Chapter 4
Innovation and productivity
Introduction
4.1
The productivity of Australian agriculture, which refers to the
efficiency of using inputs to produce a specific level of outputs, is critical
to the viability of farming given the reduced terms of trade outlined in Chapter
1. This section of the report briefly discusses the importance of agricultural
research and development to drive innovation and productivity gains in the
agricultural sector.
4.2
The Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry (DAFF) explained
that:
Productivity growth has been the main driver of growth in
agricultural output in Australia, enabling farmers to remain internationally
competitive and sustain their businesses and incomes.[1]
4.3
A combined submission from red meat industry organisations stated that
'rising input costs and the Australian dollar are severely impacting on
producer margins and viability', and that 'productivity improvements are
essential to maintain affordability for consumers and viability for producers'.[2]
4.4
The Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation (CSIRO)
also commented that a long-term decline in terms of trade meant that 'increases
in productivity are essential to maintain the viability of production'. The
CSIRO submission stated that improvements to input use efficiency and yields
are essential:
4.5
To increase, or at least maintain, the economic viability of production
agriculture a number of major issues need addressing. In essence, the immediate
economic viability of agriculture is determined by the balance struck between
the farm gate returns obtained as a result of yield and quality of the
commodity produced, and the total cost of inputs needed to generate that yield.
Hence, economic viability for growers may be achieved by tackling either of
these factors, but only by controlling or reducing input costs per unit of
product and increasing farm gate returns (by greater yield and or quality) are
we likely to maintain economic viability as well as tackle the problem of food
security.[3]
4.6
In this chapter the committee considers research and development (R&D)
as a productivity driver; current agricultural R&D arrangements in
Australia; recent productivity trends; concerns about declining investment in
R&D; and proposals for specific areas of R&D need. At the end of the
chapter, the committee discusses concerns raised about the effect of plant gene
technology and related patenting activities on future food production.
Research and development driving productivity
4.7
The Rural Industries Research and Development Corporation (RIRDC) told
the committee that innovation through R&D is a key driver for diversifying
into new rural industries and achieving strong productivity growth in
traditional ones:
In the face of climate change, new industries may provide
greater resilience for Australia’s agricultural regions, through:
- greater diversity of agricultural options better suited to
future climates
- greater water use efficiency
- better heat tolerance
- a lighter greenhouse footprint.
Through well-targeted R&D, new industries can also
provide alternative crops and farming systems for irrigation areas in crisis;
more drought resistant crops and animals for dryland situations; and more
greenhouse efficient and heat tolerant crops and systems to enable us to make
better use of our water-abundant tropical northern areas.[4]
4.8
The DAFF submission explained the contributing factors to productivity
growth, highlighting the importance of technological advancement through
innovation as a key component:
Productivity growth has come from expanding outputs, while
increasing efficiency in input use. This may include using fewer inputs
overall, different input combinations, changing the output mix (e.g. shifting
into cropping, away from sheep). Factors external to farm businesses that have
influenced long term productivity over the past thirty years provide an
indication of potential drivers of future productivity growth. These include:
- Drought, which has caused significant downturns in productivity
- Overseas demand - significant growth in overseas demand for
Australian agricultural products has provided strong incentive to innovate and
expand output
- Policy - for example, deregulation during the 1980s and 1990s
caused dramatic adjustments in the agriculture sector, and policy action can
stimulate or slow down productivity
- Water allocations and water markets, which continue to
influence farm decision making and potential productivity gains
- Access to new technologies - facilitating access can enable
productivity growth
Technological progress in particular is a major driver of
productivity gains through shifts in the composition of inputs used. Most notable,
labour use in agriculture has fallen at an average rate of 1.7 per cent a year
over the last thirty years. Rates of growth in capital and land use (per unit
of output) have also fallen. In contrast, there has been a notable rise in the
use of materials and services in agricultural production. Use of these inputs -
including fodder, seed, fuel, chemicals and fertiliser - have increased by 2.4
per cent a year over the last three decades.[5]
4.9
CSIRO told the committee that wheat productivity is comprised of two
elements:
...when you look at historical productivity trends—this is in
terms of yield of the Australian wheat crop—we do about a two per cent increase
in productivity per year. About one per cent of that is in direct genetic gain
for yield. The other per cent or so is from improved management practices.[6]
Agricultural research and development in Australia
4.10
DAFF outlined the Commonwealth's contribution to agricultural innovation
through research and development funding:
Through diverse programs and organisations the Commonwealth
