International integration - IPR and impacts to indigenous seed

1

International integration - IPR and impacts to indigenous seed

SANRM-EMWG

07-03-2006

2

Overview

• Intellectual property rights

• Biodiversity and Intellectual property issues

• Intellectual property and indigenous/local communities

• Impacts on small scale farmers

• What needs to be done?

3

• Legal definition: Legal rights aimed at ensuring exclusive control over products of innovation and excluding others from using such innovations without the explicit consent of the right owner

• Objectives– originally meant to industrial innovations– society’s reward for innovation – ensure return of investment in time and resources

I. Intellectual Property Rights (IPR)

4

• Expanded scope: beyond legal, including technological IPRs

• Technological IPRs: same end as legal forms– exclusive/monopoly rights– limit access to protected product– need for consent of the owner– ensures return of investments


5

• Restrictions in Technological IPRs:– Restriction in access– Restriction on re-use and saving– Genetic restriction (i.e., Terminator

Technology)

• Most modern technologies in rice (I.e., hybrid, GMOs) are protected by legal IPRs (I.e., patents, PVP/PBRs)


6

• Legal forms– Patents– Plant Variety Protection/Plant Breeders’

Rights

• Technological forms– Hybrid seeds– Genetically engineered/modified seeds – Genetic Use Restriction Technologies

(GURTs)


7

I. Intellectual Property Rights (IPR)• Trade Related Intellectual Property Rights

(TRIPS)Article 27.3(b)“Members may exclude from patentability

plants and animals other than micro-organisms, and essentially biological processes for the production of plants or animals other than non-biological and microbiological processes. However, Members shall provide for the protection of plant varieties either by patents or by an effective sui generis system or by any combination thereof…”

8


– Requires Members to apply patents on microorganisms, non-biological and microbiological processes

– Options for protection of plant varieties

• Patents• Effective sui generis system (UPOV

as an example)• Combination of both

9


• Confers monopoly rights to inventors/ creators

• Criteria: Highly technical criteria and administrative processes required– PBR: D U S N (Distinct, Uniform, Stable,

Novel )– Patent: Innovativeness, Industrial Applicability,

Non-obviousness• Term: usually 20 years• Biased against farmers and farmers’

varieties: diverse, based on traditional varieties

10

II. Biodiversity and Intellectual property issues

• The accelerating loss of biological diversity– Thousands of different and genetically

unique plant varieties– Today:

• about 150 plant species are cultivated• Half the world’s plant-based food supply

comes from a limited numbers of varieties of few plant species (rice, wheat, maize, potatoes…)

11


– Green revolution• high yielding, high input plants• top down system of agriculture research

=> dependence on few plant varieties => genetic erosion

– According to FAO, replacement of local varieties with improved or exotic varieties, or both, is the major cause of genetic erosion

12


– Paradox: success of agricultural science =>

• concentration of small number of varieties designed for intensive agriculture

• dramatic reduction in the diversity of plant varieties available for continued agricultural research and development

13


• On-farm conservation and use of PGR– Farmers and indigenous people are

critical to the conservation, use and active enhancement of biological diversity => prominent feature of CBD, Farmers’ rights

– Support and recognition for on-farm conservation and farmer-driven breeding is growing: PPB

14


• The changing roles of public and private sector in agriculture research– Privatization of agricultural research– IP laws has allowed for the patenting

of living organisms, enabling biotechnology companies to patent biological processes and products => increasing incentives for the private sector to invest in agricultural research

15


– Financial constraints for national agricultural research institutions as well as international research centres of the CGIAR (Consultative Group on International Agricultural Research) => increased role of the private sector

– New partnerships between the public and private sectors

16

II. Biodiversity and Intellectual property issues• Consolidation in life sciences industry

– Top 10 agrochemical corporations account for 91% of the $31 billion agrochemical market worldwide (1999)

– Top 10 global seed companies control ~ 1/4 – 1/3 of the $30 billion commercial seed trade (1999)

– Top 5 vegetable seed companies control 75% of the global vegetable seed market (1999)

– 4 companies control 69% of the North American maize seed market (1998)

