Search

Contestations about the way in which digital sequence information is used and regulated have created stumbling blocks across multiple international policy processes. Such schisms have profound implications for the way in which we manage and conceptualize agrobiodiversity and its benefits. This paper explores the relationship between farmers' rights, as recognized in the International Treaty on Plant Genetic Resources for Food and Agriculture, and the dematerialization of genetic resources. Using concepts of "stewardship" and "ownership" we emphasize the need to move away from viewing agrobiodiversity as a commodity that can be owned, toward a strengthened, proactive and expansive stewardship approach that recognizes plant genetic resources for food and agriculture as a public good which should be governed as such. Through this lens we analyze the relationship between digital sequence information and different elements of farmers' rights to compare and contrast implications for the governance of digital sequence information. Two possible parallel pathways are presented, the first envisaging an enhanced multilateral system that includes digital sequence information and which promotes and enhances the realization of farmers' rights; and the second a more radical approach that folds together concepts of stewardship, farmers' rights, and open source science. Farmers' rights, we suggest, may well be the linchpin for finding fair and equitable solutions for digital sequence information beyond the bilateral and transactional approach that has come to characterize access and benefit sharing under the Convention on Biological Diversity. Existing policy uncertainties could be seized as an unexpected but serendipitous opportunity to chart an alternative and visionary pathway for the rights of farmers and other custodians of plant genetic resources. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Social Impact Statement: Patents can be used as a measure of innovation and to illustrate the commercial potential of plant and fungal biodiversity. The proportion of plant species named in patents represents only 6.2% of plant species, whereas the proportion of fungi is likely less than 0.4%. Fungi clearly justify further research. Innovation on a species usually drives more innovation on that species. We suggest that we should ensure that commercialization frameworks encourage studies on a greater diversity of plants and fungi. This could not only increase the range of biodiversity‐based products and associated income but also incentivize their conservation and encourage more fundamental research. Summary: In this review, patents are used as a measure of innovation, and data show that a low proportion of plant and fungal biodiversity is mentioned in patents. The proportion of plant species named in patents represents only 6.2% of plant species, whereas the proportion of fungi is most likely less than 0.4%. The number of species within a plant family mentioned in patents varies greatly. The following families having the greatest numbers: Asteraceae with 1,445 species (4.5% of species), Fabaceae with 1,299 species (5.8%), Poaceae with 1,008 species (8.5%), and Rosaceae with 718 species (12.7%). Case studies from Brazil, Ethiopia, and South Africa explore some of the controversies associated with patenting, especially when patents have not taken prior art into account. In contrast, a case study on plants and fungi used in traditional Chinese medicine illustrates their economic value and their potential to support new innovations. Innovative ways to use plant and fungal biodiversity has the potential to generate wealth, reduce poverty, improve human well‐being and in theory incentivize biodiversity conservation. International and national policies and laws that aim to facilitate equitable benefit‐sharing associated with access to and use of genetic diversity need to be reviewed to help facilitate innovation, as well as ensure that the rights of communities to use these resources are recognized and supported. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]