contributes over $500 million to the more than $1.3 billion worth of primary
industries R&D conducted annually in Australia. The principal vehicles are:
- Rural Research and Development Corporations and Companies
(RDCs) ($224 million in Commonwealth funds in 2007-08);
- Cooperative Research Centres (CRCs) ($105 million in direct
funding);
- The Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research
Organisation (CSIRO) (>$250 million);
- The Bureau of Meteorology (BoM);
- Australia's Farming Future administered by DAFF: the Australian
Government's climate change initiative for primary industries. It provides $130
million over four years for a number of programs to help primary producers
adapt and respond to climate change.[7]
4.11
Industry levies on producers are also a major contributor to research
and development funding through rural research and development corporations and
industry owned companies.[8]
4.12
CSIRO is a major source of innovation utilised by Australian producers
for productivity growth through its Livestock Industries and Plant Industry
divisions, as well as its Food Futures and Climate Adaptation National
Flagships.[9]
In evidence to the committee, CSIRO provided an overview of research undertaken
in the following areas, as part of its 'new focus' on food security:
- improving water use efficiency in wheats to improve yields under
dry conditions;[10]
- transferring genes to improve fertiliser use efficiency of wheat
and barley;[11]
- protecting wheat from stem rust;[12]
- improving plant yields by manipulating photosynthesis and making
roots deeper and more efficient;[13]
- genetic markers in livestock to help select for productivity,
quality, net feed intake, tick resistance and methane production traits;[14]
- research on livestock efficient feed conversion and reducing methane
emissions;[15]
-
researching carbon sequestration in soils, particularly effective
measurement;[16]
- improving aquaculture techniques to maximise yield.[17]
Recent productivity trends
4.13
DAFF outlined recent productivity trends in Australian agriculture:
Agricultural productivity growth consistently exceeds
productivity growth in other sectors with agriculture, fisheries and forestry
productivity growth averaging 3.1 per cent over the past 20 years, compared
with 1 per cent economy wide.
Productivity of Australian farms.. has risen strongly for
cropping specialists and the mixed crop-livestock industry - averaging 2.1 per
cent and 1.5 per cent a year respectively from 1977-78 to 2006-07. Beef
specialists achieved the same average performance level as the mixed
crop-livestock industry over the past three decades. Their productivity growth
coincided with high output growth and relatively marginal growth in input use.
The sheep industry continues to lag behind the broadacre sector in terms of
long-term productivity growth. Between 1977-78 and 2006-07, the industry has
experienced a decline in both output and input use...[18]
4.14
Unfortunately, productivity growth has slowed recently following a
spurt, with drought a major contributor:
Broadacre productivity growth appears to be slowing since
around the turn of the century. Similar to most industries, agriculture
experienced a growth spurt in the 1990s, with broadacre productivity growing by
3.4 per cent on average during the 1990s compared to an average of 1.5 per cent
over the last 30 years (1977-78 to 2006-07). In the last decade (between
1997-98 and 2006-07), there appears to be a possibility that productivity
growth has slowed, falling to an average rate of 1.4 per cent a year. Recurring
drought has most likely had a significant impact on productivity growth with
severe downturns in output during drought years 1994-95, 2002-03 and 2006-07.[19]
Declining agricultural research and development
4.15
Although drought has had a significant effect on agricultural
productivity in the past decade, evidence to the committee conveyed
considerable concern that funding for research and development had reached
insufficient levels to maintain necessary productivity improvements in the
future.
4.16
Dr Barry McGlasson, Adjunct Professor with the Centre for Plant and Food
Science at the University of Western Sydney, expressed his concern over recent
cuts to CSIRO funding for agricultural research:
In the May 2008 budget, CSIRO’s budget was cut by $63 million
over four years. CSIRO announced that it was closing some research stations
including beef cattle at Rockhampton Qld, the 90 year-old Horticultural
Research Centre, Merbein, Victoria and further reducing its footprint at the
Food Science Laboratories at North Ryde, NSW. CSIRO no longer conducts work on
the postharvest physiology and technology of fresh foods, and technology of
refrigerated transport. CSIRO management justified these cuts by stating that
it spent 29 per cent of its budget on agriculture whereas agriculture only
contributes 12 per cent of GNP. This ignores the fact that agriculture
generates 30 per cent of Australia’s export income and provides many jobs in
food services, processing and distribution.[20]
4.17
He commented that important scientific capability in the area must be
retained:
These short term responses of Federal and State Governments
to reduce spending on agricultural R&D ignore the fact that our
agricultural success and competitiveness depends on comprehensive and
cumulative programs, over decades. It cannot be traded from year to year in
CRCs and CSIRO Flagships. Once these capabilities are lost it will take decades
to recover.[21]
4.18
The Rural Industries Research and Development Corporation (RIRDC)
suggested that recent R&D cuts could limit essential alternative
agricultural options:
Research capacity for rural industries has declined in
Australia over the last five years and there is concern that this is worsening.
