Posts

Posted on

IP for smallholder farmers

Thanks a lot to Susan Bragdon for summarizing her latest paper for us.

The Quaker United Nations Office has released a paper by Chelsea Smith and myself looking at the relationship between intellectual property (IP) and small scale farmer innovation. The paper will also be available in Chinese, French and Spanish shortly.

IP systems are an attempt to incentivize innovation in agriculture and ensure its availability to the public. The familiar mantra holds that breeders and scientists need incentives to create. However, the majority of innovation in agriculture happens in absence of IP rights — on the farm, by small-scale farmers. And what they’re doing is important.

While small-scale farmers themselves are typically not driven to conserve, develop, adapt, invent and otherwise display their immense ingenuity for the ends of attaining exclusionary rights to commercialize their “products”, some kinds of IP tools have the potential to actively support their efforts. Or at the very least leave farmers to do what they do in peace. The paper discusses how alternative or sui generis plant variety protection systems (as opposed to UPOV-style PVP systems), collective and certification trademarks, and geographical indications may support on-farm innovation — when carefully selected and adapted to suit the realities of domestic agricultural sectors.

On the other hand, IP tools that are more conventionally believed to incentivize innovation in agriculture (i.e. patents, UPOV-style PVP systems, and less commonly trade secrets) may actually impede farmers’ innovation.

The paper is part of QUNO’s work to build mutual understanding of the importance of small scale farmers and agrobiodiversity across treaty bodies of relevance. There is quite a complex international legal architecture relating to small-scale farmers, innovation and IP, including the CBD, Nagoya Protocol, ITPGRFA, WTO TRIPS Agreement, UPOV and the WIPO IGC. Unfortunately, we have very little, if any real collaboration going on among the secretariats of these treaties to try to establish some coherence: coordination tends to be limited to formal reports sent from one governing body to another. We’re going to need to do a lot better in order to meet SDG 2 relating to food security.

Posted on

Finger on the pulse in Rio

ResearchBlogging.orgMy latest from the work blog:

There seems to be a bit of an issue over at the Olympics with fast food marketing, but if athletes in Rio, or indeed spectators, want a simple, cheap meal that’s also healthy, and hopefully sourced more sustainably, they could do a lot worse than tucking into the Brazilian staple of rice and beans (but don’t forget the vegetables and the tropical fruit juice). This is such an established part of Brazilian life that EMBRAPA, the country’s agricultural research organization, has a whole research unit called Arroz e Feijão – Rice & Beans.

Unfortunately, the level of attention beans get in Brazil is not typical around the world, even in other places that eat a lot of them, and the situation is even worse for other pulses – the general term often used to refer to the dry seeds of members of the plant family Leguminosae (technically, it’s now called the Fabaceae, but life is too short as it is), crops like chickpeas, lentils, peanuts, cowpeas and a host of others. That, at least, is the contention of a paper just published in Nature Plants 1, which also sets out to show that this relative neglect has been bad for global food and nutritional security.

Table 1 from the paper, which I discuss in the post, is also available as a website listing various resources for each pulse species.