Public-Private Partnerships and Sustainable Agricultural Development Marco Ferroni and Paul Castle Syngenta Foundation for Sustainable Agriculture, Schwarzwaldallee 215, 4058 Basel, Switzerland E-mail:
[email protected];
[email protected]
Abstract Agriculture in Africa is not sustainable because average yields have been stagnating for decades due to underinvestment, especially in the development of agricultural markets, crop improvement and the sustainable management of agricultural systems. Low public sector funding for agricultural research and lack of incentives for the private sector to operate in areas where there is no market largely explain the yield gap in many food-importing developing countries. Yet, there are effective ways in which the public and the private sector could work together and jointly improve agricultural sustainability in poor countries. The public sector provides a favorable institutional environment for the development of agricultural markets and investment in rural facilitiates local business development and funds research with local relevant. The private sector, in return, brings its considerable expertise in product development and deployment. This article illustrates how new forms of public-private partnerships (PPPs) for agricultural development can work in challenging environments. It discusses three promising examples of PPPs in which the Syngenta Foundation for Sustainable Agriculture (SFSA) is actively involved, and shows that an experimental approach can sometimes be more effective than social planning in efforts to achieve sustainable agriculture.
Introduction Agriculture made great progress during the “Green Revolution” of the 1960s and 1970s. Companies and public sector organizations around the world continue to achieve breakthroughs in many areas that contribute to global food security. Nonetheless, yields in key crops still vary significantly between farming regions, and often remain far below their optimal potential. Crop losses pre-and post-harvest continue to prevent an estimated 40 percent of agricultural produce from actually reaching the marketplace [1]. There are many reasons for these
shortfalls, but one frequent cause is farmers’ lack of access to technology, adequate extension services and poor market integration. There are two main reasons for “lack of access” to a particular technology: either it has not yet been developed, or it actually exists, but is not yet available everywhere it is demanded. There are still numerous pests, diseases and other agricultural challenges for which no proper solution is available at all. There are also many solutions of which scientists are aware, but which are not yet deployed commercially in all the settings in which they could help. Both kinds of “lack of access” hold farmers back around the world, but particularly in developing countries. Traditionally, the public and private sector have attempted to provide solutions independently from each other, with the exception of certain sections in the long path from basic research to widespread commercial deployment where collaboration was unavoidable. It has been argued, for example, that the “Green Revolution” was a public sector initiative that partially crowded out private activities and thus resulted in a general neglect of tailormade solutions for farmers [2]. Isolated approaches are therefore unable to cope with challenges of the 21st century, notably the achievement of the farming-related Millennium Development Goals. The first main section of this article illustrates the effectiveness of public-private partnerships (PPPs) by means of three selected examples and draws some general lessons for future PPPs. PPPs are a popular type of collaboration in many sectors of the economy around the world. In one form or another, partnerships between public institutions and private individuals or organizations have existed for centuries. Medieval churchbuilding is arguably one example; in the 19th century, universities in the USA and Germany played a key role in facilitating their countries’ industrialization [3]. Modern examples continue to
1
include tertiary education, as well as such diverse areas as infrastructure, defense, pharmaceuticals, road management and the Olympics. There is also a growing realization of the value of PPP in agriculture, and particularly for projects that benefit farmers in developing countries. So far, however, very few agricultural PPPs exist. Those that do are largely experimental, and form a new field of practice and inquiry for the participants. PPPs can take a variety of forms. They are not limited to bilateral collaboration between a government agency and a private corporation. PPP for sustainable agricultural development can also include, for example, multi-partner structures that bring together private companies with entities such as non-governmental organizations (NGO), university research institutes and foundations. These structures have sometimes been termed “Hybrid Value Chains” that create shared value [4]. The present article uses the term “PPP” broadly, to include both these forms and the many other possible for-profit/not-for-profit combinations. Whatever form they take, successful PPPs have a number of features in common. The rationale for their creation is always the same: to achieve more through partnership than any of the parties could do on their own [5]. A PPP in agricultural research and development (R&D), for example, can overcome both the public sector’s usually limited ability to take research outputs to market, and the private sector’s limited scope for operation where there is no commercially viable market. Contracts, planning, inter-partner relationships and the distribution of tasks within the PPP should all contribute to maximizing synergies between the parties involved.
Agricultural Public-Private Partnerships in Current Practice The June 2010 “G-20” Summit in Toronto, Canada, stressed that “there is still an urgency to accelerate research and development to close agricultural productivity gaps”. The meeting went on to declare that “the private sector will be critical in the development and deployment of innovative solutions that provide concrete results on the ground” [6]. G-20 governments are certainly right to stress the key role of the private sector here. Growth in public investment in productivity-enhancing agricultural
2
R&D has been declining for some time in most of the world outside China, and total investment has declined in critical regions such as Sub-Saharan Africa [7]. Private investments and capability, on the other hand, continue to grow [8]. This must, however, not mislead observers into thinking that the private sector should—or even could— address the huge challenge of helping farmers achieve sustainable food security on their own. R&D partnerships are instead necessary to pool public and private assets. Private organizations contribute expertise in plant sciences, genomics and bioinformatics, for example. The public sector provides strength in crop improvement, and is generally more likely than private companies to commit research resources to “orphan” crops. The international Tef Improvement Project is used as an example later on to illustrate how that might work in practice [9]. Importantly, the contribution of the private sector to agricultural development goes far beyond research. It is in the nature of for-profit enterprises to bring products to the market and deliver value, including to smallholders. Driven by the need to commercialize new technologies, companies also have considerable expertise in product development, marketing and delivery. Public programs in agricultural R&D have been successful in certain important areas. However, they are frequently ineffective when it comes to actually delivering products such as improved seed varieties that are tailored to the farmer’s actual needs, and thus to facilitating repeat purchase and effective use. Public sector incentives can be helpful in the introductory phase of new hybrid seeds, but these should definitely not be made available free of charge. Well-meaning but over-generous government hand-outs stifle private initiatives, and raise inappropriate long-term expectations among farmers. The private sector goes only where there is a commercial incentive. Farmers too remote or too poor to purchase inputs do not benefit from innovations. In fact, the technologies they need may not even get developed. PPPs offer the prospect of overcoming each sector’s limitations: the business sector’s inherent inability to operate where there is no market, and the public sector’s limited ability to market research outputs. Put more positively: partnerships enable sustainable outcomes that no single party could achieve alone. Ideally, a PPP’s output is more than the sum of its parts.
Deployment of products in marginal rural areas is vital. Global food security depends heavily on smallholders in such areas. There is a great potential to better connect markets, services and technologies and thus increase their productivity. Based on agricultural censuses, the Syngenta Foundation for Sustainable Agriculture (SFSA) estimates that non-OECD countries have approximately 450 million small farm units [10], defined here as “up to two hectares”. Assuming an average household of five, this means that about one-third of the world’s population directly depends on small-scale farming for at least part of its livelihood. Smallholders produce a large share of the food consumed in developing countries and emerging markets. Their ability to earn incomes from farming and in turn pay for inputs, consumer goods, and, for example, school fees for their children, also affects general development prospects and economic transformation. The following three examples illustrate how PPPs add more value to small-scale farmers and how such partnerships allow them to cope better with uncertainty. The first two examples involve the use of non-transgenic agricultural biotechnology to improve crop yields and the last one shows how market-and weather-related uncertainties can be addressed through micro-insurance schemes.
Non-Profit Partnership: Smaller Tef Plants Tef (Eragrostis tef, from the sorghum/millet family) is an African “orphan” crop, meaning that it has not been the subject of much research and development work due to its limited international commercial potential. Tef is the most widely cultivated cereal in Ethiopia, where about 85% of the population lives in rural areas [11]. The plant is excellently adapted to the climatic and soil conditions in Ethiopia, where it performs better than other cereals in both drought and waterlogged conditions. The seeds contain high protein levels and are free of gluten, to which millions of people worldwide are allergic [12]. However, the average tef yield is much lower than for most other cereals. “Lodging” is the major problem: tef has a tall, tender stem which easily falls over under the weight of the seed head. The SFSA is now working with the University of Berne, Switzerland, to develop shorter “semi-dwarf” plants. In the past, conventional breeding of tef did not generate significant genetic improvements.
To address this challenge, the team in Berne, led by an Ethiopian researcher, is using a technology called TILLING (Targeting Induced Local Lesions In Genomes). This non-transgenic method is designed to identify and introduce hereditable variation in genes that affect the relevant growth traits [9]. The Berne team has transferred its findings with tef to a public scientific center in Kenya for implementation, and field-testing has begun in Ethiopia.
Profit/Non-Profit Partnership: Rust-Resistant Wheat The tef project is an example of a partnership involving various types of non-profit partners. The wide range of agricultural challenges is also being met by “classical” public-private collaborations involving a for-profit partner. In 2009, for example, the SFSA brokered a two-year public-private partnership focusing on wheat. The partners aim rapidly to identify and map genetic markers for use in breeding resistance to Ug99 stem rust. According to the FAO, wheat has recently become the world’s second most important food crop [13]. It provides 500 kilocalories of food energy per capita per day in China and India, and can deliver up to 50 percent of daily calorie uptake in Central and West Asia and North Africa [14]. Ug99 is caused by the fungus Puccinia graminis, and can cause devastating crop losses. The disease first emerged in Uganda in 1999, and is currently spreading across Africa, Asia and the Middle East. It has the potential to move much further, posing a serious risk to the world’s wheat supplies. Even without the threat of Ug99, wheat yields need to rise by an estimated 1.6 percent each year to reach required global production levels by 2020 [15], yet investments in wheat technology have lagged far behind those for other major cereals. The SFSA project combines private sector plant genetic profiling expertise with public sector strengths in field research. The results will contribute directly to worldwide efforts to combat stem rust, coordinated by the Borlaug Global Rust Initiative.
Multi-Partner Collaborations: Biofortification The SFSA also supports the HarvestPlus Challenge Program to improve global nutrition. The partners aim to make staple food crops rich in important nutrients available. HarvestPlus, an initiative of the Consultative Group on International Agricultural
3
Research (CGIAR), is an interdisciplinary global alliance of research institutions and implementing agencies. HarvestPlus focuses on improving the nutritional value of staple foods that poor people already eat. This “biofortification” uses conventional breeding to develop crops richer in necessary minerals and vitamins. The aim is to deliver micronutrients cost-effectively and sustainably to malnourished populations, especially in rural areas. Work includes developing plant breeding tools, crossing and testing crop lines for nutritional effects, disseminating new varieties, and measuring their effectiveness in improving malnutrition. The current development phase focuses on three micronutrients in six crops across seven Asian and African countries. The program has already released one crop: an orange-colored sweet potato rich in vitamin A and now available in Uganda and Mozambique. The main emphasis is now on iron in pearl millet (India) and bean (Rwanda), as well as on vitamin A in hybrid corn (Zambia) and cassava (Nigeria). Along with the SFSA, the program’s international supporters include much larger organizations such as the Gates Foundation, USAID, the World Bank and the UK’s Department for International Development. The HarvestPlus development phase is intended to run until 2013, with delivery and impact measurement thereafter.
Multi-Partner Collaborations: Information Technology for Agricultural Development As stressed above, PPP for sustainable agriculture can and must go beyond R&D cooperation. They can also be a central ingredient in the creation or stimulation of markets that benefit smallholders, whether on the input or output side. Microinsurance provides an example. One of the many constraints affecting agriculture in developing countries is smallholders’ very understandable aversion to risk, which affects their willingness to invest in better seed and fertilizer. In Kenya, for example, only about half the farmers buy improved seed or other inputs [16]. Many use poor-quality seed from previous harvests. This is because drought or flooding can easily destroy their crops and wipe out the benefits of purchased inputs. The result of not using the best inputs, however, is that yields remain far below their potential. To overcome this problem, the SFSA has launched a multi-partner Agriculture Index Insurance Initiative.
4
Its aim is to explore and develop the potential of micro-insurance for smallholders. The insurance is branded as Kilimo Salama (KS), which means ‘safe farming’ in Kiswahili. Insurance should be simple, affordable and relevant to small farmers. With KS, smallholders can insure selected farm inputs at their local retailer and pay half the premium. To make the insurance affordable, the initiative’s agribusiness participants pay the other half. Mobile phone technology is very widely used in rural Kenya. In the KS scheme, stockists use a camera-phone to scan a bar code on each insured input. A text message confirming the policy instantly goes to the farmer’s cell phone. To monitor the insurance, the SFSA has set up automated weather stations. If a station reports at the end of the season that local rainfall has been insufficient, farmers in the affected area receive a payout. This operates via a money transfer service run by the initiative’s telecommunications partner. Using weather station data rather than personal field assessment further contributes to keeping the cost of insurance low, and thus within farmers’ reach. Payout via phones avoids problems with middlemen or cash transport to remote areas. Uptake of KS insurance expanded rapidly, from 200 smallholders in the 2009 pilot phase to almost 12,000 in 2010. No single party in the PPP could have achieved this result alone. Nor, indeed, could any two of the many partners. These are a few of the promising or already successfully concluded examples of inter-sector partnerships in agricultural development. Overall, PPPs currently remain a greatly underused option in the range of solutions available to tackle the challenges of enhancing smallholder productivity and livelihoods. This is as true in relation to agricultural biotechnology as it is in other areas. What, therefore, should parties who believe that a PPP could be the right choice for solving a particular problem bear in mind during the first steps towards successful partnership?
Advice to Organizations Planning a PPP for the First Time Many decision-makers in both for-profit and notfor-profit organizations still prefer to shy away from even inexpensive short-term collaboration with other sectors. Sometimes this may simply result from lack of knowledge of “how the other half works”; sometimes it stems from awareness of
partnerships that have failed. However, as the four current PPP examples above, and others already completed, continue to demonstrate, the efforts involved can bring considerable benefits. The SFSA has been involved in PPP for a decade, and its predecessor foundations have been involved for much longer. The following guidelines are drawn from our overall experience, and vary in importance from case to case. Taken together, however, observation of these guidelines significantly increases potential partners’ chances of coming together, and then of taking their joint project through to successful conclusion. These rules of conduct hold true for every form of PPP, and are mostly not limited to the area of agricultural development. The present article concentrates on four key pillars: initial partnering, priority-setting, contractual arrangements, and transparency. Each of these areas covers a wide range of points, which cannot all be discussed exhaustively here, but on which extensive guidance is available elsewhere [17,18]. There are also a number of further inter-linking topics which require special care when creating PPP. These include areas as varied as intellectual property (for example, but by no means exclusively, in the area of genetic modification), business plans, accountability and external communication. In the particular area of agricultural development PPP, questions of stewardship and liability also demand careful attention. The choice of suitable partner or partners should be taken very seriously. The aim is to compose a PPP with a maximum of complementary skills and resources likely to generate the greatest possible output. Selection must therefore start with a realistic assessment of one’s own strengths and weaknesses. It is then essential to invest considerable research in identifying organizations most likely to benefit from and add to this profile. However, finding a particular skill set is not enough on its own: the relevant organization must be willing, as well as able. Willingness has many components, some of which take time to discover or develop. It is often easiest to determine the degree to which organizations’ goals and vision match each other. For example: a project that solely benefits Tanzanian smallholders rather than large-scale farming operations in Iowa may not fully address every private company’s commercial growth aspirations.
Where current goals clearly do match, it can still be difficult to assess long-term commitment to them, and to a possible PPP. This is especially true if there are set-backs along the way, or if a party believes the benefits to be unfairly distributed. Establishing the range and depth of benefits and their balance between parties faceto-face is vital. There need to be real benefits for everybody involved. Also essential for cooperation, but usually achieved only through considerable efforts over time, is mutual trust. Throughout the process of partner identification, frank and honest assessment of motivation is additionally crucial: Does a particular organization genuinely wish to be a good partner over the next few years, or is it only really interested in speedy access to something that it does not currently possess? With the initial selection made, and first personal contacts developing, the time has come for priority setting. It is vital that all potential partners are open about where they see the priorities in the intended joint project. This discussion should include not only the desired main goals and milestones within the project, and the order in which they are to be tackled, but also its position on each organization’s own internal priority list. The relevant statements all require careful documentation. Each partner’s ability to make the success of the joint project a high priority within its own organization is also very important. Each party needs high-ranking sponsors of the PPP, and should make work on the project an explicit part of key employees’ job descriptions and/or rolling annual achievement targets. Parties should openly discuss the similarities and differences in their operational culture and values. These are easy to dismiss as “not scientifically or financially important”, but they can profoundly affect a partnership’s productivity. Whatever their differences in organizational culture, participants in successful PPP repeatedly emphasize the vital importance of clear and detailed contracts. Particularly in intercontinental collaborations, where personal meetings are infrequent, and teleconferences rarely a full substitute, the written word plays a central role in shaping project progress. Contracts must, among other matters, unambiguously determine the division of tasks, and the distribution and use of any commercial rights emerging in connection with the project. Topics such as liability and intellectual property also require careful attention. When
5
drafting a contract, parties are encouraged to build on the progress made during their initial meetings. The contract draft must reflect the principles already agreed. Legal departments often like to start with a standard template instead, but this can be very counterproductive. Partners must also discuss any major “blockers” as early as possible. An example of such a brake on collaboration could be an existing contractual arrangement between one of the PPP parties and another organization outside the new partnership. Discussions about such blockers usually require additional management, business or legal representatives. Early involvement of intellectual property and legal experts enables top managers to understand any potentially non-negotiable assumptions before they progress too far with discussions. Exclusivity, commercial exploitation and confidentiality are common hurdles in this area. A formal signed Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) between the parties can be very helpful in setting the framework for negotiations. The MoU needs to contain the fundamental points of principle that will underpin the PPP and encourage operational problem-solving. One key assumption needs to be that each PPP will have an individual identity and contain unique elements. Negotiations should therefore run case by case, and parties must allocate resources accordingly. Realism about the necessary timeframes is important here: parties frequently have widely differing internal processes, often simply as a result of their size. Each organization needs to respect partners’ ways of working. Creating realistic expectations about the time needed for responses to proposals will help prevent frustration. A fourth pillar of PPP success is transparency. Partners need to understand and respect each other ’s communication requirements. This is true not only for privacy and institutional competitiveness, but also for scientific informationsharing amongst public sector researchers, public awareness-building about new technology and products, fulfillment of public reporting obligations, and aspects such as publication of student theses. Open communication does not always come naturally to private organizations, particularly with regard to research results. The private sector generally maintains a culture of privacy in R&D, in order to be first to the patent office and/or gain all the advantages of leading into a new
6
market. Private sector interest is usually closely linked to commercialization rights, which need to be explicitly defined at the start of a PPP. Private companies mostly aim to retain free access to their knowledge, which has been expensive to generate. They also want to prevent its use by competitors. This tendency to privacy is not restricted to wellestablished multinational corporations: for example, university spin-offs typically also seek to maintain confidentiality. In this context, policy incentives that help the private sector to cope better with uncertainty and push the cost-benefit calculation of PPPs more toward expected benefits can help overcome initial concerns and facilitate collective action at more favorable terms. In a PPP, ensuring full transparency and yet enabling collaborators to keep some competitive advantage from privileged knowledge is a recurring challenge. Public sector parties are not always comfortable with this aspect of deal-making, and may wish to postpone discussions until more trust and understanding have been established. Experience suggests, however, that it is better to agree on the fundamentals of commercial rights and transparency before investing a lot of time and money in other aspects of the PPP.
Conclusions In conclusion, it is worth recalling a number of points about PPPs. Firstly, their usefulness is by no means limited to agricultural development, but they can make a major contribution in this area. PPPs are not automatically the right choice to solve every challenge in agriculture: the private sector is certainly able to improve fungicide spray nozzles without involving government researchers, and the public sector does not usually need corporate guidance on the establishment of crop germplasm collections. However, where the right partners come together in the right way, the synergies they achieve can lead to results well beyond the reach of any one organization alone. Extensive guidance is available to those embarking on a PPP for the first time. It should, however, also be remembered that every PPP is an experiment—a new mixture of partners, needs, technologies, goals and intended beneficiaries. Open-mindedness and a willingness to learn are therefore always essential. PPPs still have considerable scope for expansion, and merit much more frequent consideration in agriculture than they have enjoyed hitherto.
Acknowledgements Ferroni and Castle would like to acknowledge the assistance of Viv Anthony and Laura Johnson in preparing this text.