State agencies are rationalizing and concentrating their R&D interests, in
some cases resulting in reduced co-investment in research. This will have a
significant impact on the provision of pertinent R&D for food industries,
and will have a considerable negative impact on the delivery and development of
alternatives to current food industries that are becoming unsustainable.[22]
4.19
A combined submission from red meat industry organisations claimed that
declining public expenditure on R&D threatened future productivity growth:
Public expenditure on rural R&D grew strongly from the
1950s through until the late 1970s but has been flat (on a constant dollar
basis) since then. As a percentage of agricultural GDP, public expenditure on
rural R&D has declined from five percent in 1986 to three percent (Mullen,
2007). Notably, the contribution of rural RDCs to public rural R&D
expenditure has grown from 15 percent in the 1980s to currently 50 percent.
This indicates that there has been a very significant decline in direct
expenditure in rural R&D by Federal and State Governments. If, as is
likely, trends in expenditure on R&D in the red meat industry reflect those
in agriculture overall, then given the long lags involved in the take up of
R&D results there is a real possibility that the acceleration in
productivity growth achieved over the past 10 to 15 years may not be maintained
in future decades.
...
If the Australian red meat industry is to take advantage of
the opportunity offered by growth in global demand for meat over the next few
decades then the relative decline in expenditure on R&D, especially by Federal
and State Governments, must be reversed to ensure productivity growth is at
least maintained.[23]
4.20
Growcom stated that:
There has been a slide in government investment in R&D
over the last, I would say, 10 to 15 years. There has been greater emphasis put
on industry contribution to R&D. That has happened and it is still
happening—and that is happening at both a state level and a federal level. Most
state departments of agriculture around the country have had their budgets
slowly eroded, so their R&D capacity has been decreasing. Federally, an
organisation like CSIRO has found it difficult to continue a major investment
in agricultural R&D. We see that as a challenge in itself, but it also
misses the opportunity that is coming in front of us for Australia to position
itself as an agrifood producer into the future. We see it as a real risk for
the future, and also we are missing opportunities for the future, if there are
not substantive increases in R&D.[24]
4.21
Agforce claimed that the global food task and looming supply constraints
justified increased R&D investment:
With the impact of climate change, increased population
growth, reduced land available for agricultural production and global food
shortages, there is an urgent need for the Government to increase its
investment into research and development.[25]
4.22
Further, Agforce argued that rural research funding is vital to ensure
exporting industries can compete internationally:
It is clear that growth in the productivity of rural
production systems can be directly connected to the percentage value of
production versus investment in R&D, For example the grains industry has
one of the highest investments to value ratios of any commodity in Australia
and also has a high productivity growth, The livestock industries of beef and
wool have relatively low investment levels and similarly low productivity
growth.
...
This trend of reduced productivity following reduced
investment is evident in the fodder industry. This is the forgotten industry of
Australia's food producing enterprises as no statutory levy exists for the
production of fodder and investment from organisations such as GRDC, MLA and
AWL is also very low in the fodder industry...[26]
4.23
The Grains Research Foundation Ltd also argued that declining R&D
needs to be addressed, and proposed that growers increase their contributions
to R&D in the face of state governments exiting the field.[27]
Kondinin Group Ltd (KGL) told the committee that R&D spending needs to be
driven more by the end users (farmers), rather than by scientific institutions
and the bureaucracy. KGL also suggested that there is too much duplication of
R&D.[28]
4.24
From a global perspective, Professor Julian Cribb recommended
international spending on agricultural research be quadrupled, as this could reduce
defence spending necessitated by conflicts related to food shortages:
We are currently spending about $30 billion or $32 billion a
year on agricultural research. If I could contrast that, we are spending $1.3
trillion a year on weapons. Weapons presumably are intended to prevent wars, or
maybe to cause them. But if we invested more in agricultural science—I am
suggesting about $130 billion or $140 billion worldwide per year—we would have
the capacity to prevent wars. So this is actually a form of defence spending. It
is an investment that every wise country needs to make if we are to prevent the
sort of population displacements and the conflicts that arise from them.[29]
Research and development proposals
4.25
The committee heard evidence proposing that increased investment be
directed to R&D in specific areas, as well as some recommendations for
alternative R&D structures.
