Abstract
The process of funding plant breeding in
Australia has undergone great change over the past 25 years.
The impact of a change in public policy where state governments
have directed funds towards environmental, social and post farm
gate issues and away from applied plant breeding has been
significant. This paper explores the development of alternative
funding arrangements for plant breeding of major crop species
and looks at factors affecting various stakeholders in the value
chain as a result of these changes.
End Point Royalties have been introduced as a
potential alternative source of funding for plant breeding. All
participants in the supply chain are evaluating its
effectiveness and proposing changes to improve efficiency and
effectiveness. These issues are also raised along with the
problems that they aim to overcome.
Introduction
Advances in plant breeding technology and
associated intellectual property frameworks have made plant
breeding a new and potentially lucrative activity. A gradual
withdrawal of government and institutional support for this
activity has created an unstable environment in an industry that
needs long term funding stability. The concepts of “market
failure” (Grey 2003) and “public good” (Lindner 2004) investment
have been used as reasons to slow the pace of change.
Some breeding organisations have embraced change
and developed and promoted alternative forms of funding rather
than wait for change to be forced upon them. It is these
dynamic organisations that have proven to be successful to
date. The grower levy manager and federal government agency
Grains Research and Development Corporation (GRDC) has been
willing to stand in and take control of the agenda in many of
the critical areas of applied breeding and breeding
infrastructure. Coincidently an expansion of grain production
has increased levy receipts and supported the interventionist
plant breeding policies of GRDC.
Private breeders as represented by the
Australian
Seed Federation – Plant Breeders & Proprietary Marketers Group,
have introduced and promoted the concept of End Point Royalties
(EPR’s) as a potential method of supporting a shift towards
private breeding. The practice and implementation of EPR’s,
however has not been without its problems. Despite this, a
chorus of support emanates from all segments of the supply chain
and this is leading to shared and supported changes to make the
system more efficient and affective.
Funding of Plant Breeding – The past
Australia was not unique in the world when it
came to funding plant breeding. Up until 20 years ago plant
breeding was mainly funded by federal and state governments
(Jarrett 1990). Funds were directed to state departments of
agriculture, universities and a few research institutes for the
purpose of breeding new plant varieties. These organisations
were responsible for over 90% of total expenditure on
agricultural research. (Jarrett, 1990, p.84) Table 1 shows the
level and dominance of varieties bred from these organisations.
Table 1:
The distribution of broadacre plant breeders in Australia in
1985a
|
---------Number of plant
breeders--------- |
|
|
|
State departments |
Universities |
CSIRO |
Total |
Public breeding share of breeding effort
in this crop |
Share of total breeding effort in all
crops |
Wheat |
20.9 |
13.9 |
3.3 |
38.1 |
95% |
43.2% |
Barley |
8.4 |
3.8 |
0.5 |
12.7 |
98% |
13.8% |
Oats |
4.25 |
0 |
0 |
4.25 |
100% |
4.6% |
Triticale |
0.45 |
3.15 |
0.3 |
3.9 |
100% |
4.2% |
Sorghum |
3 |
0 |
0 |
3 |
39% |
8.3% |
Canola |
2.8 |
0.8 |
0 |
3.6 |
78% |
4.9% |
Soybean |
1.5 |
4.35 |
2.5 |
8.35 |
100% |
8.9% |
Grain legumes |
4.45 |
0.4 |
1.35 |
6.2 |
100% |
6.6% |
Cotton |
1 |
1.1 |
3 |
5.1 |
100% |
5.5% |
Total |
46.75 |
27.5 |
10.95 |
85.2 |
|
|
Share of public breeding effort |
55% |
32% |
13% |
|
|
|
a
Compiled from data contained in various tables in Lazenby (1986)
- (Kingwell 2005)
In the decade or so leading up to the
introduction of the Plant Variety Rights Act 1987 much
debate took place regarding the future funding for plant
breeding and related technologies. Only a very few seed
companies became active in breeding and or support for breeding
prior to 1987 as it was seen as an investment with uncertain
outcomes.
