New Patent Agreement a Setback
for Biotech Companies

Inter Press Service
November 16, 2001, Friday
FOOD ANTI-PATENT PACT HAILED DESPITE WEAKNESSES
By Emad Mekay

WASHINGTON, Nov. 16

A new convention that discourages private crop patents will breathe
new life into agricultural research in developing countries, where
subsistence farming remains the norm, say experts.

The object of their optimism is the keenly awaited International
Treaty on Plant Genetic Resources for Food and Agriculture, agreed
last week in Rome by delegates from 116 countries.

"What the treaty will do primarily is facilitate the free flow of
genetic material to plant breeders who have found that the rush to
patent has limited their access in recent years," says Peter Rosset
co-director of the U.S.-based non-governmental organization Food
First.

"When breeders feel that material is patentable, they won't share it.
The hope is that as a result of the treaty, people will once again
share these genetic resources," he adds. "This is a boon to public
sector plant breeders and to farmers and we hope it will somewhat put
the brakes on patenting by private companies." The agreement seeks to
shield a list of food crops from patenting although, according to
Rosset, heavy U.S. lobbying succeeded in watering down the pact's
language so it amounts to less than an outright prohibition on
patenting of critical food crops. Ultimately, the United States and
Japan abstained from voting on the treaty.

Nevertheless, says Ian Johnson, chairman of the Consultative Group on
International Agricultural Research (CGIAR), the treaty is a definite
safeguard mechanism for global biodiversity.

"Plant breeders all over the world rely on existing diversity to
create new varieties of plants with higher yields and increased
resistance to pests and diseases, while for many small farmers in
developing countries, diversity is the basis of food security and
income," says Johnson, who also is a vice president at the World Bank.

The treaty comes at a critical moment, according to its supporters.
Issues such as food security are being eclipsed by counter-terrorism
and international financial institutions are preoccupied with
recession.

Aid for agriculture has been falling for well over a decade, according
to the U.N. Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO). Wealthy countries
cut their contributions by 15 percent during the 1990s and multilateral
lenders like the World Bank trimmed theirs by 40 percent.

The new convention, however, offers farmers and public agencies better
access to genetic resources that could improve crop yields, diversity,
and resistance to pests, drought, and disease. The treaty also will
promote improve natural resource management in poor nations, where the
FAO estimates some 835 million people live in hunger.

"We think it is good that there now is a treaty, though a number of
issues have been left unresolved and in some areas it is weaker than
we would have hoped," says Rosset. Among these weaknesses, he says,
the treaty would only help to the extent that unresolved issues of
farmers' rights and intellectual property rights are settled in the
farmers' favor and uphold the principle that public resources should
not be patented. "That would help guarantee the food security of poor
farmers and of indigenous peoples," Rosset asserts. "If, however,
these issues are resolved the wrong way, then much of the potential
benefit of the treaty will be lost."

Although the agreement also establishes a funding strategy, support
for the gene banks of the world remains a problem, according to
Geoffrey Hawtin of the CGIAR-supported International Plant Genetic
Resources Institute (IPGRI).

"The treaty calls on countries and CGIAR-supported centers to maintain
genetic resources in perpetuity," Hawtin says in a statement. "The
challenge is to mobilize financial resources and create an endowment
to ensure these precious resources are kept in viable form well into
the future."

The U.S. angered activists by lobbying against portions of the treaty
that it said would threaten intellectual property rights and thus
endanger innovation and investment. Rosset, however, says he considers
patenting a "form of shameless privatization" and sees the U.S. stance
on the treaty as "one more example of irresponsible pro-private
industry behavior."

CGIAR, an association of 58 public and private institutions, supports
a network of 16 agricultural research centers worldwide. It played a
major role in formulating the treaty.