References 1. Oerke, E.C., Dehne, H.W., Schönbeck, F., Weber, A. Crop production and crop protection-Estimated losses in major food and cash crops. Agric. Syst. 1996, 51: 493-495. 2. Juma, C. The New Harvest, Agricultural Innovation in Africa. Oxford University Press, Oxford, UK, 2010. 3. Aerni, P. Exploring the Linkages of commerce, higher education and human development: A historical review. ADTF J. 2007, 4: 35-47. 4. Drayton, B., Budinich, V. A new alliance for global change. Harvard Business Review, September 2010. Available online: http://hbr.org/2010/09/anew-alliance-for-global-change/ar/1 (accessed on 17 June 2011). 5. Braun, H. Wheat Rust; CIMMYT: Mexico. Available online: http://www.syngentafoundation.org/ index. cfm?pageID=691 (accessed on 17 June 2011). 6. The G-20 Toronto Summit Declaration. In: Proceedings of the G20 Summit, Toronto, Canada, June 2010, pp.1-27. 7. Beintema, N., Elliott, H. Setting Meaningful Investment Targets in Agricultural Research and Development: Challenges, Opportunities and Fiscal Realities. Presented at Expert Meeting on How to Feed the World in 2050-Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, Rome, Italy, June 2009. 8. Pardey, P.G. Putting U.S. Agricultural R&D and Productivity Developments in Perspective. Presented at the Farm Foundation Conference, Washington, DC, USA, April 2009. 9. Bartel, C., Tadele, Z., Paterson A., Bhattacharjee, R., Gedil, M., Esfeld, K., Dubois, T., Plaza, S., Lambein, F., Dominique, D. African orphan crops: Their significance and prospects for improvement. ADTF J. 2009, 6: 1-82. 10. Ferroni, M. Can Private-Sector R&D Reach Small Farms? In World Food Security: Can Private Sector R&D Feed the Poor? In Proceedings of
The Crawford Fund 15th Annual International Conference, Canberra, Australia, 28–29 October 2009; Brown, A.G., Eds.; 2009; AGRA: Nairobi, Kenya, pp.3-12. 11. Dorosh, P., Schmidt, E. The Rural-Urban Transformation in Ethiopia. Ethiopia Strategy Support Program 2 (ESSP2) Working Paper 13. International Food Policy Research Institute (IFPRI): Addis, Ethiopia, June 2010. Available online: http://www.ifpri.org/sites/default/files/ publications/ esspwp013.pdf (accessed on 15 November 2010). 12. Spaenij-Dekking, L., Kooy-Winkelaar, Y., Koning, F. The Ethiopian cereal tef in celiac disease. N. Engl. J. Med. 2005, 353: 1748-1749. 13. FAOSTAT. Production, Crops, 2009. Food and Agricultural Organization of the United Nations (FAO). Available online: http://faostat.fao.org/ site/567/default.aspx#ancor (accessed on 15 November 2010). 14. Dixon, J., Braun, H.J., Kosina, P., Crouch, J. Wheat Facts and Futures 2009, CIMMYT, Batan, Mexico, 2009. 15. Paisner, M.S., Meijer, S., Rosegrant, M.W., Witcover, J. Global Food Projections to 2020: Emerging Trends and Alternative Futures; International Food Policy Research Institute: Washington, DC, USA, 2001. 16. Goslinga, R. Personal communication based on project partners’ combined data, November 2010. 17. Ferroni, M. Harnessing Private and Public Investment for Enhanced Productivity in Smallholder Agriculture. Presented at the 2008 Annual Meetings Program of Seminars–World Bank; Washington, DC, USA, October 2008. 18. Von Braun, J., Ferroni, M. Public-Private Partnerships in Agriculture Research: Towards Best Practice and Replicable Models; The World Bank: Washington, DC, USA, 2008. Available online: http://www.syngentafoundation.org/db/1/570.pdf (accessed on 15 November 2010). 19. 2011 by the authors; licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution license (http:// creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0/).
Reproduced from Sustainability 2011, 3, 1064-1073 (www.mdpi.com/journal/sustainability) with kind permission of the authors.
7
8
Public-Private Partnerships in Plant Breeding Research-for-Development CL Laxmipathi Gowda, KN Rai, BVS Reddy and KB Saxena International Crops Research Institute for the Semi-Arid Tropics (ICRISAT) Patancheru 502 324, Andhra Pradesh
Introduction Research and development are two of the essential components of an integrated program required to make an impact on the well being of the target populations. Many organizations deal with both these components, but not all. These organizations may differ in their vision and mandate, organizational structure, operational domain, and the nature and magnitude of resources, but many of them may have common goals of making an impact on the target populations or on the environments in which they live. It is these shared goals that drive the research and development organizations towards building partnerships and often times pursuing it further for adaptation to changing conditions. As a result of the Central Seed Act of 1966, public sector research organizations dominated seed production in India (Morrison et al, 1998). This policy restricted the development of private sector (PS) seed industry. It was not until the enactment of the new seed policy in 1988, which enabled the commercial sale of improved hybrids and varieties as truthfully labeled seed, that the PS began to prosper. In India, currently the private seed sector comprises of about 20 major players (sales capacity of more than Rs. 500 million), several medium size players (sales capacity of Rs. 50-500 million) and a large number of small and/or unorganized players (sales capacity of less than Rs. 50 million) (Dravid 2008). More than 600 hybrids of field crops and vegetables are being marketed in India, mostly as truthfully labeled seed from the private sector. The International Crops Research Institute for the Semi-Arid Tropics (ICRISAT) conducts partnershipbased, impact-oriented research including plant breeding. Its partnership with the public sector research institutions has been the hallmark of operational structure since its inception in 1972.
However, considering the increasing strength of the private sector in research and development investment and the significant role that it can play in cultivar development and delivery, ICRISAT visualized private seed sector as a valuable partner in research-for-development. This paper outlines the needs for partnerships, discusses distinguishing features of the public and private sector and their relative strength with respect to various aspects of plant breeding research and development, and describes the evolution of a novel ICRISAT-PS partnership model that has immensely benefitted ICRISAT, the private sector, and the National Agricultural Research System in India.
Partnership Needs It is being increasingly recognized that multidisciplinary team approaches and interinstitutional, inter-sectoral partnerships are the only way for scientists and institutions to survive, to be effective and to remain relevant to the larger goals of research and development efforts. Some of the factors determining the needs for the partnerships are given below. Challenging goals and complex issues: Low and unstable crop production, malnutrition, and degradation of land and other natural resources, further compounded by climate change, are some of the challenging issues that farmers, researchers, development agencies and the governments in the developing countries are often confronted with. All these problems coming together can make a perfect storm. Each of these issues are so gigantic and complex that no single organization, howsoever large and resourceful, has the capability to address these effectively. Thus, a clear need for multi-institutional and multi-sectoral efforts from within the country as well between those located in different countries and in different regions.
9
Resource constraints: The cost of conducting research has been increasing without a commensurate increase in funding in many organizations, notwithstanding even decline in the number of crop improvement scientists in many organizations. These funding constraints severely impact on the scientists’ ability to address complex research and development issues requiring longterm commitments. However, such human and financial resources are scattered in different institutions, which when pooled together in a partnership, lead to resource optimization to meet the research and development goals. Efficient resource use: There is a high probability of the duplication of research when working in isolation. This is not always due to lack of knowledge of such duplication, but by sheer importance of such activities which organizations would not like to leave un-addressed. Partnership approaches minimize the duplication of research efforts and facilitate functional pooling of resources, leading to greater efficiency. Relevant technology development: When acting in isolation, researchers may develop a technology excelling in many, aspects except in one or two that may be vital for its acceptance by the farmers or the consumers. Partnerships bring together experts from relevant areas who contribute the existing knowledge, or have the ability to collect and generate the information required for developing the relevant technology. Rapid technology adoption: In a partnership approach, it has to be realized that partner excels in an area in the value chain leading to the adoption of its product by the farmers. For instance, one institute may be better placed to address a key strategic research issue or develop the technology; the second one may be better placed to test, verify and validate the technology; and the third one may be better placed (due to its linkage with the farmers) to demonstrate the advantage of the improved technology effectively to enhance the scale and pace of technology adoption. When institutions or agencies dealing with various components along the value chain work in a partnership, there is no missing link, which enhances the pace of technology adoption. Capacity building and innovations: Capacity
10
building has become an integral part of the research and development projects. This is better achieved through partnerships as partners bring together different expertise and perspectives. This allows the partners to become more effective in their disciplinary areas of expertise, and also become familiar with developments in other disciplines that have a direct bearing on the success of the research and development activities. These intra- and inter-disciplinary interactions among partners from different institutions and sectors may also lead to new ideas and innovations.
Public and Private Sector Complementarities Public-private sector partnership derives its unique strength from the complementarities with respect to several factors that are important from the viewpoint of making impacts on a sustainable basis. The distinguishing features and thrusts of the public and private sector (Table 1) should be seen in relative terms, recognizing that there would be institutional variations within each sector; and in the context of conventional plant breeding in developing countries, such as India. Thus, while the public sector organizations have long-term vision with sustainability perspective and public service attitude and obligations, the private sector has medium and short-term vision, determined largely by business interests. The emphasis in the public sector institutions is on strategic and applied research, which can lead to efficient breeding strategies, publications, and training. The emphasis in the private sector is on applied and adaptive research that can lead to hybrid cultivar development and deployment. Dravid (2008) compared the relative strengths of the public and private sector at various stages leading to cultivar development and deployment, and observed that while public sector is in a stronger position with respect to pre-breeding and line breeding (including hybrid parents development), private sector is in a stronger position with respect to hybrid development, seed production and cultivar deployment (Table 2). Public sector research generally has broader focus, taking into account various plant and grain attributes, agro-ecological adaptation, and prevailing and potential challenges and opportunities. Private sector, in general, has a
targeted and focus approach. The research priority setting in the public sector is more philosophical and relatively less dynamic, whereas it is relatively more dynamic and practical, influenced by market demand, in the private sector. While the public sector organizations have stronger networking ability with other public sector organizations for strategic and applied research, private sector have stronger networking at the downstream development pathway with seed producers, dealers and farmers (even in remote areas), thus facilitating extensive cultivar testing, seed production and delivery. This is perhaps the most distinct complementarity between the two sectors that generates the greatest synergy along the value chain from pre-breeding to cultivar delivery. While public sector is broader
in structure, involving various field-oriented as well as laboratory-oriented disciplines, the private sector has narrower inter-disciplinary structure, but well integrated and effective inter-sectoral structure. In general, the seed production is of limited interest to the public sector, and extension provides a vertical link in the value chain. The highly effective inter-sectoral integration is one fundamental reason why private sector is often more effective in developing and deploying farmeracceptable cultivars more rapidly. Both sectors operate by the rules of their organizations, but there is greater flexibility and accountability in the private sector. This enables private sector making quick decisions compared to those in the public sector. Given that the flexibility must ensure the expected outcome, it also carries incentives.
Table 1. Generalized basic features / thrusts of public and private sector agricultural research and development organizations in developing countries. Feature/Thrust
Public Sector
Private Sector
R&D spectrum
Strategic applied
Applied-adaptive
Vision
Medium and long term
Short and medium term
Focus
Broad
Narrow
Outputs
Publications, training, breeding lines, cultivar
Cultivar, seed sale volume
Attitudes
Public service
Profit-oriented
Network domain
Research, development
Development, marketing
Operational flexibility
More restricted
Less restricted
Confidentiality
Lax
Strict
Research priority
Philosophical, Less dynamic
Practical, more dynamic
Risk
Less
High
Research team
Broad, inter-disciplinary
Narrow, inter-sectoral
Sectoral integration
Weak
Strong
Table 2. Strengths of public and private-sector at different stages of cultivar development. Activity Pre-breeding Line breeding Hybrid breeding Product development Large scale seed production Product deployment
Period 2-3 2-3 1-2 2-3 1-2 1-2
Y Y Y Y Y Y
Relative strengths
Combined
Nature of PPP
Public
Strengths + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +
preferred Bilateral Bilateral / Bilateral / Bilateral / Bilateral /
+ + + + + +
Private
+ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +
Multilateral Multilateral Multilateral Multilateral
Source: Dravid (2008)
11
Such opportunities are generally restricted in the public sector. While the public sector generates knowledge and information, which remain in public domain, the private sector maintains high levels of confidentiality associated with competitive business interests. Thus, both the public and the private sectors have more of the positives and less of the negatives, but their complementarities are of overwhelming significance in generating the synergy between social equity of the public sector institutions and efficiency in development and delivery of products by the private sector.
Public-Private Sector Partnership Models ICRISAT visualized an emerging opportunity to develop partnership with the private seed sector, considering the complementarities between the two, and the economic benefits that these companies derive from seed sales of hybrids developed from ICRISAT-bred parental lines and breeding lines,. The relationship between ICRISAT and PS seed companies has evolved over time. In the early years, ICRISAT played a nurturing role to the fledgling industry and provided breeding material, often in informally. The PS seed companies continued to derive significant economic benefits by exploiting ICRISAT-bred improved breeding material, supplied freely on specific requests. As private seed industry grew, it started to develop a significant research capability of its own, particularly the larger companies. This sector also became a major channel for delivering the seed of the hybrids, developed from ICRISAT-bred parent material to farmers. ICRISAT recognized that the Institute’s traditional relationship with public sector breeding programs, though important, was no longer the sole route to farm-level adoption of the hybrids developed using ICRISAT-bred materials. This realization was all the more pertinent as succession of funding shocks to ICRISAT and other CGIAR centers necessitated tapping alternative funding sources, and there was increased scrutiny of the value and impact of international agricultural research (Reddy et al. 2001). ICRISAT scientists visualized that the private sector seed companies, being close to the dealers and farmers, have better perceptions of farmers’ choice and needs, which they translate for large-
12
scale applications in a business approach. These feedbacks on farmers perceptions were useful inputs into prioritizing ICRISAT’s hybrid parents research. Based on these considerations, ICRISAT realized that a fundamental shift was needed from viewing the PS as a passive recipient of ICRISAT breeding material, to treating them as research partners—both as a source of funds and complementary expertise, especially in the area of hybrid development and seed production (Reddy et al. 2001). However, a number of hurdles, mentioned below, had to be overcome, before embarking on an appropriate partnership arrangement. l
Confidentiality concerns, particularly about the source of breeding material in the hybrids and reluctance of PS to reveal the sources of materials.
l
Trade secrets among the PS companies, being competitors in the same niche market segment.
l
Reservations to support public research, because non-investing PS companies take a “free ride”, accessing material from ICRISAT at no cost to them.
l
Concerns over similarity of products (hybrids) using same source material from ICRISAT.
Partnership Models Several alternative models of ICRISAT-private sector partnership were considered and debated in-house. These include: (1) licensing/royalty model, according to which the ICRISAT-bred hybrid parents and advanced breeding lines could be licensed out to seed companies on competitive basis on one-time payment, (2) turnover-based check model, according to which the companies using ICRISAT-bred materials will pay back certain percentage of the returns from their seed sales, (3) mixed model, according to which a base payment will be made as in the licensing model, and then additional annual payments will be made following the turn-over check model, and (4) consortium model, according to which the seed companies will provide annual grants to support ICRISAT’s hybrid parents research. The consortium model was found more appropriate based on several considerations: (i) provision for more stable and predictable resource generation for ICRISAT’s
hybrid parents research, (ii) broader participation of a larger section of the private sector in the partnership (going beyond resource generation), (iii) having flexibility of unrestricted supply of the ICRISAT–bred materials, and (iv) avoiding the high transaction cost of book keeping and monitoring of seed sales of hybrids based on ICRISAT-bred materials.
Hybrid Parents Research Consortium (HPRC) At the time the consortium concept was being formulated, several seed companies were engaged in the development and marketing of hybrids of both sorghum and pearl millet. Considering that some of the PS companies had been working on only one of these crops as their major crop enterprise, it was logical to develop crop-based HPRCs, which came into being in the year 2000 with the following main features. l
PS companies contribute small grants (US$ 5000 per year per crop-consortium under 5-year time-frame).
l
Scientists in the public and private sector (including the non-consortium members) have free access to the improved materials developed in the consortia through material transfer agreement (MTA). There will be no lateral transfer of these materials and all seed requests will be made to ICRISAT.
l
All ICRISAT –bred materials remain in public domain as International Public Good (IPG), and no seed company will have exclusive rights.
l
Opportunity is provided to PS seed companies to attend field days at ICRISAT to select the materials of their choice at any stage of the development.
l
PS seed companies provide the feedback to ICRISAT on the performance of ICRISATdeveloped materials (without completely disclosing the pedigree) and on the farmers needs from time to time.
Evolution of HPRC The consortium arrangement principally designed to strengthen ICRISAT’s hybrid parents research and to serve both public and PS organizations, had
been working fairly well. Seven seed companies joined sorghum HPRC and 9 seed companies joined pearl millet HPRC in 2000, which grew to 14 in sorghum and 16 in pearl millet in 2003. During this period, some companies showed interest and joined a pigeonpea HPRC in 2002, leading to a total of 33 memberships (Fig. 1). During this period, it was recognized that although more than 50 seed companies had significant hybrid research and development activities based on ICRISATbred materials, many of these (including some of the major players), were not members of these consortia. Therefore, a dialogue was initiated with the consortia members to revisit the consortia arrangement, and the consortia guidelines for the second phase (2004-2008) were amended with the following key features: l
Arrangements with respect to the support for addressing the core research agenda of the Institute and producing IPG, access to and transfer of the ICRISAT-bred materials, and the need for the consortia members to provide feedback on the performance of the material will continue to be a central feature of the partnership.
l
There will be two categories of memberships: (i) Promotional membership for the well established seed companies with annual grant of US$ 10,000, and (ii) Promotional membership for start-up companies with annual grant of US$ 5,000.
l
Primary consortia members will have access to all four classes of improved breeding materials (breeding lines, A/B pairs under conversion, finished A/B/R lines; and released/ commercial/ registered hybrid parents), while the “Promotional members will have access to released hybrid parents, and to finished A/B/R lines three years after they are designated (Table 3).
l
Primary members will receive 100 lines each of sorghum and pearl millet per year, free of cost. Additional lines can also be obtained, but on charge basis. Promotional members will be entitled to 25 lines per year.
l
Non-members will have access to only released/commercial/registered hybrid parents, three years after they are named at ICRISAT and supplied to consortium
13
members. Breeding materials at all stages of development will be available freely to NARS and public sector institutions worldwide. l
ICRISAT will coordinate a multi-location trial of hybrids (currently of sorghum and pearl millet) developed by the consortium members. This will enable the PS companies to generate reliable performance data across a set of test locations. PS partners will provide Rs. 10,000 (US $225) per entry to defray costs of facilitating the multi-location evaluation.
l
A five-member Advisory Committee, with three members from the Private Sector (two representing primary members and one representing promotional members) and two members from ICRISAT, will be constituted to monitor and provide guidelines to the consortia.
With the above revision and no-free-access policy, there was impressive and steady growth in the consortia membership, with 49 seed companies joining one or more than one consortia (Fig. 1). It is significant that a Foundation, a State Seed Corporation, and a few seed companies from overseas (Egypt, Indonesia and Brazil) also joined
these consortia. The global economic meltdown in late 2008 forced many seed companies to revise their priorities, leading to either abolition or dilution of their research and development activities in these crops. It is also possible that several of these companies that had received a large number of ICRISAT-bred lines might have thought that they could do without the consortium membership for the next several years. The result was a sharp decline in membership in 2009. Considering the increase in operational cost, and reduction in the membership, it was proposed to increase the amount of annual from 2009 onwards for the third phase (2009-2013) of the consortium. Thus, while keeping the overall terms and conditions of phase 1 and 2, a further revision of the consortia guidelines that included the additional terms given below, was recommended by the advisory committee and approved by the ICRISAT Management. l
The Primary members pay Rs.6,50,000 per annum and promotional members pay Rs. 325,000 per annum to each crop consortium.
l
Membership of consortia is specific to country
Table 3. Seed procurement charges applicable to seed companies for various classes of seed materials developed at ICRISAT-Patancheru.
Improved breeding materials class Breeding lines (F4/S2 onwards) A/B pairs under conversion
Primary consortium members Yes Yes
Material access and charges Promotional Nonconsortium members members No No No
No
Charge per sample1 (US$)2 100 200
Finished A/B/R-lines3 Yes Yes5 No 350 Released/commercial A/B R-lines4 Yes Yes5 Yes6 400 1. Each sample will refer to 5 grams seeds per sample of sorghum and pearl millet, and 10 grams seeds per sample of pigeonpea. 2. Consortium members will have a 50% discounted rate for each sample. (20% of the Samples will be Gratis). 3. Refers to well characterized and designated lines (named as per ICRISAT nomenclature) as promising hybrid parents. 4. Refers to those lines identified as parents of hybrids tested/released by national programs, or parents of hybrids developed and commercialized by seed companies or registered as potential hybrid parents at ICRISAT. 5. These materials will be made available to Promotional Members, 3 years after they are named at ICRISAT. 6. Non-members will have access to this material 3 years after they are supplied to consortium members.
