.actionaid.org/campaigns/pbr2.html .
ActionAid's research on plant breeders' rights highlights the following issues (www.actionaid.org):
Intellectual property rights (IPRs): Plant breeders' rights vs Patents
The European Union (EU) and UK chose to protect their plant varieties through plant breeders' rights instead of patents - primarily as a result of opposition from lobby groups representing patent lawyers, who were afraid that including plant varieties within patent law might weaken the patent system. It was thought plant breeding might not be able to meet the crucial requirements for the grant of a patent - that of novelty, invention and industrial applicability. The problems of novelty (versus prior art/biopiracy), invention (versus discovery), utility (i.e. industrial applicability) exist even today.
Do you think intellectual property rights are necessary for plant variety protection? If yes, what kind?
INVESTMENT
On the link between IPRs and investment, the study finds that older firms established before the advent of PBRs legislation have been the most active in investing in plant breeding. Moreover, private investment appears to concentrate on select crops such as soybean and wheat, suggesting that the profitability of the crop is more crucial in encouraging private investment. As such the stimulating role of PBRs is questionable. Alternatively PBRs on their own cannot account for increased private investment.
Do you agree that plant breeders' rights are needed to promote investment?
INNOVATION
The study undermines claims that PBRs have a positive impact on inventive activity. There is no clear link between increased number of new plant varieties and PBRs. The study points out that companies are constantly replacing their portfolio of varieties because it is in the breeders' interest to reduce the life-span of older varieties and continuously release new ones. Consequently, there are a number of periods when the market experiences a net withdrawal of varieties.
Do you think there is a link between PBRs and the increase in number of plant varieties found in the market place?
COMPETITION
The study failed to find evidence of greater competition or increased number of firms active in plant breeding as a result of PBRs. In fact, there is compelling evidence of seed industry consolidation, which is well supported by reports of widespread mergers and acquisitions within the industry.
-Statistical evidence on the distribution of PBR grants confirms the suspicion of a highly concentrated market. Looking at the periods 1965-74, 1975-85 and 1986-95 in the UK, five per cent of the applicants controlled between 68-89 per cent of the wheat PBR grants. The study concludes that the main beneficiaries of the PBRs system have been the older breeding firms that have subsequently consolidated within multinational companies. An ActionAid study from Brazil (2000) establishes further evidence of consolidation of the seed sector as a result of Plant Variety Protection (PVP). Similar studies on potential impact of TRIPS and PVP have been carried out by ActionAid in Nepal, Ethiopia and Uganda.
-The high level of concentration in the distribution of [PBRs] grants is reflected in market shares. One reflection of market power is seen in the changes in seed prices. The study highlights that in the UK, seed prices (aggregated for all species) increased by 34 per cent between 1985-93 - an increase second only to the increase in price of plant protection chemicals. The increase in royalty rates (a result of PBRs) has been even higher than the increase in seed prices.
Do PBRs promote competition or consolidation? What is the impact?
Ruchi Tripathi
Food Trade Policy Officer
ActionAid
Hamlyn House
MacDonald Road
London N19 5PG, UK
RTripathi@actionaid.org.uk
Ph: 0207 561 7560
Fax: 0207 561 7676
ActionAid's vision is a world without poverty in which every person can
exercise their right to a life of dignity.
Registered Charity No. 274467
www.actionaid.org
[To contribute to this conference, send your message to biotech-room2@mailserv.fao.org For further information on the FAO Electronic Forum on Biotechnology in Food and Agriculture see http://www.fao.org/biotech/forum.asp ]
-----Original Message-----
From: Biotech-Mod2
Sent: 02 May 2001 15:27
To: 'biotech-room2@mailserv.fao.org'
Subject: Private-public partnerships
This is from Sirkka Immonen. I am working at FAO in the Secretariat of the CGIAR's Technical Advisory Committee.
Continuing from what was said about universities and the private sector [Messages of Gallego-Beltran, 30 April, and Ndegwa, 2 May..Moderator]:
Private-public partnerships are encouraged for tapping the knowledge and technologies developed in the private sector for the benefit of public goods research. This is, for instance, the trend with the International Agricultural Research Centres working for food security and poverty alleviation. The question I wish to raise is about the culture that these research alliances adopt. Even if the ultimate products are international public goods, the collaboration agreements may require confidentiality and thus the researchers involved cannot share their ideas for the benefit of the greater research community - not even with their sister organisations working on similar themes. This is probably a common practise whenever private and public organisations join forces, but I doubt whether it enhances innovativeness and speeds up the research process for the benefit of the public sector. At least in cases where the public organisations have bargaining power, they should avoid strictly exclusive collaborative arrangements and retain their rights for information sharing.
Sirkka Immonen
Senior Officer (Agricultural Research)
FAO, TAC Secretariat, C-626
Viale delle Terme di Caracalla
00100 Rome, Italy
tel: (39) 06 570 54861
fax (39) 06 570 53298
E-mail: Sirkka.Immonen@fao.org
[To contribute to this conference, send your message to biotech-room2@mailserv.fao.org For further information on the FAO Electronic Forum on Biotechnology in Food and Agriculture see http://www.fao.org/biotech/forum.asp ]