Landscapes of Technology Transfer: Engaging IP for Seed Access and Agricultural Innovation

Photo by Genetic Literacy Project

Edited by Nida Mahmud

The “green revolution” of the mid-20^th century marked an important period for agricultural innovation and technology transfer. Great progress was made with advances in mechanization, fertilizers, and high-yielding varieties that secured higher income for many farmers and sustenance for consumers. Yet many of these innovations have been out of reach for farmers, particularly in Africa. Linear top-down models have dominated technology transfer (TOT) efforts in international development^[1]. Agricultural research and TOT have continually produced and pushed blanket solutions with little consideration of what farmers need and can use^[2]. A change in the field of international development is occurring, there is an industry-wide shift from the standard aid model to creating ecosystems for growth. This new strategy represents an effort to foster synergistic linkages that both enable innovation and improve the absorptive capacity^[3] of farmers.

Solutions for African farmers are not always technological in nature, but for many, the problems of low productivity, food security, and malnutrition persist^[4]. Access to improved seed technologies can remediate these problems^[5]. An analysis of bio-technology innovation, development, and delivery will make evident the role that intellectual property plays in seed systems. Additional challenges to technology transfer, and the limitations of intellectual property will also be deliberated.

Technology Transfer and Access to Innovations

Access to agricultural innovations and technology transfer cannot occur without the requisite political, social, economic, and legal policy landscapes. In addressing the needs of farmers, widespread access to innovations must meet the requirements of affordability, acceptability, and availability^[6]. Krattiger and Mahoney have identified a six-pronged strategy to meet the three determinants for access to innovations. These policy areas, displayed in Figure 1, are critical components of a single innovation ecosystem. Among these, intellectual property has largely been neglected by policymakers as a tool for innovation and technology transfer.

Figure 1: Six Policy Thrusts for Innovation and Technology Transfer (Krattiger, et al., 2007)

Bio-Technology Development and Delivery

Seeds have been among the most successful technologies in terms reaching small-holder farmers. Their affordability and ease-of-use have allowed them to penetrate agricultural systems more easily than other technologies. Technology transfer from high-income to low-income countries takes place across sectors and industries, and there is potential for rapid adoption rates of sophisticated products even with low-income consumers^[7]. The success of mobile phones in Africa is a good example of such technology diffusion. Successful technology development and delivery does not occur in a vacuum, and seeds are not an exception. Seeds are developed from multiple inventions, backed by international investors, national research institutions, the private sector, and financial institutions^[8].

Seed system markets in Africa are highly fragmented with research, development, production, processing, distribution, and farmer utilization involving numerous players, sometimes with conflicting interests^[9]. In both classical and modern plant breeding techniques, comprehensive dimensions of technology convergence and a delivery model must come together for user-end access and adoption^[10]. To develop improved crops, plant breeders need access to breeding materials from universities, public research institutions, and private companies. A number of breeding technologies must be pooled for primary product development and proof of concept validation. After field testing, technologies are then ready for regulatory validation and final delivery by public and private institutions^[11]. Successful upstream research and downstream product development, shown in Figure 2, require a series of strategic partnerships within an interdependent delivery pipeline.

Figure 2: International Dimensions of Technology Convergence and Delivery Model in Africa (Vijayaraghavan, 2017).

Intellectual Property

Intellectual property (IP) rights are rights to the product of the mind that can be afforded legal protection; that is, ideas and the way they are represented, whether a process, manufacture, an artistic representation, or a composition of matter^[12]. Intellectual properties can be protected by means of copyrights, trademarks, patents, plant breeder’s rights, and trade secrets^[13]. For seed technology, patents might, for example, cover plant transformation methods, vector genes, or transgenic plants^[14]. IP protection may be obtained under two regimes: plant breeder’s rights, and in some jurisdictions, the regular patent system^[15]. New plant varieties must meet the criteria of “novelty, distinctness, uniformity, and stability”, the breeder may be granted a patent, or plant breeder’s rights certificate, giving them the exclusionary rights over the invention for a limited period of time^[16].