Valley
Seeds Pty Ltd was the first Australian company
to actively invest in pasture variety breeding with its
programme starting in 1975. New Zealand companies such as
Wrightson NMA and Yates – NZ Agriseeds were among the first
entrants to the Australian market with proprietary varieties
during the period around 1987. Since this time New Zealand
public and private breeders have had the dominant market share
of proprietary pasture varieties.
Throughout the time leading up to and immediately
after 1987 cereals, pulses and oilseeds were still being bred
almost exclusively by publicly funded organisations with some
grower levy funds channeled into this activity (Lazenby, 1986).
Public policy changes during the 1990’s started with a shift in
funding towards environmental, social and post farm gate issues
(Briggs and Vernon, 1993). In 1995 a Competition Principles
Agreement was endorsed by the Council of Australian Governments’
(COAG) drawing on a report by Hilmer et al. (1993)
Plant breeding organisations were then forced to
look for alternative methods of funding. Industry funding was
the only real option. Most breeding organisations were
successful at replacing at least part of their funding from
grower levies.
Australian Levy System
Australia has a system of research levies that
are agreed by producers and regulated by the federal government.
Levies are charged at rates agreed by producers via their
national commodity organisations. Table 2 lists the levy rate
for each crop.
Levies from all primary industry sources are
administered by 15 government agencies known as Industry
Research Corporations. The Grains Research and Development
Corporation (GRDC) manages levies and government matching funds
from 25 major crop species. The federal government matches
levies mostly on a $ for $ basis with some limits. “GRDC's levy
income is matched by the Australian Government up to 0.5 percent
of the gross value of grains production (3-year rolling
average), provided the Government contribution does not exceed
grower levies.” (GRDC Stakeholder Report 2006-7)
Table 2 – Levy rates 2007 (% of farm gate value)
Product |
Rate |
Product |
Rate |
wheat |
1.015% |
sunflower |
1.015% |
barley |
1.015% |
linseed (inc linola) |
1.015% |
triticale |
1.015% |
soybean |
1.015% |
oats |
1.015% |
safflower |
1.015% |
cereal rye |
1.00% |
rape seed (inc canola) |
1.015% |
sorghum |
1.015% |
|
|
maize |
0.715% |
Medics |
$10.00 per tonne |
millet |
1.00% |
Lucernes (Alfalfa) |
$15.00 per tonne |
canary seed |
1.00% |
Clovers |
$15.00 per tonne |
field peas |
1.015% |
Sub-clovers |
$11.00 per tonne |
lupins |
1.015% |
Serradella |
$10.00 per tonne |
faba beans |
1.015% |
Rice |
$2.00 per tonne |
chick peas |
1.015% |
|
|
mung beans |
1.015% |
|
|
pigeon peas |
1.015% |
|
|
peanuts |
1.00% |
|
|
navy beans |
1.015% |
|
|
vetch |
1.015% |
|
|
cow peas |
1.015% |
|
|
lentils |
1.015% |
|
|
Funding of Plant Breeding – The Present
GRDC has significantly increased its investment
in plant breeding and related activities. In 1996-7 GRDC’s
contribution to plant breeding and variety evaluation was
approximately A$23.77 Million. This was considered to be
approximately 35% of the total cost of these activities (Cook L,
1996). In 2006 GRDC spent A$58.887 Million on a similar range
of activities. It is not possible to ascertain the percentage of
the total cost of activities that are funded by GRDC from
publicly available data, however funding is likely to have
increased to compensate for a gradual withdrawal of state
government support.
GRDC spent A$115.330 Million on all R&D
activities during the year ending 30th June 2006.
GRDC has 4 major programmes as detailed below:
Varieties: (A$58.887 Million)
Primarily plant breeding but also includes gene discovery,
breeding technologies, genetic resources, functional
genomics, germplasm enhancement, genetic transformation,
crop variety testing, grain quality and plant pathology
(where directly related to breeding).
Practices: (A$37.211 Million)
Research areas include activities to address soil
constraints, water and nutrient use, crop threats,
environmental variability, agronomic improvements and
biosecurity.
