Genetic Use Restriction Technologies (GURTs): impacts on developing countries

International Journal of Biotechnology

Volumn 2, Issue 1-3, 2000, Pages 56-84

  Swanson, Timothy ^a   Goschl, Timo ^b  

^a UNIVERSITY COLLEGE LONDON   (United Kingdom)

^b UNIVERSITY OF CAMBRIDGE   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

Agricultural R D; developing countries; diffusion; innovation

Indexed keywords

AGRICULTURAL PRODUCTS; AGRICULTURE; DEVELOPING COUNTRIES; ECONOMIC AND SOCIAL EFFECTS; ENGINEERING RESEARCH; RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT MANAGEMENT; SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT; TECHNOLOGY TRANSFER;

GENETIC USE RESTRICTION TECHNOLOGY; INNOVATION; MAIZE PRODUCTION;

BIOTECHNOLOGY;

EID: 0033713371     PISSN: 09636048     EISSN: 17415020     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1504/ijbt.2000.000138     Document Type: Article

References (58)

1. GURTs may come as either variety based, or trait based. Since the described technologies are predominantly variety based, this paper will focus only on these. The authors do not believe that the problems indicated herein would apply to trait-based GURTs.
2. An alternative method for achieving this same object is the adoption of laws restricting such resale or reuse of commercially acquired seed. This method has been implemented in those countries that have adopted so-called plant breeders rights (PBRs) and/or seed patents, and enforced them strictly against their citizens. To a large extent GURTs should be seen as a technologically supplied alternative to these systems, with the important difference that individual countries do not have the option under GURTs to elect adoption of the system or determine the degree of enforcement. In this paper we examine the impact of switching from such IPR based R&D systems to GURT-based systems.
3. There are several important distinctions between PBR systems and GURT-based systems. First, PBR systems are limited in duration, while GURTs are not. Second, PBR systems often contain an ‘own use’ exemption for farmers, which enable their own breeding activities. Thirdly, and most importantly, PBR systems merely disallow the marketing of the same plant variety in competition with its innovator; they do not disallow breeding activities making use of the new plant variety (e.g. to translocate its innovative characteristics to other plant varieties).
4. The domestic system used for accomplishing this purpose is known as the National Agricultural Research Centres (NARCs) while the international system devised in part to achieve the same purpose is known as the Consultative Group for International Agricultural Research (CG system).
5. Again, it is important to emphasize that there is nothing problematic in the first instance about the appropriation of the returns from innovation - this will simply enhance the prospects for effective investments in plant breeding activities. The problems that must be considered are second order ones, viz. the impact of wholly vesting agricultural R&D within the private sector and within a concentrated industry.
6. This would be the result of the refusal to licence innovations at reasonable prices to potential competitors, and the maintenance of very low prices until they were removed from the market. It is essentially the sort of conduct with which Microsoft has been charged.
7. For example, one well-known problem in the economics of market failure is the difficulty imposed by minimum efficient scales of operation. This can result in the targeting of only the median consumer, or in this case the typical agricultural producer, and the failure to address the diversity of needs within a diverse consumer base.
8. The GURT form of system has little effect on biotechnology capable countries, precisely because they will be able to use biotechnology to unravel and relocate the innovative characteristic. In this case the GURT merely provides a short term advantage to the innovative breeder, possibly a head start of only two or three years in the marketing of the characteristic. The problem lies more in those countries with both little of their own biotechnological capacity, and little investment by others interested in diffusing innovative characteristics into their local varieties.
9. Komen, J. and Persley, G.J. (1993) Agricultural Biotechnology in Developing Countries: A Cross-Country Review. ISNAR Research Report No.2. The Hague: International Service for National Agricultural Research.
10. James, C. (1998) ‘Global review of commercialized transgenic crops: 1998’, ISAAA Brief No. 8, Ithaca, NY: ISAAA.
11. Johnson, B. and Holmes, K. (1998) The 1999 Index of Economic Freedom, New York: Dow Jones and Co.