14
Fig. 1. Growth in the membership of Hybrid Parents Research Consortium
of operation. Any subsidiary seed company, fully owned by the Consortium member company, can become an Associate Member at 40% discount on the membership fee prescribed as above.
Salient Features of HPRC Consortia seed companies are the major beneficiaries of the HPRC, largely in terms of rapid access to a large number and diverse range of breeding materials and hybrid parents. NARS benefit from the consortia-supported research as well, in terms of having wider options to the diversity of materials. ICRISAT also benefits from this arrangement in terms of its greater effectiveness in capacity building and impact assessment. Some of the salient features of the HPRC are described below. Material dissemination: Sorghum and pearl millet hybrid programs at ICRISAT designate more than 12 hybrid parents (A/B pairs and R-lines) annually in each crop, which are supplied to the public and private sector breeding programs on request. During the biennial Scientists Field Days, ICRISAT exposes all breeding materials to scientists who select the materials as per their choice of plant type requirements. This is the major channel for large scale dissemination of breeding materials.
For instance, consortium seed companies selected 1107 breeding lines of pearl millet during the 2010 Scientists Field Days for which 3095 seed samples were supplied (Table 4). Public sector scientists also selected 1081 breeding lines for which 2700 seed samples were supplied. In the same year, consortium seed companies selected 730 breeding lines of sorghum for which 1380 samples were supplied. Public sector scientists selected 411 breeding lines of sorghum for which 995 samples were supplied. In Pigeonpea, both public and private sector scientists selected 111 breeding lines in 2010, and 2613 seed samples were provided to them. Research priority setting: Private seed companies through their seed production and marketing networks have better perceptions of the prevailing and changing farmers requirements with respect to plant and grain traits. ICRISAT holds biennial Consortia Consultation Meetings, alternating to Scientists Field Days, to discuss and identify issues of major concern, which are used for priority setting in ICRISAT’s hybrid parents’ research. The main feature of this event is that the subjects for discussion are identified by the HPRC advisory committee, and the presentation is led by a private sector scientist in consultation with other consortium members and ICRISAT scientists. For instance, during the 2009 Consortium Consultation
15
Table 4. Number of lines selected in Scientists Field Days and number of seed samples supplied in sorghum, pearl millet and pigeonpea. Crop Sorghum Pearl millet Pigeonpea
Field Day year 2010 2010 2010
No. of lines selected Public Private Total sector sector 411 730 813 1,081 1,107 1,594 67 111 111
Meeting, a general view was that leaf blast was emerging a serious disease problem, next to downy mildew in pearl millet. Thus, breeding for leaf blast resistance is now incorporated into ICRISAT’s pearl millet improvement program as a priority research area. Rust was also discussed, but the general view was that it is not yet serious and widespread problem. Similar consultation for sorghum suggested that research on productivity enhancement for post rainy season sorghum should be given greater emphasis than the rainy season sorghum. Aphids are becoming severe pests on post rainy season sorghum. Therefore, genetic improvement for aphid resistance has now been included along with charcoal rot as priority research areas. Other priority areas identified were cold tolerance and insensitivity to day length. This consultation also emphasized that in breeding for post rainy season sorghum there is no need to have a strict yardstick of M-35 grain type. Rather, the emphasis should be on yield enhancement (both grain and fodder) and good roti quality. In pigeonpea the partners showed preference for white, large-seeded, wilt and sterility mosaic resistant A/B lines in medium-maturity group. Also, it was suggested that the hybrids seed production program should be further refined to increase yield of hybrid seed. Joint research planning: The consortia seed companies as a group have access to diverse locations that enable conducting trait-specific trials. In the areas of common interest to the seed companies and ICRISAT, trials are jointly planned and conducted by seed companies and ICRISAT. For instance, a few promising pearl millet hybrids when grown as an irrigated summer season crop with high fertilizer levels in parts of Gujarat and Rajasthan give 4-5 t/ha grain yield.
16
No. of samples supplied Public Private Total sector sector 995 1,380 2,375 2,700 3,095 5,795 104 2,509 2,613
on farmers fields. However, most of the hybrids had poor seed set due to high temperatures, often exceeding 420C during flowering. Thus, there has been a growing interest in developing heat tolerant hybrids for such environments. ICRISAT and a few private seed companies have screened ICRISAT-bred lines and identified more than 5 candidate lines with excellent heat tolerance at flowering stage. Similarly, at least four seed companies have shown interest in breeding forage hybrids, and these companies have now been evaluating ICRISAT-bred forage populations to initiate forage hybrid development. Nine consortium seed companies participate in pearl millet biofortification program to breed highyielding and high-iron pearl millet hybrids. The participating seed companies evaluate hybrids and parental lines for field performance and provide grain samples for mineral analysis. Based on increased emphasis for aphid resistance in sorghum, a large number of germplasm breeding lines contributed by ICRISAT and PS seed companies were evaluated multilocationally and 20 resistant sources were identified. In a joint test of post-rainy season hybrids, two hybrids from the private sector and three from ICRISAT were found promising for further evaluation. In pigeonpea the participating seed companies offered their resources to conduct multi-location trials of ICRISAT-bred materials and also to study the stability of newly developed A-lines. Capacity building: Scientific capacity building of the consortia members is a part of the consortia arrangement, according to which the scientists from the seed companies are trained at ICRISAT. In case of sorghum and pearl millet where the hybrid technology is well established, limited use has been made of this provision. However, in case of pigeonpea where the hybrid technology is
still being perfected, substantial training has been provided to consortium and NARS scientists and technicians. For instance, a total of 565 personnel, which included scientists and seed officers, were trained on different aspects of pigeonpea hybrid technology Structured training courses are also organized for capacity building. Thus, in an International Training Program on Pearl Millet Improvement and Seed Production organized in 2006, 19 of the 43 participants were from the private sector. It is well recognized that ICRISAT and consortium seed companies have comparative skills in different fields. For instance, seed companies have greater skills in seed production, processing and marketing. Thus, in the above training course, 8 of the 21 resource persons were from the consortium seed companies who participated in the preparation of the lectures in the areas of their expertise. In a follow up training course organized in 2011, 9 private sector scientists were trained. In a similar course organized for sorghum, 11 scientists from the private sector were trained in 2010. Consortium seed companies also host the trainees and provide training in breeding, seed production and seed processing activities. Impact assessment: Impact assessment is an integral part of ICRISAT’s research programs. There are three aspects of the consortia impact which are relevant from research and development perspectives. The most important of these is the impact on the livelihoods of the farmers, which is yet to be assessed. Plans for such studies are being developed. The other two aspects deal with on-farm hybrid cultivar diversity and the genetic base of the consortia hybrid programs. In a preliminary pearl millet study where 25 of the 34 consortium seed companies responded, it was found that these companies had marketed 82 hybrids in 2006 (Mula et al, 2007). In this study it was assumed that other seed companies who did not respond to the questionnaire, or those who were not members of the pearl millet HPRC must have marketed at least 10 additional hybrids. Thus, a total of 92 pearl millet hybrids (by name) were marketed in 2006, which indicates the tremendous on-farm hybrid cultivar diversity as compared to no more than a dozen hybrids in the mid-1990s. How genetically diverse such hybrids could be is a matter of investigation. In this study,
only six seed companies provided information on the extent of use of ICRISAT-bred materials in developing 18 hybrids that had been marketed by them. All of these had at least one parent that had been bred at ICRISAT, or had ICRISAT-bred materials in the development of their proprietary parental lines. Fourteen hybrids (i.e., 78% of the total) were based on ICRISAT-bred A-lines, while another 3 had 25-50% ICRISAT-bred materials in the parentage of their proprietary A-lines. By extrapolation, it would appear that 72 of the 92 hybrids would have some portion of the ICRISATbred materials in the parentage of the parental lines of these hybrids. Seven seed companies mentioned having 10 to 90 A/B pairs and 15 to 411 R-lines in pearl millet in their programs (Mula, unpub.) In sorghum, out of about 70 private sector hybrids marketed, at least 54 were based on ICRISAT-bred parental lines or their derivatives (Reddy et al, 2005). Ten consortium members who responded, had marketed a total of 15 hybrids having ICRISAT-bred materials in their parentage. In all these 15 hybrids, six restorer lines are involved that have 50 to 70% ICRISAT-bred improved germplasm, four hybrids have both the hybrid parents with 25 to 50 ICRISAT-bred germplasm material, two hybrids have both A- and R-lines with 100% ICRISAT-bred improved germplasm, and one hybrid involves both A- and R-lines bred by ICRISAT. With respect to the diversification of the genetic base of consortia programs, five seed companies mentioned having 15 to 256 A/B pairs and 21 to 118 R-lines (Mula et al, 2006). A few case studies of adoption of hybrids based on ICRISAT-bred parental lines have been done both in sorghum and pearl millet. For instance, sorghum hybrid JKSH 22 (Fig. 2) known for its high grain yield potential, large grain size and earliness (5-10 days earlier than the popular hybrid CSH 9) was adopted on 2,10,000 ha in 2002 (Reddy et al, 2004). Adoption of another sorghum hybrid VJH 540 increased from 650 ha in 1997 to 1,42,000 ha in 2003 (Reddy et al, 2005). Apart from these, several other private sector hybrids with ICRISAT-bred germplasm such as MLSH 296, GK 4009 and GK 4013 are widely adopted in India. Seed production of ICRISAT– private sector partnership hybrid, JKSH 22 alone earned farmers on an average over Rs. 137 crore
17
Fig. 3. Heat-tolerant pearl millet hybrid 9444
Fig. 2. JKSH 22 - A highly popular ICRISAT-Private sector partnership sorghum hybrid with high adoption level
per year in AP and Karnataka, and Rs. 1,200 crore from commercial cultivation of JKSH 22 in Maharashtra and other sorghum-growing areas in India (Reddy et al, 2007). The development and dissemination of a method of producing heterotic landrace pollinator-based hybrids for post-rainy season adaptation provided the impetus for the private sector to develop and market post-rainy season-adapted sorghum hybrids for the first time in India A similar study of two hybrids (JKBH 26 developed by JK Agri Genetics; and 9444 developed by Bayer Biosciences) based on ICRISAT–bred A-lines or their selected versions was conducted in pearl millet (Mula et al, 2006). Under cultivation since 1996, JKBH 26 has maintained its high downy mildew resistance and reached its highest adoption level of more than 4,00,000 ha in 2005. Hybrid 9444 is popular for its high grain yield, superior fodder quality, and high levels of resistance to downy mildew and tolerance to high temperatures exceeding 420C during the flowering time (Fig. 3). Adoption of this hybrid rapidly increased from 60,000 ha in 2001 to more than 4,00,000 ha in 2006. HPRC Coordinated Hybrid Trials: Private seed companies produce many hybrids and desire to test their multi-location performance. Many of these companies have limited test locations for such evaluations. Therefore, the consortia seed companies suggested that ICRISAT coordinate multilocation hybrid trials as a part of the consortia activities to help generate data for those hybrids
18
which otherwise could not be accommodated in the All India Coordinated trials due to space limitation. Normally, about 12 companies have been contributing to a total of about 25 hybrids for pearl millet trial every year. Similar coordinated trials are conducted in sorghum. Thus, during the 2008 rainy season a trial of 18 entries, consisting of 15 hybrids from 9 consortium seed companies was conducted at 10 locations, and promising hybrids were identified. This trial system has generated field performance data on the hybrids in a cost-effective manner and thus helped accelerate the pace of possible commercialization of their hybrids
Conclusion ICRISAT conducts partnership-based and impactoriented research to address various research and development issues targeted for a range of production systems and geographical regions in its mandate. Partnership with the NARS and ARIs has been the hallmark of its operational structure since inception. Considering the emergence of private seed sector as an increasingly dominant force in the seed sector in India, and also considering complementarities it can bring, the Institute convened the Hybrid Parents Research Consortia (HPRC) in 2020, as an innovative model of public-private research partnership. Its principal objective was to strengthen ICRISAT-private sector partnership for research and development. The HPRC has since grown in strength. HPRC has provided a useful platform for enhanced interaction between ICRISAT and the consortia members, leading to greater participation of the private sector in priority setting, research planning, impact assessment and training. This has enhanced the effectiveness of ICRISAT and its partners (both
public and private sector) as well as the consortia members that is reflected in the development and deployment of a diverse range of high-yielding hybrids, with improved resistance to diseases, and thus contributing to increased crop productivity and stability.
References Dravid, P.S. 2008. Creation of successful public-private partnerships in Indian seed industry. Presented at the Asian Seed Congress. Morrison, M.L., Singh, R.P. and Pal, S. 1998. India’s maize seed industry in transition: changing roles for the public and private sectors. Food Policy 23: 55-71. Mula, R.P., Rai, K.N., Kulkarni, V.N. and Singh, A.K. 2007. Public-private partnership and impact of ICRISAT’s pearl millet hybrid parents research. SAT J. Agric. Res. 5. Mula, Rosana P., Ramesh, S., and Reddy, B.V.S. 2006. Harnessing public-private partnership for enhanced impacts of crop improvement research: The case
of sorghum. Asian Seed & Planting Material. 14 (4): 8-10. Reddy, B.V.S., Hall, A.J. and Rai, K.N. 2001. The long road to partnership: private support of public research on sorghum and pearl millet. In Hall, A.J. Yoganand, B., Rasheed Sulaiman, V. and Clark, N.G. (Eds.). 2001. Sharing perspectives on public-private sector interaction: proceedings of a workshop, 10 April 2001, ICRISAT, Patancheru, India. Library Avenue, Pusa, New Delhi 110 012, India, and Patancheru 502 324, Andhra Pradesh, India: National Centre for Agricultural Economics and Policy Research (NCAP) and International Crops Research Institute for the Semi-Arid Tropics (ICRISAT). pp. 27-34. Reddy, B.V.S., Ramesh, S,, Borikar, S.T. and Hussain, Sahib K. 2007. ICRISAT-Indian NARS partnership sorghum improvement research: strategies and impacts. Cur. Sci., 92(7): 909-915. Reddy, B.V.S., Ramesh, S. and Gowda, C.L.L. 2005. Forging research and development partnerships with private sector at ICRISAT-sorghum as a case study. SAT J. Agric. Res. 1(1).
19
20
Creation of Successful Public-Private Partnerships in Indian Seed Industry P.S. Dravid J.K. Agrigenetics Pvt. Ltd.
Introduction The shifting nature of science, technology and innovation in Indian agriculture has necessitated new approaches to conducting the research and development (R&D) by both public-sector institutes and private-sector companies. PublicPrivate Partnerships (PPP) in agricultural R&D are increasingly viewed as an effective means of conducting advanced research, commercializing new technologies, and deploying new products for the benefit of farming community irrespective of their resource position and food security. PPPs are pro-science and pro-society, where partners jointly plan and execute activities with a view of accomplishing mutually agreed upon objectives while sharing the costs, risks and benefits incurred in the process. Indian Seed Industry is evolving into a new phase where most of the companies irrespective of their size are increasingly investing in R&D, which is a key factor for long-term success of business. Given this situation, research cost management is important for cost –based edge over the competition, especially in those areas where research costs are prohibitively high when undertaken in isolation. Indian public-sectors having its widespread network and massive infrastructure and have capacity to generate new technology, but is facing the challenge of changing needs of the farming community and access to market based knowledge more so in hybrid seed sector. PPPs in Indian context are sure way of reducing the research costs, facilitating innovation and enhance impact in the agriculture sector.
Seed Industry In India Indian seed market is the fifth largest; it is almost exclusively supplied by domestically produced seeds except for very little quantity of hybrid vegetables. The seed industry in India has been valued to approximately Rs. 75 billion. Over a period of time, it has evolved to a great height,
especially after 1988, when the new seed policy opened gates to the private-sector investments. Now, the seed sector is seen as a major driver of agriculture sector in the country and is expected to realise future growth due to increased seed replacement rate, higher conversion to hybrids, wider use of proprietary hybrids, increased farmer awareness of new methods and introduction of technologically advanced products that offer improved biotic and abiotic traits including Genetically Modified crops. Initially public-sector seed companies (State Seed Corporations) played a pivotal role in the Indian seed industry; now they are primarily catering the requirements of certified seeds of high yielding varieties of cereals and pulses. On the other hand, private-sector is rapidly increasing its presence in high value hybrid sector of cotton, rice, maize, sunflower, sorghum, pearl millet and vegetables. Currently, large number of hybrids of field crops and vegetables are being marketed as truthfully labeled seeds, mostly by private seed companies. The private seed sector comprises of about 20 major players (sales more than Rs. 500 million), several medium (sales between Rs. 50 to 500 million) and a large number of small and/or unorganized players (sales turn over less than Rs. 50 million) with local presence. The seed industry in India is vibrant due to supportive government regulations and also due to access to International Agriculture Research and Indian Agriculture Research system. The private seed industry is now undergoing a transition following the Indian governments positive focus on biotechnology research and plant variety protection through registration as a means of increasing agricultural production and also directed efforts to produce proprietary hybrids through research and development. Intensified international competition has lead to the enhanced investments in R&D that in turn prologue to the establishment of crop breeding systems in most of
21
the companies. Increased costs in R&D have also prompted to seek alternative avenues to reduce the costs and increase the efficiency to produce competitive research products. On the other hand, increased pressure on the public-sector research organizations (that include national and international agriculture research institutes) to generate resources to undertake market based research has opened greater possibilities for seeking a high value partnership with privatesector. This marriage between two sectors is seen evolving rapidly in India.
Agriculture Research Systems in India National Agricultural Research System (NARS) in India has successfully ushered ‘green, yellow, white, blue revolution’. The country is not only self-sufficient in food production but also in a position of strength in the world market in some commodities. Achievements of high standards were realized under the umbrella of Indian Council of Agriculture Research (ICAR), New Delhi. ICAR is operating through 30 All India Coordinated Crop Improvement Projects (AICCIPs), five crop directorates, and seven National Research Centers along with 28 State Agricultural Universities (SAUs) coordinate public-sector plant breeding. The basic material for public sector research is made available through National Bureu of Plant Genetic Resources (NBPGR), through which India has established a working relationship with International Agricultural Research Centers. AICCIPs are mostly crop specific and structured on interdisciplinary platform, encompassing breeding, agronomy, seed technology, biotic and abiotic stress resistance /management and quality assessment. Identification/notification of varieties / hybrid in all the crops require testing in AICCIP system. However, notification is not compulsory for marketing of truthfully labeled seeds by the private-sector. AICCIP provide the best system for multi-location evaluation of hybrids/varieties belonging to different crops (that are coded while trialing) in which private-sector is also a part of it either in terms of contributing hybrids to get them evaluated (on payment basis) or to offer trial locations. Evaluation of hybrids is also being done by SAUs in their jurisdictions on payment basis. The painstaking efforts of public-sector breeders in developing high yielding hybrids or parental
22
lines is not being reached to the farmers due to lack of will or infrastructure to convert them into deployable products. International Crops Research Institute for the Semi-Arid tropics located at Hyderabad has been actively supporting both National and Private Research Programmes with germplasm and elite lines in its mandate crops such as sorghum, pearlmillet, pegionpea, groundnut and chickpea. It also hosts programs of International Maize and Wheat Center (CIMMYT) and Asian Vegetable Research and Development Center, which again work in collaboration with NARS and support private-sector programs. Rapidly growing market of hybrid rice seed has prompted Indian seed companies to enhance interaction with International Rice Research Institute, Philippines, which one of the sources for parental lines for development of high-yielding hybrids. Major private seed companies having long term vision and strategies have expanded the company portfolio by recruiting crop breeders and developing crop breeding teams in their specialty crops. They are generating new and novel germplasm to develop unique selling proposition (USPs) and embodied technologies, using the support from the public institution or through inhouse research management that include multilocation testing. Although many companies are enthusiastic in formulating research strategies to produce USPs, the germplasm at either basic or strategic level one of the bottle neck; and managing prebreeding and breeding stages of the crop improvement are prohibitively costly and time consuming. With the prioritization of crop biotechnology by Indian Government, and well-established research institutes under the auspices of ICAR, Department of Biotechnology (DBT) and Council of Scientific and Industrial Research (CSIR), use of genetic engineering techniques in genetic manipulation of crop varieties got momentum. The successful cultivation of Bt cotton followed by productivity enhancement paved way to think differently on specialty traits (resistance to biotic and abiotic resistance/ quality traits) and their research to incorporate them in parental lines of hybrids in turn adding value to the crop production. The outputs of biotechnology research are protected by intellectual property rights (IPRs) in India,
necessitating major Indian seed companies to look for the avenues to get the technology research collaborations that commenced evolution of new research orientation in both public and private sector.
