liberalization of industrial tariffs with Germany, France and UK gaining 3.6 times more. Conversely, the loss from TRIPS obligation is 18 times greater for Korea than gains from Uruguay Round tariff liberalization and the costs outweigh benefits 7 times for Mexico and 4.7 times for China.
     Well-known trade economists who advocate free trade have also written harshly on the imbalances of TRIPS and the adverse effects on competition caused by the upward harmonization of IP standards induced by TRIPS. For ex­ample some have argued that the TRIPS Agreement be re­moved from the WTO because the WTO is meant to be about mutual gains in trade and IP protection is a tax on poor countries' use of knowledge, hence constitutes a wealth transfer to the rich countries (Bhagwati, 2001). Others ar­gue that if it is not removed at least some of its provisions should be renegotiated (Srinivasan, 2000). The arguments put forward that high IP standards benefit developing coun­tries center around the encouragement of local innovation and the likelihood that foreign enterprises would be more willing to transfer technology and to invest.
     "These a priori arguments are based on the premises that first IPR protection of the type imposed by TRIPS is needed to encourage innovation and second that foreign en­terprises place a significant weight on the strength of IPR protection regime. The theoretical justification for and even more importantly the empirical evidence in support of both these premises is not at all strong. ... It would appear that patent protection as a spur to innovation does not appear to be powerful in the real world. And the cost to the general public of restricting access to new technology through pat­enting may be high."

3.3.7     Ways forward
The shortcomings and inherent inequities in existing intel­lectual property systems, especially patents, are increasingly acknowledged, with concerns over the net adverse impact of intellectual property rights (IPRs) on developing coun­tries, who remain net IPR importers. The WTO Agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPS) sets global minimum standards on IPRs. There is debate over the role of IPRs in development, with some claiming that high IPR protection is necessary to ensure re­turns to research investment and innovation. Yet, evidence shows that the monopoly of knowledge afforded by IPRs can be detrimental to development goals. Historically, IPRs were applied mainly to mechanical inventions, or to artistic creations, however the assignment of IPRs to living things is of relatively recent origin in developed countries. While these issues are still being debated and not fully addressed yet, regrettably, higher protection of IPRs, even going be­yond that required under the TRIPS Agreement, is increas­ingly advocated in free trade agreements, particularly with developed countries like the United States.
     IPR standards under trade agreements have contributed to a shift in AKST, by facilitating private sector dominated research and consequently privately-generated and owned AKST. Patents and to some extent plant variety protection (PVP), have played a part in the major consolidation of the global seed and agricultural input corporations, many

of which are also developing transgenic crops. The need to consolidate patent portfolios and hence ensure freedom to operate appears to have created incentives for this consoli­dation. In this private sector dominated context, market forces rather than food security needs have dictated the di­rection of research in general. At the same time, public sec­tor research is either stagnating or declining and also faces barriers in terms of IPRs preventing access to research ma­terials, tools and technologies. Public sector research needs to be strengthened and better funded. The objective should be to ensure that research is oriented to address the needs of poor and small farmers. There is a need for governments to consider the use of competition law (e.g., antitrust) to re­spond to the high level of concentration in the private sector. While some national level action has been taken to break monopolies and encourage competition, there is no interna­tional mechanism to deal with such issues.
     The international trade regime raises issues of relevance, adequacy, affordability and access to AKST; in particular, IPRs may restrict access to plant material for farmers and threaten farmers' rights. For farmers and rural producers, knowledge is increasingly becoming an economic good for which they are willing to pay and are paying significant costs. However, IPRs may restrict access to plant material for farmers. Patented seeds cost more as patent owners have a monopoly and can charge high prices. There are consid­erable dangers to food security if seeds are overpriced to the exclusion of poor and small farmers. The consolidation of the global seed and agricultural input corporations and their subsequent monopoly over the agricultural chain also results in high prices for agricultural inputs.
     The spread of private IPRs is also considered to be a threat to the rights of farmers to save, use, exchange and sell seeds that have been subject to proprietary claims, even though it is farmers who have played a crucial role in con­serving, developing and making available plant genetic re­sources that are the basis of food and agriculture and these are the very practices that have formed the basis of their traditional role in conservation and development. IPRs can thus stifle local innovation and research. Furthermore, Ge­netic Use Restriction Technologies (GURTs) or "termina­tor" technologies can be used to biologically prevent seeds from germinating in order to protect proprietary claims of IPR-holders. This has tremendous impact on small farmers and indigenous communities and has been heatedly debated under the Convention on Biological Diversity, under which a de facto moratorium on field-testing and commercializa­tion of GURTs exists.
     Currently, farmers' rights are not yet adequately pro­tected through effective means, both domestically and in­ternationally. The International Treaty on Plant Genetic Resource for Food and Agriculture is a start, as it acknowl­edges the role and contribution that farmers have played in conserving and developing plant genetic resources. Parties have an obligation to protect and promote farmers' rights, including the right to save, use, exchange and sell farm-saved seed/propagating material. However, these rights are subject to national law. Implementation of farmers' rights at the na­tional and international level is critical to ensure continued conservation and maintenance of agricultural biodiversity