New Products: (A$11.662 Million)
Funds are used for R&D and commercialisation of new grain
and farm products and services focused on providing farmers
with additional options for farm management and marketing.
Communications & Capacity Building:
(A$7.570 Million)
Funds are used for streamlining the collection and
distribution of information from R&D outputs, GRDC
communications including funds for visiting fellowship
programmes, PhD and post-doctoral research scholarships,
grains industry training and development awards, short term
courses and conference sponsorship.
As part of GRDC’s investment it owns or has
shares in the following plant breeding related companies and
joint ventures:
-
Australian Grain Technologies Pty Ltd. (AGT)
44.95% – A South Australian and Victorian Plant breeding
company recently merged with NSW breeding company SunPrime
Seeds.
-
Australian Centre for Functional Genomics Pty
Ltd. (CRC for Functional Genomics) 22.39%
-
Enterprise Grains Australia (EGA) 39% - A
Plant breeding company incorporating NSW and Queensland
breeders which has marketing arrangements with Pacific Seeds
(part of Advanta Seeds Europe)
-
Graingene II joint venture 28.57% (Breeding
technology & Biotechnology)
-
Graingene III joint venture 33.33% (Breeding
technology & Biotechnology)
Apart from the organisations listed above GRDC
also supports state based wheat breeding in Western Australia.
GRDC is now the dominant shareholder and investor
in plant breeding for crops in Australia with a cumulative
investment of some 100’s of millions of dollars. A plethora of
small or regional breeding companies have recently reduced in
number by merger or acquisition. Other companies that have
significant breeding investments in major crop species include:
-
LongReach Plant Breeders Pty Ltd which is a
company owned by AWB Ltd. (Previously known as the
Australian Wheat Board) and Syngenta. LongReach is also a
partner in the Graingene JV.
-
Crop & Food Research Australia – A New
Zealand government owned company which is part of the
Graingene JV.
-
Nuseed Pty Ltd. a wholly owned subsidiary of
Nufarm Ltd. Nufarm recently purchased the remaining shares
in Nugrain Pty Ltd., the remaining shares in Access Genetics
Pty Ltd. from the founder Donald Coles, Ag-Seed Research Pty
Ltd., Nutrihealth Pty Ltd and
Dovuro Seeds Pty
Ltd. Access Genetics has breeding and or commercialisation
agreements with SW Seeds –
Sweden and World Wide Wheat – USA.
-
Canola Breeders WA Pty Ltd. - An alliance of
the Council of Grain Grower Organisations Ltd (COGGO), the
Export Grains Centre Ltd (EGC), a research investment
company of the GRDC, The University of Western Australia and
Nordddeutsche Pflanzenzucht Hans George Lembke – Germany.
-
Heritage Seeds Pty Ltd – Subsidiary of the
Royal Barenbrug Group, Holland
-
Pacific Seeds Pty Ltd – owned by Advanta
Seeds Europe, a subsidiary of United Phosphate Limited -
India
-
Pioneer Hi-Bred Australia Pty Ltd (Hybrid
Seed breeding)
The major crop species where breeding investment
has been concentrated have been Wheat and Canola. Canola has
been the recipient of a strong mix of private and public
breeding investment. Joint ventures between state governments
and private companies were successful and have now made the
transition to a majority of private investment. Much of the
success has been due to a small percentage of farmer saved seed
(FSS) by Canola growers. Although the percentage has increased
in the last couple of years from a low of around 20% to a high
of around 40%, it still remains at a low level relative to the
wheat industry which is estimated to be at least 95% FSS. Rapid
variety development due to mutating black leg disease, different
herbicide resistance options and the imminent commercial release
of GM Canola is keeping Canola FSS in check.
Plant Breeders Rights, however has had limited
impact on farmer to farmer trading due to the cost and
complexity of legal action. Changes to the act in 1994 gave
breeders renewed hope by allowing the breeders to obtain
royalties beyond the first sale of seed in circumstances where
the breeder “…does not have a reasonable opportunity to
exercise…” the rights to charge a royalty. Reasonable
opportunity is defined by the industry as the opportunity to
charge royalties on seed sold for propagation due to a high
percentage of FSS. (Plant Breeders Right Act 1994, Part 2,
Section 15) The act is currently under review with many in the
industry calling for changes to overcome legal uncertainties.
