Agricultural research, public-private partnerships, and risk management

Transcription

1 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

2 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

3 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

4 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

5 Why PPPs, why now? R&D spending by leading multinational firms, c Subsidiary/Parent, Country of Headquarters R&D Spending (US$ m) Sales (US$ m) R&D as a % of sales Syngenta, Switzerland 697 6, Monsanto, U.S , BASF, Germany 349 4, Pioneer Hi-bred/Dupont, U.S , Bayer CropScience, Germany 568 4, Dow AgroSciences/Dow, U.S. na 2, Grupo Limagrain, France Savia, Mexico na 611 na Advanta, Netherlands CGIAR 369 na na Source: Spielman (2007)

6 R&D expenditures by sector 34% 36% 28% 2% developing, public developing, private developed, public developed, private 2000 total = $36 billion (2000 international prices) Source: ASTI (2006)

7 Constant (2005) USD, millions, PPP adjusted Public spending on Ag R&D, Public spending on agricultural research, 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)

8 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

9 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

10 Unit of analysis: The CGIAR IFPRI Food policy Washington, D.C., USA CIMMYT Maize and wheat Mexico City, Mexico CIAT Tropical agriculture Cali, Colombia Bioversity Intl Agricultural biodiversity Rome, Italy WARDA Rice in West Africa Bouaké, Côte d Ivoire ICARDA Agriculture in the dry areas Aleppo, Syria ICRISAT Semi-arid tropical agriculture Patancheru, India WorldFish Penang, Malaysia IRRI Rice Los Baños, Philippines CIP Roots and tubers Lima, Peru IITA Tropical agriculture Ibadan, Nigeria ILRI Livestock Nairobi, Kenya IWMI Water resources Colombo, Sri Lanka WorldAgroforestry Nairobi, Kenya CIFOR Forestry Bogor, Indonesia

11 Document analysis Data sources Project descriptions, progress reports, published articles, material transfer agreements, etc. 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

12 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

13 Findings: A range of partners A breakdown of surveyed PPPs in the CGIAR %

14 Findings: Variation among Centers Center No. % of total IRRI ICRISAT CIAT CIMMYT 9 12 IPGRI) 8 11 ICARDA 6 8 IITA 5 7 ILRI 4 5 IWMI 3 4 World Agroforestry Center 3 4 CIP 1 1 IFPRI 1 1 WARDA 1 1 WorldFish Center and CIFOR 0 0

15 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

16 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

17 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

18 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

19 Example: Maize Improvement in Africa CIMMT, KARI, EIAR, NARO, DRD and other public sector organizations Syngenta Foundation, Rockefeller Foundation, DFID, and other donors Western Seed, Lagrotech, Freshco and other local firms CRS, CARE, SCODP and other non-governmental and civil society organizations BASF, Syngenta, Pioneer, Monsanto and other global cropscience firms

20 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

21 Ex: Millet/sorghum hybrid consortia ICRISAT Syngenta India Ankur Ajeet Seeds Seeds Basant Agro Tech Bioseed Research India Biogene Agritech Energy Seed Kanchan International Ganga Seed Co MAHYCO

22 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

23 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

24 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

25 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

26 Findings: Poverty impacts PPPs potentially reduce poverty by Directly improving livelihoods at the individual and household levels Strengthening sectoral performance and economywide 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

27 Conclusion: Six Elements of Success 1. Build platforms to identify opportunities, assign roles and responsibilities 2. Commit resources to both the project activities and coordination 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

28 Looking forward New PPPs (DTMA, WEMA, others) present opportunities for Greater process analysis and introspection Improvements in risk management Improvements in impact evaluation

29 Thank you