4.26
To improve innovative solutions from scientific research, CSIRO suggested
that the following areas require further development:
- Ensure greater co-operation and integration of the science
capacity and capability of research groups in State and Commonwealth agencies
and in the Universities. Such integration is essential to generate critical
mass, to ensure effective use of limited resources, and to ensure problems of
major significance are tackled. ...
- Integrate the flow of information between basic and production
science ... The transition of information and breakthroughs along the chain
from genome studies to applications in breeding is often incomplete or
fractured with small groups working in isolation to one another. ...
- Achieve greater acceptance by industry of the global nature of
agriculture and the need to work with other countries and multinational
companies to achieve aims.[30]
4.27
CSIRO also noted that declining advances in cereal yields need to be
addressed with further research:
Over the past 10 years, annual gains in yield from cereal
breeding programs have plateaued to less than a third of those seen between
1960 and 1988. There is a clear need for a transformational advance in cereal
yields over and above the incremental annual increases afforded by current
plant breeding technologies. Evidence is mounting that cereal yields are now
becoming limited by the capacity for the plant to fix sufficient carbon during
its lifecycle and translate this carbon in to harvestable grain. A major focus
needs to be aimed at maximizing yield in a water-limited environment.[31]
4.28
With regard to animal production, CSIRO noted that 'technology adoption
by growers is often a larger hurdle to productivity gains than is scientific
discovery'. However, a focus on leading enterprises rather than the whole
farmer population would be the more effective R&D approach.[32]
CSIRO also identified as priorities research into more efficient fertiliser use
and agronomic and genetic responses to climate change. On crop productivity,
CSIRO noted:
Studies of climate change effects on crop productivity and
quality have not investigated the opportunities for plant breeding solutions,
and have only superficially investigated the interactions of the multiple
climatic effects with each other and with agronomy. Based on existing
knowledge, there is a reasonable expectation that some of our wheat varieties
will differ in their yield response to climate change conditions. However, our
understanding is currently poor regarding the key morphological and
physiological traits that will definitively contribute to high yield and
quality under conditions of elevated CO2.[33]
4.29
A combined submission from red meat industry organisations emphasised
the need for further research on livestock emissions:
Although the current measurement and accounting standards for
net greenhouse gas emissions from livestock are underdeveloped, the red meat
industry acknowledges that emissions is an issue for the industry to further
research. Almost all of the emissions from livestock are in the form of methane
released during the digestion of feedstuff in the rumen of cattle and sheep. A
key to reducing emissions is to maximise an animal’s growth rate through
converting as much as possible of the energy lost through methane emissions
into meat – i.e. through more efficient feed conversion.[34]
4.30
Professor Cribb called for a more concerted research effort towards providing
more efficient water use systems for irrigation farmers:
The amount of science going into making them more water use
efficient or giving them alternative enterprises is pretty small. I think we
should be investing massively. It is our opportunity to be the first country in
the world to solve the problem of critical water shortage in agriculture. We
have that opportunity, but we will not do it without science.[35]
4.31
The Victorian Farmers Federation (VFF) warned against too much R&D
funding going towards carbon reduction measures:
We are a bit concerned at the moment that the majority of the
R&D funding will end up going towards carbon mitigation programs, which we
are not suggesting is unimportant but we cannot avoid adaptation. We are
adapting now and we need to make sure that our capacity to adapt or the R&D
that is aimed at adapting and increasing productivity is also looked at and is
not forgotten in the push to reduce the carbon footprint.[36]
4.32
Murray Goulburn Cooperative commented that producers should be provided
assistance to utilise and benefit from innovations on the ground once they have
been developed:
...the government should really start to look at helping us
out with and encouraging and supporting farmers to try out [new irrigation]
technologies because there is an equity issue, a cash availability issue and
there is the issue of confidence to go ahead with technologies. We are not
going to get rapid uptake of that kind of thing with the way we stand today.
...
Governments tend to underestimate the market failures when
you get quite close to doing something. We have used the example of liquid
natural gas. It is a proven technology. It reduces emissions and reduces cost,
yet it is really struggling as a sector to get off the ground because there is
no production infrastructure and no pumping and filling station infrastructure.
