SUMMARY CONFERENCE 6
Conference 6 of the FAO Electronic Forum on Biotechnology in Food and
Agriculture was entitled "The impact of intellectual property
rights (IPRs) on food and agriculture in developing countries". It ran
from 20 March to 14 May 2001.
The Summary Document provides a summary of the main arguments and
concerns discussed during the conference, including:
- Companies from developed countries patenting genetic material from
developing countries
- Impact on agricultural research
- Whether IPRs favour the interests of developed countries and the
biotechnology industry over those of developing countries
- Avoiding or alleviating the negative impacts of the current IPRs system
- National IPRs legislation in developing countries
Read the Long Summary Document of this conference.
Read the Short Summary Document of this conference [below].
I. Summary Document (Short Version) - Conference 6
The sixth conference of the FAO Electronic Forum on Biotechnology in Food and
Agriculture was entitled "The impact of intellectual property rights (IPRs)
on food and agriculture in developing countries" and it ran from 20 March to
14 May 2001. A total of 265 Forum members registered and 50 messages were
posted during the 8-week long conference. Roughly two thirds came from
participants in developed countries and one third from developing countries
and they were posted by 30 individuals from diverse walks of life (e.g.
research institutes, NGOs, private industry, patent lawyers) in 18 different
countries.
Throughout the conference, the crop sector received far more attention than
the other agricultural sectors while the kinds of IPRs specifically discussed
were patents and, to a lesser degree, plant variety protection (PVP). In
addition, genetic modification was the biotechnology that participants
singled out for particular attention.
The messages covered a wide range of subject areas. In general, most
participants seemed to consider the impacts of IPRs to be primarily negative
for the developing world. Their comments on the impacts or consequences of
IPRs can be grouped into three major themes:
1. The patenting of genetic material from developing countries by companies
from developed countries:
From the messages posted, this seems to be one of the most controversial
consequences of the current IPRs system and some participants expressed
strong frustration and anger about this situation. These strong reactions
stemmed from the perceived
a) appropriation of the resources in developing countries by parties in
developed countries (cases, such as the recent granting of a patent involving
the Nuna bean, were discussed)
b) lack of adequate mechanisms to prevent it happening
c) failure to acknowledge the contribution made by farmers in developing
countries to the genetic resources
d) failure to share the benefits with farmers in developing countries
Other topics discussed here were the definition of what is patentable, the
difference between discovery and invention and the potential role of relevant
international agreements (such as the Convention on Biological Diversity).
2. The impact on agricultural research
Participants suggested that IPRs had influenced (generally in the negative
sense):
a) the quality of agricultural research carried out (e.g. due to reduced flow
of knowledge/material between potential research partners or research
projects being abandoned because of insufficient "freedom to operate")
b) the nature of research collaborations between the public and private
sector (i.e. in the context that private sector research (stimulated by IPRs)
is increasingly important and that public-private sector partnerships are
more frequent)
c) the nature of research collaborations between developing and developed
countries (e.g. the traditional system of sharing research benefits between
developed and developing countries is changed).
3. Whether IPRs favour the interests of developed countries and the
biotechnology industry over those of developing countries
Some of the arguments considered here, which were occasionally quite
political, included
a) whether the very nature of the current IPRs system discriminated against
(or, even, allowed the exploitation of) developing countries because it
places a greater value on biotechnology outputs than on genetic resources
used to create the biotechnology products
b) who owned patents in developing countries and the implications of
developing countries harmonising or introducing national IPRs legislation.
In the conference, participants also discussed how these negative impacts or
consequences could be avoided or alleviated. They seemed to have two
different approaches. The first was to call for a reassessment of the current
IPRs system and to propose alternative systems that, for example, were
weighted more towards developing countries interests or that were compatible
with farmers' rights or did not allow legal ownership of life forms. The
second was to accept the current system (even though they might consider it
to be unjust) and, instead, to seek strategies to minimise its negative
impacts. These strategies included the pooling of IPRs held by the public
sector into an IPRs portfolio to serve poor farmers; applying IPRs
legislation in a way that minor or trivial inventions could not be patented,
useful follow-on research could not be restricted and challenging of invalid
patents would be easier; encouraging governments in developed countries to
stimulate their universities, research institutes and private companies to
share their biotechnology products and processes with developing countries
free of charge and, finally, when appropriate, getting private companies to
provide biotechnology products at a reasonable price to developing countries.
Some other topics raised in the conference were the implications of the WTO
agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights (the TRIPS
Agreement); infringement and enforcement of IPRs legislation in developing
countries; the consequences of a biotechnology product being developed using
many patented biotechnologies; PVP versus patenting and, finally, patenting
in the livestock sector.
For those with access to the web, further information on what the
participants said can be got by viewing the actual messages they posted (
http://www.fao.org/biotech/logs/c6logs.htm ) or by reading the Long Version
of the Summary Document ( http://www.fao.org/biotech/logs/C6/summary.htm ).
