Intellectual property rights: ultimate control of agricultural R&D in Asia

Discusses the pressure on Asian countries to adopt plant variety protection (PVP) systems based on Union for the Protection of New Varieties of Plants UPOV. Gives the arguments against PVP, and includes a 'people's perspective'.Looks at PVP and patents, and finds that they:undermine farmers rights, as, whilst breeders get exclusive commercial control over the reproductive material of their varieties and the right to enforce licenses, farmers planting PVP-protected varieties are prohibited from saving seeds for replanting except under highly restricted conditions. These rights, which cannot be protected by IPRs, form the basis of sustainable agriculture and recognize the importance of farmer innovation to global food security and well beingensure that farmers come to rely on foreign companiesgive foreign companies control over germplasm that has been developed by Asian farmersexacerbate the erosion of biodiversity<B>Conclusions</B>whilst proponant of IPR claim that it is important for access and innovation, this is a smokescreen. If access was the issue, then the evidence stands against IPR: it restricts the flow of germplasm, reduces sharing between breeders, erodes genetic diversity, and, all in all, stifles researchIPRs are suited to the profit strategies of the global seed conglomerates that want to dominate agricultural production worldwide. The transnational seed companies are building vast industrial breeding networks in all major crops and, with their economies of scale and ownership over technology through IPR, they will shut local private and public breeders out of the commercial market. For them, IPR is simply a means for controlling the market and extracting more profit from itContrarily, by their very nature, IPRs inhibit and easily destroy innovation on farms – the centres of research and development for sustainable agriculture. There are plenty of options for rewarding innovation that encourage pro-farmer research and development, but IPR is not one of them. These options are being articulated by farmers and organisations working with them but disregarded by governments rushing to comply with TRIPS – with severe implications for the region’s long term food securityAsian governments urgently need to wake up to the inherent threats of IPR over genetic resources, take a look at other options which would better serve the interests of their people, and start implementing a truly pro-people agricultural R&D agenda.