A novel method for assessing risks to pollinators from plant protection products using honeybees as a model species

Pollination is one of the most important ecosystem services in agroecosystems and supports food production. Pollinators are potentially at risk being exposed to pesticides and the main route of exposure is direct contact, in some cases ingestion, of contaminated materials such as pollen, nectar, flowers and foliage. To date there are no suitable methods for predicting pesticide exposure for pollinators, therefore official procedures to assess pesticide risk are based on a Hazard Quotient. Here we develop a procedure to assess exposure and risk for pollinators based on the foraging behaviour of honeybees (Apis mellifera) and using this species as indicator representative of pollinating insects. The method was applied in 13 European field sites with different climatic, landscape and land use characteristics. The level of risk during the crop growing season was evaluated as a function of the active ingredients used and application regime. Risk levels were primarily determined by the agronomic practices employed (i.e. crop type, pest control method, pesticide use), and there was a clear temporal partitioning of risks through time. Generally the risk was higher in sites cultivated with permanent crops, such as vineyard and olive, than in annual crops, such as cereals and oil seed rape. The greatest level of risk is generally found at the beginning of the growing season for annual crops and later in June–July for permanent crops.

Plants growing on contaminated and brownfield sites appropriate for use in Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development terrestrial plant growth test

The Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) Terrestrial plant test is often used for the ecological risk assessment of contaminated land. However, its origins in plant protection product testing mean that the species recommended in the OECD guidelines are unlikely to occur on contaminated land. Six alternative species were tested on contaminated soils from a former Zn smelter and a metal fragmentizer with elevated concentrations of Cd, Cu, Pb, and Zn. The response of the alternative species was compared to two species recommended by the OECD; Lolium perenne (perennial ryegrass) and Trifolium pratense (red clover). Urtica dioica (stinging nettle) and Poa annua (annual meadow-grass) had low emergence rates in the control soil so may be considered unsuitable. Festuca rubra (chewings fescue), Holcus lanatus (Yorkshire fog), Senecio vulgaris (common groundsel), and Verbascum thapsus (great mullein) offer good alternatives to the OECD species. In particular, H. lanatus and S. vulgaris were more sensitive to the soils with moderate concentrations of Cd, Cu, Pb, and Zn than the OECD species.

Plant variety protection in developing countries: A view from the private seed industry in India

Many developing countries are currently engaged in designing and implementing plant variety protection systems. Encouraging private investment in plant breeding is the key rationale for extending intellectual property rights to plant varieties. However, the design of plant variety protection systems in developing countries has been dominated by concerns regarding the inequities of a plant variety protection system, especially the imbalance in the reward structure between plant breeders and farmers. The private seed industry, a key stakeholder in plant variety protection, appears to be playing only a peripheral role in the design of the intellectual property rights regime. This paper explores the potential response of the private seed industry in India to plant variety protection legislation based on a survey of major plant breeding companies. The survey finds that the private seed industry in India is generally unenthusiastic about the legislation and plant variety protection is likely to have only a very limited impact on their research profile and expenditures on plant breeding. Measures designed to curb the 'excessive' profits of breeders, farmers' rights provisions and poor prospects for enforcement of rights are seen to be seriously diluting breeders' rights, leaving few incentives for innovation. If the fundamental objective of plant variety protection is to stimulate private investment in plant breeding, then developing countries need to seriously address the question of improving appropriability of returns from investment.

Plant variety protection, innovation, and transferability: Some empirical evidence

Under the Agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights, all member-countries of the World Trade Organization are required to provide an "effective" system of plant variety protection within a specific time frame. In many developing countries, this has led to a divisive debate about the fundamental desirability of extending intellectual property rights to agriculture. Empirical studies on the economic impacts of plant variety protection, especially its ability to generate large private sector investments in plant breeding and to facilitate the transfer of technology, have been very limited. This paper examines two aspects of the international experience of plant variety protection: (a) the relationship between legislation, research, and development expenditures and plant variety protection grants, i.e., the innovation effect and (b) the role of plant variety protection in facilitating the flow of varieties across countries, i.e., the transferability effect.

Modelling economic returns to plant variety protection in the UK

This paper attempts an empirical assessment of the incentive effects of plant variety protection regimes in the generation of crop variety innovations. A duration model of plant variety protection certificates is used to infer the private appropriability of returns from agricultural crop variety innovations in the UK over the period 1965-2000. The results suggest that plant variety protection provides only modest appropriability of returns to innovators of agricultural crop varieties. The value distribution of plant variety protection certificates is highly skewed with a large proportion of innovations providing virtually no returns to innovators. Increasing competition from newer varieties appears to have accelerated the turnover of varieties reducing appropriability further. Plant variety protection emerges as a relatively weak instrument of protection.

Concentration in the ownership of plant variety rights: Some implications for developing countries

This paper explores concentration levels in the ownership of intellectual property rights over plant varieties worldwide. An analysis of data for 30 UPOV member-countries shows a high degree of concentration in the ownership of plant variety rights for six major crops at the national level in the developed world. Much of this concentration has arisen owing to the rapid consolidation of the seed industry through mergers and acquisitions, especially in the 1990s. A high degree of concentration in the ownership of plant variety rights, in combination with recent efforts to strengthen plant variety protection regimes, is likely to have significant effects on the prospects for future innovation in plant breeding and the distribution of market power between companies. For developing countries, concentration in intellectual property right ownership may have important implications for the structure of domestic seed industries and access to protected varieties and associated plant breeding technologies. These implications for developing countries are likely to become apparent in the context of the rapid spread of plant variety protection and access legislation, emerging changes in the international exchange regime for plant material and liberalised investment policies permitting foreign investment in the seeds sector.

Concentration in ownership of plant variety rights: some implications for developing countries

This paper explores concentration levels in the ownership of intellectual property rights over plant varieties worldwide. An analysis of data for 30 UPOV member-countries shows a high degree of concentration in the ownership of plant variety rights for six major crops at the national level in the developed world. Much of this concentration has arisen owing to the rapid consolidation of the seed industry through mergers and acquisitions, especially in the 1990s. A high degree of concentration in the ownership of plant variety rights, in combination with recent efforts to strengthen plant variety protection regimes, is likely to have significant effects on the prospects for future innovation in plant breeding and the distribution of market power between companies. For developing countries, concentration in intellectual property right ownership may have important implications for the structure of domestic seed industries and access to protected varieties and associated plant breeding technologies. These implications for developing countries are likely to become apparent in the context of the rapid spread of plant variety protection and access legislation, emerging changes in the international exchange regime for plant material and liberalised investment policies permitting foreign investment in the seeds sector. (C) 2003 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Review: intellectual property aspects of plant transformation

One of the recurring themes of the debates concerning the application of genetic transformation technology has been the role of Intellectual Property Rights (IPR). This term covers both the content of patents and the confidential expertise usually related to methodology and referred to as 'Trade Secrets'. This review explains the concepts behind patent protection, and discusses the wide-ranging scope of existing patents that cover all aspects of transgenic technology, from selectable markers and novel promoters to methods of gene introduction. Although few of the patents in this area have any real commercial value, there are a small number of key patents that restrict the 'freedom to operate' of new companies seeking to exploit the methods. Over the last 20 years, these restrictions have forced extensive cross-licensing between ag-biotech companies and have been one of the driving forces behind the consolidation of these companies. Although such issues are often considered of little interest to the academic scientist working in the public sector, they are of great importance in any discussion of the role of 'public-good breeding' and of the relationship between the public and private sectors.