The market for innovation can fail quite close to where the technology is going
to be adopted, and that is true with some of the irrigation technologies. It is
particularly so when you get into drought and get cash strapped, that can slow
it down even further.[37]
4.33
Other evidence proposed altering the structural arrangements for
conducting agricultural R&D in Australia, in order to obtain as much
scientific innovation as possible from each dollar invested. Food Chain
Intelligence proposed a central strategic organisation to co-ordinate the
introduction of new technology into the marketplace and strategic direction for
public R&D.[38]
Dr McGlasson recommended that agricultural R&D be consolidated in one
Commonwealth department, including that currently residing in CSIRO, and
co-locating research laboratories and staff on or adjacent to university
campuses.[39]
The Tasmanian Institute of Agricultural Research noted the benefits of its own
model, a joint venture between the Tasmanian State Government and the
University of Tasmania, and proposed that a similar approach be utilised
nationally.[40]
Plant gene technology issues
4.34
The committee also heard strong concerns about the implication of plant
gene and related biotechnology patents on the availability and cost of the base
materials used for food production.
4.35
Genetically modified (GM) crops are a key aspect of the technological
advances that will increase agricultural productivity by reducing the need for
inputs such as fertiliser and pesticides, and increasing yield. A number of
individuals wrote to the committee expressing concern about these developments,
primarily about the consequences for human safety and the contamination of
non-GM crops.[41]
4.36
DAFF emphasised the importance to food producers of the use of
genetically modified crops:
Biotechnology is expected to play an increasing role in
helping farmers produce affordable food, while remaining competitive and
viable, ensuring farm sustainability and adapting to the challenges of climate
change. Biotechnology has already provided benefits in many countries around
the world, including Australia, particularly through the uptake of genetically
modified (GM) crops.[42]
4.37
The committee acknowledges the concerns people have about the safety of
GM food and a perceived lack of consumer information that would assist people
to choose foods that do not contain GM ingredients. The committee is of the
view, however, that GM technology has the potential to make food more
affordable and nutritious for the world's population, as we enter a time in
which global food security is likely to become increasingly tenuous.
4.38
However, the committee was particularly interested in evidence provided
to the inquiry concerning the patenting of plant gene and related biological technology,
and the implications this may have for future food supply and pricing. These
concerns relate specifically to plant seed suppliers potentially being able to restrict
competition by using the intellectual property system in ways it was never
intended to be used, by patenting biological discoveries (rather than
inventions) and preventing others from commercially utilising critical plant
research infringing on that patent.
4.39
Professor Richard Jefferson emphasised that 'every patent must reflect
an invention—a human creative step'. He indicated that patents unable to
demonstrate this characteristic are not validly granted.[43]
4.40
IP Australia explained that the law is applied in the following way:
An isolated gene sequence for which an industrial or
practical use has been identified is considered an invention under the
Australian patent law.
...
...if you have isolated a molecule, and you have identified a
practical use, an industrial use, for that molecule, then you are entitled to
claim that molecule.
...
...If all you did was isolate the molecule, then all you have
is a discovery. It is the application of the molecule with a practical use that
puts in into the field of invention.[44]
4.41
Professor Luigi Palombi told the committee that patent regulation in
Australia is guided by a 1959 High Court decision on the ability to patent a
weed control method.[45]
According to IP Australia, their approach to granting patents in this field is
founded on existing legislation and legal precedent.[46]
Respectively, these are the Patents Act 1990 and the Australian High
Court's decision in National Research Development Corporation v Commissioner
of Patents (1959).[47]
4.42
Professor Peter Drahos suggested that patent offices were approving
patents invalidly because they had been overwhelmed with applications:
All offices are struggling with the quality issue. The
problem is that the large number of patents puts pressures on patent examiners
in terms of time. Most patents at the most will get about 20 hours of attention
from a patent office. That it is not very much time in which to do a careful
analysis of the many complex patent claims contained in a patent relating to a
gene sequence or a biological process.[48]
4.43
Professor Drahos added that a poor patent decision in a larger country
would tend to be followed in Australia:
Most companies do not begin patent applications in Australia.
The Australian patent office is not an office of first filing. Most companies
will begin a patent application in the United States, within a country in
Europe or in Japan, and will then proceed to obtain other patents in other
countries, usually using a process known as the patent cooperation treaty.
