Points of View
Public-private partnerships in agricultural research
Publicly-funded agricultural research institutions struggle to find enough money to continue their research programmes. Commercial companies, or their associated charitable foundations, are a potential source. But should taxpayers' money be used for R&D that will ultimately benefit company shareholders? Furthermore, multinational companies signing deals with publicly funded research bodies will surely dictate the direction of research - possibly to the detriment of small scale farmers unable to purchase the commercial company's products.
On the other hand, if taxpayers have contributed huge amounts of money over many years to agricultural research, what is wrong with using commercial companies to transfer the technology to farmers? What are the practical difficulties of combining the slower, more bureaucratic procedures of a publicly-funded, government body - that has a very different agenda and political constraints - with commercial company philosophy and interests?. What safeguards can be put in place to ensure that all partners, including farmers, get a fair deal?
Where we are now
"Industrial countries have benefited from agricultural research and
development investments by both public and private sectors, whereas developing
countries, by and large, have relied on less than adequate funding, principally
from the public sector. In the future it is imperative that developing
countries invest significantly more public sector funding in agricultural
R&D and also encourage more private sector investments."
Progressing Public-Private Sector Partnerships in International Agricultural
Research and Development. by Clive James, Chair, ISAAA Board of Directors
"A whole new way of doing agricultural research has emerged - doing it
in partnerships between the public and private sectors. Partnering is about
creating more value together than can be created alone. Public service agents
often argue that private companies react only on profit motivations and are
unconcerned with addressing social goals. On the other side, the private sector
often criticises the bureaucracy and inefficiency of the public sector, which
is seen as unable to respond to the demands of industrial development."
ISNAR www.isnar.cgiar.org/ppp/publications.htm
Responsibility and resources
"No single organisation is capable, single-handedly, of meeting
the challenge of feeding the planet's 840 million hungry. Public and private
sectors must join forces with national and international organizations. We must
be willing to share responsibilities, risk and resources to achieve shared
objectives. There is now both a moral imperative and an economic obligation to
build a joint coalition, where international organizations, governments and the
private sector work side by side to span the divide between rich and
poor."
Jacques Diouf, Director-General of FAO. Press release June 2003
"The taxpayer has put a lot of money into research into biocontrol, and
crop protection generally, throughout East Africa. And we think that the best
return for our money is to work with those companies who appreciate the need to
control these pests and who are willing to take some risks in developing some
of the technologies that we are putting forward. Of course they will have the
long term hope that it will pay off. But that is what we want to see. We want
to see them put their money where their mouths are, so to speak."
Simon Gowen, University of Reading, UK
"Donors, if I have understood it properly, want technologies to
be used in developing countries which are beneficial to the nation as well as
to the farmers. The only route to do that is through commercial companies.
Forgive me for saying it, but NGOs have their own agenda and it is not
commercial. They go around preaching their own... whatever. And farmers
don't like to be preached at. They are the most conscious economists anywhere
in the world. They do their arithmetic and what sounds to them economically
right - they will adopt it. Not because an NGO is telling them or a commercial
organisation is telling them."
Sarwar Ahmed, Managing Director of Syngenta-Bangladesh
"It is not helpful to always portray smallholder farmers as victims who
are too poor to pay for goods and services. There are undoubtedly some very
poor smallholders, but many would welcome the chance to purchase, for example,
improved seed of new varieties if these were made available on time and in
appropriate sized packs."
Richard B Jones, ICRISAT, East Africa.
"By participating in national and international bodies and
collaboration with research institutes, we are trying to help shape
international agricultural policy in an innovative way. We bring a different
perspective by contributing ideas and assessment criteria relating to the
private sector when seeking solutions to problems. We do this in the conviction
that various agents in society have different types of knowledge and skills at
their disposal, and that it is only by bringing together all the available
knowledge in collaborative work based on trust that a lasting improvement in
food security for the poor can be made possible."
