Consultative Group on International Agricultural Research - CGIAR
From: The Secretariat
August 1998
CGIAR Mid-Term Meeting
May 25-29, 1998
Brasilia, Brazil
CGIAR Secretariat · Mailing Address: 1818 H Street, N.W., Washington, D.C. 20433, U.S.A. · Office Location: 701 18th Street, N.W. Tel: (1-202) 473-8951 · Cable Address: INTBAFRAD · Fax: (1-202) 473-8110 · E-mail: [email protected] or [email protected]
Report of the CGIAR Expert Panel on Proprietary Science and Technology
Chairman Tim Roberts presented the report of the CGIAR Expert Panel on Proprietary Science and Technology, which reflects a range of expertise and viewpoints. Because of this diversity, there was a broad spectrum of opinions on what was likely to promote the mission of the CGIAR and what forms of intellectual property are legitimate.
The panel conducted brief surveys on the following points:
· To what extent are CGIAR mandated crops already affected by proprietary claims?· Will owners of proprietary agricultural biotechnology (private companies and universities) make their proprietary science available?
· What are Centers already doing regarding proprietary science?
Seven Centers responded to the survey on the use of proprietary science, which ISNAR conducted. The survey showed that in many cases the Centers are using proprietary biotechnology without knowing whether the results of their research can be applied freely. The Panel expressed concern that the Centers need access to skilled professional advice on intellectual property and related matters.
The survey of owners of intellectual property showed that the CGIAR cannot hope to acquire rights to technology for use on behalf of the poor if the resulting products then compete in commercial markets, forcing prices down. Owners said that in principle they would make intellectual property available to help the poor, but only if it did not damage them technically or financially.
Finally, on the question of what the CGIAR should do on intellectual property, the Panel concluded that the proprietary science should be protected only if it furthers the mission of the CGIAR and the results are accessible to the poor.
Although there was no consensus on the implications of the survey findings, the Panel made the following recommendations:
· In dealing with proprietary science, the CGIAR must be guided by its mission. The CGIAR should never undertake research to generate cash to support CGIAR work or bargaining chips for acquiring rights to technology from others.· The CGIAR must promptly acquire relevant expertise to deal with technology transfer, intellectual property, and alternative rights regimes. At a minimum, it should set up a central office to deal with such matters and conduct an immediate review of current proprietary science used by the Centers.
· The Centers' existing Guiding Principles on Intellectual Properly Rights and Genetic Resources should be revised, formalized, and enforced. The CGIAR should make decisions regarding intellectual property protection based on clear, mission-based rules.
Parallel Session II: Proprietary Science and Technology
Chaired by Carl-Gustaf Thornström, the parallel session on Proprietary Science and Technology recognized that protection of intellectual property is inescapable for the CGIAR and supported the Chairman's propositions regarding intellectual property. They recommended that the Centers should collectively refine their various intellectual property policies into a coherent package, which the Centers would submit for endorsement at ICW98 following consultation with TAC. This coherent policy would allow the CGIAR to take an active and unambiguous stand on behalf of the system in various international fora.
Key elements to be included in the integrated CGIAR intellectual property policy are the following: common germplasm acquisition and MTAs, intellectual property rights guidelines, ethical principles, guidelines on designated materials, and the agreement with FAO.
Participants supported creating a central biotechnology service unit to facilitate Centers' access to legal counsel. IPGRI was suggested as a possible site for the unit.
The participants also recommended a comprehensive intellectual property audit to clear titles and eliminate potential risks to centers and their partners, noting that the US$ 1 million figure quoted by the Chair is only notional.