Crop Improvement Stages of Crop Improvement and Possibilities of PPPs Search for new traits and/or new form of a trait in plants and its improvement through plant breeding for human benefit is a continuous process and realization of a research output in such process takes substantial resources in terms of time, money and men. Increased privatesector participation made plant breeding highly commercial and competitive. PPP are designed to reducing the timelines in plant breeding as well as trait discovery and overcoming the prohibitive costs of conducting the research in isolation, to provide the access to the knowledge and technology, commercialize research outputs and engage in synergistic innovation process. Development of new hybrids/varieties could be segmented in to different phases as prebreeding, breeding, product development, seed production and marketing (Fig. 1). Ideally, an organization needs to possess capacity to attend all activities of plant breeding to develop complete proprietary products. Although public-sector institutes have facilities to handle all the phases of plant breeding except the seed increase and marketing, which traditionally was the role of Public-sector Seed Corporations. With the advent of private-sector in the seed supply chain, a gradual shift in the roles of public and private-sector was observed where in farmers became primary clients to the privatesector in the hybrid crops, which generates profits. Accordingly, parental line development became a priority of all medium-to-large companies, and with the broadening scope of plant breeders rights, line breeding has become mandatory to have exclusivity. The competency in public-sector to do prebreeding and breeding remains to be high where as the private-sector do have better capabilities in market based product development, seed increase and marketing (Table 1). In such a situation PPP possibly would help in exploitation of synergies, distribution of costs and building complementarities and enhancing the profits.
This has been made possible in several stages of plant breeding in India. Development of finished products ICRISAT Hybrid Parents Research Consortia: This has been a successful multistakeholder or polygamous model of PPP that aims at breeding hybrid parents in crops such as sorghum, pearlmillet and pegionpea with the help of collective private-sector funding (34 companies are members of consortia) that augment the ICRISATs dynamic crop breeding programs to avail the research output for commercialization. Under this arrangement each private-sector member provide a grant or annual contribution every year with a commitment of five years. Upon consultation and based on the market feedback received the research objectives are inculcated in the project. Improved breeding lines, populations, and potential hybrid parents will be available to consortium members in the private-sector [under the Material Transfer Agreement (MTA) for breeding materials] and also to the public-sector institutions (with a condition to use in their programs only). Companies already in the business can join as primary member (Rs. 6.50 lakh per year per consortium) and start up companies can join as promotional members (Rs. 3.25 lakh per year per consortium) with a condition to elevate them to primary members in two years of time. Primary members are eligible for all kinds of improved materials, however, promotional members are eligible for only designated materials. In the similar way, International Rice Research Institute has also formulated the Hybrid Rice Development Consortium and has formulated consortia for Maize Development. AVRDC has formulated Core Funding Support from APSA members for granting priority advantage of the results of R&D activities of AVRDC. The individual members have to contribute US$ 6,000/ year for 4 year period. Genetic Materials from NARS: Indian NARS has been instrumental in generating large number of notified varieties/ hybrids for cultivation in different agro-ecological regions, which have immensely contributed to the food basket of India. Central varietal release committee notifies few valuable
23
research out puts generated by AICCIP and SAUs breeders and such of the products are spared to private-sector through indent of breeders seed of parental lines. Several of the high-yielding hybrids developed by the public sector institutes having failed to get notified by the varietal committee due to some insignificant reasons or due to lack of wide adaptation will not reach farmers as they could not be converted into deployable product due to lack of mechanism with the public-sector to spare such products to private companies. Competitiveness among the seed companies has led to focus on different market regions, hence most of them have inclined to the regionspecific or location-specific or segment specific hybrid development. Given this situation, locationspecific hybrids or a potential hybrid that can be commercialized that are not notified could be spared to private sector on mutual agreement. Recently, many SAUs have formulated policies that enable them to spare elite genetic materials either in the finished form (hybrids) or in the semi-finished (parental lines) forms (rarely on exclusive basis), to allow the scientists undertake consultancy and to have collaborative projects with private seed companies. Some Institutes or Universities have acted proactively to spare hybrid parents on general guidelines applicable to all companies like IARI has given parents of rice hybrid RH 10. However, in practice, effective implementation of PPP policies is still awaited. Most of the policies of SAUs follow a model of one time payment of development cost coupled with royalty on sale. However, due to observed change in the scenario of seed supply chain, SAUs are willing to evolve policies to strengthen the private companies without compromising their basic mandate. There is serious thinking in opening systems for contractual research in plant breeding. Services such as screening lines for pests and diseases, abiotic stresses and assessment of quality are being encouraged by the SAUs and such services are already availed by some of the multinational companies that work mostly in the project mode. The PPP could be effectively implemented incase the mechanism to reward the intellectual public-sector scientists through sharing of monetary benefits, which also help in exploiting huge innovative talent available in the public-sector. Central Institutes or Directorates of respective crops hold the large working collections
24
of germplasm vis-à-vis they also have mandate to conduct strategic research utilizing the germplasm and wild relatives to introgress new traits into the elite genetic background. PPP in India could become more vibrant incase the private-sector is allowed to participate in such a research and avail the research outputs in bilateral agreements. Parallel to ICISATS Hybrid Parents Consortia, there are strong possibilities to develop consortium approach in parental line development in cotton, sunflower and rice. Though the best has begun in PPP for the development of Indian Seed System, yet there is long way to realize mutual benefits. Hybrid/Parental Line Evaluation AICCIP: This has been a well-established research arrangement for multi-location and multidisciplinary assessment of research hybrids of private-sector. In this system, hybrids are not only evaluated for their agronomic performance, but also for pest and disease resistance and quality testing. Based on the in-house performance in the research farms, private-sector will contribute hybrids for comprehensive evaluation in the respective AICCIPs every year by paying one-time trailing charges. The private company contributing the hybrids also needs to conduct trial in one of its research farms. Hybrids developed in both public and private-sector belonging to AICCIP centers SAUs, all private companies and central institutes are evaluated in a single trial providing the same platform of evaluation to both the sectors. Material Evaluation in SAUs: Almost each federal state in India has at least one Agricultural University and some have as many as four Universities. These have mandates to cater the farming community needs under their jurisdiction. Improved genetic materials adaptable to the specific area are identified through the trials. Private seed companies enter their hybrids in SAUs trials by paying fees for evaluation, which vary from one University to other. Participation in these trials assume importance to enter business under the seed subsidy system.
Agricultural Biotechnology Stages of Trait Development and Possibilities of Public-Private Partnerships Biotechnology is showing increased presence
Fig. 1. Different stages of novel germplasm/Line development till commercialization using conventional plant breeding techniques
25
Fig. 2. Different Stages of trait identification and commercialization using biotechnical and plant breeding tools
26
in the present day crop breeding and increased hope of doing business in a different way. Since last ten years, many Indian companies have undergone metamorphosis by investing substantially in down stream biotech research to build human talent and infrastructure. Recognizing the biotechnology as potential tool to unearth and impregnate important traits present in the nature into plants to the benefit of the human being, Government of India has initiated many programs that are supportive to enhance privatesector investments. Successful commercialization of Bt cotton has shown the possibility of using traits across biological barriers to improve the performance of crops and add immense value to the agriculture. This prompted few companies to search and patent traits of economic value especially in pest and disease resistance visà-vis abiotic stress tolerance. In some cases, traits adding value in quality are being targeted. Investments of MNCs are very huge compared to Indian companies in Biotech research and they are front-runners in the frontier research and doing work either individually or in association with overseas public-sector organizations, which is seldom possible to Indian companies. Search for the novel traits and using them across biological barrier to maximize the profits is a resource consuming activity involving various steps, requiring different level of knowledge and infrastructure (Fig. 2). High cost of infrastructure and talent, scarcity of scientists in genetic engineering, long gestation period, lowers probability of delivery, higher risk factors, tedious regulatory issues are the major constraints being faced by many Indian companies to either initiate upstream research or to take-up down stream biotech research. On the other hand, innovative technologies developed by DBT and CSIR and central Institutes have not been converted into deployable products as they lack infrastructure to handle down stream research activities. Underlining these facts DBT, CSIR, National Agriculture Innovative Project etc have initiated process of funding to the projects promoting PPP or even joint venture in biotechnology research and development. Interventions of PPP could be possible at different stages that vary in magnitude of investment from both sides (Table 2). JK- Agri- Genetics has been one of the leading
Indian companies to develop effective bilateral collaboration with public-sector organization, Indian Institute of Technology, Kharagpur, to commercialize the Bt-cotton technology under the brand of X-gene. JK Agri-Genetics is the first Indian company to commercialize Bt cotton using indigenous technology. It has also attracted public grants to enhance its biotech capabilities under the CSIRs New Millennium Indian Technology Leadership Initiatives Projects, TamilNadu Agricultural University, Coimbatore and bilateral agreement with NBRI, Lucknow, Indian Agricultural Research Institute, New Delhi. Another company actively involved in attracting the public funding is Mahyco, which is a part of Agriculture Biotechnology Support Program (ABSP), a mutlistakeholder and multinational (India, Bangladesh and Philippines) project conducting research on genetic transformation of Brinjal with Bt gene. Small Business Innovation Research Initiatives Scheme (SBIRI): Department of Biotechnology, India invites proposals from biotech companies/ entrepreneurs (recognized by Department of Scientific and Industrial Research) under the umbrella of SBIRI for innovative, early stage, preproof-of-concept research and development, and commercialization projects to strengthen existing private industrial units. SBIRI has been one of the very good platform to create opportunities for starting new technology-based or knowledge based business in biotechnology by science entrepreneur. Five seed companies have made the successful proposals to the SBIRI, that included Shriram Bioseed Genetic India Limited, Hyderabad, Rasi Seeds Ltd, Maharasthra Hybrid Seed Co Ltd., Nuziveedu Seeds Limited. The projects submitted aimed at transgenic research for biotic and abiotic stresses. Department of Biotechnology has formulated an advanced technology scheme called Biotechnology Industry Partnership Programme (BIPP). The Scheme envisages public-private partnership on cost sharing basis. It is meant for High risk, Transformational Technology/ Process Development. In case of its break through research which enables IP generation, the ownership rights would be resting with the Industry. There are varying models of grants and / or loan available under the scheme.
27
New Millennium Indian Technology Leadership Initiative (NMITLI): It seems to be one of the largest PPP efforts within the R&D domain in the country. It looks beyond today’s technology and thus seeks to build, capture best competencies of punblicly funded R&D institutions, academia and private industry. The government finances and plays a catalytic role. NMITLI has so far evolved 57 largely networked projects in diverse areas and among them three are specific to crop breeding and biotechnology especially aiming improvement of rice and cotton for biotic and abiotic stresses vis-à-vis quality. The strategy adopted for NMITLI is to obtain an inverse risk-investment profile i.e. Low investments – high-risk technology areas (with global leadership potential) with investments increasing as developments take place and projects move up on the innovation curve with reduction in risks. Both ‘push’ and ‘pull’ type of projects are evolved under NMITLI, which are nationally evolved projects and industrially evolved projects.
Private-Sector Incubations This is also a multistakeholder partnership arrangement where IRS or NARS operate programs, facilities, or support services to strengthen private-sector investment in agricultural research. Agri-Business Incubator (ABI) at ICRISAT The ABI facilitates creation of Agri-business enterprises through technology development and commercialization. It also supports startingentrepreneurs with agri-technology, consultancy, networking with management experts, venture capital funding, marketing and physical infrastructure. The technology of cultivation of sweet sorghum and production of ethanol from it has been a success story in ABI. Biotech Consortium India Limited Biotech Consortium India Limited, New Delhi was set up in the year 1990 with the objective of
Table 1. Strengths of public and private-sector in different steps of cultivar development. Activity Pre-breeding Line Breeding Hybrid Breeding Product Development Large scale seed production Product deployment
Period 2-3 Y 2-3 Y 1-2 Y 2-3 Y 1-2 Y 1-2Y
Relative strengths Public +++++ ++++ ++ ++ + +
Private + ++ +++ ++++ +++++ +++++
Combined strengths +++++ +++++ +++++ +++++ +++++ +++++
Nature of PPP preferred Bilateral Bilateral/Multilateral Bilateral/Multilateral Bilateral/Multilateral Bilateral/Multilateral
Table 2. Strengths of public and private-sector in different steps of trait development. Activity
Identification/characterization of genes Bio Informatics/gene cassette Genetic transformation Proof of concept Trait-integration Pre-commercialization / regulatory affairs Approval / commercialization
28
Period
2Y
Relative strengths Nature of PPP Public Private Combined preferred strengths +++++ + +++++ Bilateral
1Y 1-2 Y 2-3 Y 3-4 Y 2-3 Y
++++ ++++ +++ ++ +
++ ++ +++ ++++ ++++
+++++ +++++ +++++ +++++ +++++
Bilateral Bilateral Bilateral/Multilateral Bilateral/Multilateral Bilateral/Multilateral
1Y
+
+++++
+++++
providing linkage between the R&D and industry to facilitate the commercialisation of biotechnology products and processes. BCIL has been engaged in technology development, technology transfer, project consultancy, fund syndication, information dissemination, manpower development, placement and training related to biotechnology. It has so far assisted more than 150 clients belonging to diverse background including scientists, technologist, research institutions, universities, first generation entrepreneurs, the corporate sector, government, banks and financial institutions. Biotech Parks and Incubations The Biotechnology Parks and Biotech Incubation Centers established under this program provided a good template for the promotion of Biotech startup companies and the promotion of PPPs. Biotech Park and Incubation Centers have been established at Lucknow, Uttar Pradesh and Shapoorji Pallonji Biotech Park, Genome Valley, Hyderabad (Andhra Pradesh). The other projects approved for Himachal Pradesh, Karnataka and Kerala for setting up of biotech incubation / pilot plant facilities are at various stages of development. Although, NARS are resource rich in infrastructure, human scientific capital and young students available at graduate level (Ph.D.), efforts of accommodating private-sector within the campuses is yet to begin which will help to
exposure to each others knowledge base leading to co-innovation.
Conclusion The potential benefits of PPP in agricultural biotechnology and crop breeding are yet to be fully realized as numerous opportunities and extensive challenges remain in the frame. IPR issues in the PPP are impediments in the successful implementation of the partnership when it is polygamous in nature and sharing rights in monogamous nature of partnerships. Exclusivity on the knowledge, technology and material and their abuse are other issues to be debated in PPPs as the human resource in both the sectors have limited knowledge in these areas. The coordination costs of the partnerships are seldom addressed in the PPP projects especially in multistakeholder projects; however, such costs need to be managed at the lowest level as being done in ICRISAT Consortia. While exploring a variety of PPP approaches to conducting R&D, each new approach brings with it innovative solutions to improving the project management and financial incentives; navigating complex legal, contractual, and regulatory frameworks; managing and mitigating risk; marshalling greater scientific and political interest and will behind PPPs. In India, both the sectors have opportunities to grow and make a greater impact on the growth of agriculture.
29
30
Co-existance through Public Private Partnership in Seed Sector to Achieve High Potential Gain in Agriculture Arvind Kapur CEO, Vegetable Division, Rasi Seeds P. Ltd. (E-mail:
[email protected])
Indian agriculture has high potential for production and productivity but because of lack of good governance and policies; we are not able to harness this potential. High food inflation is bringing back the focus on agriculture. In 11th plan the average growth of agriculture production remained far below the target of 4%. Now in the preparation of 12th plan, many new suggestive actions are being proposed by many experts of agriculture. Agriculture as such needs major reforms from land acts to marketing of the agricultural commodities and these reforms are going to impact agriculture in the long run. The research and development efforts have to be accelerated to achieve the future targets of food production. Agricultural productivity is plateauing in many crops. Though we have more than 142 million ha. arable land more than the China but producing far less quantities of food than China. In many productive areas of agriculture, the land is being converted into urbanisation and other non- agriculture use. The land is also divided in to smaller units due to family division and then each unit become non- viable for sustaining a family. The absentee farmers are going for nonfood crops like Jatropha, Popular or Eucalyptus etc., thus shrinking this vital resource for food production. There is an urgent need in reforming the archaic land acts and also land use. The consolidation of land and leasing of land should be encouraged and contract farming can add more value for growers and user. The laws should be amended to suit the present day agricultural and business environment. In contract farming, farmers are fully engaged and get better value of their produce and will have sustainable incomes.
Input Sector With the exception of Fertilizer and Chemicals sector, the seed sector which is the most important input sector is neglected in terms of policies and incentives to promote this sector. There are more than 200 seed companies in the country, engaged in the seed research, production and marketing activities. There are three types of seed companies who are presently involved in seed research and distribution. 1. Around 20% companies are engaged in research, production and marketing of seeds. 2. Around 50% of the companies are involved in production and marketing of seeds only. These companies normally produce public bred varieties and hybrids or license hybrid seed production from third parties. 3. Remaining companies are trading varietal and hybrid seed licensed from other companies in India and abroad. The total traded seed sector in India is around 9800 Cr. ($2.2 bn.). Out of which one third is contributed by Bt. cotton seed alone. Around 18% contribution is coming from vegetable seed industry. Due to non-food usage of corn both in USA and China, the corn prices are surging in the world. In India, with the introduction of single cross hybrids in corn, the productivity has improved in many states. Particularly Bihar, Karnataka, A.P. and Maharashtra, the productivity is more than 3.5 to 4 tons almost double than the national average. The area under corn is also growing and present area of 8.5 million hectares may increase to more than 10 million ha, in next few
31
years. This is happening because of high price in the international market and growing poultry and animal feed industry in the world. In Many crops, the area under planting is decreasing. Particularly in Sorghum and Pearl Millets, the area is decreasing. The major setback is in Kharif Sorghum crop. Certainly this area is shifting mainly to Cotton, Corn and also in few pulses. The hybrid rice area is slowly increasing and is now around 2.3 million ha. And it will grow further with the release of better hybrids by the companies. The area under vegetables is also increasing due to high market prices. Presently the area under vegetables is 8 million ha, which is also expanding like corn and may touch 10 million ha.in few years. These new shifts bring a new environment of investments in seed sector. Initially most of the seed companies in India were family owned and were not investing money either in R&D or infrastructures. With the MNC’s investment in seed business in India, many local companies started investing in R&D and infrastructures to stay afloat in competition with the MNC’s. Since the cost of borrowed money is expensive in India as compared to the developed world, many smaller Indian companies either thinking of divesting their businesses, infusing funds through private equity, or building up Joint Ventures (JV’s) and also going for partnership with public sector institutes for research and technologies. With the increasing intervention of technologies in agriculture and also protection and patenting of technologies and traits, the high cost of accessing these is driving conventional breeding rich companies to go for partnerships. With the new regulations which are going to regulate the seed business like New Seed Bill, Biotechnology Regulatory Authority of India (BRAI), the liabilities and risk in seed business will increase. Already the seed industry has high risks in investing in research and technologies, seed production,creating seed inventories and storage of seed to maintain viability. With the new liability clauses in New Seed Bill forced the smaller companies to invest heavily in research, infrastructures and people to mitigate the risk of liabilities and compensation. All these factors are
32
presently conducive for encouraging partnerships with public sector.
Public Private Partnership (PPP) Partnership defines a form of agreement(that) entails reciprocal obligations and mutual accountability, voluntary or contractual relationships, the sharing of investment and reputational risks, and joint responsibility for design and execution”(World Economic Forum 2005). According to section 4 of the Indian Partnership Act of 1932, “Partnership is defined as the relation between two or more persons who have agreed to share the profits and losses according to their ratio of business run by all or any one of them acting for all”. Public sector needs private sector support in order to attract more resources, expand coverage and provide diversity of service. Private sector needs public sector in order to influence the policies, interest & taxes on investments, access to local and global gene pool beside access to infrastructures and trained manpower. Partnerships are more useful when the net benefit of Partnership exceed those of Independent Activities. PPP would improve equity, efficiency, accountability, quality and accessibility of the entire agricultural research and production system. Both sectors can potentially gain from one another in the form of resources, technology, knowledge and skills, management practices, cost efficiencies and make over of their respective images.
