IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/ags/phajad/165848.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

NARES Capacity in Relation to International Treaties and Conventions on Intellectual Property Rights, Agricultural Biotechnology, and Plant Genetic Resources Management

Author

Listed:
  • Sebastian, Leocadio
  • Payumo, Jane G.

Abstract

Significant developments in the scientific front and international policy arena have affected the use and exchange of genetic resources, and the management of intellectual property. These developments are now reshaping public agricultural research and development (R&D) in developing countries, especially in the access, generation, and dissemination of research outputs. Three of the most important international treaties and conventions that are important in this context are the World Trade Organization’s Agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights (WTO-TRIPS), the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD), and the International Treaty on Plant Genetic Resources for Food and Agriculture (ITPGRFA). Already, majority of the developing countries are signatories to these treaties and could be expected to exploit them for their own advantage. On the other hand, non-member countries, despite their non-participation, must find alternative scenarios to be able to effectively address issues concerning IPR, agricultural biotechnology, and plant genetic resources. As the main source of innovation in public agricultural research, national agricultural research extension systems (NARES) need to be enlightened on the various aspects of these treaties and agreements and the impact on their respective research and extension activities. It may be necessary, for example, to tailor capacity-building initiatives on the IPR, agbiotech, and PGR aspects of international treaties to specific countries or regions since policy and enforcement mechanisms among NARES vary according to the availability of human and logistical resources, research priorities, and technology transfer objectives. This paper takes a look at the critical aspects of TRIPS, CBD, ITPGRFA, and other agreements, and studies their implications on public agbiotech R&D among NARS; compares initiatives by several Asian developing countries to comply with the provisions of these treaties and agreements; highlights PhilRice’s initiatives to help its national government comply with its obligations under these treaties; and assesses and recommends a plan of action on the capacity-building of NARES institutions on IPR, agbiotech, and PGR management.

