Subject: Response to "Movement of FAnGR germplasm and IP protection"

Date: 17.02.2006

These are some thoughts in response to the comments by Professor Gibson on access, benefit-sharing, and the perceived danger of lack of R&D investment in the absence of IP protection.

He suggested conducting a comprehensive survey of the use of FAnGR germplasm over the past few hundred years. In this context it is of interest that two studies have been done on this topic, one by the University of Hohenheim (Germany) and another one by the League for Pastoral Peoples. The latter study is entitled “Herd Movements. The exchange of livestock breeds and genes between the South and the North” and can be downloaded from www.pastoralpeoples.org. One of the results of this study is that it is very difficult to quantify exchange of genetic materials between the north and the south, as well as in general, because very few records have been kept.

We agree that the world has benefited enormously from the comparatively free exchange of AnGR over the last centuries, and even millennia. Access to new genetic material has always been the basis for genetic improvement. But this is exactly what is at stake at the moment- if patenting becomes widespread. For one, who wants to sell breeding animals to other countries, if there is danger that some of their genetic traits or genetic information might be patented?

We feel that the concept of access and benefit-sharing may not be appropriate for animal genetic resources, and that we should be cautious of transferring this concept - that was originally developed for wild biodiversity (esp. medicinal plants) - to our domestic animals. Although we are not aware of any ABS agreements having been negotiated with respect to AnGR, we can learn lessons from the plant sector. There the experience shows that such deals often concentrate control and economic returns in the hands of the access providing government while few if any benefits percolate down to the farmers themselves who provide the genetic material.

Dr. Gibson suggests that weak or absent IPR protection represents a disincentive for R&D.

But we should also analyse whether the kind of R&D that is envisioned here is actually desirable from the perspective of human society at large. It is unfortunately a historical fact that much R&D in the livestock sector has not been to the benefit of farmers or livestock keepers. While it has undoubtedly enhanced animal production, it has also led to increased concentration and control over breeding in the hands of the commercial sector, or a few companies, in some countries. Farmers have lost their independence. But livestock genetic diversity has been created and is still being sustained – at least in developing countries - by breeders and breeding communities making their own breeding decisions in response to their particular ecological and economical environments. If these livestock keepers also become dependent on a few globally operating companies that have obtained control over AnGR through IPR protection, then this will spell the end of the sustainable management of AnGR, at least in vivo. Is this really what we want?  The answer of course depends on one’s individual vision of the future, but there are many people and communities in the world for whom livestock keeping and an emotional, rather than technical or purely commercial, relationship with animals is part of their culture and identity. Let’s make sure that they are accorded “Livestock Keepers’ Rights” as articulated in the Karen Commitment.

Dr. med. vet. habil. Ilse Koehler-Rollefson

League for Pastoral Peoples and Endogenous Livestock Development

Pragelatostr. 20

64372 Ober-Ramstadt

Tel. +49-6154-53642

ilse@pastoralpeoples.org