Scope of PPP Scope of PPP in agriculture is immense because of mega public sector in agri. research and vibrant private sector in mass production and delivery.
Types and Models of Partnerships Contracting Contracting-out and Contracting-in is themost common form of partnership where public and private partners are either receiving grants or pool budgets for delivering certain services. In this, public sector is contributing in terms
of infrastructures and trained manpower and private sector is contributing in terms of financial resources and commercial expertise. Joint Ventures / Joint Projects In this kind of model both the partners agree to work jointly on certain projects by pooling budgets and expertise and the results of the outcome are shared based on the cost and expertise division. These projects are normally managed by a project management team consists of public and private experts. Exclusive/Non Exclusive Marketing and Distribution In this kind of arrangement, a product which is developed by public sector can be exclusively/nonexclusively sourced by private sector and royalties can be shared based on the arrangements. Similarly public sector can source certain products from private sector and distribute in the market
Challenges in Partnerships Opinions on the motives are divided between the sectors. Public sectors motive is to provide product & services to all stakeholders at minimum cost or free as public goods. These objectives are set because public money is spent to develop the products and expertise to deliver the services. Extreme view sometime is taken that private sector is primarily motivated by profit. As private sector is generating its own revenue to develop a product or services, they have to sell the product with profit element built in the product or services. So the Private sector is neither so easy to characterize nor easy to neglect. Private sector strength is in its innovativeness, efficiency, learning from competition, higher management skills, and higher level of motivation.
Success of Partnerships Partnerships succeed due to individuals who are strong leaders and who champion the partnership projects with vision energy and enthusiasm. Partnerships are no substitute for good governance
and the partnerships require leadership within the public sector. There is always a danger that in public sector where ever the governance is weak, partnerships are always projected as an automatic choice rather than improving governance. For a successful partnership, the maturity and leadership is required from both the partners and there is no substitute for this.
Enabling Environment for Successful Partnerships There is a need of clear understanding between the partners about mutual benefits. They must create clear understanding of the responsibilities and obligations between the partners. Both the partners must follow processes and procedures in order to succeed. The understanding of capacity and expertise of the public institutions at different levels in designing and managing contracts must be explored for the successful partnership. Appropriate organizational management systems for success of partnerships is must. The partnership needs some catalyst to start the process of partnership like the issue of stagnation in the productivity or handling biotic and abiotic factors. Successful partnerships also require strong management information system. There should be clarity on incentive and penalties in the partnerships.
Important Guidelines for Successful Partnerships To start a partnership, clear Identification of capacities, capabilities and strength of each partner must be documented and agreed so that project work can be assigned accordingly Partnership guidelines have to be clearly defined. Contributions of each partner also have to be well defined. Outcome of the project have to be clearly focused and projected. Benefits sharing of the outcome after commercialization of products have to be clearly defined.
33
34
Institutionalization of PPP Skills
Creation of P3 Offices
There is a need forrefining the PPP policy and regulatory framework to encourage successful partnerships. There must be system of capacity building inmeeting compliance/public safety norms and also creating systems to improve the MIS, improving bidding documents and procedures, determining risk sharing, conducting value-added research/analysis, and determining adequate monitoring arrangements.
These offices can play the vital role of promoter and resource center. They can alsopromote the idea of PPP among politicians and Officials. Their major function is to suggest policies and legislations to promote and encourage PPP.
Ensuring Commercial Production of Quality Planting Material in Horticulture Public Private Partnership Models and Success Stories Amrik Singh Sidhu, N.K. Krishna Kumar*, M.R. Hegde, A. Krishna Moorthy, S. Ganeshan and Sudha Mysore Indian Institute of Horticultural Research, Hessaraghatta Lake (Post), Bangalore - 560089
Assured supply of quality planting material forms a critical link for an effective adoption of improved technology. While technology generation is a primary responsibility of the breeders scientists, ensuring the supply of seed and planting material in adequate quantity with good quality is not necessarily in the purview of public sector R&D organisations. Internationally, supply of quality planting material has been recognised as a priority area as early as 1930s keeping in view dynamics of protecting Intellectual Property Rights (IPRs) while ensuring adequate supply of the same. Ensuring food availability and self sufficiency in food grain production being primary focus for the centre till recently, mass multiplication and distribution of seed and planting material was assigned to respective state departments for a long time, where in concept of protecting the intellectual property rights or quality based pricing did not find a place. The increased use of hybrids and other complex technologies for yield enhancement and disease resistance in crops complicated their multiplication processes as well, making the existing partnership model of seed and planting material multiplication redundant. Further, advent of WTO and associated changes in global trade order increased significance of Intellectual property protection protocols associated with seed and planting material both domestically and internationally, compelling countries like India to bring in changes in their perspective on the IP policy. The relatively high price for vegetable hybrid seeds charged by the private seed companies is an indirect measure of escalating R&D costs due to the IP rights associated with their development and protection world over. Seed and planting material multiplication forms an important economic activity that ensures *Currently Director, NBAII, Bangalore
additional income and employment for all the stakeholders involved in this activity, including the farmers and nursery men who are endowed with the requisite agro climate and infrastructure. On-farm multiplication of breeders’ seed and certified seed in food grains and vegetables by the National and State Seed Corporations (NSC & SSCs) has been one of the oldest partnership model that ensured price stability in addition to ensuring forward and backward linkages. However, aspect of mass production of quality planting material that also ensures safeguarding IPRs has taken shape rather recently within the ICAR system, ever since ICAR has adopted its own Intellectual Property guidelines w.e.f 2 October 2006. Commensurate with this, there has been a paradigm shift in the ICAR’s perspective on technology transfer, commercialisation and up scaling, successfully paving way towards a more sustainable yet value added research priority process. Following suit has been a quick but smooth transition within ICAR institutions and the SAUs towards a vibrant system of technology commercialisation that helped build better public private partnerships and enhanced the visibility of ICAR scientists R&D efforts. The Indian Institute of Horticulture Research (IIHR), a premier research institution exclusively working for the benefit of all those who are involved with horticultural crop production and value addition has been successful in harmonising different new models of public private partnership, show casing the technology commercialisation besides amassing substantial gross revenue for the institute through its commercialisation endeavours within a short period of two years since adopting ICAR’s IP policy. An attempt has been made in this paper to provide Public Private Partnership models that have been
35
successfully adopted by IIHR in commercialising technologies through licensing.
Quality Planting Material Supply – Pre IPR Policy Period Prior to adoption of Intellectual Property policy, research institutes under NARS system supplied breeders seed to seed multiplication centres under the purview of state governments and private seed companies or nursery men at pre- fixed nominal prices as per their requirement indicated through an indent system. The state agencies in turn multiplied the seeds and planting material on their own facility or at selected farmers’ fields for a fixed rate and distributed to different states as per the indents received. The private seed companies and nursery men also multiplied the seeds for sale. This model ensured only the primary objective of seed supply, while the system neither provided quality assurance nor the breeders have any claim / right over the intellectual property over their innovations. The system thus neither address the issue of sustainability nor quality assurance. Germplasm collection, conservation and utilisation form a major mandate of research for a number of ICAR institutions. It is beyond doubt that such collections made by ICAR researchers provide valuable base material for crop improvement, which gets into the main stream breeding programme and to the private sector research through various research programmes, under the All India Coordinated Research Programmes (AICRPs). Germplasm collection, evaluation, characterisation, screening for biotic and abiotic stress factors and utilisation have been major contributors of crop improvement and disease resistance breeding, irrespective of crop involved. The value of the germplasm, thus, collected or the actual costs involved in the whole process of evaluation and selection have seldom been assessed and quantified. Research publications in refereed journals and citation indices have been the major source of recognition for the researchers’ intellectual contribution. Further, the adoption pattern, research impact due to direct or indirect adoption of technologies could not be assessed leading to grave under valuation of the contributions of public sector R&D efforts. Barring few cases of wide spread adoption and associated visible monetary
36
gains such as ‘Dogridge root stock technology adoption’(Grape), ‘Arka Manik’(Watermelon), Pusa Ruby(Tomato), to name a few, much of the effort by the public research went either under valued or unnoticed. Unlike the West, which adopted stringent intellectual property regimes for both sexually and asexually propagated plant material and gained IP revenue from commercialisation of their research efforts by 1930s, India, similar to its other developing country counter parts did not have clearly defined IP policy untill 2006. ICAR’s decision to adopt its Intellectual property guidelines w.e.f 2nd October 2006 earmarked the beginning of a new era in the history of ICAR & India’s agricultural R&D scenario.
Quality Planting Material Supply – IIHR experience in the Post IPR Policy Period In the post IPR policy regime, adopting the ICAR’s intellectual property guidelines, research institutes under its purview are eligible to initiate commercialisation of technologies through licensing. A total of 25 research institutes representing different crops have been identified by the IP & OM unit of the ICAR for setting up institute level Intellectual Property Management Units. The IP management structure of each institute under ICAR and that under IIHR is represented as shown in Fig. 1. At IIHR, the Institute Technology Management Committee (ITMC) is the appellate authority of the technology commercialization processes, while the Institute Technology Management Units (ITMU) is the functional arm that undertakes the task of technology identification; provide guidance to the innovators in all matters concerning intellectual property protection and commercialization activities. The technology identification and commercialization protocol is presented in Fig. 2. All technical know-how, including the improved varieties, hybrids, post harvest technologies, biotechnology processes or products etc., get screened by the institute’s Variety and Technology Identification Committee (VTIC) which validates the technology and forwards all those which hold potential for commercialization. The ITMU then assesses the strength and potential of all such technology, deliberates with the innovator and his
Fig. 1. IIHR’s IP management Port folio
Technology brief from inventor (in a prescribed format as decided by the individual institution, after necessary clearance by the Institution’s Technology and Varietal Identification Committee} Advertisement of product/technology {Internet (website), Expression of Interest, Annual Report and other In-house publications, other dissemination modes} Request received from interested organization/companies Request Company Profile In-house discussions, Presentation by inventor Approval by Institution’s Technology Management Committee (ITMC) Invite Organizations / Companies for discussion with inventors of the institution Negotiation of Terms and Conditions MOU preparation and legal vetting Signing of MOU & transfer of breeding material/ technologies Fig. 2. Modality for Commercialization Technologies/Breeding Material
37
team, arrives at the possible offer price, arrives at the possible strategy for commercialization and IP protection possibilities as indicated in the following scheme. The technology profile, details of the innovation and the team that is identified by the innovator is maintained under strict confidentiality. The technology commercialization then arrived at adopting different strategies. Given the complexity of the diverse crop groups and their seed / planting material, IPR cell of ICAR also set in motion different models for commercialisation of technologies through licensing. Sub-licensing of technologies or technical know-how would help ICAR institutions to ensure adequate supply of the technology with assured quality, yet retain the institute’s identity and ownership rights over the disseminated technology/ technical know-how. ICAR and research institutes under its purview strictly adhere to the policy of non-exclusiveness and allow equal opportunity for all interested parties irrespective of size or volume of business handled. Technology commercialization process as per the guidelines spelt out under the ICAR’s IP policy, comprises transfer of physical / material component of the technical know-how in the form of seed, planting material or any other input, all of it or a part of it be provided in quantity required for a standard unit (one acre) and the technical knowledge or package of practices for its cultivation and production. The transfer of technology/ technical know-how attracts an up front payment of fixed amount as the technology license fee besides an annual royalty component, which varies from 2-5% of the gross/ net realization from the sale of the technology by the licensee. In most cases, the license is for a period of three years, renewable after a review. Depending on the technology in question, the licensee needs to approach the institute / innovator for fresh seed lot or part of the technical know -how every year so as to ensure quality of the technology disseminated. The innovator and his/ her team also provide hands on training in the use of the technical know-how and provide all assistance for the initial set up at the licensee level. The technology is thus the absolute IP of ICAR/ institute. It is mandatory for the parties involved to sign
38
a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU), that specifies the terms and conditions of the license agreement on ownership of the intellectual property, non-transferability of the agreement, indemnity and dispute settlement procedures. The licensee agrees to use the name and logo of the institute in all sales of the licensed produce.
IIHR Technology Classification Technology or technical know-how available for licensing from IIHR research set up could be classified as: (i) Seed and Planting Material: includes the seeds of improved varieties, hybrids of all horticultural crops; germplasm with unique features termed as ‘advanced breeding lines’ a rich source of special characteristics in purified and non-segregating form. (ii) Crop Protection Technologies: technologies specializing in protecting crops from pests are being commercialized. This includes microbial biocontrol agents like Pseudomonas fluorescens. Trichoderma harzianum, Paecilomyces lilacinus and Pochonia chlamydosporia. Cost-effective, eco-friendly Pheromone trap for monitoring fruit flies as a part of IPM in mango also falls under this category. Apart from this an alternative to synthetic chemical insecticides, a botanical formulation called Neem soap and Pongamia Soap, that are effective on DBM in cabbage and cauliflower, serpentine leaf miner, red spider mites etc have been included under this category. A new microbial plant growth promoter-Pro Seed has recently been introduced under this theme area and is in the process of commercialization. (iii) Micronutrient Formulations: Four types of crop specific Micronutrient supplements that includes Banana Micronutrient Formulation, Vegetable Micronutrient Formulation, Mango Micronutrient Formulation and Citrus Micronutrient Formulation are included under this category These micronutrient formulations enhance fruit quality in terms of fruit appearance, fruit keeping quality and taste. (iv) Agricultural Engineering: Machineries which reduce manpower and saves time are included. The section of Agricultural engineering has
developed a number of machine designs which find application in the following areas l
Nursery
l
Transplantation
l
Pickling industry
l
Mushroom spawn production
l
Fruit harvesting
(v) Biotechnology: Seedless watermelon, Micropropagation protocols for Ornamental plants like Anthurium, Gerbera, Orchids, Tuberose, Hippeastrum, and Chrysanthemum. Micropropagation protocols for Horticultural plants like Male sterile line in Cauliflower, Pointed gourd, Tissue culture protocols and gene constructs have been developed by the Division of Biotechnology. Technologies like Sachet techniques for the low scale acclimatization of micropropogated plants, Endomycorrhizae also known as Vesicular Arbuscular Mycorhizae (VAM) are also included in this group. (vi) Post Harvest Technologies: IIHR does not focus only on increasing the yield and disease management, but has innovations in preventing post-harvest loss and value addition to harvested produce. The Division of PHT has enhanced the quality of products and know-how of many readily
Fig 3: Revenue Generation from Commercialisation of Horticultural Technologies
usable technologies to increase marketability of the produce have been developed thereby reducing the post harvest loss of Horticultural products that perish easily. These include Osmotic Dehydration technology for Amla, Mango, Pineapple and Papaya. Ready to Serve fruit Beverages, Squashes , Watermelon rind candy, Watermelon rind Pickle and Crushed tomato. Besides these, a unique technique for Drying of flowers for increasing shelf life is also available at the institute.
IIHR Technology Commercialisation : Revenue at a Glance The technology commercialisation process has been initiated at IIHR since 2007-08 as per ICAR’s IP policy guidelines adopted w.e.f. 2 October 2006. IIHR since then has undertaken over 140 technology transfers through non exclusive licensing and has amassed gross revenue of Rs. 2 crores. As can be seen from the Figs. 3 & 4, the revenue generation has peaked during 2009 and 2010. Licensing of crop protection technologies, especially the data sets and mother cultures of trichoderma species., have been the major contributor (49%) followed closely by the licensing of seed and planting material including the advanced breeding lines (33%) out of the total IP revenue during 2010-11.
Fig 4: Sources of IP Revenue (2010-11)
39
Public Private Partnership Models adopted by IIHR while Commercialization Technology commercialization through licensing is one way of strengthening public private sector partnership. Since public sector is not equipped with mandate or infrastructure to undertake mass multiplication of seeds and planting material, it could be licensed to private sector institutions that are equipped to carry out the same, creating thereby a win-win situation for both. Few public sector organizations also could undertake the mass multiplication and ensure the quality supply of planting material in requisite quantity, adding value to the efforts put forth by scientists. As a premier research organization, holding a mandate of service to the resource poor, IIHR has been evolving Public Private Partnership (PPP) models befitting the basic mandate of the institute. As a policy, the institute’s ITMU permits licenses operational within Indian Territory only. The following section provides a description of various such models and the problems and prospects associated with them. (i) Technology Licensing directly to Private Seed / other Product Companies IIHR has been successful in licensing some of the advanced breeding lines and specific traits such as ‘male sterility’ in vegetables that help reduce the breeding time, to a number of private seed companies. IIHR being a premier research institute having long standing in the field has been a repository of acquired rare and valuable germplasm in a number of horticultural crops. The research efforts of the eminent scientists has also helped in developing advanced breeding lines in specific crops having ‘male sterility’ associated with specific disease resistance characteristics. The pure line selection and standardization of such advanced breeding lines are of immense value for the private sector seed industry for reducing the time taken for production of hybrids and high yielding types. The institute has licensed such technologies in capsicum, okra, tomato to name a few and has earned to the tune of Rs. 45 lakhs from the non- exclusive licenses it has granted to over 15 private seed companies in the last two years. ITMU ensures appropriate memorandum of understanding, up front payments, royalty and
40
other essential features for safe guarding the interest of the scientists. IIHR also has assigned licenses to private product manufacturers, such technologies that can be directly produced on commercial scale. These include the products such as post harvest technology products, agricultural engineering circuits/designs etc., (ii) Technology Licensing to Private Sector Organizations through a Public Sector Mediator Technology innovations that solicit stringent IP protection such as Patents demand financial back up. Some of the technologies or technical interventions could be simple but may not have easy access to the interested entrepreneurs for immediate commercial production. IIHR adopted the strategy to assign such technologies to a public sector agency that acts as a ‘mediator’ in identifying potential partners for patenting and mass multiplication and commercialization. The National Research Development Corporation (NRDC), New Delhi has been an effective mediator for number of technologies for commercialization. IIHR has an MOA with NRDC valid for a period of five years. ITMU in consultation with the innovator assigns technologies to NRDC on individual case by case basis either for filing for appropriate IP protection or for commercialization. NRDC assists the institute in tracking down the entrepreneurs’ sales, turn over and royalty collections etc., the total emoluments so collected are then shared in the ratio of 70:30 between the Institute and NRDC. IIHR has been able to commercialize more than 6 technologies through NRDC in the last two years. The fact that NRDC has been able to obtain patents for specific innovations and also identify firms that have commercialized products has helped IIHR improve its visibility in the market. (iii) Technology Licensing directly to other Public Sector Organizations Keeping in view the primary mandate of the institute to ensure adequate supply of seed and planting material and other technologies at affordable prices, IIHR adopts a policy of licensing its technologies directly to other public sector
organizations like the National Seeds Corporation (NSC) and Krishi Vigyan Kendras (KVKs). ITMU also has developed appropriate memorandum of understanding to be executed between two public sector organizations while sharing technical knowledge or collaborative research that could involve intellectual property rights. (iv) Other Partnership Models Technology commercialization being a continuous process evolving over a period of time, institution need to keep up breast with innovative means of arriving at partnership models. Some of the technologies warrant generation of authentication data sets, regulatory and bio safety data sets that require technical skills as well as financial support, the partnership models would need special case specific clauses that safe guard the interest of the parties involved. Though standard formats are available, case specific changes need to be made while entering into such agreements.
Criteria and Considerations Adopted in Technology Commercialization The Institute’s Technology Management Unit ensures stringent criteria and considerations while entertaining any technology commercialization processes. These include, l
l
l
Technologies are thoroughly discussed and deliberated at the variety and technology identification committee prior to being considered for commercialization. Varieties, hybrids and other seed material are ensured to meet the Distinctiveness, Unique and stable (DUS) criteria prescribed and are registered at an appropriate appellate body such as PVP&FR or NBPGR. Technology licensing is complete only when the parties concerned have entered into an MOU which is thoroughly deliberated, scrutinized and tailor made for individual cases and agreed upon by both the parties; the relevant seed/ material is supplied in adequate quantity.
l
All technology licenses are granted for individuals or companies of Indian origin or have offices in India and the license granted is permissible only within the Indian territory.
l
The Institute holds all rights on the technology generated and licensed by its scientists.
l
ITMU in consultation with the innovator arrives at the ‘price’ chargeable for a specific technology/ technical know-how. The ITMU/ ITMC however holds the power to charge differential prices under different models of PPP keeping in view the institute’s primary mandate.