End Point Royalties
Private investment in wheat breeding was slow to
start due to the issues of FSS and PBR enforcement. Private
investment was, however seen as vital for the future of the
industry. In 1993 the board of the GRDC established a “Working
Party to Review the Variety Testing and Release Procedures” for
Australian leviable grain crops. In its deliberations the
working party recognised that the PVR act 1987 was enacted in
order to attract more private investment into plant breeding.
It further recognised that due to the high level of FSS royalty
payments “….had a negligible effect on rewarding those breeders
(or their organisations) who have bred new and successful
varieties. Further, although there are recent indications of
increasing interest from the private sector, little extra
private capital has so far been attracted into plant breeding in
Australia.” (Working Party for Review of Variety Testing and
Release Procedures, October 1994)
After consultation with the private sector and in
particular the Australian Seed Federation (ASF) – Plant Breeders
& Proprietary Marketers Group “The working party supports the
proposition that royalties on varieties protected by PVR should
be collected at the point of delivery of the crop as a means of:
-
encouraging more rapid adoption of a new variety;
-
increasing
revenue to support plant breeding programs; and
-
encouraging further private investment in crop improvement.”
(Pg 88 of the Working Party’s Report – 1994)
Along with further consultations with GRDC and
the farmer commodity group the Grains Council of Australia, the
ASF developed a system based on individual contracts. The
process came to be known as End Point Royalties (EPR’s).
Collecting EPR’s was left up to individual
breeders and their commercialization companies. Various systems
evolved with the two most common systems detailed in Table 3.
In the early stages of EPR implementation Type 1 agreements were
the most common but few of these had arrangements in place for
grain buyer deduction of royalties. At the end of harvest
growers where required to report and pay royalties to the
agent. Few growers reported so they would be contacted by the
breeders’ agent to ascertain the quantity of grain delivered and
then invoiced for the value of the royalty. In many of these
cases the contact resulted in an adversarial exchange between
the agent and the grower.
Table 3 – EPR systems compared
|
Type 1 (Appendix 1)a |
Type 2 (Appendix 2)b |
Seed (Bagged & Bulk) |
Most rural retailers |
Selected agents & retailers |
Agreement signed |
Yes – At the point of sale
|
No – Copy given at the POS |
Agreement copies |
Grower, retailer, breeder/agent |
No copies |
EPR payment |
Invoices by breeder/agent or deducted by
grain buyer |
Deducted by grain buyer |
a
http://www.planttech.com.au/epr.php
b
http://www.awb.com.au/growers/awbseeds/endpointroyalties/
Issues that arose were based around growers not
reading or understanding their obligations under the
agreements. This is to some extend understandable given the
legal wording and length of these agreements. (See appendix 1)
When a grower failed to pay the royalty or report grain
deliveries agents treated the contact as a debt collection
function rather than a supplier customer contact. Much of the
resulting contact led to grower anger and complaints being
lodged with their state or federal farmer organisation.
One such organisation even went as far as to
recommend to its members that they not sign any EPR agreements.
The Western Australian Farmers Federation – “Beyond The
Farmgate” Newsletter dated May 6th 2005 stated under
the heading “GROWERS NOT TO SIGN END POINT ROYALTY AGREEMENTS”
where they stated that these agreements had “too many
restrictions on the grower (reporting requirements, the ability
to on sell seed and unfettered access to the growers
property).” They also went on to claim that some provisions
breach the Trade Practices Act.
In the state of Western Australia state
government support for EPR’s is at best inconsistent. Western
Australian publicly bred varieties dominate the market. These
varieties have been commercialized with limited royalty
collection arrangements and with special arrangements for farmer
to farmer trading after the first couple of years. These
arrangements are vastly different to conditions imposed by all
other breeders. The Western Australian Government even granted
royalty payment “holidays” in drought years. The combination of
these government sponsored actions sent a message to growers
that breeder’s rights and those rights relating to the payment
of royalties were secondary to their other business
priorities.
