Intellectual Property Rights (IPR) is that area of law concerning patents, trademarks, trade secrets, copyrights and plant variety protection (plant breeders' rights (PBR). These are rights granted by state authority for certain products of intellectual effort and ingenuity. IPR generally stimulates local innovation, public/private sector collaboration and also encourage investment from abroad. In the technological field, intellectual property may be seen as a recognition by the state of the contribution of the innovation to the development of new or improved products and industrial technology.

There are however, no internationally accepted guidelines for the management of IPR, and a wide range of opinions exists regarding the utility of IPR. This situation is aggravated when it concerns IPR protection in biotechnology in general and agricultural biotechnology in particular. The legal protection of biotechnological innovations remains very sensitive and complex. This is simple because new bio-processes involve in the manufacture of living organisms do not fit squarely in the existing traditional systems for the protection of IPR, thus leading to a great deal of uncertainties surrounding IPR for biotechnology. Uncertainties because of the controversies surrounding IPR protection of life forms (plants and animals), and also the lack of an established practice in protecting such living materials. There is an urgent need for developing countries to define policies for IPR in order to meet up with the changing objectives of national research programs, and specifically the changing attitudes towards intellectual property protection of biotechnology.

The legal protection of biotechnological innovations is no longer a myth but reality. In most industrialized countries, there has been a remarkable extension of patent coverage to micro-organisms, which has been so far very instrumental in the pharmaceutical innovations. In agricultural biotechnology therefore, the types of rights of most interest are patents and plant breeder's rights (PBR). In a nutshell, a patent is a right granted by the government to inventors to exclude others from imitating, manufacturing, using or selling a specific invention for commercial use during a certain period usually 17-20 years in industrialized countries. To patent an invention (new product or process) it must be seen to be new, inventive and to have an industrial or other practical use. Patents generally encourage disclosure of technological information as against secrecy and also enhance investment in the production and marketing of new products and processes. On the other hand, plant breeders' rights (PBR) are rights granted by the government to plant breeders to exclude others from producing or commercializing materials of a specific plant variety for a period of minimally 15-20 years. To obtain a PBR for a new variety, it must be distinct from known varieties, uniform and stable in its essential characteristics

IPR protection generally and in agricultural biotechnology in particular is currently the subject of extensive and heated debate in both national and international circles. It is clear that international harmonization of both patent laws and PBR have taken place in the Paris Convention for the Protection of Industrial Property Rights and the "Union Internationale Pour la Protection des Obtentions Végétales" (UPOV) respectively. The question raised is whether such harmonization processes have gone a long way to water down the vigour created by the gap existing between developing and industrialized countries? In international negotiations especially within the General Agreement on Tariff and Trade (GATT) and also in bilateral trade negotiations especially those with the USA, industrialized countries do exert a lot of pressure on developing countries to either introduce or strengthen their IPR protection. China and Thailand among other countries for example were urged during bilateral negotiations to revise their patent systems. Thailand adopted a new patent act after the U.S.A government had withdrawn her trade benefits under the General System of Preference. In India, controversy over IPR with the US government let to the postponement of the Indo-US Vaccine Action Program and the Indo-US Science and Technology Initiative. It is settled that adequate protection of IPR is coupled with a good number of advantages. An Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) source, 1989 clearly identifies a number of arguments in favour of a strong and adequate IPR protection. As per the source, IPR do encourage and safeguard intellectual and artistic creation, disseminate new ideas and technologies quickly and widely, promote investment and finally provides consumers with the results of creation and invention.

From all indications, the above-mentioned advantages or arguments for a strong IPR protection cannot be the same for both industrialized and developing countries. This is as a result of the gap existing between the two poles. There are however, arguments that strong IPR protection in developing countries hampers rather than promotes in - country innovation since most of these rights are granted for foreign institutions. Such systems of IPR only benefit the foreign industries or multilateral corporations of industrially developed countries at the expense of the developing countries. This is the more reason most IPR regulations in developing countries often have short protection terms, with strong compulsory licensing provisions in order to ensure that national industries should be able to have access to new technologies. In order to mitigate such circumstances, it is therefore imperative for each developing country to have its own national system of IPR which is open to its own nationals and to those of other countries. The Trade Related Aspects of IPR generally referred to as the TRIPS Agreement is designed to ensure greater convergence on intellectual property between industrialized and developing countries. Article 27 (3)(b) provides for the protection of plant varieties either by patents or by an effective sui generis system or by a combination thereof.

In order to build an effective national capability in biotechnology, developing countries should be able to take into consideration alternative sources to help them determine IPR options for biotechnology. National policies on IPR, be they stringent or permissive must be able to meet up with the specific needs of the country concern. Developing countries are therefore faced with the challenge of may be establishing a sui generis system of protection which can genuinely protect their interests vis-à-vis their industrialized partners. IPR protection of biotechnological innovations should be encouraged in order to enhance food security and other advantages that can be reaped from biotechnology.

WORKING DOCUMENTS