12. It should be noted that the groupings used here are intended only for illustrative purposes. Clearly there may be better proxies and measures of the indicators we have discussed, and these would provide for different groupings of the developing countries. The sole purpose of Table 3 is to indicate, firstly, that the impacts of GURTs will be non-uniform and highly variable and, secondly, that the variability of the impacts will nevertheless be systematic and reasonably predictable.
13. Conway, G. and Thoenissen, G. (forthcoming), Biotechnology, Food and Nutrition, Nature, Millennium Supplement.
14. Alston, J.M., Pardey, P.G. and Smith, V.H (1998) ‘Financing agricultural R&D in rich countries: what’s happening and why?’, The Australian Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, Vol. 42, No. 1, pp.51–82.
15. Srivastava, J., Smith, N. and Forno, D. (1996) ‘’Biodiversity and agriculture. implications for conservation and development’, World Bank Technical Paper No. 321, Washington D.C., World Bank.
16. Perrin, R.K., Kunnings, K.A. and Ihnen, L.A. (1983) ‘Some effects of the US Plant Variety Protection Act of 1970’, Economics Research Report No. 46, Department of Economics and Business, North Carolina State University.
17. Butler, L.J. and Marion, B.W. (1985) ‘The impact of patent protection on the U.S. seed industry and public plant breeding’, Food Systems Research Group Monograph 16, University of Wisconsin Madison, Madison, WI.
18. Butler, L.J. (1996) ‘‘Plant breeders’ rights in the US: update of a 1983 study’, in Van Wijk, J. and Jaffe, W. (Eds.) Proceedings of a seminar on ‘The Impact of Plant Breeders’ Rights in Developing Countries’ held at Santa Fe Bogota, Colombia, March 7–8, 1995; University of Amsterdam; Amsterdam. pp.17–33.
19. Pray, C.E., Knudson, M.K. and Masse, L. (1993) ‘Impact of changing intellectual property rights on US plant breeding R&D’, Mimeo, Department of Agricultural Economics, Rutgers University, New Brunswick.
20. Lesser, W. (1990) ‘Sector Issue II: seeds and plants’, in Siebeck, W.E. (Ed.) Strengthening Intellectual Property Rights in Developing Countries: A Survey of Literature, pp.59–68.
21. Fuglie, K., Ballenger, N., Day, K. et al. (1996) Agricultural Research and Development: Public and Private Investments Under Alternative Markets and Institutions, AER-735. Economic Research Service, United States Department of Agriculture.
22. Jaffe, W. and Van Wijk, J. (1995) The Impact of Plant Breeders’ Rights in Developing Countries: Debate and Experience in Argentina, Chile, Colombia, Mexico and Uruguay. Inter-American Institute for Cooperation in Agriculture and University of Amsterdam. Amsterdam.
23. Frey, K.J. (1996) National Plant Breeding Study - I: Human and Financial Resource Devoted to Plant Breeding Research and Development in the United States in 1994. Special Report 98, Iowa Agriculture and Home Economics Experiment Station, Iowa State University, Iowa.
24. Perrin, R.K., Kunnings, K.A. and Ihnen, L.A. (1983) ‘Some effects of the US Plant Variety Protection Act of 1970’, Economics Research Report No. 46. Department of Economics and Business, North Carolina State University.
25. Alston, J.M. and Venner, R.J. (1998) ‘The effects of US Plant Variety Protection Act on wheat genetic improvement’, Paper presented at the symposium on ‘ Intellectual Property Rights and Agricultural Research Impact’ sponsored by NC 208 and CIMMYT Economics Program, El Batan, Mexico, 5–7 March.
26. The Table shows the differences in the average yields of developing and developed countries weighed by area harvested.
27. White, F.C. and Havlicek, J. (1979) ‘Rates of return to agricultural research and extension in the southern region’, Southern Journal of Agricultural Economics. Vol. 11, pp.107–11.
28. Evenson, R.E. (1989) ‘Spillover benefits of agricultural research: evidence from US experience’, American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Vol. 71, pp.447–452.
29. Thirtle, V.E., Ball, J.C. Bureau and Townsend, R. (1994) ‘Accounting for efficiency differences in European agriculture: cointegration, multilateral productivity spIndices and R&D spillovers’, Mimeo. University of Reading.
30. Kalton, R.R. and Richardson, P.A. (1983) ‘Private sector plant breeding programs: a major thrust in US agriculture’, Diversity, Nov-Dec., pp.16–18.
31. Kalton, R.R., Richardson, P.A. and Frey, N.M. (1989) ‘Inputs in private sector plant breeding and biotechnology research programs in the United States’, Diversity, Vol. 5, No. 4 pp.22–25.
32. Price, S.C. (1999) ‘Public and private plant breeding’, Nature Biotechnology, Vol. 17, No. 10, October, p.938