End Point Royalty Rates
Royalty rates were initially implemented by GRDC
sponsored breeders and their commercialization agents. Rates
varied between crop species and market potential. Royalty rates
range from $0.45 per metric tonne for a Barley variety to $8.80
per metric tonne for a Lentil variety with most EPR’s for wheat
at around $1.50/t. One of the issues raised by growers has been
the amount of royalty retained by the commercialization agent.
Growers have been required to buy mainly certified seed at a
significant increase in price compared to the old registered
seed or farmer grown seed system. Growers assumed that the
additional cost is all profit for the commercialization agent
and that the agent should not be retaining any part of the EPR.
This has led to one organisation reporting EPR’s by their
component parts (see appendix 2)
Poor royalty collection rates coupled with
inefficient collection methods, as detailed above have led to
low levels of profitability for many commercialization agents.
While these comments are largely anecdotal an indication of
royalties compared to other industries can be obtained from a
paper by Ross Kingswell 2005. In his paper he makes the
following observations:
“Crop
improvement royalties in Australian agriculture are low compared
to royalty rates in other sectors (see Table 4). For example,
AgSeed has a royalty of $8/t (less than 2 per cent of the
farm-gate canola price) for its canola variety AG-Castle,
AWB-Seeds has royalty rates up to $3/t and DAWA/GRDC royalty
rates are mostly less than 1 per cent of the farm-gate price of
grains. Rates set by public sector plant breeding organisations
in general are less than those set by private companies and
perceptions of political tolerance appear to influence the
setting of these rates. Although economic agents in the private
and public sectors recommend higher rates, political concerns
usually dictate a lesser rate.”
Table 4:
Average royalty as a percentage of sales
Type
of product |
Average royalty as a percentage of sales |
Agricultural |
3.9 |
Engineering |
6.3 |
Medical (therapeutics) |
6.3 |
Medical (diagnostics) |
6.6 |
Medical (materials & reagents) |
9.4 |
Other
(includes chemicals) |
7.6 |
All
fields |
6.6 |
Source:
Castillo et al. (2000)
Despite the issues raised above the production
and up-take of varieties that are subject to EPR payments is
significant. An analysis of AWB delivery data together with
seed company EPR lists has enabled a summary in Table 5 to be
developed detailing the percentage of varieties being used by
growers for each state.
Table 5
Wheat producing states |
Percentage EPR varieties of total
varieties delivered 2003-4 (a) |
Percentage of national wheat production
for each state 2003-4 (b) |
% Production of EPR varieties |
Western Australia |
12% |
42% |
5% |
South Australia |
26% |
15% |
4% |
Victoria |
52% |
13% |
7% |
New South Wales |
55% |
26% |
14% |
Queensland |
75% |
4% |
3% |
Total Australian crop EPR varieties |
33% |
(a) Derived from AWB delivery by variety data
plus EPR rated varieties by company
(b) Australian Bureau of Statistics – Crop report No. 134 7th
July 2005
Major differences between states are evident.
These differences can be explained by the timing of a move to
private breeding or support for this activity by the respective
state government as follows:
-
Western Australia (WA) has maintained a
significant public breeding activity to this day. Only
recently has the government moved to support EPR’s albeit
with certain conditions attached. This situation is rapidly
changing as reported by GRDC consultants Blowes and Jones
(2005).
“In WA in 2004/05, EPR varieties accounted for 33% of tonnes
delivered with the tonnes attracting EPR doubling from
2003/04 to 2004/05. This trend is continuing, with
information taken from the 2006/07 CBH grower planting
survey indicating that 51.35% of the WA wheat crop will
attract an EPR. The Department of Agriculture and Food WA
predicts that by 2009/10 over 70% of the wheat delivered in
WA will attract an EPR.”
-
South Australia has maintained a strong
public sector breeding and breeding support research and
development centers. The state was late to privatise its
state breeding institute which is now known as AGT.
