-----Original Message-----
From: Biotech-Mod2
Sent: 11 April 2001 09:11
To: 'biotech-room2@mailserv.fao.org'
Subject: National-international legislation // PVP
First, I would like to thank Claire Cummings [9 April], Kevin Hollis [9 April] and Michel Ferry [10 April] for the interesting comments.
I agree very much with you that the IPR of local communities should be recognized equally to any other IPR held by seed- or biotech- companies. Since the FAO International Undertaking on Plant Genetic Resources (1983) and Convention of Biological Diversity (1992) this issue of Farmers' Rights and access to and benefit-sharing from genetic resources and traditional knowledge is considered at the international level. Recently the World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO) formed an Intergovernmental Committee on Intellectual Property, and Genetic Resources, Traditional Knowledge and Folklore which addresses contractual agreements for access to genetic resources; legislative, administrative and policy measures to regulate access and benefit sharing; and the protection of biotechnological inventions.
On the national level, several Latin-American countries are explicitly addressing these topics in their legislation (the Andean Community, Brazil, Costa Rica etc.) but there are still difficulties in implementing them, a point in which international organizations like WIPO or FAO could and should play an important role. A first step would be the creation of a broader consciousness about the importance and the problems of protection of IPR and traditional resources among all actors involved, including private enterprises, NGOs, governments, universities and local communities.
In my opinion, education, the establishment of channels for exchange of information and the official registration of already existing (traditional) resources are the most important issues to create and implement efficient and just IPR systems. Furthermore, structures which ensure the participation of all actors involved should be established for creating/improving national systems of IPR and access to genetic resources.
Since the "impacts of IPRs for food and agriculture in developing countries" is one of the areas to be discussed in this conference, I would like to draw attention to Plant Variety Protection (PVP), an IPR system which is much more important in Latin-America than patents are. In fact there is no country in Latin-America where patents are issued for plant varieties. There are two very important points in which PVP differs from patents: first, the "Farmers' privilege", which allows farmers to save seeds for their own use and, second, the "Breeder's exemption" which allows any plant breeder to use the protected variety as a basis to develop a new one without previous consent of the owner of the original protected variety. In my point of view, the PVP is an option to prevent, or at least to hinder, the danger of monopolization of the seed market.
Jan Wendt, APO
FAO-RLC, Santiago de Chile
Desarrollo Institucional
Teléfono: (+56 2) 337 22 44
email: Jan.Wendt@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 ]
-----Original Message-----
From: Biotech-Mod2
Sent: 11 April 2001 11:54
To: 'biotech-room2@mailserv.fao.org'
Subject: Re: Relevant information
I see in the message of Edo Lin [9 April], providing the conclusions from the proceedings of a workshop held in February 2001 on Intellectual Property Clearinghouse Mechanisms for Agriculture, mainly a) a plea to get more funds for public research institutions and b) the evident facts that, first, IPRs increase the cost of new biotechnology applications, and secondly that the needs of developing world agriculture are not, or little, benefiting from the biotechnology developed in the North. But, I do not see proposals of solutions (except, indirectly, the request to increase public funds) on the failings of the IPRs system. Implicitly, it seems also that the conclusions consider as evident the need for this biotechnology for the development of agriculture in developing countries. Consequently, the question of the IPRs system constitutes for them a fundamental question - as if no applied science development to developing countries development could exist without patents.
Concerning IPRs, I think that one of the interesting solution tracks could be based on the argument used by the South Africa government to get, at a much better price, medicines to fight HIV: it is a question of life and death. I think that world hunger and food security are also a question of life and death. Of course, the private companies (as the pharmaceutical ones concerned by South Africa government decision are doing now) will employ all the means that they have, and that are considerable, to combat this. But, I think that a well-done media campaign against the evident amoral position of these companies (as the one ongoing in the case of South Africa), if a technical solution appears crucial to fight against hunger, could be effective to oblige the companies to retreat. In the scale of normal public opinion, to justify leaving people to die in order to maintain profits is not acceptable.
Of course, one of the main questions remains: is it so sure that this biotechnology is indispensable for agriculture development in the developing countries (and also in the developed countries)? More precisely, in which cases (of course I am speaking of GMOs) has it been demonstrated that they are more adapted than other techniques considering globally disadvantages, benefits and risks.
Another point that, for me, belongs to this worldwide strong tendency of the unique thought, is the consideration that public institutions can not be as effective as private ones. It means forgetting so many projects carried out with public funds and control (for Europe let me give three famous examples: Ariane, TGV, Airbus. Also, were not the varieties of the green revolution produced by public institutions ?). It is falling without resistance in the wave of liberalism. It is also thinking that public institutions could not change and be reformed. But, who, if not the public institutions, will take care of the situation of millions of poor and insolvent people? It is evident, at least according to me, that this constitutes one of the main duties and responsibilities of the public authorities. They try to leave more and more this task to NGOs, which means, between other considerations, to transform what is a public moral obligation to the eventual good will of certain persons.
All this speech is to finish with my last point. When public research laboratories working on a developing country question decide that they need to establish cooperation with private companies, there are a lot of possibilities concerning the use of the results issued from these collaborations. Public laboratories should not sell their soul to get private companies involved, to get their money and then to add scientific success and patents to their catalogue of patents. They should negotiate to conclude contracts that fit with their public obligation or deny them if they do not fit. We shall not forget that one of the main obligations of the public laboratories working on developing countries questions is to dedicate their efforts to the poorest, to fight against hunger and for food security.
Michel FERRY
Directeur scientifique
Station de Recherche sur le Palmier Dattier
et les Systèmes de Production en Zones Arides
Apartado 996
03201 ELCHE
Espagne
tél: 34.965421551
fax: 34.965423706
e-mail: m.ferry@wanadoo.es
[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 ]