Looking Ahead Technology commercialization process adopted by IIHR not only resulted in enhancing availability of quality seeds and planting material to all stakeholders, it has also improved the visibility of the R&D efforts of scientific fraternity associated with horticultural research. The process of technology commercialization has provided a new direction to the research priority for horticulture and has boosted value and confidence of researchers. The models of technology commercialization process adopted by IIHR have helped in enhancing the PPP models in operation. This experience has also been successful in paving the way forward for participatory research opportunities involving public and private sector organisations. IIHR is looking ahead to take lead for commercializing all horticulture based technologies with active participation from other horticultural research institutes. IIHR is eager to take the commercialization process through logical end by expanding its ITMU to a Business Process & Development Unit for providing the incubation and up scaling facilities for small and large entrepreneurs who are interested to initiate horticultural businesses. Given the increasing priority for horticulture and the emerging horti-business opportunities, it is hoped that IIHR and its ITMU would successfully enhance the visibility and commercial value of horticultural research agenda of the institution.
41
42
Public Private Partnership: IARI Experience Malavika Dadlani and Archna Suman Indian Agricultural Research Institute, New Delhi 110012
With the advent of the modern tools and technologies in agriculture research and participation of the private sector in R&D, it is becoming clear that partnerships between the public and private sectors are going to be the order of the day. The premier agricultural research institute of the country, the flagship of the Indian Council of Agricultural Research (ICAR), the Indian Agricultural Research Institute (IARI) is committed to serve the country by developing technologies to enhance agricultural production, productivity and profitability in a sustainable manner. To achieve this, innovation of advanced technologies is as important as their spread and adoption. Public Private Partnership (PPP) can be defined as an approach of developing and operating public utilities and infrastructure by the private sector under the terms and conditions agreeable to both the government and the private sector. These collaborative ventures that are built around the expertise and capacity of the project partners on a contractual agreement, ensures appropriate and mutually agreed allocation of resources, risks, and returns. In a PPP, the ‘private’ partner could be a private company, a consortium, or a nongovernmental organization (NGO). The PPP is operationalized through a contractual relationship based on licensing of a product having a certain commercial values between a public body and a private company. The licensing can be of exclusive and non-exclusive types. The common forms of non-exclusive licensing are through Unilateral licensing (most basic type) in which the upfront payment and royalties from sales of product/ services are taken and include Service Contract, Management Contract/Lease, Memorandum of Agreement and Joint Venture. PPPs represent partnerships in action with sizeable stakes for both the public sector and private sector agencies to succeed collectively. It is important that the public and private sector work together, keeping the project and the outcomes in focus and collaborate for mutually enduring value.
In India establishing PPPs are a relatively new way of doing and expanding business. Most of the research organizations in the public sector are engaged in pursuing the research programmes either simply for the advancement of knowledge or for developing an application for the public good. However, because of their inherent academic nature, the public research institutions are seldom geared to take advantage of and apply the outcome of such scientific outcomes into a commercially viable form. There are ample scope of partnership between the developer of a technology and a commercially oriented private sector, which can exploit the advantages of such technologies. Though the public research institutions primarily depend on the public funds for their major programmes, they are increasingly expected to generate funds from other agencies to support them. There may be several reasons why a developer of the technology considers making its technology available to another person to exploit the same commercially. Some of these are: 1. The developer of the technology may have taken the technology to a state of development so that it is near market ready, but does not have the manufacturing capability or resources to manufacture the product in large scale, and must partner with another organization having the manufacturing capability. 2. The developer of the technology might have the resources to take the technology to a particular state of development, but cannot market the technology so they must partner with private partners/ organization to launch the product in the market. 3. The developer of the technology may have developed the technology fully, and even have manufactured the product to be sold, but it lacks the marketing and distribution channels to give it an advantage and hence
43
must partner with another organization that does have that capability. 4. The developer of the technology might be capable of exploiting the technology in one field, such as seed sector, but might not have the capability to exploit in another field, such as biotechnology and research applications. By transferring the technology for use in another field of application to another person, the developer of the technology creates another income stream from the exploitation that takes place in that other field. 5. The developer of the technology may be a research institute or a university which does not have the capability to exploit it commercially at all, and needs to partner with another organization that does have that capability. Viable public-private partnerships are built around some primary features viz.,
44
l
Cooperative and Contractual Relationships
It represents cooperation between the government institutions and the private sector. PPP arrangements are long-term in nature, typically extending over a 5 to 10 year period which helps to establish productive and lasting relations between the public and private sectors. The most successful partnership arrangements draw on the relative strengths of the two sectors in order to establish complementary relationships between them. Such ventures ensure appropriate and mutually agreed allocation of resources, risks, and returns. The government ensures and remains ultimately accountable and responsible for the provision of high quality products or services that meet the public need.
l
Flexible Ownership
PPPs enable flexible arrangements between public and private bodies, where the public body may or may not retain ownership of the project or facility that is produced. Services may be purchased for use by the government itself, as an input to provide service to the end user.
l
Benefits to the Public Sector
By combining the skills and expertise of the public and private partners, PPPs are able to provide services which meet the needs of the public in a more efficient and costeffective manner and bridge the gap between the resources required and those available from the public purse.
Complementary Effect The major strength of PPPs lies in their ability to deliver value-for-money in public service, procurement and operation. By utilizing the diverse skills, resources and experience of each party, they allow the public and private sectors to complement each other – the public sector provides its expertise in identifying public needs, developing an appropriate technology to meet the same and the private sector brings its capacity to effectively utilize assets and manage the application of the technology in a usable form.
Public-Private Partnership for Commercialization of IARI Technologies Today IARI has established 67 established Public Private Partnership (PPP) for around 26 technologies and are still paving way for many more. The highest number of Public Private Partnerships (PPP) took place in the year 2008, which led to the spectacular success of transfer of seed production of its rice hybrid Pusa RH-10 by a number of private stake-holders. Typically, Indian Agricultural Research Institute (IARI) establishes Public Private Partnership in the following ways:
l
Licensing of technologies to companies directly through MoU/Agreements
l
Assigning the technologies to National Research Development Corporation (NRDC) for commercialization through exclusive licensing
4. Technology brief from the inventor 5. In-House Discussions 6. Approval by the Institute Technology Management Committee (ITMC) 7. D i s c u s s i o n b e t w e e n t h e i n d u s t r y representatives inventors and IARI Authorities
l
Institutional consultancy to public and private organizations
l
Contract research /Sponsored/Collaborative projects
8. Negotiations and finalization of Terms and Conditions
l
Contract service project
9. Legal Vetting
The plan of action in commercialization of technologies follows the steps given below: 1. Publicizing the technologies through media, papers etc. 2. R e q u e s t r e c e i v e d f r o m organizations/companies
interested
3. Submission of the Company profile to the Institute
10. Signing of MOU The private seed sector accounts for more than 90% of the estimated 3,000t of hybrid seed produced in the country annually. Recognizing the importance of partnership in seed production as key to the successful adoption of the technology and sustainable food security, Indian Agricultural Research Institute (IARI) has developed an effective public-private-partnership model for
Fig. 1: IARI-IFSAA PPP Model
45
promotion of its hybrid rice PRH-10, the first super fine grain aromatic rice hybrid developed by IARI. A tripartite memorandum of agreement (MoA) has been signed by IARI, with Indian Foundation Seeds and Services association (IFSSA), and Barwale Foundation in 2004 for seed multiplication of parental lines of Pusa RH 10. Subsequently, IARI also signed non-exclusive memoranda of understanding with 18 other seed companies for the production and commercialization of PRH10.
IARI has signed MoU to produce commercial hybrid seed of Pusa RH 10 with the following seed companies, viz., namely Nuziveedu Seeds Ltd., New Delhi; Bhawani Seeds & Bio Tech, Mathura; Namdhari Seeds Pvt.Ltd., Bangalore; Amareswara Agri-Tech Ltd., Hyderabad; Yashoda Hybrid Seeds Ltd., Wardha; Atash Seeds Pvt. Ltd., Bangalore and Krishidhan Seeds Ltd., Jalna, Mahyco seeds, Devgen, Advanta India, JK seeds, Rasi seeds, Indo-American seeds, Ganga Kaveri, Geo-Technologies.
The partnership with IFSSA helped the area under Pusa RH 10 to reach nearly 0.5 million ha during Kharif (crop) season 2008. With the assumed multiplication rate of 1:100: 10,000 kg of Breeder: Foundation: F-1 Seed, it generates Rs. 8,00,000 @ Rs.80/kg for every 1kg of breeder seeds. This in turn fetches IARI, a royalty (@ 4.5%) of Rs. 36,000/kg of breeder seed. Thus IARI received a payment of Rs. 73 lakhs as royalty from the sales of parental lines of Pusa RH 10, through public- private partnership. The demand for Pusa RH-10 and the area under cultivation is increasing exponentially year after year.
Crop improvement and variety development in field crops and horticultural species being the major strength of IARI research, it offers a number of varieties with high commerical potential. Enthused by the success of PRH-10, IARI has entered into partnership with a number of seed companies for commercial seed production of O.P. varieties as well as hybrids of rice, maize and vegetables. Apart from seed production, IARI has also attained success in commercializing other technologies through Public Private Partnership (PPP) that initiated in setting up a manufacturing unit for mass scale production of the product. IARI
PARTNERS WITH IARI
Amereswara Agri-Tech Ltd. Bhawani seeds & bio-tech
Andhra Pra desh Sta te Seeds Development Corpora tion Limited
Fig. 2. IARI Partners for commercialization of PRH-10
46
technologies like Pusa Fruit Drink, engineering implements, bio-agents and bio-fertilizers were commercialized to Private Partners and received good royalties were received from annual sale of the product. Other valuable technologies from IARI like Gene Construct & events for biotic stress tolerance, Animal Feed-block making machine and superabsorbent Pusa hydrogel deserve special mention were also licensed to private partners and attained success in making the product obtained from the gene construct spread in the market. A great initiative was also taken by the licensee in setting up a manufacturing unit for mass production of Animal Feed-block by our technology so that it could be made cost effective and marketed well. We also assign our technologies to National Research Development Corporation (NRDC) through an exclusive license and NRDC commercializes the same to Private Partners. Efficient patented technologies viz., a novel superabsorbent hydrogel & method of obtaining the same, a novel biopesticidal formulation with improved shelf life and a method of its preparation and many more have already been licensed to several Private Partners. Commercial manufacturing of super-absorbent Pusa Hydrogel has generated a great interest among the uses. This is an excellent technology which can significantly enhance the water use efficiency by the application of this biodegradable
cellulosic polymer @ 2.5 to 5 kg per acre. In the present day context, with water being the most scarce and precious commodity, this product holds a lot of promise.
IARI as Business Incubator Establishment of Business Planning and Development unit (BPD) is a novel initiative taken up by IARI during 2009 which has been supported by National Agricultural Innovation Project. It is a unique business model devised to utilize the strength and innovative potential of IARI and 20 other ICAR institutions as Zonal Technology Management-Business Planning and Development unit (ZTM-BPD) for the benefit of society through commercialization of agricultural technologies. The unit facilitates Public Private Partnership (PPP) and extends support to industries and entrepreneurs with technologies, consultancies, project planning and business development. Start-up companies and perspective entrepreneurs can utilize the BPD for initiating their enterprise. They are enrolled as Corporate Members of IARIBPD and till now 75 corporate members have been registered with BPD. BPD provides them an office space with moderate facilities of sitting, meeting client, internet and working laboratories. The mentoring by IARI scientists and back up from laboratories and instrumentation facilities existing in different divisions are provided.
47
48
Public–Private Partnership in Rice Sector: Present Status and Future Prospects B.C. Viraktamath, Shaik N. Meera and A.S. Hari Prasad Directorate of Rice Research, Hyderabad 500030
Introduction Ensuring food security, reducing rural poverty and improving farm productivity without adverse effects on environment are the most important millennium development goals (MDG) to which, India is committed. One of the approaches envisaged for achieving these challenging tasks is building Public–private partnerships (PPP) in agriculture sector. PPP is a ‘collaborative mechanisms in which public organizations and private sector agencies share resources, knowledge, and risks in order to achieve more efficiency in the production and delivery of products and services’. When viewed from this angle, the term public-private partnership is far less contentious than either privatisation that has very recently been used or the term disinvestment, in vogue from the beginning. The purpose of PPP is to harness the strengths of each sector on mutually agreed terms.
Understanding PPP Public and private actors in the agricultural sector have different interests. The private sector is generally motivated by goals such as maximization of earnings and economic profitability; increased productivity, competitiveness, or market position; cost reduction; increased product quality and diversity; leadership on markets; or consumer confidence. Small-scale farmers, in particular, tend to focus on reducing vulnerability and maximizing yields given the scarce resources available to them. The public sector, on the other hand, directs its efforts toward goals such as development, economic growth, social equity, and environmental sustainability, thus trying to foster social benefits and meet the needs of society. Along with these interests there exists a great synergy between these two sectors. Partnerships between the public and private sectors may
develop when they share a common interest. Sometimes the common interest is not broad enough to establish a partnership, in which case other mechanisms, such as contracts or conventional development projects, may be the better options. Let us discuss on the basic principles of partnerships. Potential partners must have a common interest. The costs of implementing a partnership arise from the use of human, physical, and financial resources. There are two types of costs :(1) those related to the partnership’s research and development (R&D) activities and (2) those having to-do with the partnership itself, such as costs related to its creation, negotiation, operation, and monitoring. The second set of costs can be estimated by calculating the time and effort needed for negotiation, communication, and evaluation, for example. The benefits of a partnership result from the public and private goods and services that the joint research generates. The benefits of the partnership should outweigh the costs. In partnerships, members try to obtain net benefits greater than those that would be generated if they carried out the activities individually. This is achieved when the partners’ contributions complement each other and form a critical mass that gives the project greater possibilities for success. For example, combining the funds of private companies with the technical capacities of a public research centre allows partnership to develop programs that, individually, would be too costly for any of the partners to initiate; therefore, the complementarities of resources and knowledge generate synergistic effects. Indeed, many innovations are generated not only from the accumulation of knowledge and resources, but also from the interaction between public and
49
private actors and from processes of joint learning and “co-innovation.” The benefits of partnering—which result from each partner’s contribution and from the synergy generated by the collaboration as a whole—should be greater than the benefits that would be obtained if the activities were carried out individually. Each partner should analyze whether the results of a partnership might damage the interests and goals of other groups in its domain. Conflicts sometimes arise between chemical and biotechnological innovations and consumer groups and environmental organizations, for example, so a Basmati firm would not want to harm its image as a organic producer (and undermine consumer confidence in its products) by establishing a partnership with a company producing pesticides. The results of a partnership should not openly conflict with the interests of other groups that are not involved in the partnership but that can impact one or more of the partners.
Success in Other Sectors In India a beginning has been made by the railways to invite greater private participation. Certain capital-intensive roadways built by government agencies (Ex: National Highways Authority of India) have had substantial private sector presence as sub-contractors. A third way in which the partnership has evolved is to engage corporations in their non-traditional areas such as primary education, garbage clearance and in providing civic amenities (Ex: Sulabh Complex). Recent developments in the telecom, health and petroleum sectors show an unmistakable trend towards a healthy public-private partnership. The acquisition of the state-owned long-distance telephone provider VSNL, by the Tatas was quickly followed by the opening up of the sector. New players were to advent into telecom sector bringing in unprecedented competition that had driven down the rates. The petroleum sector in for major restructuring is another testing ground for public-private partnership. Consumers in India are already reaping the benefits of the partnership. Establishment of the state of art Metro Rail projects, construction and renovation of airports in the country are the other success stories of PPP.
50
PPP in Rice Sector Public-private sector partnership in the field of agriculture in India is emerging especially for seed production and marketing and some companies have their own strong R & D systems in place. In recent years, the private seed sector is growing in leaps and bounds and has made a great impact in supplying quality seed in many crops and has earned the good will of the farmers. PPP in agriculture is nurtured based on the principle of harnessing mutual strengths of each sector to achieve the common goal of enhancing productivity. Public sector’s strength is in terms of well-trained human resource, vast and diverse germplasm, state of art research facilities, well established research and extension network thus making it quite strong in technology generation. On the other hand, the private sector is quite strong in highly disciplined work force, efficient work culture, quality seed production, focused extension work and aggressive marketing systems. Thus, we have enormous scope to work together to achieve common goals. Some of the success stories both national and international, pertaining to rice sector are briefly described hereunder.
National Partnerships Evaluation of Rice Hybrids Directorate of Rice Research (DRR), Hyderabad under the aegis of Indian Council of Agricultural Research (ICAR) is implementing a national network on hybrid rice and the private sector is an active partner in this network. The breeders across the country (both from public sector research organizations and private sector R&D units) nominate their best hybrids identified based on their performance in preliminary replicated yield trials for evaluation in nation-wide multiplication trials. Annually, about 100-120 experimental hybrids are evaluated in these trials under four categories (early, mid early, medium & Medium slender grain type) at around 25-30 locations across the country. A nominal testing fee of Rs. 60000/- (per entry per season) is charged from private companies for this evaluation. The contribution of hybrid nominations from the private sector companies (to these national trials)
Table 1. List of Private Sector Rice hybrids released in India (1997-2011). S. Hybrid No.
Maturity duration (days)
Year of Notification Date of Developed by release No. notification
130-3-135 1997
647(E)
9.9.1997
1
PHB 71
2
PA 6201
125-130
2000
92(E)
19.7.2000
3
PA 6444
130-135
2001
1134(E)
5.11.2001
4
Ganga
130-135
2001
599 (E)
25.4.2006
Paras extra Uttarakand, Punjab, Nagaland, growth seeds Ltd. Haryana, U.P., Orissa, Bihar Hyderabad
5
RH-204
125-130
2002
283(E)
12.3.2003
Parry Monsanto seeds Ltd. Bengaluru
AP, Karnataka, TN, West Haryana, Uttarakand and Rajasthan
6
Suruchi
130-135
2004
122(E)
2.2.2005
Mahyco Ltd, Aurangabad
7
1335-140
2006
122 (E)
6.2.2007
8
JKRH401 PA 6129
115-120
2007
1703 (E)
5.10.2007
9
GK 5003 125-130
2008
454 (E)
11.2.2009
10
DRH 775 125-130
2009
2187 (E)
27.8.2009
11
HRI-157
130-135
2009
2187 (E)
27.8.2009
JK Agri Genetics Ltd, Hyderabad Bayer BioScience, Hyderabad Ganga Kaveri seeds Pvt Ltd, Hyderabad Metahelix Life Sciences Pvt. Ltd., Hyderabad Bayer BioScience, Hyderabad
Haryana, Andhra Pradesh, Gujarat,Orissa, Chattisgarh, Karnataka and Mahrashtra. West Bengal, Bihar, Orissa
12
PAC 835 130-135
2009
2187 (E)
27.8.2009
13
PAC 837 130-135
2009
2187 (E)
27.8.2009
14
US 312
135-130
2010
2137(E)
31.8.2010
15
Indam 200-017
125-130
2010
16
27P11
130-135
2011
Hybrid identified but yet to be notified 17. NK 5251 125-130 2009 -
-
Pioneer overseas corp. Hyderabad Bayer BioScience, Hyderabad Bayer BioScience, Hyderabad
Released for the states of
Haryana, UP, TN, A.P. Karnataka A.P., Karnataka, TN, Bihar, Orissa, Tripura, U.P. W.B. and M.P. UP, Tripura, Orissa, AP, Karnataka, Maharashtra and Uttarakand
Punjab, T.N., Pondichery. Andhra Pradesh and Karnataka Jharkhand, Chhattisgarh and West Bengal UP, MP, Bihar, Jharkhand, Tripura, Chattisgarh, Orissa, Maharashtra, Gujarat, Andhra Pradesh, Karnataka and Tamil nadu
Advanta India Ltd. Orissa and Gujarat Hyderabad Advanta India Ltd. Western Gujarat, Eastern Hyderabad Chhattisgarh, North-western J&K, Andhra Pradesh and Karnataka Seed Works Tamil Nadu, Karnataka, International, Hyd Andhra Pradesh, Bihar, Uttar Pradesh and West Bengal Indo American Orissa, Chhattisgarh, Gujarat, Seeds, Hyd Maharashtra and Andhra Pradesh PHI Seeds Karnataka and Maharashtra Private Ltd, Hyd Syngenta India Ltd, Secundrabad
51
is slowly and steadily increasing and now stands at around 60-70%. During the period 2000-2010, around 500 private sector hybrids have been evaluated through the national network. Out of these, 17 hybrids have been released and notified by the Central Sub-Committee on crop standards, notification and release of varieties (CSCCSN & RV), New Delhi (Table 1) (Hariprasad et al. 2011). Majority of these hybrids are performing exceedingly well. The area covered under rice hybrids is about 1.0 to 1.4 m. ha. annually in the country and more than 90 per cent area is grown with private sector hybrids. Additional rice produced due to hybrid rice is 1.5 to 2.0 m.t. annually which is the hall mark of this successful partnership.
