Forum - Beyond the news
home news forum careers events suppliers solutions markets resources directories advertise contacts search news site plan
 
SeedQuest Forum
Funding Plant Breeding in Australia
A Review of End Point Royalties and Future Funding Requirements

Presentation made by Donald J. Coles, Managing Director, Valley Seeds Pty Ltd., Australia
at the Summer Meeting of the Canadian Seed Trade Association in Ottawa, Canada – July 2007

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

July 2007

Copyright © SeedQuest - All rights reserved
No part of this paper may be reproduced, distributed, transmitted, displayed, published or broadcast
in any form or by any process without prior written permission from SeedQuest

 

 

Donald J. Coles
can be reached at
dcoles@valleyseeds.com

 

LINKS

Appendix 1 Type 1
Appendix 1 Type 2


Copyright © SeedQuest - All rights reserved