1. International integration - IPR and impacts to indigenous seed
SANRM-EMWG

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. I. Intellectual Property Rights (IPR)
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

4. I. Intellectual Property Rights (IPR)
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. I. Intellectual Property Rights (IPR)
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. I. Intellectual Property Rights (IPR)
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. I. Intellectual Property Rights (IPR)
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. I. Intellectual Property Rights (IPR)
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. II. Biodiversity and Intellectual property issues
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. II. Biodiversity and Intellectual property issues
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. II. Biodiversity and Intellectual property issues
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. II. Biodiversity and Intellectual property issues
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. II. Biodiversity and Intellectual property issues
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. Source: ETC group Company 2002 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. Source: ETC group 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 36
Aventis
France/Ger. 28
Syngenta
Switzerland 20
Japan Tobacco 19
Cornell Res Fdn. 18
Mitsubishi 14
CSIRO
Australia 9
Source: SEARICE

20. Number of Biotech Patents on Rice
Company
Country
Number of Biotech Patents on Rice
University of California US 9
Sumitomo
Japan 8
Purdue Research Fdn.
Dow Agrosciences
US Dep’t of Agriculture 6
Advanced Tech. 5
DNA Plant Tech.
Hokko
Total biotech patents on rice:609
Top 17 patent holders: 56%
Source: SEARICE

21. II. Biodiversity and Intellectual property issues
Transgenic crops commercialized
: ~ 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. II. Biodiversity and Intellectual property issues
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. II. Biodiversity and Intellectual property issues
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. III. Impacts on Small Rice Farmers
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. III. Impacts on Small Rice Farmers
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. III. Impacts on Small Rice Farmers
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. III. Impacts on Small Rice Farmers
Further genetic uniformity and erosion
Cultural erosion
East Asia: rice-based cultures
transformation in agricultural practices and systems, norms and values

29. TNCs Seeds, fertilizers, pesticides GMOs + terminator technology
Public agr. Research institutions
GMOs + terminator technology
Dependency
National (agricultural) policies
Industrialized agriculture
CBD, ITPGRFA
Int’l trade regimes
WTO, FTA (IPRs, UPOV…)
Small scale farmers

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. What Needs to be Done?
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. What Needs to be Done? Facilitate access, exchange and benefit sharing
Balancing treaty obligation (CBD, IT PGRFA)
Implementing Global Plan of Action
…….