-----Original Message-----
From: Biotech-Mod2
Sent: 07 May 2001 11:42
To: 'biotech-room2@mailserv.fao.org'
Subject: Impacts - Regions and technologies
[Thanks to Ancha Srinivasan for this highly relevant and clear message. Reactions from participants would be much appreciated...Moderator]
It is really nice to see several refreshing messages on IPRs after a long dry spell in April!! In this posting, I wish to offer my views on two questions posed in the Background Document to this conference.
1. Are the impacts of IPRs different for different countries or regions of the developing world?
Yes. Traditionally, marks of geographic origin allow producers to identify their products as coming from a specific region that is identified with quality and authenticity. In most developing countries, the dependency on agricultural exports for small farmers' and agricultural workers' livelihood often traps them in a vicious cycle of needing to gain access to foreign markets. If patents are given in developed countries to products from certain regions in developing countries, those regions could experience substantial negative impacts in terms of reduced exports.
Here I wish to cite the well-known example of patents for Basmati rice (long grain aromatic rice traditionally grown only in Pakistan and the Indian states of Punjab, Haryana, and Uttar Pradesh). In late 1997, an American company was granted a patent by the US patent office to call the aromatic rice grown outside India 'Basmati'. With the Basmati patent rights, the US Company could not only call its aromatic rice Basmati within the US, but also label it Basmati for its exports. The only real issue is whether or not the company should be permitted to call their rice "Basmati". In 1997, India exported more than half a million tons of Basmati to the Gulf, Saudi Arabia, Europe and the United States, a small part of its total rice exports, but high in value. Indian farmers export $250 million in Basmati every year and U.S. is a target market. Therefore, awarding patents to companies in developed countries was considered to have grave repercussions for India and Pakistan. I do not know the actual impact of this specific patent on Indian or Pakistani rice exports so far, but I would appreciate it if anybody could provide information. I would also like to know the views of others in terms of devising mechanisms to minimize negative implications of IPRs in such specific regions.
2. Are the impacts more substantial for some biotechnologies than for others?
Yes. Although there is no solid proof yet, impacts of IPRs could be more substantial for modern biotechnologies and products with multiple patents (e.g., recombinant biotechnologies, diagnostics) than those products that are derived from traditional biotechnologies (micropropagation, tissue culture, etc.). For instance, a transgenic insect-tolerant plant may involve plant breeder's rights (PBR) patents, as well as several patents relating to transformation technology, the selectable marker employed, the gene coding for the insecticidal protein, the promoter, and various regulatory elements and modifications needed to express genes adequately in plant cells. Any IPR holder of even one element could block the commercialization of an insect-tolerant variety based on this package of technologies (Sehgal, 1996). Even after such a modern biotech product is introduced in a developing country, its diffusion in different regions might be limited if multiple players involved in its development fight for sharing the profits, based on their local/regional interests and market shares. Moreover, IPRs on modern biotechnologies are often concentrated in a few private sector organizations in developed countries while the IPRs on traditional biotechnologies are largely the result of public agricultural research.
Reference: Sehgal, S. (1996), "IPR Driven Restructuring of the Seed Industry." Biotechnology and Development Monitor, No. 29, p. 1821. (Available online at http://www.pscw.uva.nl/monitor/2907.htm )
Ancha Srinivasan, Ph.D.
Senior Researcher, Regional Science Institute
4-13, Kita 24 Nishi 2, Kita-ku, Sapporo 001-0024 Japan
Tel:+81-11-717-6660 Fax: +81-11-757-3610
E-mail: ancha@vtt.co.jp or ancha_s@yahoo.com
[To contribute to this conference, send your message to biotech-room2@mailserv.fao.org - the last day for receiving messages is Sunday 13 May. 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: 07 May 2001 12:02
To: 'biotech-room2@mailserv.fao.org'
Subject: Transgenic crops
At the same time that the use of transgenic technology should be made available to the public domain for those crops that do not generate an economical return, IPRs should also be considered to stimulate investment and development of new technologies. As agriculture generate profits, the governments and international institutes should emphasize the role of local farmers and their contribution to the conservation of genetic resources that impact the development of new cultivars by private institutions. They also should devise how to exchange this material for new technologies.