-
Victoria was the first state government to
privatise public breeding. It also was the first government
to draw a distinction between applied plant breeding and
germplasm development. The state government withdrew from
applied breeding but still continues with germplasm
development and maintenance of breeding infrastructure.
-
New South Wales maintained a small public
breeding activity, however a strong and affective private
breeding company called SunPrime emerged from a partnership
between the state bulk handler Grain Corp and the University
of Sydney. SunPrime was an early user of EPR’s and released
several successful varieties.
-
Queensland maintained a small public breeding
activity until merging it with NSW to form EGA. Much of the
high percentage of EPR varieties is due to the success of
SunPrime varieties over the boarder in Queensland’s and the
early use of EPR’s by EGA breeding partners.
It is worth noting that the national production
of wheat derived from EPR varieties represents one third of
total production despite the largest producing state of Western
Australia being recalcitrant in promoting private investment in
plant breeding.
Funding of Plant Breeding – The Future
In recent years governments have withdrawn from a
large percentage of direct funding and control over plant
breeding and breeding infrastructure and this has largely been
taken up by the GRDC. GRDC has now assumed control over some of
the key areas of plant breeding, albeit in various corporatised
models. This change has put pressure on the relationship
between private breeders and GRDC funded breeders. One of the
key issues is that GRDC uses levies derived from privately owned
varieties to, at least in part, fund its own breeding companies.
The GRDC has addressed this by continuing to fund
Essential Plant Breeding Infrastructure (EPBI). EPBI is an
essential part of maintaining a viable plant breeding industry
(Lindner 2004). GRDC has been prepared to make some critical
services available to private breeders at little or no cost. An
example of this is with the Unversity of Sydney’s rust
evaluation research and breeding facility at Cobbity in NSW. In
this facility private breeder’s “breeding lines” are being
evaluated for all major rust strains. Reports are given to the
breeder detailing resistance genes that are present. A crossing
service is also available to incorporate the latest resistance
genes in selected lines. All these services are made available
at no charge to any breeder.
Another example of free or low cost EPBI is;
screening for late maturing α-amylase, blackpoint, and various
other diseases of cereals. Limited quality testing has also
been made available to private breeders. While GRDC supports
the provision of these services their availability largely came
about from the generosity of the particular researchers. Future
success of breeding in Australia will rely on an agency such as
GRDC maintaining EPBI.
Levy funds are covering much of the breeding and
infrastructure costs at present however EPR collection rates are
poor and are not at present contributed to any great extent.
There are no public figures available to accurately report
collection rates but discussion amongst commercializing agents
and breeders suggests that it is less than 50%. Reported
revenue of royalties to the GRDC is running at a little over
A$2million which supports the anecdotal evidence. Current
debates amongst private breeders, GRDC supported breeders and
grower organisations are concentrated on ways to streamline the
process of collecting EPR’s. Some of the principal areas of
proposed change include:
-
Development of an EPR agreement common to all
organisations
-
Collection of EPR’s by all grain buyers
-
Central collection agency
-
Provision of grain delivery data by variety
to all breeders
-
A move by growers to be able to grow and
trade their own seed of PBR protected varieties
Recent discussions across industry segments are
likely to produce a common agreement for growers of EPR
varieties. These agreements are likely, however to contain
addendums that meet the specific organisational and contractual
needs of each commercialising party.
The collection of EPR’s by grain buyers is
already practiced by several major buyers as detailed in
appendix 1 and 2. The difficulty will come when the industry
calls on small grain traders and grain product manufacturers to
also be collection agencies. All grain users are required to
deduct levies from grower payments under federal government law,
so at least there is some understanding of the principle
involved.
The need to expand EPR collection to small volume
buyers has lead to a proposal to develop a EPR collection
agency. Limited industry discussion has taken place on this
matter, however support is more likely to be forthcoming if it
can be demonstrated to be a low cost activity.
Further support for a central collection agency
may come if it is capable of accumulating and disseminating
accurate and timely delivery data by variety, region and rower.
This type of information is critical for any breeder or
commercialising agent to report and plan further investment.
