Unequal Exchange? Recent Transfers of Agricultural Resources and their Implications for Developing Countries

Abstract

Plant genetic resources constitute the biological basis for plant breeding and future agricultural development. Their transfer from developing to developed countries over centuries has sometimes been viewed as an example of exploitation, if not ‘biopiracy’. Modern gene flows are different in character and magnitude from historic exchanges, however. This article examines current patterns and finds that developing countries are major net recipients of germplasm samples from CGIAR centres, particularly if ‘improved materials’ are considered. Potentially problematic, intellectual property rights do not currently present major barriers to the availability and use of genetic resources by developing countries. Proposals to restrict flows and redress perceived injustices may reduce the benefits accruing at present to developing countries from germplasm exchanges.

Agriculture-Food Ethics/Policy and Our Future: An Economy-Politic and Beyond Sociological Famework

“…Özellikle de üçüncü teknolojik devrim (27) olarak adlandırılan biyoteknoloji gelişmeleri ve uygulamalarının yaygınlaşması teknolojinin pek çok alanda olduğu gibi gıda konusunda da yeni riskler ve sorunlar gündeme getirmiştir. Bu anlamda da bu gelişmelerin yansımalarının bireysel değil ulusal ve küresel boyutları ile birlikte ele alınmasını kaçınılmaz kılmıştır (28,29,30,31,32,33). Sorunun bireysel/aktör boyutuna bakıldığında, tüketim toplumu olma ve iletişim teknolojilerinin iyi tüketiciler yaratma süreçleri üzerinden gıda da kültür endüstrisi ürününe dönüşmektedir (34, s. 201).…”

What kind of goods are plant genetic resources for food and agriculture? Towards the identification and development of a new global commons

“…Eventually, the number of available samples would be reduced to the point where one person's use of those samples could deprive availability of the underlying accession to be used by others. It is a testimony to the fact that the ex situ collections have existed for so long -with relatively solid funding and impressive record of international distributions (Fowler et al 2001;Byerlee and Dubin 2010;SGRP 2011) -that this way of considering PGRFA's potential rivalry does not 'leap to the fore' more readily. The argument in favour of PGRFA's potential rivalrousness is further strengthened when one considers that some (possibly much -we don't actually know) of the materials maintained in the international and national genebanks no longer exist 'in the field'.…”

“…From the late 1960s onwards, considerable human efforts, coordinated at the international level (under the auspices of FAO and the CGIAR centres), were expended to collect and conserve PGRFA (ex situ) and increase its availability through collections coordinated by the International Board on Plant Genetic Resources, establishment of the international network of base collections, and the steady growth of internationally accessible collections hosted by the CGIAR centres, some regionally based organizations, and some national agricultural research programs, such as in the USA, Germany, and the Netherlands (Fowler 1994;Pistorius 1997;Wilkes 1988). The results of these efforts have been so successful that there is now more genetic diversity of some crops represented in single genebank than may exist in situ in that crop's historical center of diversity (Wilkes 1988;Fowler et al 2001).…”

Crop improvement in the CGIAR as a global success story of open access and international collaboration

“…From 1994 to 2000, CIMMYT distributed 1.2 million samples to over 100 countries -equivalent to the shipment of over 11 tons of wheat seed annually (Fowler et al 2001). Figure 1 shows the management of this process over a four-year cycle from seed multiplication to return of final results.…”