Figure 3: Criteria for Obtaining Plant Variety Protection (PVP) and Patents

IP rights spur innovation in many ways. For instance, IP rights provide temporary exclusionary rights, breeders have a monopoly for 20 years from the date of application filing. This period provides breeders with an opportunity to license and profit from their technologies^[17]. Patents reward scientific progress by offering inventors rights in return for their inventiveness and research efforts^[18], which creates an incentive for the generation of new ideas, and more breeding research^[19]. IP rights also stimulate further advancement of the useful arts through the dissemination of new ideas by way of publication and licensing^[20]. When patents are granted, the invention method must be disclosed to the public, this enables learning and progress. In addition, plant breeder’s rights have a research exemption that allows for breeders to further develop new varieties, and a farmer’s exemption that allows farmers to save seeds for the sole purpose of replanting^[21]

Figure 4: Technology Pooling and Collaboration for Developing New and Improved Plant Varieties

The transfer of technology from highly complex capital-intensive environments to low capital recipients^[22], as shown in Figure 2, requires the exchange of technology and know-how. IP rights allow the owners to exclude others from using, producing, selling, or importing their invention to the country in which the patent was granted^[23], but also allow for the transfer of inventions and technologies. Developing seed technologies requires the successful pooling of resources between breeders; that is, multiple actors must agree to share knowledge and bio-property to bring new plants to the market. The need to exchange germplasm —living genetic resource such as plant tissue and know-how is critical for developing improved varieties. If a breeder is interested in developing a variety with improved biotic resistance, they will need to license existing varieties that exhibit favorable traits from other breeders. IP rights grant the use and transfer of technologies that enable collaboration, down-stream development, and delivery through licensing.

IP Limitations and Acceptability

An efficient IP system is only one of six thrusts that drive innovation and access to technology, and progress overall requires progress in each of these areas (Krattiger, et al., 2007). IP rights cannot substitute the development of a national infrastructure needed for an efficient agricultural delivery system. A lack of roads, finance, markets, education, and the capacity for research and development can impede innovation and technology transfer. An efficient IP system also cannot overcome market failures that create fragmented and incomplete pipelines for product development and delivery, as shown in Figure 5.

Figure 5: Development and Delivery Pipelines, Profitable versus Orphan Crops (Krattiger, 2017).

When developing an IP system, policy-makers must also be careful to balance rights granted by the patent with the advances brought by the scientific advancement. Excessive monopolies and competing claims of ownership over inventions in a technology could prevent others from using it, frustrating what could have been a socially desirable outcome. Michael A. Hellen coin the term “the tragedy of the anticommons” to describe this phenomenon. In other cases, a barrier to technology adoption is acceptability. Even when technologies can be delivered, consumers may be unwilling to adopt them. A weak regulatory framework can lead to inapt technologies reaching farmers. Opposition to accepting new technologies may also be cultural, or perceived risks in the case of transgenic crops. Policy-makers should not force technologies on communities resistant to new innovations. In this case, it is the responsibility of policy-makers to use empirical evidence to distinguish between hazards and risks, educate consumers, and let the farmer choose technologies to adopt^[24].

Promoting Access to Advanced Seed Technologies

Norman Borlaug, widely considered the father of the “green revolution” has stated that while “[p]rivate industry has invested billions of dollars in research to make astonishing new discoveries and products, relatively few of the new crops developed by private industry are reaching smallholder farmers in the developing world” (Krattiger, et al., 2007). Both private and public institutions harbor a wealth of cutting-edge biotechnology, and yet much of this is inaccessible to the people who need it most. Actively licensing these technologies from public and private institutions using IP is a means of extracting both economic and social value from these assets.

Intellectual assets and bio-property held in these institutions are a means of food security. Advancement in improved seeds can include higher yields, nutritional improvements, the reduced content of food allergens, sweetness, and resistance to pests, disease, and droughts^[25]. This new generation of advanced seeds can be force multipliers for agricultural productivity, but only if they are affordable, acceptable, and available to farmers. Developing the foundations of a manufacturing base, national and international markets, research and development capacity, and a regulatory framework are critical for public access to agricultural innovations. While IP is not the most important factor, policy-makers need to recognize that it is a powerful tool for technology transfer and innovation. Seeds, like most complex technologies, are comprised of multiple inventions that are held together by IP. Establishing dynamic IP policies in private, public, and international breeding institutions is a step towards democratizing access to technologies and improving agricultural systems in Africa.