In addition, the government should be capable of negotiating and ruling adequate IPRs that, while protecting private investment, also ensure the liability of the private institutions to future litigation associated with the risk of transgenic plants and their impact in the environment.
Willy Valdivia Granda.
Plant Sciences Department.
North Dakota State University, United States
willy_valdivia@ndsu.nodak.edu
[To contribute to this conference, send your message to biotech-room2@mailserv.fao.org - the last day for receiving messages is Sunday 13 May. 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: 07 May 2001 12:07
To: 'biotech-room2@mailserv.fao.org'
Subject: Plant variety protection
I am Sunil Archak from India.
If protection is sought for a plant variety it has to fulfil novelty, distinctiveness, uniformity and stability criteria under the laws of more than one country, as well as the International Union for the Protection of New Varieties of Plants (UPOV).
A Question, and a tricky one, is how much distinct is accepted as really distinct? An increase in the grain yield of five kg per ha? An increase of 200 g of crude oil per kg of dry foliage? Or an increase of one microgram of vitamin per gram of fruit? The cases of an additional trait, additional fatty acid or colour to the foliage might be easy to grade in terms of distinctness; but what about the above mentioned examples?
Add to this another problem:
if marginal enhancements are discarded without reward, if the refinements
are ignored and condemned as insignificant research, food production in
developing countries would face danger. In the past, continuous refinement
of prominent varieties, rather than the released varieties themselves, has
been the basis of sustained yield levels, despite changing micro- and macro-
environments. Such maintenance breeding is discouraged by interpretational
problems of the law.
The principle of essential derivation adds confusion for the implementing agencies, and maybe sometimes for farming communities. Breeders throughout the world are not in consensus about the techniques used for varietal distinction. Molecular markers are not widely welcome due to various reasons.
Laws are easy to make, ambiguous to interpret and difficult to implement !! Plant variety protection laws should make an exception since it deals with food.
Sunil Archak
Scientist
National Research Centre on DNA Fingerprinting
National Bureau of Plant Genetic Resources
New Delhi
110 012
INDIA
sarchak@nbpgr.delhi.nic.in
[To contribute to this conference, send your message to biotech-room2@mailserv.fao.org - the last day for receiving messages is Sunday 13 May. 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: 07 May 2001 13:36
To: 'biotech-room2@mailserv.fao.org'
Subject: Re: Impacts - Regions and technologies
My name is Wytze de Lange and I was the secretary of the former Dutch Coalition Against Patents on Life.
I would first like to respond to the remark by Ancha Srinivasan [7 May] that micropropagation and tissue culture can be considered classical biotechnologies. I for one do not share that view. I consider tissue culture and micropropagation as modern plant breeding technologies with their own risks and potential hazards. The recent development in western countries to increasingly apply tissue culture to vegetables is something to be gravely concerned about and I would strongly recommend Southern countries not to follow that example. Just as I would recommend not to adopt transgenic crops, especially where those crops can cross pollinate. The mess that is now occurring in the USA, Canada and, increasingly, in Europe just shows how transgenic crops kill off any freedom of choice for farmers and consumers and contaminate all seedstocks and the whole food supply.
A better way to solve agriculture problems may be found at: Reducing Food Poverty with Sustainable Agriculture: A Summary of New Evidence (Pretty and Hine; Febrary 2001) - (full report,136 pages) http://www2.essex.ac.uk/ces/ResearchProgrammes/CESOccasionalPapers/SAFErepSUBHEADS.htm
No patents needed in that approach.
Wytze de Lange, Netherlands
wdl@xminy.nl
[To contribute to this conference, send your message to biotech-room2@mailserv.fao.org - the last day for receiving messages is Sunday 13 May. For further information on the FAO Electronic Forum on Biotechnology in Food and Agriculture see http://www.fao.org/biotech/forum.asp ]