Supported by the CGIAR Agricultural research, public ... · leverage market access and marketing expertise. ... A potentially innovative institutional approach to both technology

Supported by the CGIAR

Agricultural research, public-private partnerships, and risk management

Evidence from the

international agricultural research system

David J Spielman

International Food Policy Research Institute

IFPRI-SCIFODE-UNCST conference on

“Delivering Agricultural Biotechnology to African Farmers:

Linking Economic Research to Decision Making”

Entebbe, May 19-21, 2009

INTERNATIONAL FOOD POLICY RESEARCH INSTITUTE

Working hypotheses

Development of pro-poor agbiotech requires new institutional approaches to leverage scientific assets and scientific resources

Deployment of these same technologies requires new institutional approaches to leverage market access and marketing expertise


Public-private research partnerships

A potentially innovative institutional approach to both technology development and deployment

A phrase that is thrown around a lot, but with little empirical analysis to back it up


PPPs – concepts and definitions

Collaborations where public and private sector entities jointly plan and execute activities to accomplish agreed-upon objectives while sharing the costs, risks, and benefits

A “hybrid” coordination arrangement somewhere between vertically-integrated firms and state delivery of public goods/services

Why PPPs, why now?

Subsidiary/Parent, Country of Headquarters

R&DSpending(US$ m)

Sales(US$ m)

R&Das a % of sales

Syngenta, Switzerland 697 6,197 11.2Monsanto, U.S. 527 4,936 10.7BASF, Germany 349 4,678 7.5Pioneer Hi-bred/Dupont, U.S. 506 4,510 11.2Bayer CropScience, Germany 568 4,462 12.7Dow AgroSciences/Dow, U.S. na 2,717 ≥ 10.0Grupo Limagrain, France 70 965 7.3Savia, Mexico na 611 naAdvanta, Netherlands 59 398 14.8CGIAR 369 na na

R&D spending by leading multinational firms, c. 2002

Source: Spielman (2007)

R&D expenditures by sector

Source: ASTI (2006)

36%

2%28%

34%

developing, public

developing, private

developed, public

developed, private

2000 total = $36 billion (2000 international prices)

Public spending on Ag R&D, 1981-2006

0

3

6

9

12

15

1981 1986 1991 1996 2001 2006

Co

nsta

nt (

2005) U

SD

, millio

ns,

PP

P a

dju

ste

d

Public spending on agricultural research, 1981 -2006

Sub-Saharan Africa (45) Asia-Pacific (26)

Latin America & Caribbean (25) West Asia & North Africa (12)

Low & middle income (108) High income (32)

Source: Beintema & Stads (2008)


Underlying incentives

For the public sector, access to• New tools, materials, and proprietary knowledge

• Expertise in carrying products through regulatory processes

• The know-how to develop, deploy and market new products

For the private sector, access to• Locally-specific scientific expertise and materials

• Emerging or local markets

• Opportunities to strengthen reputation and image

• Opportunities to strengthen investor confidence


The knowledge gap

But what do we really know about PPPs?• Do they reduce the costs of research (cheaper)?

• Do they facilitate innovation (faster)?

• Do they enhance the impact of research on the poor (higher)?

IFPRI’s goal: To find out how PPPs in agricultural R&D stimulate greater investment in pro-poor science, technology, and innovation


Unit of analysis: The CGIAR

CIATTropical agricultureCali, Colombia

CIMMYTMaize and wheat Mexico City, Mexico

CIPRoots and tubers Lima, Peru

IITATropical agriculture

Ibadan, Nigeria

Bioversity IntlAgricultural biodiversity

Rome, Italy

ICARDAAgriculture in the dry areas

Aleppo, Syria

IWMIWater resources

Colombo, Sri Lanka

ILRILivestock

Nairobi,

Kenya

CIFORForestry

Bogor, Indonesia

IRRIRice

Los Baños,

Philippines

ICRISATSemi-arid tropical

agriculture

Patancheru, India

WorldFishPenang, Malaysia

WARDARice in West Africa

Bouaké, Côte d’Ivoire

IFPRIFood policy

Washington, D.C.,

USA

WorldAgroforestryNairobi, Kenya


Data sources

Document analysis

• Project descriptions, progress reports, published articles, material transfer agreements, etc.