33. Leisinger, K. (1997) ‘Ethical and ecological aspects of industrial property rights in the context of genetic engineering’, Paper presented at Interlaken Conference.
34. Capalbo, S.M. and Antle, J.M. (1989) ‘Incorporating social costs in the returns to agricultural research’, American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Vol. 71, pp.458–63.
35. CIMMYT (1999) A Sampling of Impacts 1999. New Global and Regional Studies, Mexico: CIMMYT.
36. Crouch, M. (1998) ‘How terminator terminates’, rived edition, Edmonds Institute Occasional Papers, Edmonds Institute, Washington.
37. Falck-Zepeda, J.B. and Traxler, G. (1998) ‘Rent creation and distribution from transgenic cotton in the US’, Paper prepared for the symposium Intellectual Property Rights and Agricultural Research Impacts. Sponsored by NC-208 and CIMMYT Economics Program, CIMMYT Headquarters, El Batan, Mexico, March 5–7.
38. Gupta, A. (1999) Biosafety in an International Context, Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MA
39. Huffman, W.E. and Evenson, R.E. (1993) Science for Agriculture: A Long-Term Perspective, Iowa State University Press, Ames, IA
40. Jarvis, D. and Hodgkin, T. (Ed.) (1998) Strengthening the Scientific Basis of In Situ Conservation, Rome: IPGRI/FAO.
41. Jefferson, R.A., with Byth, D., Correa, C., Otero, G. and Qualset, C. (1999) ‘Genetic use restriction technologies. Technical assessment of the set of new technologies which sterilize or reduce the agronomic value of second generation seed as exemplified by US Patent No. 5,723,765 and WO 94/03619’, Expert Paper, prepared for the Secretariat of the Convention for Biological Diversity, Subsidiary Body on Scientific, Technical and Technological Advice.
42. Leonard, H.J., with Yudelman M., J.D. Stryker, J.O Bowder, A.J. de Boer, T. Campbell and A. Jolly (1989) Environment and the Poor: Development Strategies for a Common Agenda. Transaction Books: New Brunswick
43. Leisinger, K. (1995) ‘Sociopolitical Effects of New Biotechnologies in Developing Countries’, 2020 Vision Discussion Paper 2, Washington D.C.: IFRPI
44. Pray, C.E., Ribeiro, S., Mueller, R.A.E. et al. (1991) ‘Private research and public benefit – the private seed industry for Sorghum and Pearl-Millet in India’, Research Policy, Vol. 20, No. 4, pp.315–324.
45. Pretty, J (in press) The Biochemist.
46. Qaim, M. and von Braun, J. (1998) ‘Crop biotechnology in developing countries: a conceptual framework for ex ante economic analysis’ ZEF Discussion Papers on Development Policy, No. 3. ZEF: Bonn.
47. Reilly, J. and Phipps, T. (1988) ‘Technology, Natural Resources and Commodity Trade’, Agricultural Trade and Natural Resources: Discovering Critical Linkages, Sutton, J.D. (Ed.) Boulder CO: Lynne Reinner Publishers, pp.224–235.
48. Rejesus, R., van Ginkel, M. and Smale, M. (1998) ‘Wheat breeders’ perspectives on genetic diversity and germplasm use’, Findings from an International Survey’, WPSR No. 40. CIMMYT.
49. Schmidt, J.W. (1984) ‘Genetic contributions to yield gain in wheat’, in Fehr, W.R. (Ed.) Genetic Contributions to Yield Gains in Five Major Crop Plants, Crop Science Society of America, Madison, pp.89–101.
50. Smale, M. (1997) ‘The green revolution and wheat genetic diversity: some unfounded assumptions’, World Development, Vol. 25, pp.1257–69.
51. Southgate, D. (1997) ‘Alternatives to the regulatory approach to biodiverse habitat conservation’, Environment and Development Economics, Vol. 2, No. 1, pp.106–110.
52. Swanson, T. (Ed) (1995) The Economics and Ecology of Biodiveristy Decline. The Forces Driving Global Change, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
53. Swanson, T. and Goschl, T. (1999). ‘Evolving property right regimes regarding plant genetic resources’, Paper presented at the Harvard Conference on Biotechnology, forthcoming in the International Journal of Biotechnology.
54. Thirtle, C.G. (1985) ‘Technological change and productivity slowdown in field crops: United States, 1939–1978’, Southern Journal of Agricultural Economics, Vol. 17, pp.33–42.
55. Traxler, G, J., Falck-Zapeda, J.I., Ortiz-Monasterio, and Sayre, K. (1995) ‘Production risk and the evolution of varietal technology’, American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Vol. 77, pp.1–7.
56. Tzotzos, G. (1995) Genetically Modified Organizms: A guide to Biosafety, Wallingford: CABI.
57. Virchow, D. (1999) Conservation of Genetic Resources : Costs and Implications for a Sustainable Utilization of Plant Genetic Resources for Food and Agriculture, Berlin: Springer Verlag.
58. World Conservation Monitoring Centre and Faculty of Economics (1996) ‘A survey of the plant breeding industry’, in Swanson, T. and Luxmoore, R. Industrial Reliance upon Biodiversity, Cambridge, WCMC.