Syngenta Foundation
www.syngentafoundation.com/agricultural_policy.htm
"This scientific advance (the completion of the rice genome map) was
achieved by The Torrey Mesa Research Institute - the genomics research centre
of Syngenta - and by Myrian Genetics Inc. Equally significant from the
perspective of poor farmers and scientists, was the companies' announcement
that the rice genomics information will be made available to the academic and
scientific communities through collaborative agreements."
http://www.worldbank.org/html/cgiar/press/ricegen.htm
"It will be several years before the solutions scientists are working
on today are in the hands of small-scale farmers. Nevertheless, an
international public-private collaboration on mapping the rice genome, like
that proposed by Syngenta, could dramatically reduce the time needed to get
this technology to the farmers who need it, accelerating efforts to fight
hunger and poverty."
www.ifpri.org/pressrel/2002/040302.htm
Mandate and motives
The concept of public-private partnerships is often touted, but in reality
there are few examples of true partnerships. Partnerships have been defined as
"Two or more organizations with complementary areas of expertise
committing resources and working together to achieve a mutually beneficial
outcome that would have been difficult for each to reach alone" (Gormley,
2001). Too often publicly funded institutions look on partnerships as a means
to attract funding rather than as a way to bring about some mutually beneficial
goal."
Richard B Jones, ICRISAT, Nairobi
"If the sale of research products is feasible and profitable, why
should the public sector be involved in the first place?"
ODI NR Perspective 57
"CG research institutions have been the target of biotech companies for
years but, until now, escaped infiltration. Critics (of Syngenta Foundation's
membership of CGIAR and seat on board) are appalled. CGIAR has unabashedly
adopted the corporate research agenda, thereby accepting that it ceases to
follow the original mandate of conducting agricultural research for 'public
good'... If the CGIAR is to take on board Syngenta Foundation, we would
like to know the relevance of the public exchequer funding international
agricultural research? Why should the taxpayers' money go to support the
research agenda of the multinational corporations? If that be so, why can't we
dismantle CGIAR and hand over the research centres to the host governments? Why
should we pay the CGIAR for following the private industry's research
agenda?"
Norfolk Genetic Information Network http://ngin.tripod.com
"Selling public varieties to the private seed industry can divert
attention from the needs of farmers with few resources. There is evidence from
breeding programmes (such as in China) that producing commercially attractive
germplasm has diverted attention in the research service from the problems of
farmers in marginal areas, and has upset the balance in research programmes by
emphasizing plant breeding over agronomy (where it is difficult to capture
royalties). Although the private sector might often be willing to pay for
research by public institutes, any cost recovery proposal for public research
should be scrutinised in terms of efficiency, incentives and mandate."
ODI NR Perspective 57
"There appear to be advantages to private delivery of research and
extension in terms of value for money and also in terms of efficiency in the
short to medium term but, on the other hand, a disadvantage is that there could
be less corporate or institutional learning, particularly learning that is
available within the public domain. And it may also be that there is less
continuity of effort on particular subjects that are of long term. So, where
there is private delivery of research or extension there are dangers of the
public institution losing touch with the grass roots."
Barry Pound, Natural Resources Institute - working with Linking Demand and
Supply of Agricultural Information, Uganda
Managing the partnership...
"Public sector institutions need to learn how to interact with commercial
companies and to articulate their respective roles and responsibilities
clearly. If there is a commercial incentive for private investment, then
there is little justification for the public- sector to duplicate roles."
Richard B Jones, ICRISAT, Nairobi
"It is argued by some that incentives, for example in the form of tax
concessions, should be offered to induce private sector participation."
World agriculture: towards 2015/2030 An FAO Perspective (see In
Print)
"Private research investment is more likely where particular products
or techniques can be utilised over a range of environments and where future
demand for the technology will ensure increasing market size. Although private
investment in the manufacture of agricultural chemicals, machinery and
equipment can be expected to grow, investment in the research required to adapt
those products to specific farming environments is likely to be less evident.