– End of 1998, a single company controlled 71% of the US cotton seed market

17

Company2002 Seed Sales

US millions

1. Dupont (Pioneer) US $2,000

2. Monsanto (US) $1,600

3. Syngenta (Switzerland) $937

4. Seminis (US) $453

5. Advanta (Netherlands) $435

6. Groupe Limagrain (Vilmorin Clause) France

$433

7. KWS AG (Germany) $391

8. Sakata (Japan) $376

9. Delta & Pine Land (US) $258

10. Bayer Crop Science (Germany)

$ 250

11. Dow (US) $200

Source: ETC group

18

Company 2002 Agchem Sales

US millions

1. Syngenta (Switzerland) $5,260

2. Bayer (Germany) $3,775

3. Monsanto (US) $3,088

4. BASF (Germany) $2,787

5. Dow (US) $2,717

6. DuPont (US) $1,793

7. Sumitomo Chemical (Japan) $802

8. Makhteshim-Agan (Israel) $776

9. Arysta LifeScience (Japan) $662

10. FMC (US) $615

Source: ETC group

19

Biotech patents on rice genes, transgenic rice plants, methods

Company Country Number of Biotech Patents on Rice

DuPont US 95

Mitsui Japan 45

Monsanto US 36

Aventis France/Ger. 28

Syngenta Switzerland 20

Japan Tobacco Japan 19

Cornell Res Fdn. US 18

Mitsubishi Japan 14

CSIRO Australia 9

Source: SEARICE

20

Company Country Number of Biotech Patents

on Rice

University of California US 9

Sumitomo Japan 8

Purdue Research Fdn. US 8

Dow Agrosciences US 8

US Dep’t of Agriculture US 6

Advanced Tech. US 5

DNA Plant Tech. US 5

Hokko Japan 5

Total biotech patents on rice:609Top 17 patent holders: 56%

Source: SEARICE

21


• Transgenic crops commercialized – 1986-1997: ~ 25000 field trials by 45

countries on more than 60 crops and 10 traits

– Soybean, maize, cotton, potato, canola and rice

– International Seed Trade Federation expected to reach $6 billion by 2005 and $20 billion in 2010 for GM seed

22


– Consumers, farmers and some governments concern about potential impacts on health, safety and environment

– Demand for rigorous bio-safety regulations and mandatory labeling of GMO products

23


• Restrictions on the right of farmers– Personal use and non-commercial

purposes– Use the harvest for multiplication and

cultivate on their own holdings

24

III. Impacts on Small Rice Farmers

• Impedes farmers’ rights to save, use, exchange and sell farm-saved seeds– GM rice: protected by patents– Hybrid rice: limits saving and re-using

through reduced seed vigor in subsequent planting

• Will further bury farmers in poverty, landlessness and indebtedness– Specific inputs for hybrid and GM rice– Higher costs of registered and hybrid seeds

– High costs of inputs

25

• Further soil degradation, pest infestation and water contamination– increased use of herbicides– increased use specific chemicals (in GURTs)– increased use of chemical fertilizers

• Dependence on seeds and chemical inputs produced by TNCs

• Will reduce farmers’ roles from breeders to end-users and consumers of seeds and inputs produced by private companies


26

• Threats to food security– Monoculture/monocropping: less source of

balanced nutrients – Narrowing of food and nutrition base– Focus on industrial and commercial crops

over food crops– Legal and technological IPRs in the context of

policies on agricultural liberalization


27

• Increased control of transnational corporations in R&D, commercialization– Hybrid rice– GM seeds– Agro-chemical inputs

• Centralization of agricultural research in private hands

• Disappearance of line that divides public and private research and development interests and efforts


28

• Further genetic uniformity and erosion

• Cultural erosion– East Asia: rice-based cultures– transformation in agricultural practices

and systems, norms and values


29

TNCsSeeds, fertilizers,

pesticides

Public agr. Research institutions

Int’l trade regimes

WTO, FTA (IPRs, UPOV…)

Industrialized agriculture

Small scale farmers

Dep

ende

ncy

GMOs + terminator technology

National (agricultural)

policiesCBD,

ITPGRFA

30

What Needs to be Done?

• Broadening research participation– Governments and NGOs increase

contributions, supports and strengthen their long-term commitment to agricultural research, PPB, in-situ GR conservation

• Protecting biodiversity

• Say no to terminator technology

31


• Propose and Promote farmer-based seeds production, saving and exchange systems

• Close monitoring of TNC interests and investments in seeds

• Closer look on TNC partnerships with governments on seeds research, production and commercialization

• Education / Awareness-raising

32


• Facilitate access, exchange and benefit sharing

• Balancing treaty obligation (CBD, IT PGRFA)

• Implementing Global Plan of Action

• …….

International integration - IPR and impacts to indigenous seed

Documents

Transcript of International integration - IPR and impacts to indigenous seed