Therefore harnessing the mutual strengths of public and private sectors in a partnership mode is the key to popularize the public bred hybrids which are as good or even better in some cases as compared to private hybrids. Public-private partnerships for hybrid seed production have been fructified in India recently by signing memorandum of understanding (MOU) by some companies with few public sector research institutes and some examples are given in (Table 2).
Hybrid Rice Seed Production through Public-Private Participation The public sector is strong in technology generation in terms of releasing hybrids and optimizing the technologies for seed production. However, its capabilities in large scale seed production and marketing are rather limited. On the other hand, the private sector is quite strong in large scale seed production and marketing.
DRRH 3 Signing MOU with Ankur Seeds, Nagpur
Table 2. MOUs with private seed companies.
52
Hybrid DRRH-2
Developed by DRR, Hyderabad
DRRH-3
DRR, Hyderabad
Pusa RH-10
IARI, New Delhi
PSD-1 & PSD-3
GBPUAT, Pantnagar
MOU with Sampoorna Seeds, Pratham Biotech Limited, Neo Seeds, Vicky’s Agri Sciences Pvt. Ltd., Charoen Pokphand Seeds (INDIA) Private Limited., Bioseed Research India Pvt. Ltd., Shakthi Seeds Pvt Ltd. DevGen Seeds & Crop Technology Pvt. Ltd., Kaveri Seeds, Indian Foundation Seed and Services Association, Ankur Seeds Pvt. Ltd, Ganga Kaveri Seeds Pvt. Ltd Indian Foundation Seed and Services Association, J.K. Agri Genetics, NathBiogene (I) Ltd., Devgen Seed and Crop Technology Pvt. Ltd., Zuari Seeds Limited, Advanta India Limited, Yashoda Seeds Pvt. Ltd., Namdhari Seeds Pvt. Ltd., Amareshwara Agri. Tech Ltd., Bhavani Seeds Pvt. Ltd. Syngenta India Ltd., Pune.
CORH – 3
TNAU, Coimbatore
Rasi Seeds (P) Ltd, Attur, T.N.
Ajaya, Rajalakshmi KRH-2 Sahyadri-1 JRH-4, JRH-5
CRRI, Cuttack
Annapurna Seeds, Vikky’s Agri Sciences Pvt. Ltd., Hyderabad
UAS, Mandya BSKKV, Karjat JNKV, Jabalpur
Namdhari Seeds Pvt., Ltd., Bidadi, Bangalore. Syngenta India Ltd., Pune Vikky’s Agri Sciences Pvt. Ltd., Hyderabad
Services available at DRR for Private Sector Companies
Support from the private sector for hybrid rice research
With a view to extend the well-established infrastructure facilities available at Directorate of Rice Research, Hyderabad to the private sector companies to screen their materials for various attributes like quality, pest and disease reactions, well laid out procedures are in place, so that these companies can avail the service at nominal charges (Table 3).
When the Indian Council of Agricultural research (ICAR) pursued the hybrid rice research vigorously during 1990’s with active support from agencies like IRRI, UNDP, FAO, a private R&D foundation viz., Mahyco Research Foundation (MRF) also actively cooperated in this endeavor and extended limited financial support during 1996-1998, to fill the critical gaps, and realizing the major objectives
Table 3. Services available at DRR. Hyderabad under PPP Mode. S. No. 1. 2. 3.
Service Evaluation of transgenic crops / entry / location / year Evaluation of hybrids or varieties / entry / year Testing of Molecules and Agro-input Products (Fungicides / Insecticides / Herbicides / IGR’s / PGR’s / Micronutrients / Fertilizers / Bio-fertilizers, etc.): Per molecule / location / season (minimum 10 locations)
Services under the Contract Research Projects at DRR: S. No. Item / Parameter 1. Plant Pathology: A Fungicide formulations / treatment / season / disease
2.
(The charges would be collected for the standard check and untreated check, in the trial concerned) ; Phytotoxicity observations ; Residue sample collection (Seed, straw and soil) Screening for Disease resistance / Entry / Season: Entomology: A Toxicity of Insect Pest / Natural enemy per formulation / treatment / season / insect
3.
(The charges would be collected for the standard check and untreated check, in the trial concerned) Phytotoxicity observations Agronomy: A Herbicides / treatment / season
4.
(The charges would be collected for the standard check and untreated check, in the trial concerned) Plant Breeding: A Grain quality parameters: Non-Basmati rice (14 Characters) / Sample
5.
Basmati rice (15 Characters) / Sample Biotechnology: A Training for Industry (Excluding boarding & lodging): 15 days - 1 Month / Participant
6. 7.
2 - 3 Months / Participant Specialized areas in Soil science, Plant Physiology Training programs for Private Agro-input Agencies Executives
53
of the project. This is a successful example of private sector funding a public sector research projects. Such kind of support is needed for effective two way process of partnership.
International Partnerships in Rice Research Support PPP in rice research is driven by factors such as synergizing the human resources available in both the sectors, funds availability, access to key resources such as germplasm and relative advantage of each sector. To understand the PPP in rice research, two cases are given below; International Network for Genetic Evaluation of Rice The International Network for Genetic Evaluation of Rice or INGER is a global model for the exchange, evaluation, release, and use of genetic resources under the International Treaty on Plant Genetic Resources for Food and Agriculture (ITPGRFA), which uses the Standard Material Transfer Agreement to facilitate access and benefit sharing. Over the years, INGER has become a regular source of elite breeding materials for NARES and IARC rice improvement programs. On average, about a thousand genetically diverse breeding lines contributed by NARES and IARC scientists are evaluated yearly under different rice ecosystems, and biotic and abiotic stresses. More than 600 experiment stations in 80 countries have participated in these annual evaluations following the INGER Code of Conduct. Consortium for Unfavourable Rice Environments (CURE) The Consortium for Unfavourable Rice Environments (CURE) focuses on rice farming systems where low and unstable yields are commonplace and where extensive poverty and food insecurity prevail. The diverse nature and wide geographical spread of the rainfed environments make it essential that research is carried out in partnership with national agricultural research and extension systems (NARES) drawing on local scientific expertise and farmers’ indigenous knowledge.
54
Irrigated Rice Research Consortium (IRRC) The IRRC develops partnerships to identify the natural resource management (NRM) needs of rice farmers, solutions to their problems, and to facilitate the adoption of suitable technologies.
Partnerships in Rice Extension Empirical evidence strongly suggests that agricultural research can improve the lives of poor people in developing countries. Agriculture research includes both public and private organizations, having the interest of their own. To ensure food security, to increase standard of living and to attain United Nations Millennium Development Goals (MDG), it is necessary to work towards strengthening agriculture by developing strong research and equally proactive dissemination and adoption of new technologies. One way of ensuring that pro-poor research programs are maintained and strengthened in the face of waning public commitment is through collaboration, partnership or other forms of interaction between public and private sectors. PPP in rice extension is driven by factors such as out-reach capabilities of private sector compared to public sector, ‘common good’ concept of public sector, vast product base of public sector, huge human resource base of private sector, etc., To understand the PPP in rice extension, two cases are given below; Barwale Foundation (BF), Indian Foundation Seed & Services Association (IFSSA) and Indian Agricultural Research Institute (IARI) The Barwale Foundation(BF), Indian Foundation Seed & Services Association (IFSSA) and Indian Agricultural Research Institute (IARI), under Memorandum of Understanding (MOU), are actively associated to promote and popularize Pusa RH-10, the first basmati rice hybrid in the country, on private public partnership (PPP) mode. IARI-IFSSA Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) is one of the leading and proven examples in the Public-Private-Partnership (PPP) or relationship model in agriculture sector.
Way forward PPPs in rice sector, at present, focus more on finished products such as varieties/ hybrids
etc., Such partnerships have limitations such as mandate restrictions and limited level playing field for both the sectors. Keeping this in view, a ‘Indian Hybrid Rice consortium’ with the private sector (PS) seed companies is being proposed , with an aim to exploit the complementary advantages of the public and private sector to mutual benefit and ultimately to the Indian farming community. The public sector research institutes/centers generate large number of breeding lines every year but only a fraction of it is used as released/registered material and bulk of it remains unutilized. Through the consortium approach, it would be possible to share the material with the members both from public and private sector. Besides, there is a need to focus on a combination of Research-
Extension-Farmer continuum where whole value chain activities will be brought.
References Hariprasad, A.S., Senguttuvel, P., Revathi, P., Kemparaju, K.B., Shobha Rani, N. and Viraktamath, B.C. 2011. Hybrid Rice in India, Technical bulletin No. 56, Directorate of Rice Research, Hyderabad. Hartwich, Frank., Jaime, Tola., Alejandra, Engler., Carolina, González., Graciela, Ghezan., Jorge, M.P., Vázquez-Alvarado, José, Antonio Silva., José, de Jesús Espinoza., and María, Verónica Gottret. 2007. Building Public–Private Partnerships for Agricultural Innovation. Food Security in Practice technical guide series. Washington, DC. International Food Policy Research Institute.
55
Stepping into Farmers’ Field Through PublicPrivate-Partnership (PPP): Initiatives at IIVR, Varanasi Prakash S. Naik, Shailesh K. Tiwari and P.K. Singh Indian Institute of Vegetable Research, Post Bag No. 01, Post Office Jakhini (Shahanshahpur), Varanasi 221305
Introduction India, as a member of the World Trade Organization (WTO) is obliged to comply with the Agreement on Trade Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPs), which requires the member countries to provide protection to intellectual property rights (IPRs) in one form or the other in all fields of technology, including agriculture. It is important in Indian context because IPRs offer possible mechanisms for stimulating research, enabling access to technology and promoting enterprise growth, all for the ultimate benefit of the farming community. In present day’s context, it has become necessary to do so because unprotected research outcomes from the public sector can be exploited for commercial gains by other agencies both within the country and abroad. Moreover, protection of intellectual property (IP) provides incentive for creation of more knowledge and technologies, as scientists/innovators are recognized and rewarded. As a follow up of the WTO Agreements, the legislative scenario concerning IPRs changed fast and in the year 2005 India has revised and enacted various IPR laws to meet the national requirements vis-à-vis the Agreement on Trade Related Aspects of Intellectual Property. These developments have also opened new challenges before the public funded research institutions in agriculture and other areas to become contemporary, compatible and competitive. The IP rights accruing to Indian Council of Agricultural Research (ICAR), New Delhi in various forms are embodied in the following Indian Acts, as amended from time to time. 1. The Copyright Act, 1957 as amended in 1983, 1984, 1992, 1994 and 1999 along with Rules
56
1958 and the International Copyright Order, 1999, 2000 (Copyright Act). 2. The Patents Act, 1970 as amended in 1999, 2002, 2004 (Ordinance), 2005 and 2006 along with Rules 2005 (Patents Act). 3. The Trade Marks Act, 1999 along with Rules 1999 (Trade Marks Act). 4. The Designs Act, 2000 along with Rules 2001 (Designs Act). 5. The Geographical Indications of Goods (Registration and Protection) Act, 1999 along with Rules 2002 (GI Act). 6. The Semiconductor Integrated Circuits Layout-Design Act, 2000 along with Rules 2001(IC Layout-Design Act). 7. The Protection of Plant Varieties and Farmers’ Rights Act, 2001 along with Rules 2003 (PPV&FR Act). 8. The Biological Diversity Act, 2002 along with Rules 2004 (Biodiversity Act) specifies procedures for access to biological/genetic materials for agricultural research and their IPR protection.
PPP in Agriculture Commercialization of IPRs enabled technologies and other know-how, through public-privatepartnership (PPP) lead to their accelerated and efficient transfer. Improvement in the rate of adoption of technologies by producers in turn leads to an increase in productivity, production, farmers’ income and employment. However, the process of technology transfer through commercialization should be rational and selective. Key considerations for commercialization of any
technology are (i) national priorities relating to food security, (ii) sustainable use of natural resources, (iii) enhancing the incomes of small and marginal farmers, and (iv) employment generation. An effective IP management regime has an in-built incentive for scientists/innovators to engage in knowledge creation that leads to greater professional recognition for them. Through licensing fees and royalties, a proportion of the monetary gains flow to the researchers. By sharing of monetary incentives with its staff and institutions, ICAR encourages greater creativity in the research system leading to further innovations leading to faster technological progress. Resources generated through commercialization of technologies are useful for important gap filling requirements for research and development purposes in the ICAR. The shift in worldwide policy from free exchange and unhindered exploitation to controlled access and use of these materials in post-CBD scenario and enforcement of the WTO, envisages adoption of either a patent system or some forms of effective sui generis system for protecting the IPRs of plant breeders. Accordingly, Protection of Plant Variety and Farmers’ Right Act (PPV&FR) 2001, which is wide enough to guarantee both the plant breeders’ and the farmers’ rights has been enacted in India. Efforts are being made to strive for capitalizing on the national resources and capabilities to attain IPR advantages at national and international levels with an effective and relevant action plan. Effective complementation of sovereignty rights and IPRs would require unequivocal evidence recognizing the identity and origin of material under dispute. The PPV&FR Act is in harmony with the provisions of the Article 27.3(b) of the TRIPS Agreement. All extant varieties of ICAR that were notified under section 5 of the Seeds Act, 1966 that have not completed 15 years from their notification date are registerable and are protected as IP under the PPV&FR Act 2001. Plant varieties present several important challenges for an efficient IPR management system. First, they are biological products that are easily reproduced and used through efficient multiplication. The users of the technologies are millions of individual farmers whose compliance with any protection method is difficult and expensive to monitor, and the inherent diversity of
plant varieties makes it difficult to apply the narrow technical criteria of novelty and reproducibility used in the conventional patent system. Development of new plant varieties is mostly relied to some extent on public research, partly in response to the traditional public good nature of vegetable crop germplasm, and the application of IPRs to the products of a publicly funded endeavor can be problematic. In the present scenario of globalization, where the delivery of the product is not perfectly possible by single partner, PPP has the potential to produce effective outcomes that would not otherwise be possible by either sector alone. It offers potentially important opportunities for propoor agricultural research in the country. In PPP mode, the strength of both the sector is equally utilized, e.g. public sector develops initial product, private sector develops market for it or it develops perfect production technology while, trained staff of public sector identify and produces source germplasm. Partnership between public and private sectors would provide an effective cutting edge advantage in development of technologies and their dissemination. However, the success of PPP mode of functioning largely depends on certain pre-requisites like alignment of objectives, complementary strengths, common interest space and a win-win situation for both the partners. PPPs in agriculture are a new frontier and it will take some time for best practice to emerge. Synergies can emerge when companies have an interest in securing their long-term source of income through ecologically sound behaviour and thereby support the general interest of society in a healthy and intact environment. In addition, public sector involvement in the starting phase can encourage private players to invest in high-risk, poorly integrated and poorly developed areas. PPP mode of functioning has established some success through the Consultative Group on International Agricultural Research (CGIAR) institutions (Table 1). To adopt the similar pattern with some modifications suited for its organization and mandate, ICAR has taken some initiatives to protect its technologies and passing on its benefit to the farmers through private sector under PPP mode. One of the objectives of IP management of ICAR is to protect the intellectual wealth generated through its research. ICAR, in
57
its major activity is contributing significantly to the national economy through its quality seeds and planting materials, which can address one of the critical issues of Indian agriculture. There are opportunities for collaboration in germplasm development, development of value-added traits/ products, joint product testing, product placement, market development, co-operation in contract farming for hybrid seed and extension and human resource development through PPP.
PPP at Indian Institute of Vegetable Research (IIVR), Varanasi The internal policy of ICAR and institutional support in the early phase was mainly guided by the its rules and bye-laws and the rules and guidelines based on the Johl Committee Report,
thereby enabling a case-by-case approach guiding the protection of IPRs and transfer of IPR enabled technologies developed by ICAR to the farmers’ field through private sector. However, there was a need to elaborate IPR policy framework and working guidelines for the management of technologies in order to create IPR awareness and literacy, enhance the work environment for higher innovativeness, ensure due rewards to the scientists/innovators, and guide the manner of technology transfer, which would be competitive and better serve the interests of agriculture and farmers. This will help in creating a win-win situation for all beneficiaries. Taking all the above issues in consideration, ICAR has formulated elaborate guidelines for an efficient management of the technologies developed by its scientists. These guidelines are relevant to all concerned
Table 1. Some examples of successful PPP mode of functioning at CGIAR institutes. Partnership topic
CGIAR Private sector partners Center Collaborative Research – Global program: Apomixis CIMMYT Pioneer Hi-tred (U.S.A.), Syngenta (Switzerland), Limagrain (France) Golden Rice Humanitarian IRRI Syngenta (Switzerland) board Harvest Plus Wheat Improvement
CIAT, IFPRI CIMMYT
Genomics for Livestock Vaccine Research Bt Genes for Rice Transformation Positive Selection Technology for cassava Transformation
58
CIP
ILRI IRRI CIAT
L’Institut de Rechechė pow le Dėveloppement (France) Rockefeller Foundation (U.S.), Swiss Federal Institute of Technology, and others
Monsanto (U.S.A.) Grains Research & Development Crop. (Aus.)
Collaborative research – Local/regional Programs Sorghum and Millet research ICRISAT Consortium of private seed companies, Incl. Monsanio (India), Others Forage Seed Improvement CIAT Grupo Papaloria (Mexico) Insect Resistant Maize for CIMMYT Africa Technology Transfer: Potato/Sweet Potato Transformation
Other partners
Plant Genetic Systems (U.S.), Axis Genetics (U.K.), Monsanto (U.S.) The Institute for Genomic Research (U.S.) Novartis (Switzerland) Plantech (Japan) Novartis (Switzerland)
Kenyan Agriculture Research Institute, Syngenta Foundation (Switzerland)
Consortium of other public research institutions
Table 2. List of private firms in collaboration with IIVR, Varanasi through material transfer agreement. Private partners M/s Raj Agriculture Farms and Nursery, 25, Rajdev Colony, Behind Bhopal Eye Hospital, New Kabarkhana, Berasia Road, Bhopal Gram- Bavadiya Kalan, Misrod, Main Road, Near Hotel Mark, Bhopal-462001 (M.P.) Dayal Seeds Pvt. Ltd., Partapur, Meerut-250103 Uttar Pradesh
East-West Seeds India Pvt. Ltd., Gut no.66, Village Naryanpur (Bk), Dist: Aurangabad-431133 Maharashtra Niraj Hybrid Seeds Co., C-202, Akshav Avenue, B/h. Shyam Shikhar Tower, Bapunagar, Ahmedabad, Gujarat VNR Seeds Pvt. Ltd. 1st Floor, Ratnagiri Complex, Near Kalda Nursing Home, G.E. Road, Raipur, Chhattisgarh Global Crop Care, Global Tower, Shive city (Silver), Plot No. 292, Nehalpur Mandi, Indore-452012 Madhya Pradesh
Advanta Indian Limited “Unicorn House”, Plot No. 3-5, #157/5, Balaji Enclave, Transport Road, Near Gun Rock, Diamond Point, Secunderabad-500009 Andhra Pradesh Annpurna Seeds, Suite No. 15, 2nd Floor, 2, N.C. Dutta Sarani, Kolkata-700001 West Bengal
M/s Sabasta Crop Technology, Flat No 403, Quayyum Apartments, Hyderasha Kote, Rajendranagar Mandal, Hyderabad-500086, Andhra Pradesh
Crops Okra
Variety/Hybrid/Germplasm Name Kashi Bhairav
Tomato Brinjal Okra Chilli Radish Chilli
Kashi Vishesh, Kashi Amrit Kashi Sandesh, Kashi Komal Kashi Bhairav, Kashi Early, Kashi Pragati, Kashi Vibhuti Kashi Surkh Kashi Shweta BS-35
Okra Cowpea Chilli
Kashi Pragati Kashi Unnat, Kashi Kanchan Kashi Anmol
Brinjal Pumpkin Bottle gourd Ash gourd Cowpea
Kashi Kashi Kashi Kashi Kashi Kashi Kashi Kashi Kashi Kashi Kashi Kashi
Brinjal Tomato Chilli Bottle gourd Chilli Brinjal
Chilli Okra
Pea Brinjal Chilli Okra Cauliflower Cowpea Musk melon Pumpkin Tomato
Sandesh Harit Ganga Dhawal Unnat, Kashi Kanchan Nandini Sandesh, Kashi Taru Anupam, Kashi Vishesh Surkh Ganga Anmol, Kashi Surkh Sandesh, Kashi Taru
Kashi Anmol Kashi Surkh, Kashi Early, Kashi Mohini, Kashi Mangali, Kashi Vibhuti, Kashi Pragati, Kashi Satdhari, Kashi Lila, Kashi Uphar, Shitla Jyoti, Kashi Bhairav, Kashi Shakti, Kashi Kanak, Kashi Mukti, Kashi Arati, Kashi Mahima, Kashi Nandini, Kashi Udai Kashi Sandesh, Kashi Komal, Kashin Taru Kashi Surkh, Kashi Early and Kashi Anmol Kashi Baibhav, Kashi Vibhuti, Kashi Pragati, Kashi Satdhari, Kashi Lila Kashi Kunwari, Kashi Agrahani Kashi Unnati, Kashi kanchan Kashi Madhu, Kashi Harit Kashi Amrit, Kashi Vishesh, Kashi Anupam
59
and worthy at least to begin within the new era of IPR regime in ICAR. The guidelines have all the potential and enabling provisions to be adapted by other partners of National Agricultural Research System (NARS). Indian Institute of Vegetable Research (IIVR), Varanasi recognizes the need of becoming competitive in the IPRs regime, so that we can ultimately bring the Indian farmers away
from subsistence farming with the transfer of IPR enabled technologies through commercial, cooperative and public routes. The institute has developed many technologies like high yielding varieties and hybrids, pest and disease management practices, vegetable production technologies and post-harvest processing techniques. IIVR recognizes that public-private partnership has immense potential to improve
Table 3. List of private seed companies with entries in various vegetable crops for multi-location evaluation under AICRP (VC). [Source: AICRP (VC) Annual Report 2010-2011]. Crop OPs Chilli Cowpea Dolichos bean Hybrids Brinjal
No. of Name of companies Entries 4 1 4
NRI Agri Tech. Pvt. Ltd., Navaneetha Evergreen, Nuzi Veedu Seeds Ltd. VNR Seed Nirmal Seeds Ltd.
