62 



gentina, Mexico, Australia, and most recently a developing country 

 of Zimbabwe, realizing that increase is a worldwide type of activity 

 and the need to be able to certify and identify those genetic re- 

 sources, whether they are developed within that country or wheth- 

 er they come from the United States to their countries. 



So as Dietrich has said, certainly we are playing on an interna- 

 tional field and our testimony is developed to strengthen the U.S. 

 position or maintain that world leadership position that we cur- 

 rently have. 



Senator Kerrey. Dr. Barnes, do you have a comment on this sub- 

 ject? 



Dr. Barnes. In the discussion of the workshop grouping, one of 

 the essences coming out of that is that there must be policies devel- 

 oped to allow just compensation, and it doesn't mean a carte 

 blanche giving away of materials from one country or picking it up 

 and giving it to a developed country. How that just compensation 

 can be worked out is a matter of debate, dialogue, and negotiation. 



In terms of being able to develop material transfer agreements 

 or agreements of exchange, these are coming into vogue and I 

 think can alleviate and resolve some of these questions, particular- 

 ly in terms of developing countries. 



Senator Kerrey. Certainly the treaty doesn't prohibit these 

 kinds of negotiations from occurring, does it? It seems to me that if 

 a nation, let us say Mexico, for example, held germplasm, that it 

 would be in their interest to get protection in place and encourage 

 seed sales, because it would add value to the germplasm that they 

 hold. 



Dr. Barnes. That is correct. That is one of the emphases of 

 trying to get other countries to have protection as well, so that 

 there can be the reciprocal value of exchange. 



Senator Kerrey. Ms. Shand, I guess what I am saying is that I 

 don't understand how the treaty works against the interest of a de- 

 veloping nation that holds specific germplasm. If they are trying to 

 maximize the value of that germplasm, it seems to me that to get a 

 treaty that protects its value, certainly is in their interest whether 

 it is private or public. 



And I must say that the private sector interest would generate 

 for me as an owner more enthusiasm than would the public sector 

 interest, because the public sector interest depends upon Congres- 

 sional appropriations to have any value, whereas the other is being 

 driven entirely by the market. It seems to me that there would be 

 more value being added with a treaty in place than without it. 



Ms. Shand. I think there are a number of concerns in developing 

 countries, and this issue is extremely complex, but to date, develop- 

 ing countries have declined to adopt plant breeders' rights in their 

 own countries. One reason is that they lack the infrastructure to 

 enforce these rights. Another concern is that oftentimes they see 

 that the material that is protected is based on material that was 

 appropriated one way or another from genetic resources in their 

 own country. 



These resources did not come from nowhere. They are the result 

 of farmers' selection over 10,000 years, in some cases. They see ma- 

 terial that has been taken out of their country and improved, and 

 there is no question about those improvements. When these materi- 



