efits. Such research might concentrate on the identification and analysis of the factors conducive to the organization of common-property regimes as opposed to a private-property regime (Orstrom, 2003). The greatest value might be gained from such research if it associates agricultural scientists with social scientists, philosophers, ethicists, public policy prac­titioners and lawyers, with the participation of the public at large and of public institutions in the evaluation and im­plementation of research results. Significant and sustained promotion of interdisciplinarity, public forums and public policy discussions of the nature and implications of property and property law for the future could be useful.

6.4.3.2 Intellectual property rights
Intellectual property rights (IPR) have clearly benefited ag­riculture and the environment. Much of the harmful and contaminating pesticides, insecticides or herbicides have been replaced by generation after generation of proprietary, IP-protected products. Each generation was safer than the previous, both to humans and to the environment and all generations safer than the materials initially used. This en­hanced safety was due to stiffer regulation coupled with the knowledge that there would be IP (Intellectual Property) protection that would cover investments in producing sub­sequent generations. But the downside to this IP protection, due to the pioneering nature of the applications, is the broad coverage that the patent offices granted that often extended beyond the enabling information in the applications. This has led to a few companies obtaining broad coverage, to the point of cornering areas and making it exceedingly hard for others to have freedom to innovate. While patents are most important to reward the discoveries of astute inven­tors, there can indeed be problems in getting wanted and novel products to market, especially from the public sector. For instance, the inability to obtain the license on any one element in developing a transgenic crop can prevent a crop from getting to market, which can be to the detriment of agriculture. Also, patents controlled by large agricultural companies have protected certain enabling technologies essential to agricultural sciences, such as transformation methods, constitutive promoters and selectable markers.
     Reshaping IPR and its associated regulatory environ­ment can facilitate the generation, dissemination, access and use of AKST. Some of the options are listed below:
•     The patent offices can continue the trend to issue nar­rower patents even on pioneering technologies;
•     University groups and the private sector could be en­couraged to pool patents through cross licensing (and free licensing to the developing world). Several inter­esting public initiatives are now coordinating collec­tive networks for the management of patents and other exploitable assets (know-how, software, etc.) held by public research organizations in the field of agricultural biotechnologies (e.g., CAMBIA20 in Australia, PIPRA21

20 CAMBIA is an independent, international nonprofit institute that has been creating new technologies, tools and paradigms to foster collaboration and life-sciences enabled innovation: www.cambia.org.
21 PIPRA (Public Intellectual Property Resource for Agricul-

in USA, EPIPAGRI22 in Europe). They may also ensure common development and patenting of novel biotechno-logical techniques, vectors, genes, etc. They make them available by royalty-free license on the proviso that im­provements be immediately made available to all other licensees. Having the technologies as "open source" leads to what they call "collaborative invention", as all the different players working with the open source material further develop it for all and innovations are quickly disseminated, instead of remaining proprietary knowledge within a company. This is an excellent ra­tionalization of the system, for the common good, with adequate economic incentives for the developer.
•     Consider legislation to allow compulsory licensing, if and when necessary for agriculture and food security (So far this measure has been used or threatened only for pharmaceuticals in relation to critical health issues); and
•     Address the trend wherein patent offices are limiting what had been known as the "American unwritten ex­emption for not for profit research" on using patented intellectual property, which is  being eroded  by the courts. As patent law was written to optimize the acqui­sition of new knowledge and its being put to use while rewarding inventors, it is time for the legislators to cod­ify research exemptions so as not to stifle research.

In conclusion, it would be advisable to have more uniformly accepted and coherent IPR regimes in order to encourage research  and  other  endeavors that would  facilitate the achievement of the MDGs.

6.4.3.3 Access to genetic resources for food and agriculture
The current international basis for the exchange of genetic resources was established in 1992-1994, with the quasi-universal adoption of two international agreements: the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) and the Trade Related Intellectual Property Rights agreements (TRIPs) of the World Trade Organization. The former qualification of genetic resources as human heritage was then replaced by the principle of national sovereignty over natural resources and patentability extended to any domain of invention ap­plied to living organisms. This framework has been further developed with the adoption in 1994 of the International Treaty on Plant Genetic Resources for Food and Agriculture (PGRFA), which adapts the CBD principles to the specific field of agricultural plant genetic resources and establishes a multilateral system for facilitated access and benefit-sharing arising from the use of resources: it allows the use of PGRFA

ture) is a nonprofit initiative that brings together intellectual property from over 40 universities, public agencies, and nonprofit institutes to help make their technologies available to innovators around the world: www.pipra.org.
22 EPIPAGRI is a European project (specific support action) that aims to set up a collective network for the management of patents and other exploitable assets (know-how, software, etc.) held by European public research organizations in the field of agricultural biotechnologies.