A/HRC/31/51 has also been true for States’ response to large-scale resettlements in the face of development projects. B. Intellectual Property Rights 31. Historically, efforts to increase the global food supply did not apply the intellectual property rights (IPR) regime to agricultural innovation. 31 In most communities, farming practices, such as seed exchanges were communal activities, unrestricted by law. Furthermore, most agricultural research and development (R&D) was funded by the public sector. Today, however, industrialized agriculture mostly replaced traditional communal farming and has been inspired by competitive market for agricultural innovations to increase production. Over the past few decades, funding for agricultural R&D has shifted to private companies. The ten largest agricultural biotechnology companies invest roughly EUR1.69 billion a year on new product development, amounting to about 7.5 percent of these companies total sales revenue.32 To ensure that these companies recoup development costs for agricultural technologies and continue to invest in the R&D, an IPR-agricultural framework has emerged. 32. Unfortunately, the IPR regime disproportionately excludes women, particularly in the context of agriculture. For example, IPR tends to reward “high technology” but ignores the contributions that the female labour force makes to agricultural production. 33 Meanwhile, the privatization of agricultural resources leads to increased monetization. Women are less likely than men to have discretionary income, and are therefore less able to afford expensive seeds that were once managed communally. 34 33. Furthermore, the IPR regime does not readily acknowledge the value of women’s traditional knowledge, which may cover a broad range of agricultural practices, technologies and techniques. In addition, women are faced with the threat of bio-piracy: the practice of co-opting and patenting traditional knowledge, without awarding appropriate compensation. Seed Saving: Elimination of Women’s Role in Food Security 1. 34. The greatest implication of the IPR regime on women and their right to food relates to seed saving, a practice that is both predominantly controlled by women and a critical component of small-scale, subsistence agriculture. Studies show that up to 90% of planting materials used in smallholder agriculture are seeds and germ plasms that are produced, selected, and saved by women. 35 Seeds and seed banks are important for addressing the 31 32 33 34 35 J. Long, Global Food Security and Intellectual Property Rights, 21 Mich. St. U. Coll. L. Int’l L. Rev. 115, 118 (2013) C. Jewell, Who Benefits From IP Rights in Agricultural Innovation? WIPO (2015) http://www.wipo.int/wipo_magazine/en/2015/04/article_0003.html K. Mukhopadhyay, The Negative Impact of TRIPS on Gender Rights in Access Health and Food in India: A Study of the Dynamics of Knowledge Economy and Neo-Medieval Governance, U. of Denver 48 (2014) UNDP, Policy Paper: Intellectual Property, Agrobiodiversity and Gender Considerations “Issues and Case Studies from the Andean and South Asian Regions” (2010) V. Shiva and J. Kunwar, Impact of WTO on Women in Agriculture, New Delhi, Navdanya Research Foundation for Science, Technology and Ecology for National Commission for Women (2005) 9