Challenges in Bringing Public Sector Biotechnology Products to Developing Country Farmers

1. Challenges in Bringing Public Sector Biotechnology Products to Developing Country Farmers Anatole F. KrattigerAdjunct Professor, Cornell UniversitybioDevelopments LLC (International Consultants)USDA Advisory Committee on Biotechnology and 21st Century Agriculture (AC21) Washington DC, 8-9 March 2004

2. Outline • 1. Salient features of biotechnology transfer to developing countries • Emphasis on university biotechnology transfer activities & mechanisms • Key challenges ahead

3. Bt Cotton in South Africa • Non Bt-cotton • Large plant, excessive vegetative growth • Difficult to spray and few bolls to harvest • 10 sprays for all insect pests • Bt-cotton • Small compact plant • Many mature bolls ready for harvest • 3 sprays for non bollworm pests Curtesy: Jennifer ThomsonUniversity of Cape Town, South Africa.

4. Biotechnology in China Percentage (%) of poisonings reported as numbers of farmers interviewed in Henan in 2000 Source: Courtesy Qinfang Wang, Beijing Agricultural University, China.

5. Myths about Technology Transfer New technology is transferred based on NEEDS. Technology transfer is driven by:- capacity - regulations

6. Assembly vs. Tech Transfer Innovation Assembly Transfer Markets

7. Assembly vs. Tech Transfer Assembly of technologies is best served by  focus  specificity Technology transfer is best served by critical mass  general applicability  shared/complementary market interests  Pools vary widely and serve assembly or TT. They rarely serve both.

8. Intellectual Property Rights Stepping Stones or Stumbling Blocks?

9. What Drives the Adoption of New Technologies ?

10. DemandMarket StructureDivisibility Picture courtesy Council for Biotechnology Information.

11. “Divisibility” of Biotech Applications RR Soybeans, Argentina Source: Qaim & Traxler. 2002.

12. University biotechnology transfer activities & mechanisms

13. Forms of Biotechnology Transfer 1. Turn-key investments (typically FDI) 2. Mergers & Acquisitions 3. Strategic alliances (collaborations, JVs, corporate partnering) 4. Licenses (incl. humanitarian use) 5. Capacity building

14. University Initiatives 1. Research and research collaboration: e.g. Genomics initiatives with NARS, NAROs, CGIAR

15. The International Ag R&D System Fundamental Research Institutions Multi-nationalPlant Science Companies Agricultural UniversitiesBiotechnology Research Institutes Fundamental Research Strategic Research International Agricultural Research Centers Applied Research Adaptive Research Farmers Participatory Research NAROs, NARS NGOs, National Seed Companies Developing Country FarmersSmall Large Modified after Toenniessen, 2002.

16. University Initiatives 1. Research and research collaboration: e.g. Genomics initiatives with NARS, NAROs, CGIAR 2. Capacity building: Undergraduates, grad students, special courses, fellowships, internships

17. University Initiatives 1. Research and research collaboration: e.g. Genomics initiatives with NARS, NAROs, CGIAR 2. Capacity building: Undergraduates, grad students, special courses, fellowships, internships 3. Services: “Integrated” programs, in-country activities,multi-stakeholder initiatives, facilitation, licensing

18. ABSP II’s Strategy 1. Participatory priority-setting 2. Integrate work into product commercialization packages 3. Address IP constraints 4. Foster public/private partnerships 5. Communications, outreach, technology diffusion

19. University Initiatives 1. Research and research collaboration: e.g. Genomics initiatives with NARS, NAROs, CGIAR 2. Capacity building: Undergraduates, grad students, special courses, fellowships, internships 3. Services: “Integrated” programs, in-country activities,multi-stakeholder initiatives, facilitation, licensing 4. Funding schemes: Genetic Resources Recognition Fund, UC Davis

20. 3. Key challenges ahead

21. Private Sector Constraints Expansion of private sector in developing countries is hampered by: 1. Inadequate legislation for technology & variety protection 2. Cost of regulations 3. Difficulty of access to new technologies 4. Public sector pricing subsidies 5. Complex variety notification, registration and seed certification procedures 6. Infrastructure deficiencies

22. Differentiation of Countries Biotechnology Capabilities: Type A: National Biotechnology Capacity Brazil, South Africa, China Type B: Incipient Biotechnology Sector Mexico, Egypt, Malaysia Type C: Technology Adopters (Type D: Technologically Excluded)

23. The “Public Goods” Myth 1. Non-rival 2. Non-excludable

24. The “Public Goods” Myth 1. Non-rival 2. Non-excludable  May be created and supplied by public or private sectors  The interface is “managed” through: - IP management - regulations - market segmentation - product stewardship

25. Key Challenges and Points of Entry x Commercialization Distribution Innovation Assembly • Transfer • Making it work • Stewardship • Regulations • Pricing • Market access • Funding/financing • etc.

26. The Product Development Process Discovery Research Development Commercialization Biosafety Regulatory Business Plan

27. The Product Development Process Discovery Research Development Commercialization Biosafety Regulatory Business Plan

28. Public Sector Effectiveness In the future: - Higher imperative to work with a wide range of partners. - Activities in a more market-driven environment.  Market segmentation avenues.  Importance of coherent IP policies.

29. Transfer Strategies 1. Partnerships/Joint Ventures 2. License “events”  “CoGenCo” System 3. Development funds  Contract out

30. Rice kernels: Courtesy Ingo Potrykus.

31. The Biosafety Process 1. Biosafety Research 2. Biosafety Assessment 3. Biosafety Communication 4. Biosafety Integration - National Policy - Administrative Framework - Socio-economic Impact - Commercialization - Trade Decision Based on Biotech Policy

32. Benefits to National Economy Country Low estimate High estimate Philippines * $30 million $150 million What would the benefits be if we extrapolated the study from the Philippines to the other countries with major vitamin deficiency, such as India, China, Bangladesh, Indonesia, and Pakistan? Probably somewhere between $1 and $6 billion GDP per year. * Zimmermann and Qaim, 2002.

33. Photos: Anatole Krattiger.