The flexibility to allow growers to trade
protected varieties is being met with considerable concern on
behalf of private breeders. The ability to track and trace
would be made almost impossible over a production area of 20
million hectares (50 million acres) if seed were traded between
growers. The issue of admixtures of different varieties and the
inevitable drop in end product quality is also a major concern;
one which has ramifications not only for the breeder but also
the grower.
Conclusions
Concerns raised by Lindner and Kingwell regarding
the pace of change and specifically by Lindner regarding the
maintenance of EPBI are well founded. While most of the basic
infrastructure upon which the plant breeders rely has been
maintained through the timely increase in leviable crop
production and the interventionist policies of the GRDC, careful
consideration and industry wide planning is still needed. GRDC
has the unenviable task of planning its future with a clear cut
responsibility to support and promote a future for EPBI.
Private investment will likely take care of the
activity of applied plant breeding. The ability of Australia to
maintain an independent capacity to breed world class varieties
will continue to rely on industry and government funds
supporting EPBI. The alternative is to allow Australia to
become dependant on critical enabling technology from other
countries. This would likely leave Australian breeders with
little bargaining power to leverage access. A future of
biotechnology generated traits can only form part of the genes
by environment interaction which leads to quality high yielding
varieties. A strong and well supported local applied breeding
industry has and can continue to deliver outcomes providing it
has scientific critical mass.
Adoption rates of varieties subject to EPR’s
should be sufficient to sustain a critical mass of applied plant
breeders as an independent economic activity. Changes are
urgently needed, however to complete the development of this
funding system. All organisations in the supply chain must
cooperate to achieve this aim. Cooperation on a global scale
should also be seen as a positive outcome. Already investment
has been made by several transnational companies with the aim of
achieving profitable variety development. The economies of
scale in this age of biotechnology are indeed making the world
of plant breeding a smaller place.
References
Castillo,
F. Parker, D. and Zilberman, D. (2000) Offices of Technology
Transfer and privatisation of university discoveries, Department
of Agricultural and Resource Economics, University of
California, Berkley.
Briggs, D.
and Vernon, D. (1993) Reassessing the markets for agricultural
services - implications for governments. Contributed paper to
the 37th Annual Conference of the Australian
Agricultural and Resource Economics Society, University of
Sydney, February 9-11, 1993.
Cook, Dr.
L. (1996) NSW Agriculture – ‘End Point’ or ‘Product’ Royalties,
A discussion paper, November 1996.
Gray, R.
(2003) Agriculture and food policy and research perspectives, In
Proceedings of Funding Agriculture and Food Research in Canada:
Building new models, Ottawa, Ontario, April 28-29, 2003,
pp.15-17.
GRDC Report - Working Party for Review of Variety
Testing and Release Procedures, October 1994.
GRDC
Stakeholder Report 2006-7
Hilmer,
F.G., Rayner, M.R. and Taperell, G.Q. (1993) National
Competition Policy: a report by the Independent Committee of
Inquiry, AGPS, Canberra.
Jarrett, F.
G. (1990) Rural Research Organisation and Policies. Chp 6 In
(D.B. Williams:ed), Agriculture in the Australian Economy,
3rd Edition, Sydney University Press & Oxford
University Press Australia.
Kingwell,
R. (2005) Institutional Change and Plant Variety Provision in
Australia, Australian Agribusiness Review – Vol. 13 – 2005
Paper 5, ISSN 1442-951
Lazenby, A.
(1986)
Australia's plant breeding needs: a report to the
Minister for Primary Industry,
Australian Government Publishing Service, Canberra
Lindner, B.
(2004) Economic Issues for Plant Breeding – Public Funding and
Private Ownership, Australian Agribusiness Review – Vol. 12 –
2004 Peper 6 ISSN 1442-6951
Walmsley, T (Department of Agriculture and Food
WA) and Blowes, B (BEEBILL Enterprises, GRDC Consultant - End
Point Royalty Collection: A consolidated industry approach,
Presented to Australian Seed Federation – Plant Breeders &
Proprietary Marketers Group Meting 13th February
2007.
Click to view:
- Appendix 1 Type 1
- Appendix 1 Type 2
|