196 | North America and Europe (NAE) Report

for. The new plant must be distinct from other available varieties. The plants must display homogeneity. The trait or traits unique to the new variety must be stable so that the plant remains true to type after repeated cycles of propaga­tion. Protection can be obtained for a new plant variety how ever it has been obtained, e.g., through conventional breed­ing techniques or genetic engineering. (UPOV, 1991)
     In 2001, the FAO Conference adopted the International Treaty on Plant Genetic Resources for Food and Agricul­ture. This legally binding Treaty covers all plant genetic re­sources relevant to food and agriculture and is in harmony with the Convention on Biological Diversity. The Treaty is vital in ensuring the continued availability of the plant ge­netic resources that countries will need to feed their people. Through the Treaty, countries agree to establish an efficient, effective and transparent Multilateral System to facilitate access to plant genetic resources for food and agriculture and to share the benefits in a fair and equitable way. The Multilateral System applies to over 64 major crops and forages. The Governing Body of the Treaty, which will be composed of the countries that have ratified it, will set out the conditions for access and benefit-sharing in a "Material Transfer Agreement" (MTA).
     There have been several extensions of patenting, espe­cially in the direction of patenting gene sequences, totally or partially. The United States has now issued patents on pro­tein coordinates (i.e., on the result of physical measurements of proteins to define their precise shape). The monopoly that is actually claimed in these patents is the use of the measured coordinates in computer programs to attempt to model the interaction of the protein with other chemicals that might be   candidates   for   therapeutics   (Knoppers   and   Scriver, 2004).

5.5.2.2 Uncertainties of the future Bits of information or research tools are contributions to product development, but economically, there is little or no independent value in these piecemeal inventions or discover­ies. The economic value derives from the final product. Why can't firms or public research rely completely on biotechnol­ogy firms to improve their products? What kinds of incen­tives must be offered to develop new research tools in public research? What will be the impact on industry of products coming off patent? Will industry continue to be interested in high-risk low-payoff products or will it concentrate on blockbusters? Will the public procurement model be devel­oped, especially for products such as vaccines?
     How far will the World Intellectual Property Organi­zation (WIPO) go to harmonize international patent law? Will patent law ever be harmonized? Will world patents be created? How far will the collective networks in the field of agricultural biotechnologies manage to achieve co-develop­ment and patents for novel technologies?

5.5.3 Access, control and distribution of Agricultural Knowledge, Science and Technology
In this subchapter we look at what kind of major arrange­ments there are for access, control and distribution of AKST, how they evolved until now and why: which were the main drivers? How do they differ among North American, Euro­pean Union and non-EU Eastern European countries and

 

Russia and why: what kind of differences were there in the drivers?
     Access, control and distribution of AKST covers issues of funding and management of formal AKST structures, participation of different stakeholders and beneficiaries in agenda setting, R&D processes, interpretation and applica­tion of results, dissemination, extension and communica­tion processes, relevance of solutions, appropriateness of technologies and options for spillovers for different benefi­ciaries. The futures of access, control and distribution of AKST is very much influenced by the futures of actors of the KST systems and models of knowledge production (5.3).

5.5.3.1 Ongoing trends
Access of farmers was arranged in USA through decen­tralized, integrated AKST and in Russia and part of CEE through top-down  "chain-of-command"  with no public extension service (Miller et al., 2000). Decline in public funding has been linked with even higher decline in public control of AKST since the 1980s. The role of the private sector has increased in the management of public funds and publicly funded and performed R&D, with a decreasing net flow of public funds to private research (Alston et al., 1998). Due to privatization, there is less focus on farm-level technologies and on equity and distributional issues and on public goods (Alston et al., 1998; BANR, 2002) and less AKST is available in the public domain. Again on public support, only £219 million of the annual UK government subsidy of £3102 millions to agriculture (not including the additional subsidies for foot and mouth disease) was used to create positive externalities (Pretty et al., 2005). Farm­ers' influence and participation since WWII declined but has recently been increasing (Romig et al., 1995; Walter et al., 1997; Wander and Drinkwater, 2000; Groot et al., 2004; Morris, 2006; Ingram and Morris, 2007). However, tech­nologies have sought to increase the scale of food chain ac­tors and the industrialization of the farm sector, and are less appropriate for poor farming communities (Alston et al., 1998; BANR, 2002). The power of the retail end of the food chain has increased, but whether consumers now have more influence is open to debate (Buhler et al., 2002).
     Since the 1970s, competition and short-termism have been penetrating in public AKST to broaden its scope and make it more transparent and efficient (Alston et al., 1998; Buhler et al., 2002). We might ask whether economic ef­ficiency has failed to reach its goal. (Buttel, 1986; Huffman and Just, 1999, 2000) According to creativity research, ex­treme competition and lack of safety are a serious threat to creativity and true innovation. Recently, governments have been shifting towards funding multi-annual programs and long-term thematic areas with a considerable stakeholder involvement in the process and stronger links among AKST components, to increase efficiency and reduce fragmenta­tion of solutions (OECD, 1999). The target is seen in inno­vative, interactive AKST, and the role of AKST in becoming a partner by contributing to the decision-making processes rather than prescribing optimal solutions (OECD, 1999).

Drivers
A major driver for privatization (see also 3.4.1) was the shift in paradigms towards the recognition of markets as