Why multinational agriculture biotechnology companies have reservations about working in developing

1

• Why multi-national agriculture biotechnology
  companies have reservations about working in
  developing countries
• Dr. Frank Shotkoski, Director
• Agricultural Biotechnology Support Project II

2
Large Ag Biotechnology Company Family Tree
1992
1993
1994
1995
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
Ciba
Novartis
Sandoz
Merck
Zeneca
ISK Biosciences
Bayer
Rhone-Poulenc
Aventis
Hoechst
Agrevo
Schering
Monsanto
Shell
Cyanamid
AHP
BASF
Dow
Rohm Haas
3
GM Crop Introduction

• Rapid introduction since early 1990s
• 60m hectares, size of Spain Portugal, by 1999
• Global GM Crop Area 8 years after GM
  introduction, area is 2 times larger than Global
  Organic Crops after 8,000 years
• Earliest GM introductions China
• Fastest rate of adoption and most farmers of GM
  Crops in developing countries
• A technology revolution huge potential
  especially to assist agricultural economies of
  developing countries

4
Global GM Crops
5
Traits Approved in US
6
Where are the GM Crops?
7
Corporate Position

• IPR Protection
• Value Capture Mechanism
• NPV

8
The Question

• Capacity exists in developing countries to
  develop, register and use GM crops the data
  proves this.
• Many organisations have made sustained efforts
  over several years to introduce GM crops to
  benefit impoverished people in the agricultural
  economies of the developing nations
• Why is it that no GM Crops have been planted by
  impoverished farmers in developing countries?

9
The Normal Answer

• Intellectual Property Rights (Patents and
  Material transfer agreements) are
• complex,
• extensive,
• owned by universities and companies in
  industrialised countries
• Unavailable (if not incomprehensible) for public
  good projects in developing countries
• This answer is wrong, for in country use, in most
  developing countries

10
Why IP block is incorrect !

• Patents are national in character
• Most patents are not patented in developing
  countries, including for economic reasons
• Patents teach an invention, and can be read
  anywhere, including in territories where they
  have no validity
• During the past decade many effect genes (Bt
  genes, delayed ripening technology, virus
  resistance) and materials have been donated by
  Multi-national companies for PPP GM crop
  programmes in more than 8 countries and 4 crops
• No farmer has planted a crop from these programs

11
Constraints to Public Sector Progress to GM Crops
for Developing Countries?

• Most Important
• Political will
• Holistic science capacity
• Bioregulatory capacity
• Product Development Skills (cf Research)
• Coordinated project management
• International
• Multi-functional
• Multi-institutional

• Least Important
• Plant breeding capability
• In country funding
• IP
• Contractual aspects

12
Biotechnology Global Acceptance
VariesRegulatory process and consumer acceptance

• North America steady
• Biotech friendly-indifferent consumers
• 36m GMO hectares- 70 soy, 25 corn

• Europe nothing soon
• Consumer resistance
• Regulatory logjam

• LATAM rapid take-up
• Compelling for growers
• Argentina 95 GM soya
• Brazil soon

• Asia food security drive
• China Bt cotton now
• India gaining acceptance
• Japan Regulatory in place

13
Governance Tools to Assist PPP

• Licenses
• Useful to record shared understanding of
  responsibilities of each licensee
• Licensee network
• Mutual support, cost minimisation, learning and
  progress
• Humanitarian Board
• Well debated, multi-functional, direction to
  project
• Enabling network linkage

14
Golden Rice IR64 from Cuu Long Delta Research
Station Vietnam (Beyer Hoa)
15
Licenses Provide Contractual Clarity
Regulatory Obligations
What is provided
Rights to Improvements
Licensed Uses
Reporting Confidentiality
Contractual Clarity
Liability Warranties
Publication Policy
Who does What
16
Example Golden Rice License Summary Terms 1

• Humanitarian Use means (research leading to)
• Developing country use (FAO list)
• Resource poor farmer use (lt10,000 pa from
  farming)
• In public germplasm
• There must be no charge for technology
• Local sales are allowed by such farmers (urban
  needs)
• Replanting is allowed
• Regulatory imperative - national sovereignty (or
  international standards..)
• No export (except for research, to other
  licensees)
• Fulfilling all regulatory requirements

17
Example Golden Rice License Summary Terms 2

• Licensees obligations
• Confidentiality of information shared
• Publication approval, (has to be approved to
  allow IP..)
• Improvements to licensed technology
• Commercial rights to Syngenta
• Humanitarian use access guaranteed
• Report annually (to Prof Potrykus)
• Warranties none given by licensor(s)
• Liabilities and costs each party responsible
  for that which they control

18
Golden Rice Licensee Network July 2003

• Germany University of Freiburg
• Philippines International Rice Research
  Institute (IRRI)
• Philippines National Rice Research Institute
  (PhilRice)
• Vietnam Cuu Long Delta Rice Research Institute
• India Department of Biotechology
• India Directorate of Rice Research, Hyderabad
  (DRR)
• India Indian Agricultural Research Institute,
  Delhi (IARI)
• India University of Delhi (UDSC)
• India Tamil Nadu Agricultural University (TNAU)
• India Agri. University Pantagar (GBPUAT)
• China Huazhong Agricultural University, Wuhan
• China Chinese Academy of Sciences, Beijing
• China Yunnan Acad. Agri. Sciences, Kunming
• Indonesia Agency for Agricultural Res. Dev.,
  Jakarta
• Bangladesh Bangladesh Rice Research Institute
• South Africa CSIR millet ? Sorghum? Maize?

19
Support for PPP for Golden Rice Project

• In-kind support from
• All Licensees All Individuals of HumBo and
  Network
• University of Freiburg
• USAID
• IFPRI
• Syngenta
• SDC
• IRRI
• USDA
• Rockefeller Foundation
• Bayer, Japan Tobacco, Monsanto, Mogen, Novartis,
  Zeneca,

• Financial support from
• Rockefeller Foundation
• Swiss Development Corporation
• Syngenta Foundation
• USAID
• Paid for support from
• Cornell University

20
Fruit Shoot Borer-Resistant Eggplant

• Project objective
• Deploy (Cry1Ac) gene to control the Eggplant
  Fruit and Shoot Borer
• Increase marketable yield and reduce the use of
  pesticide

21
Eggplant in India

• Cultivated on 510,000 ha
• 8,200,000 metric tons
• Primarily grown on small family farms
• Source of cash income for resource-poor farmers

22
Production Constraints

• Eggplant Fruit and Shoot Borer (EFSB) is the most
  destructive pest for Brinjal
• Losses range from 50-70
• Farmers spray 25 to 80 times per season
• Usual control measures not always sufficient
• Health concerns due to pesticide exposure

23
Example of Public-Private Partnership

• Partnerships
• India MAHYCO, TNAU and UAS Dharwad
• Philippines UPLB-IPB
• Bangladesh BARI and East West Seeds

24
Greatest Impediments to PPP for Deprived People
to Benefit from GM Crops

• (Paradoxically..) lack of workable IPR regimes
• Rational GM bio-regulation at least necessary
  cost

It is not the fittest of the species which
survives, nor the most intelligent, but the most
responsive to change Charles Darwin