Suggested Citation

  • Sebastian, Leocadio & Payumo, Jane G., 2006. "NARES Capacity in Relation to International Treaties and Conventions on Intellectual Property Rights, Agricultural Biotechnology, and Plant Genetic Resources Management," Asian Journal of Agriculture and Development, Southeast Asian Regional Center for Graduate Study and Research in Agriculture (SEARCA), vol. 3(1), pages 1-24, December.
  • Handle: RePEc:ags:phajad:165848
    DOI: 10.22004/ag.econ.165848
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://ageconsearch.umn.edu/record/165848/files/AJAD_2006_3_1_2_6Sebastian_Payumo.pdf
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.22004/ag.econ.165848?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Marra, Michele C. & Pardey, Philip G. & Alston, Julian M., 2002. "The payoffs to agricultural biotechnology: an assessment of the evidence," EPTD discussion papers 87, International Food Policy Research Institute (IFPRI).
    2. Adams, Stephen & Henson-Apollonio, Victoria, 2002. "Defensive Publishing: A Strategy for Maintaining Intellectual Property as Public Goods," ISNAR Archive 310721, CGIAR > International Food Policy Research Institute (IFPRI).
    3. Robert E. Evenson, 2004. "Intellectual Property Rights and Asian Agriculture," Asian Journal of Agriculture and Development, Southeast Asian Regional Center for Graduate Study and Research in Agriculture (SEARCA), vol. 1(1), pages 17-38, June.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Aseffa Seyoum & Eric W. Welch, 2015. "Ex Post Use Restriction and Benefit-sharing Provisions for Access to Non-plant Genetic Materials for Public Research," Applied Economic Perspectives and Policy, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 37(4), pages 667-691.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Konduru, Srinivasa & Kalaitzandonakes, Nicholas G. & Magnier, Alexandre, 2009. "GMO Testing Strategies and Implications for Trade: A Game Theoretic Approach," 2009 Annual Meeting, July 26-28, 2009, Milwaukee, Wisconsin 49594, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association.
    2. Kym Anderson & Ernesto Valenzuela & Lee Ann Jackson, 2008. "Recent and Prospective Adoption of Genetically Modified Cotton: A Global Computable General Equilibrium Analysis of Economic Impacts," Economic Development and Cultural Change, University of Chicago Press, vol. 56(2), pages 265-296, January.
    3. Nielsen, Chantal Pohl & Robinson, Sherman & Thierfelder, Karen, 2002. "Trade in genetically modified food: A survey of empirical studies," TMD discussion papers 106, International Food Policy Research Institute (IFPRI).
    4. Gruere, Guillaume & Bouet, Antoine & Mevel, Simon, 2007. "Genetically modified food and international trade: The case of India, Bangladesh, Indonesia, and the Philippines," IFPRI discussion papers 740, International Food Policy Research Institute (IFPRI).
    5. Zilberman, David & Graff, Gregory & Hochman, Gal & Kaplan, Scott, 2015. "The Political Economy of Biotechnology," German Journal of Agricultural Economics, Humboldt-Universitaet zu Berlin, Department for Agricultural Economics, vol. 64(04), December.
    6. Eicher, Carl K. & Maredia, Karim & Sithole-Niang, Idah, 2006. "Crop biotechnology and the African farmer," Food Policy, Elsevier, vol. 31(6), pages 504-527, December.
    7. Amrita Chatterjee & Arpita Ghose, 2016. "Consumer’s Acceptance towards Genetically Modified Crops and Growth of the Economy: A Theoretical Approach," Working Papers 2016-137, Madras School of Economics,Chennai,India.
    8. Kym Anderson & Lee Ann Jackson, 2005. "GM crop technology and trade restraints: economic implications for Australia and New Zealand," Australian Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, Australian Agricultural and Resource Economics Society, vol. 49(3), pages 263-281, September.
    9. Yin Li & Jan Youtie & Philip Shapira, 2015. "Why do technology firms publish scientific papers? The strategic use of science by small and midsize enterprises in nanotechnology," The Journal of Technology Transfer, Springer, vol. 40(6), pages 1016-1033, December.
    10. Yawson, Robert M. & Yawson, Ivy, 2008. "Policy options of agricultural biotechnology R&D in Sub-Saharan Africa: key issues and aspects," MPRA Paper 34880, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    11. Antoine Bouët & Guillaume P. Gruère, 2011. "Refining Opportunity Cost Estimates of Not Adopting GM Cotton: An Application in Seven Sub-Saharan African Countries," Applied Economic Perspectives and Policy, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 33(2), pages 260-279.
    12. Joshua D. Detre & Hiroki Uematsu & Ashok K. Mishra, 2011. "The influence of GM crop adoption on the profitability of farms operated by young and beginning farmers," Agricultural Finance Review, Emerald Group Publishing Limited, vol. 71(1), pages 41-61, May.
    13. Joachim Henkel & Stefanie Pangerl, 2008. "Defensive Publishing An Empirical Study," DRUID Working Papers 08-04, DRUID, Copenhagen Business School, Department of Industrial Economics and Strategy/Aalborg University, Department of Business Studies.
    14. Anderson, Kym & Damania, Richard & Jackson, Lee Ann, 2004. "Trade Standards and the Political Economy of Genetically Modified Food," CEPR Discussion Papers 4526, C.E.P.R. Discussion Papers.
    15. Traxler, Greg, 2004. "The Economic Impacts of Biotechnology-Based Technological Innovations," ESA Working Papers 23806, Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, Agricultural Development Economics Division (ESA).
    16. Onyango, Benjamin M. & Nayga, Rodolfo M., Jr., 2004. "Consumer Acceptance of Nutritionally Enhanced Genetically Modified Food: Relevance of Gene Transfer Technology," Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, Western Agricultural Economics Association, vol. 29(3), pages 1-17, December.
    17. Gouse, Marnus, 2013. "Socioeconomic and farm-level effects of genetically modified crops: The case of Bt crops in South Africa," IFPRI book chapters, in: Falck-Zepeda, Jose Benjamin & Gruère, Guillaume P. & Sithole-Niang, Idah (ed.), Genetically modified crops in Africa: Economic and policy lessons from countries south of the Sahara, chapter 1, pages 25-41, International Food Policy Research Institute (IFPRI).
    18. Oliver Musshoff & Norbert Hirschauer, 2011. "A behavioral economic analysis of bounded rationality in farm financing decisions," Agricultural Finance Review, Emerald Group Publishing Limited, vol. 71(1), pages 62-83, May.
    19. Nielsen, Chantal Pohl & Thierfelder, Karen & Robinson, Sherman, 2003. "Consumer preferences and trade in genetically modified foods," Journal of Policy Modeling, Elsevier, vol. 25(8), pages 777-794, November.
    20. Malva, Antonio Della & Hussinger, Katrin, 2012. "Corporate science in the patent system: An analysis of the semiconductor technology," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 84(1), pages 118-135.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:ags:phajad:165848. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: AgEcon Search (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/searcph.html .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.