Email survey

• Questions on project goals, purposes, funding, etc., with 12 of 15 (75%) centers responding

Semi-structured key informant interviews

• Interviews held with CGIAR scientists and partners in projects at 4 centers


Findings: A diversity of projects

Agbiotech PPPs can be classified into 4 types

• Resourcing – Projects funded by Monsanto Fund, Tata Foundations

• Contracting– Outsourcing laboratory tasks, renting out Center facilities

• Frontier research– Cutting edge research on livestock vaccines, apomixis

• Commercialization– Distribution of CGIAR breeding materials to seed companies

Findings: A range of partnersA breakdown of surveyed PPPs in the CGIAR

%

Findings: Variation among Centers

Center No. % of total

IRRI 17 23ICRISAT 11 15CIAT 10 13CIMMYT 9 12IPGRI) 8 11ICARDA 6 8IITA 5 7ILRI 4 5IWMI 3 4World Agroforestry Center 3 4CIP 1 1IFPRI 1 1WARDA 1 1WorldFish Center and CIFOR 0 0


Type 1: Resourcing

CGIAR Centers receive private funding to conduct research on crops that are relevant to the poor

– ICRISAT: Tata Foundation, Monsanto Fund, Barwale Trust

– CIMMYT: Syngenta Foundation for Sustainable Agriculture


Type 2: Contracting

CGIAR Centers rent out scientific expertise and facilities to subsidize their research on crops that are relevant to the poor

– ICRISAT: Agribusiness incubator

– CIAT: Agronatura science park


Type 3: Frontier research

CGIAR Centers rent out scientific expertise and facilities to subsidize their research on crops that are relevant to the poor

– CIMMYT: Apomixis research; Striga tolerant maize

– IRRI: Bt rice research

– ILRI: East Coast Fever vaccine research


Example: Livestock Vaccines for Africa

The problem: Good public sector research without capacity to pursue regulatory approval, product development and commercialization of a vaccine

The project: Development of a vaccine that was safe, effective, affordable and easily deliverable to livestock holders in East Africa

Results: New experience for public researchers on when to kill a project if proof of concept isn’t forthcoming


Example: Maize Improvement in Africa

CIMMT, KARI, EIAR, NARO, DRD

and other public sector organizations

Western Seed, Lagrotech,

Freshco and

other local firms

BASF, Syngenta, Pioneer, Monsanto

and other global cropscience firms

CRS, CARE, SCODP and

other non-governmental

and civil society organizations

Syngenta Foundation,

Rockefeller Foundation,

DFID, and other donors

Type 3: Commercialization

CGIAR Centers provide seed companies with opportunities to commercialize research on crops that are specifically relevant to the poor

– ICRISAT: Hybrid sorghum, millet and pigeonpea parent line consortia in India

– CIMMYT: Non-exclusive provision of maize germplasm to private companies

– IRRI: Dissemination of improved rice germplasm to private companies

– CIAT: Dissemination of fodder hybrids to private seed companies


Ex: Millet/sorghum hybrid consortia

ICRISATSyngenta

India

Ajeet Seeds

Ankur Seeds

Basant Agro Tech

Bioseed Research India

Biogene AgritechEnergy Seed International Kanchan Ganga

Seed Co

MAHYCO

Findings: Strange bedfellows?

Foreign companies: Generally monogamous partnerships with Centers

• Transfer of proprietary technologies from private to public

• Generally contained by exclusivity agreements

Domestic companies: Generally partnered with Centers on multi-stakeholder platforms

• Dissemination of seeds to small farmers

• Commodity supply chain development


Findings: Cost management

PPPs contribute significantly to reducing R&D costs for centers by• Providing new sources of funding

• Outsourcing to lower-cost service providers

• Making prohibitive R&D possible

But reductions can also be quickly offset by the costs of coordinatingcollaborative research


Findings: Innovation

PPPs promote innovation by• Improving access to advanced science and private Intellectual

Property

• Fostering change in organizational cultures, behaviors

But few PPPs realize synergies in R&D through “co-innovation processes” i.e., real collaboration


Findings: Risk management

Public & private partners face extensive risks

• Unique risks of a research project

• Systemic risks of developing-country agriculture

• Coordination risks: commitment, trust

But few PPPs are designed with risk management or mitigation strategies in mind

Photo credit: Bhatt, SABP, 2005


Findings: Poverty impacts

PPPs potentially reduce poverty by

• Directly improving livelihoods at the individual and household levels

• Strengthening sectoral performance and economy-wide linkages

• Conserving and unlocking genetic diversity and natural resources for future generations

But few PPPs are designed with ex ante analysis of the poverty impacts

Conclusion: Six Elements of Success

1. Build platforms to identify opportunities, assign roles and responsibilities

2. Commit resources to both the project activities andcoordination efforts

3. Design mechanisms to facilitate knowledge exchanges and resolve conflicts

4. Develop benchmarks and decision-points to evaluate progress and choose to continue or terminate

5. Create formal and informal strategies to manage and mitigate project risks

6. Explicit analysis of the impact pathways through which projects affect poverty


Looking forward

New PPPs (DTMA, WEMA, others) present opportunities for• Greater process analysis and introspection

• Improvements in risk management

• Improvements in impact evaluation

Thank you

Documents

Supported by the CGIAR Agricultural research, public ... · leverage market access and marketing expertise. ... A potentially innovative institutional approach to both technology