Intellectual Property Rights and the Politics of Food - The Oxford Topic of Food, Politics, and Society - page 397

that claimed that multinationals such as BASF, DuPont, and Monsanto have sought
many patents related to “climate ready” genetically modified crops. Another study in
2008 identified thirty patents related to drought tolerant genes. In an update in 2010, the
ETC Group claimed that it has identified 262 patent families. Claims related to abiotic
stress tolerance such as drought, salinity, heat, and cold have increased within a short
period. Furthermore, the group claimed that while public-sector institutions owned
9 percent of the patent families, three companies accounted for about 66 percent of
the total.28 While these claims have been contested and the number of patents granted
might turn out to be much smaller with changes in the scope of the claims, this trend
indicates that the private sector will be an important player in developing genetically
modified varieties that are useful in meeting the climate change challenge.
A study done for the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development
(OECD) pointed out that, while patent applications in adaptation related biotechnol-
ogy have increased substantially from 1995 to 2007, more than 80 percent of the pat-
ent applications were related to inventions in OECD member countries. Moreover,
researchers observed that the private-sector plays a key role in adaptation-related bio-
technology innovation as four of the five most active patenting organizations, which
together account for 23 percent of all patent applications, are from the private sector,
although in some countries, such as Japan, China, and Korea, the public sector has had a
significant role (Agarwala et al. 2012).
In 2013 Monsanto's patent application for a method of “enhancing stress tolerance
in plants and methods thereof ” was rejected by India's Intellectual Property Appellate
Board (IPAB), which stated that the technology was merely a discovery of a new prop-
erty of known substance and, hence, could not be considered as an invention under
Section 3(d) of the Indian Patent Act. The IPAB cited Section 3(d) and for the first time
this section has been invoked in the case of plant patents; under Section 3(j) patents
and animals could not be patented. While Monsanto was successful in obtaining patents
in Europe and the United States, the rejection in India raises questions both about the
validity of such claims as inventions and about the possibility for any single system of
intellectual property rights applying across the globe.
While studies based on patent data cannot predict application of technologies, the
increase in patenting activities in agricultural biotechnology has implications for the
transfer and application of technology. Whether the private sector and the public sector
will work together to meet the challenges of climate change in agriculture or whether
intellectual property rights will become barriers to the transfer of technology is not yet
known. The Public-Private Partnership (PPP) model can be used to balance the interests
of the private and public sectors and governments should provide more incentives for
the public sector to develop relevant technologies (Kolady and Lesser 2008). The Green
Revolution constituted a successful example of the application of science and technology
through international partnerships to avert famines and enhance food security (Harriss
and Stewart, this volume). Many models exist in theory. Much discussion is ongoing
concerning how CGIAR centers and public-sector institutions in developing countries
might work together and develop varieties that could be licensed under agreements that