References

1. Robert Chambers & Janice Jiggins, 1987. Agricultural Research for Resource-Poor Farmers Part 1: Transfer-of-Technology and Farming Systems Research. Agricultural Administration and Extension, Issue 27, pp. 35-52. ↑
2. Niels Röling, 2012. Conceptual and Methodological Developments in Innovation. In: Innovation Africa: Enriching Farmers’ Livelihoods. s.l.:Routledge, pp. 9-34. ↑
3. Absorptive capacity refers to the ability to appropriate gains from technological advances ↑
4. Jules Pretty, William J. Sutherland, Jacqueline Ashby & Jill Auburn, 2010. The top 100 questions of importance to the future of global agriculture. International Journal of Agricultural Sustainability, pp. 219-236. ↑
5. Cornell University, 2018. The African Seed Access Index. [Online] Available at: www.tasai.org. [Accessed 9 January 2018]. ↑
6. Anatole Krattiger, et al., 2007. Intellectual Property Management in Health and Agricultural Innovation: A Handbook of Best Practices. Ithaca: MIHR, PIPRA, Oswaldo Cruz Foundation, and bio-Developments – International Institute. ↑
7. Pew Research Center, 2015. Cell Phones in Africa: Communication Lifeline. [Online] Available at http://www.pewglobal.org/2015/04/15/cell-phones-in-africa-communication-lifeline/ ↑
8. Vijay .K. Vijayaraghavan, 2017. International Flow of Technologies: IP and Technology Transfer Dimensions. Ithaca, Cornell College of Agriculture and Life Sciences. ↑
9. Alliance for a Green Revolution in Africa, 2013. Africa Agriculture Status Report, Nairobi: AGRA. ↑
10. Vijay K. Vijayaraghavan, 2017. International Flow of Technologies: IP and Technology Transfer Dimensions. Ithaca, Cornell College of Agriculture and Life Sciences. ↑
11. Ibid. ↑
12. Eran Binenbaum, et al., 2000. South-North Trade, Intellectual Property Jurisdictions, and Freedom to Operate in Agricultural Research on Staple Crops. Berkeley: University of California. ↑
13. World Intellectual Property Organization, 2018. World Intellectual Property Organization. [Online] Available at: www.wipo.int . [Accessed 8th January 2018]. ↑
14. Eran Binenbaum, et al., 2000. South-North Trade, Intellectual Property Jurisdictions, and Freedom to Operate in Agricultural Research on Staple Crops. Berkeley: University of California. ↑
15. Ibid. ↑
16. Anatole Krattiger, et al., 2007. Intellectual Property Management in Health and Agricultural Innovation: A Handbook of Best Practices. Ithaca: MIHR, PIPRA, Oswaldo Cruz Foundation, and Bio-Developments – International Institute. ↑
17. Ibid. ↑
18. Robert P. Merges & John F. Duffy, 2013. Patent Law and Policy: Cases and Materials. 6th ed. San Francisco: Lexis Nexis. ↑
19. Eran Binenbaum, et al., 2000. South-North Trade, Intellectual Property Jurisdictions, and Freedom to Operate in Agricultural Research on Staple Crops. Berkeley: University of California. ↑
20. Ibid. ↑
21. Anatole Krattiger, et al., 2007. Intellectual Property Management in Health and Agricultural Innovation: A Handbook of Best Practices. Ithaca: MIHR, PIPRA, Oswaldo Cruz Foundation, and Bio-Developments – International Institute. ↑
22. University of Wollogong n.d. Technological Choice: Appropriate Technology. [Online]. Available at: https://www.uow.edu.au/~sharonb/STS300/technology/appropriate/transfer.html [Accessed 1 December 2017]. ↑
23. Anatole Krattiger, et al., 2007. Intellectual Property Management in Health and Agricultural Innovation: A Handbook of Best Practices. Ithaca: MIHR, PIPRA, Oswaldo Cruz Foundation, and bio-Developments – International Institute. ↑
24. Calestous Juma, 2016. Innovation and its enemies. New York: Oxford University Press. ↑
25. Ibid.Works CitedAnatole Krattiger,et al., 2007. Intellectual Property Management in Health and Agricultural Innovation: a Handbook of Best Practices. Ithaca: MIHR, PIPRA, Oswaldo Cruz Foundation, and Bio-Developments- International Institute.Anatole Krattiger, 2017. Innovation and Intellectual Property Management. Ithaca, Cornell College of Agriculture and Life Sciences.Vijayaraghavan, V. K., 2017. International Flow of Technologies: IP and Technology Transfer Dimensions. Ithaca, Cornell College of Agriculture and Life Sciences. ↑

Adiam Asfaha

Adiam Asfaha is a master’s candidate at the Cornell College of Agriculture and Life Sciences. His research at Cornell is in science and technology policy focusing on barriers to innovation, technology transfer and commercialization in agricultural systems. After working as a policy analyst for federal and municipal entities of the Ethiopian Government, he co-founded a start-up providing research advisory and product development services to small businesses. Before moving back to Ethiopia, he worked at the CTBTO supporting the UN’s nuclear non-proliferation efforts, and he served as a Corpsman in the United States Navy Reserve.

View all posts