Similarly, private investment in research to generate crop or resource
management information (which cannot be protected) is likely to be low, even
when this information may be utilised in highly commercialised farming."
ODI NR Perspective 57
"In the last ten years, we have been developing new partnerships
and some of these have been with the private sector, ranging from Syngenta,
Bangladesh and smaller to medium enterprises in Kenya. They have a common
mission of developing socially acceptable, benign pest management technologies
which is exactly our mission and the collaboration works well. But they
are few and far between. We only have a few public-private linkages but
it has largely been a common interest for a common goal and they do work
well."
Frances Kimmins, Manager of DFID's Crop Protection Programme
"There needs to be a legislative framework that accompanies the
introduction of public private partnerships. One of the big problems is that
there can be exclusion of groups of society. In terms of the example from
Uganda, the Plan for the Modernisation of Agriculture emphasises very much the
commercialisation of agriculture. And there are those who are able to join that
agenda, and there are those who are not. And at the moment we are finding that
about 10% of farmers are joining the group forum for the private delivery of
extension services in Uganda which of course means that 90% are not. And it's
those 90% who, under the new private delivery of extension services are
potentially being left behind and one needs processes to make sure that there
are reviews built into the system that allow you to look at the disadvantages
and the problems as they arise and of course to have the flexibility to make
adjustments as necessary."
Barry Pound, Natural Resources Institute - working with a project called
Linking Demand and Supply of Agricultural Information in Uganda
"The African Agricultural Technology Foundation (AATF) is a
not-for-profit African company set up to facilitate the transfer, adaptation
and uptake of agricultural technologies by smallholders. The company will have
a particular role to play in licensing technology from the OECD private sector
and contracting with African and other organizations to ensure that licensed
technology is appropriately adapted and reaches farmers."
www.cepa.co.uk/projects_agr.htm
"The AATF is receiving funding from a number of donors including USAID
and Rockefeller. It will involve five large agribusiness companies to try and
draw them in to develop technologies that are appropriate for Africa. I think
that's quite an exciting opportunity. And I think people have to be round the
table to try and influence the agenda, to make sure the technologies which are
developed are pro poor and that they think about dissemination all the way down
to the end user."
Frances Kimmins, Manager of DFID's Crop Protection Programme
. . . and intellectual property
"I think we are going to have to look at a number of issues, including
intellectual property rights. At the moment, public good research is freely
available for development but private sector works under different conditions
where a degree of exclusivity is needed. When we were developing our guidelines
for engagement with the private sector, we had to make it quite clear
to the companies that they did not have exclusive rights over the technologies."
Frances Kimmins, Manager of DFID's Crop Protection Programme
"For sound public-private partnerships, public breeding programmes must
formulate clear policies for managing intellectual property. Strategies to
generate funds through the sale of public varieties will require some form of
plant variety protection, especially for self-pollinated crops. Most countries
are moving to establish a system of plant variety protection, motivated in
large part by the requirements of the WTO and TRIPS agreement."
ODI NR Perspective 57
"Efforts to establish PVP for public varieties and generate income from
royalties face an additional dilemma with respect to the open exchange of
germplasm with other countries. Much of this exchange is mediated by the IARCs
and the rest is a product of regional or bilateral networks and agreements.
There is a growing temptation for national programmes to close their doors, to
charge collaborators for what used to be freely exchanged or to deny national
or regional partners access to material for fear that they will gain a
commercial advantage. The dilemma extends to the use of international germplasm
and there have already been cases where national breeding programmes have
protected and charged for IARC varieties. As the IARCS broaden their scope and
devote more attention to private seed companies, the problems of defining
access intensify. However the overwhelming preponderance of evidence to date
suggests that the benefits to society of freely exchanging germplasm outweigh
any revenue gains generated by restricting access to the products of public
breeding programmes."
ODI NR Perspective 57