Australia’s office is a second tier office and it is a follower rather than a
leader. If the patent quality work of the major offices is poor then Australia
will tend to follow that poor quality.[49]
4.44
Professor Palombi provided the committee with an example of a patent granted
by IP Australia where no actual invention exists, but the patent holder can
control how that gene is used by others. The patent related to an environmental
stress tolerance gene sequence.[50]
4.45
The Network of Concerned Farmers expressed concern that GM technology is
being used as a vehicle to create a supply monopoly of plant seed:
The drive stems from multinational corporations, such as
Monsanto, manipulating control of seed supplies and food supply. The research
industry is trading knowledge and germplasm in exchange for funding and
alliances with multinationals, enabling corporate companies to own patents over
farmers’ crops.
Competition is currently retained in the food supply because
farmers have the choice to buy and sell from their business of choice. If plant
breeders have agreements with Monsanto to add a Monsanto gene to all new
varieties released, and farmers are required to purchase new seeds every year,
all farmers could be locked into being a contract grower for a single supply
chain. This would effectively remove all opposition, as no alternative supply
chain will be able to access food. What will be the choice and price for food
if controlled by a single supply chain?[51]
4.46
Similarly, Ms Frances Murrell argued that GM technology provides
opportunities for market control rather than productivity benefits for farmers:
...the credible scientific and research literature shows that
genetic modification does not increase the productivity or health of
crops...There are only two commercial traits:
- Herbicide resistance – the crop can be sprayed with a herbicide
and not die
- Insect resistance – the crop is poisonous to certain types of
insects
Herbicide resistance can be created by non-GM breeding for
example Triazine Tolerant canola is resistant to the herbicide Triazine and is
a non-GM crop.
Insect resistance has been created by the transfer of a gene
from a soil bacterium...[52]
4.47
With regard to publicly funded research, Professor Jefferson warned
against upstream researchers being driven by the incentive of recovering money
for their institution:
If intellectual property is looked at as a tool to monetise
at the expense of the ability to create wealth downstream then it is doing a
disservice to society. [53]
4.48
Professor Drahos advocated greater transparency for existing plant
technology patents, via a register system:
...a country like Australia, which is an importer of
technology, should create a transparency register system. Under this system,
what would happen is that a regulator or a policymaker could declare a register
of technology in a particular area. For example, the department of agriculture
could choose a particular crop and require under law all patent owners to
disclose the technology that they hold in relation to that particular plant or
that particular process, so that the department of agriculture would know
exactly what the position was. And there would be penalties for failing to
disclose. This would be a simple and dramatic way in which to increase the
transparency of the system.[54]
4.49
Professor Drahos also suggested that Australian patents should be
audited by an external committee of experts to ensure patents are granted
appropriately.[55]
Committee view
4.50
Innovation through research and development is a key driver of
productivity growth in the agricultural sector, which is in turn absolutely
critical in ensuring that agriculture remains a viable commercial pursuit in
the face of declining terms of trade. It is of considerable concern to the
committee that productivity growth may be affected not only by drought, which
is beyond anybody's control, but by a declining commitment from governments at
both state and federal level to agricultural R&D. It is also worth noting
that innovation is in fact a critical element required to maintain productivity
in climatic conditions that Australian farmers have not experienced for one
hundred years. The committee especially encourages greater investment in water
use efficiency techniques and developing plant varieties better equipped to
resist dry conditions.
Recommendation 2
4.51
The committee recommends that the Rural Industries Research and
Development Corporation (RIRDC) report to the Senate on the current level of
agricultural research in OECD countries as a percentage of GDP and the trend
for investment over the last ten years.
4.52
The committee is also concerned about the potential for plant gene and
related biotechnology patents to be misused, thus limiting the competitiveness
of the market supplying base materials used for food production. It is of great
concern that the evidence to this committee suggests that patents are being granted
with respect to biological discoveries, rather than inventions, which is
clearly contrary to the intended purpose of the intellectual property system.
This issue appears to have been allowed to escape unchecked by intellectual
property regulators, including those in Australia. Whether this is a function
of IP Australia being unable to properly investigate the deluge of patent
applications they receive, or a lack of legal clarity in this area, it is an
issue that must be resolved immediately to ensure that patented biological
discoveries do not prevent important technological innovation.
Recommendation 3
4.53
The committee recommends that IP Australia advise the Senate what patents,
if any, have been granted over biological discoveries as opposed to inventions,
with reasons for them being granted.
Navigation: Previous Page | Contents | Next Page