31
Sungro Seeds Ltd., Nuzi Veedu Seeds Ltd. Seeds, VNR Seed, Ankur Seeds Pvt. Ltd., Bejo Sheetal (Jalna), Century seeds, MSSC, Krishidhan Seed Pvt. Ltd. Seeds, Syngenta India Ltd., Mahyco Ltd. (Maharastra Hybrid Seed Co. Ltd.). Nirmal Seed, Clause India Pvt. Ltd. Nirmal Seeds Ltd., Syngenta India Ltd., Vibha Seeds/Sinnova Seeds, Nuzi Veedu Seeds Ltd., Clause India Pvt. Ltd., Basant Agro Tech Pvt. Ltd., Ankur Seeds Pvt. Ltd., VNR Seed, Meta Helix Life Sciences Pvt. Ltd./Dhaanya Seeds Private Limited, Bejo Sheetal (Jalna), Kaveri Seeds Krishidhan Seed Pvt. Ltd., Nirmal Seeds Ltd., NRI Agri Tech. Pvt. Ltd., Syngenta India Ltd., Ankur Seeds Pvt. Ltd., Vibha Seeds/Sinnova Seeds, Tokita Seed India (P) Ltd., Nuzi Veedu Seeds Ltd., Seed Works/U.S. Agri. Seeds, Meta Helix Life Sciences Pvt. Ltd./Dhaanya Seeds Private Limited, Ajeet Seeds Ltd., VNR Seed, Kaveri Seeds, Bejo Sheetal (Jalna), Nirmal Seeds Ltd., Nuzi Veedu Seeds Ltd., Clause India Pvt. Ltd. Krishidhan Seed Pvt. Ltd., NRI Agri Tech. Pvt. Ltd., Syngenta India Ltd. Seeds, Ajeet Seeds Ltd., Nuzi Veedu Seeds Ltd., Clause India Pvt. Ltd., Nirmal Seeds Ltd., VNR Seed, Zauri Seeds Pvt. Ltd., Tokita Seed India (P) Ltd., Ankur Seeds Pvt. Ltd., Bejo Sheetal (Jalna), Kaveri Seeds, Syngenta India Ltd., Clause India Pvt. Ltd., Mahyco Ltd. (Maharastra Hybrid Seed Co. Ltd.). Nirmal Seeds Ltd., Syngenta India Ltd., Nuzi Veedu Seeds Ltd., Clause India Pvt. Ltd. Nirmal Seeds Ltd., Seed Works/U.S. Agri. Seeds, Nuzi Veedu Seeds Ltd., Meta Helix Life Sciences Pvt. Ltd./Dhaanya Seeds Private Limited, Krishidan Seeds, Bejo Sheetal (Jalna), Kaveri Seeds, Sungro Seeds Ltd. Seeds Krishidhan Seed Pvt. Ltd., Nirmal Seeds Ltd., Nuzi Veedu Seeds Ltd., Seed Works/U.S. Agri. Seeds, VNR Seed, Meta Helix Life Sciences Pvt. Ltd./Dhaanya Seeds Private Limited Nirmal Seeds Ltd., Nuzi Veedu Seeds Ltd., Camson Biotechnologies Ltd. Sungro Seeds Ltd.
Tomato
29
Chilli
34
Capsicum Okra
5 26
Cabbage
6
Cucumber
5
Bottle Gourd 9
Bitter Gourd 7
Watermelon Ash Gourd
60
4 1
agricultural research and transfer the developed technologies to the farmers. Such partnerships will be useful in area of mutual interest and farmers benefit. So far, 51varieties/hybrids have been developed in different vegetable crops by the IIVR, Varanasi. With aim to increase the acreage under these varieties/technologies, the institute has distributed the seeds to many private seed companies for demonstration and objective evaluation through material transfer agreement (MTA). The institute is ready to license its promising technologies on non-exclusive basis for further multiplication and sale of materials including parental lines of the hybrids to the private sector in accordance with the guidelines provided by ICAR, New Delhi. In 2005, the institute has licensed production and maintenance of parental lines of okra hybrid (Kashi Bhairav) and its marketing to M/s Raj Agriculture Farms and Nursery, Bhopal. The multi-location evaluation data are essential criteria for identification and release of new variety/ hybrid. The AICRP (VC) is involved in multilocation evaluation of hybrids and open pollinated genotypes of various vegetable crops developed by public and private funded organizations. Presently, 166 entries of various vegetable crops developed by private seed companies are under multi-location evaluation under the program (Table 3). This program has provided an elaborate network for evaluation of genotypes in different agro-climatic regions of the country to develop robust varieties/hybrids of vegetables.
Conclusion Reaching small farmers and delivering food security, sustainability and income convergence over time calls for a confluence of contributions from both public and private sector. Although information on PPPs in agricultural research and marketing is difficult to access, masked in
secrecy, or the subject of extensive controversy, it is an initiative to create and sustain partnerships between the two sectors with slightly different approaches to serve the same target group. PPPs are significantly constrained by apprehensions of insufficient accounting of the actual and hidden costs of partnership; persistent negative perceptions across sectors; undue competition over financial and intellectual resources; and a limited success stories to draw lessons and experiences. Despite these constraints, there are reasons to believe that sufficient common space exists to create greater opportunities for PPP in pro-poor agricultural research. The public sector’s mandate for provision of information and services can be best achieved by harnessing the potential of the private sector to add local context in a commercial environment. In any case, it is important that commitment of a company in a PPP is more than mere image polishing. PPPs can be successful if the responsibilities and risks shared between public and private partners bear a high degree of complementarities, thus creating opportunities for profitable activities for all partners involved. However, there are key obstacles that must be overcome, including clarifying roles of public and private sectors, developing solutions to poor infrastructure, and generating sufficient awareness among farmers. If public and privatesector partners are willing and able to take these steps, both may realize the potentially significant benefits of greater inter-sectoral collaborations, including improved access to scientific and financial resources, new synergies in research, access to new and emerging markets and greater capacity to solve problems that cannot be addressed by a single player. Most importantly, PPP may contribute to the improvement of livelihoods for small-scale, resource-poor farmers, food-insecure urban and rural households, and other vulnerable individuals and households in the country.
61
Public-Private Partnership P. Ananda Kumar and Debasis Pattanayak National Research Centre on Plant Biotechnology, Pusa, New Delhi 110012
As the nation faces tough challenge of feeding 1.5 billion people in the coming decades, traditional breeding techniques need to be supplemented with modern biology and biotechnology tools to help reduce poverty, improve food security, reduce malnutrition, and improve the livelihoods of the rural poor and the resource-poor farmers. The widespread adoption of GM cotton, maize and soybean are clear indicators that biotechnology is able to deliver appropriate solutions to the problems faced by farmers worldwide. In India Bt cotton was approved for cultivation in 2002, and since then there has been near doubling of cotton production from 158 lakh bales in 2001-02 to 312 lakh bales in 2010-11, while the area has increased from 8.7 million hectares (Mha) in 2001-02 to just 11.1 Mha out of which Bt cotton occupied 9.4 Mha. The success of Bt cotton has its foundation in partnerships comprising one company providing technology, another transferring the technology in Indian germplasm, and the third, the farming community that recognized the potential of insect resistant cotton and adopted the Bt hybrids with great enthusiasm. Over the past few years, similar partnerships for transferring the laboratory successes of biotechnology to farmers’ fields have been developed among different sectors including public institutions, private companies, farmers’ associations and NGOs. Golden Rice Humanitarian Board and ABSP II project on Fruit Borer resistant brinjal are some of the prominent examples. Despite the progress so far, it is being widely recognized that public and private sectors need to capitalize more on mutual strengths to accelerate the process of development and field deployment of genetically modified crops so that the promised benefits reach the resource poor farmers. During the past few years, several partnerships have been developed within and between public and private sectors with the objective of achieving these goals. These partnerships include transfer of technology
62
(genes for desired traits) made available under certain financial terms and conditions, outright donation of technology, knowledge sharing, and capacity building. The success of hybrid rice had its foundation on the decision taken by ICAR to share the parental material with the private sector. There is a need for similar partnerships for exchange of germplasm and seed production with appropriate benefit sharing mechanisms and IPR protection. Since the process of development and release of biotech crops is expensive and time consuming, there is greater need for PPP in the agricultural biotechnology sector. While genes, appropriate germplasm and technological skills are available in the public sector, the process of field release involves extensive environmental and human safety testing. Collaborative efforts of public and private sectors would greatly expedite the process of development and regulatory testing of biotech crops which would ultimately benefit the farmers and other stakeholders.
NRCPB and PPP ICAR took cognizance of the importance of biotechnology in agriculture and established Biotechnology centre in 1985 as a part of the Indian Agricultural Research Institute (IARI) mainly with the mandate of creating trained manpower and developing capabilities of devising tools and techniques of biotechnology and genetic engineering for crop improvement. The Centre subsequently evolved into National Research Centre on Plant Biotechnology. Since its inception, the Centre has grown and has acquired high degree of scientific competence and established excellent research facilities, and is working towards achieving the national priorities of increased agricultural productivity and sustainability through various well designed programmes such as - isolation of plant genes and promoters; development of transgenic crops; genomics and molecular markers; biotechnological
approaches for increasing yield; and biotechnology and climate change. Tissue culture technology has been exploited to develop a mustard somaclone named Pusa Jaikisan that has been released for commercial cultivation. Several somatic cell hybrids involving mustard and its wild relatives have been developed for harnessing the genes of economic importance. With a view to exploiting heterosis, cytoplasmic male sterile lines of mustard have been generated. Identification of a robust fertility restoration system for one of the CMS lines of mustard has accelerated the progress in the hybrid development in this important oilseed crop. Transfer of Chlorosis corrected Ogura Cytoplasm to M/S Advanta resulted in the commercialization of the first Mustard Hybrid Coral 432. Molecular cloning of useful genes for blast resistance, protease inhibitor, lectin, VIP etc., and tissue specific promoters has been successfully carried out. Genetic engineering has been used for imparting insect resistance in brinjal, tomato and rice using Bt genes. These transgenics are at various stages of development and evaluation. Molecular marker techniques have been employed to generate a molecular linkage map of mustard and to map genes for white rust resistance and fatty acid composition in this crop. A gene for resistance to blast disease in rice has been tagged and cloned. Marker assisted selection has been successfully used to pyramid two genes for bacterial leaf blight resistance in the background of Basmati variety Pusa Basmati 1 to develop a new variety named Improved Pusa Basmati 1. Seed specific promoters have been isolated and sequenced.
The Centre places considerable emphasis on the development of value added products in major crops, technical processes, commercially tangible patents and high quality research publications. The Centre’s relentless pursuit culminated in grant of two Indian Patents for the inventions entitled, “Synthetic gene encoding a chiremeric δ-endotoxin of Bacillus thurigiensis”, (Patent No.: 237912), and "Synthetic gene encoding a Cry1Fa1 S-endotoxin of Bacillus thuringiensis", (Patent No.: 242768). In addition six complete and five provisional patent applications on varying aspects of plant biotechnology were filed to Indian Patent Office since 2007. Development of insect resistant Bt brinjal is one of the major successes of the Centre. Brinjal is a widely cultivated and consumed vegetable in India and South East Asia. It is a vegetable, which is available round the year and affordable by the poorest of the poor. Brinjal is highly susceptible to a lepidopteran pest called Brinjal Shoot and Fruit Borer (BSFB), which damages the shoot tips during vegetative phase and fruits during the reproductive phase. Chemical control of BSFB is not only expensive but also ineffective. Safe and effective alternative for the management of BSFB is to express insecticidal proteins of Bacillus thuringiensis (Bt) by genetic engineering. A codon-modified gene encoding a Cry1Fa1 delta-endotoxin of Bt was constructed and tested for its expression in planta. Brinjal (cv. Pusa purple Long) was transformed with the synthetic gene under the control of a powerful constitutive promoter (CaMV 35S). Transgenic lines with very high-level protection from BSFB were identified. The fruit damage in transgenic
Table 1. Summary information on technologies developed at NRCPB and transferred to private industry. S. Name of the technology No.
No. of private Firms
Year(s) in which MoU signed
1.
Codon modified synthetic Bt gene (cry1Fa1 gene)
Eight
2008, 2009, 2010
2.
Codon modified synthetic Bt gene (cry 1Aa-B gene)
Two
2008, 2011
3.
Codon modified synthetic Bt gene (cry1Aabc gene)
One
2008
4.
Codon modified synthetic Bt gene (cry1Ac-F gene)
One
2009
5.
Shoot and Fruit Borer resistant Bt brinjal (Event 142)
Four
2008, 2009, 2009
6
Brassica CMS System
One
2009
63
lines varied from 4-7% in contrast to 35-43% in normal fruits. The Centre signed MOU with a number of private firms for field-testing, biosafety testing and commercialization of Bt-brinjal (Table 1).
l
Transgenic events (Bt tomato Event 25)
l
Brassica CMS and restorer systems
l
Tissue specific promoters from Arabidopsis
l
Gene targeting technology in brinjal
The other technologies available with the Centre are mentioned below:
A few of these technologies are also channeled to commercial level through PPP mode (Table 1).
l
64
Codon-Modified Bt genes (cry1Fa1, cry2Aa, cry1Ac-F)
The Private Sector’s Vision on the Future of Global Agribusiness The qualitative factors impacting today’s agribusiness scene over the next two decades Lutz Krafft Bio Science, Bayer Crop Science, Monheim, Germany
Introduction and Background We all know the predictions about development of arable land, the increase in world population, the growing demand for agricultural commodities driven by increase meat consumption in developing countries. We have seen the predictions of changing rainfall patterns due to climatic change. We have seen the extrapolations on agricultural productivity, the increasing risk of production failures and the devastating and scaring consequences of food supply shortages. The sharp rise of agricultural commodity prices in 2008 must be seen as a first warning shot. We are going to see more fluctuation in agricultural commodity prices in future, with significant potential impact on the developing world. Today’s commodity prices are still rather high. Rice was above US $ 500 per ton at the end of October. There is no question that we need a substantial increase in agricultural production. As agricultural area is limited production increase must come from productivity gain – still preserving the long term productivity of the agro-ecosystem.
Productivity Increase - what to improve? Private sector has contributed to productivity gain in the past decades in developed and developing countries. Private sector has not necessarily invented all product innovations, but made it available to the farming community through its marketing and sales network. Productivity gain is measurable. It drives the agricultural input markets today and will do so in future. l
Productivity per acre or hectare of land is a most common measure. Yield increase is seen as yield increase / ha. Productivity per ha will stay a core driver as arable land is limited.
l
Productivity per variable and fixed input cost. Classically input covers equipment, energy, seed, fertilizer, crop protection and labor. It stays critical as basic driver of farm economics.
l
Water has become a scarce resource and will continue to become a more scarce resource: water use efficiency is a very important trait. We notice restrictions in water use for irrigation in many areas including the developed world. Significant areas worldwide are not cropped due to marginal or unreliable water supply. Considering the predicted reduction of rainfall due to climatic change, it is not difficult to predict water use efficiency as a major innovation area.
l
The need to reduce global carbon dioxide emissions is rising in public awareness. Energy input drives the carbon footprint of
Innovation has been one source of such productivity gain in the past and is needed for the future to meet the challenges. Public funding of agricultural research however, has gone down substantially. If we look specifically at research targeted to increase agricultural productivity, the situation looks even worse. I will concentrate in the following on opportunities to increase agricultural production, knowing that there are many other problems in the agro-food system. However I feel less competent to talk about this part.
65
agricultural products. Nitrogen fertilizer is a main contributor. Productivity per energy input could become a new driver. These are critical innovation areas. They are not different for developed countries or developing countries on this general level. However, the balance varies from country to country. Maintaining yield with reduced input or increasing yield at leveled input, both is productivity increase. From a research point of view it is not important, how and when the world community implements financial systems to value carbon dioxide emissions and to create financial incentives to comply. We need to look for future solutions today. The dimension of the challenge ahead is a strong incentive to find synergies to do research for improvement of agricultural production. Public and Private sector partnership – I believe - could do a lot.
Technology Platforms – which path forward? Looking back we notice that past productivity increases came from various areas: improved varieties, synthetic fertilizers, mechanization and agrochemicals have been driving big productivity gains when they were introduced. CGIAR has left a highly recognized footprint in development of innovative varieties leading to improved productivity of rice and wheat crops. Certainly adoption and adoption rate of the technologies differs significantly by country. Successful “roll out” of technology at hand is a core initiative. Adaptation of technologies into local products, making such products available and educate farmers to proper use are big tasks.
Biotechnology The markets for agrochemicals have been stagnant since the mid 90’s after significant growth from the 60’s till early 90’s. The fastest growing segment in today’s input markets is “biotech seeds”. Since a decade we see annual growth rates of 10% and more. Such growth is expression of significant productivity gains driven by herbicide tolerance and insect resistance in developed markets and developing markets.
66
Biotechnology helps to discover genetic and physiological foundation of traits like stress tolerance and yield formation. Such knowledge is fundamental for innovation in breeding, molecular biology and chemical research. I am very certain that we will see substantial innovation in the coming two decades from all three areas. Basis is the improved understanding of plant functionality possible through modern plant biotechnology. The much debated “gmo’s” will not be the last result from the advances in plant sciences. Targeted breeding is starting with commercial application right now. Chemicals will remain an important source of innovation. However, chemists will have to think wider than just control of weeds, diseases and insects. Without any doubt I see “biotech” to be the driving innovation platform in the coming two decades. It has proven to provide important leads in the described innovation areas. Biotechnology products do not require large industrial production facilities like fertilizers or agrochemicals, which makes this technology well adaptable to various economic backgrounds. However, the issues around intellectual property rights, compliance, deregulation and stewardship create different complexities.
Technology Application – how to make it work in the field Technical success and innovation is worth nothing to nobody, if it does not reach and change farm reality. Technology launch is a challenge. How to explain new technologies to farmers? How do we communicate the advantages of new technologies? How to grow adoption rates of new technologies? How to avoid improper use? Private sector spends substantially more money on marketing and sales efforts than for innovation. Companies certainly want to ensure use of proprietary products vs. competitors’ ones. However, this goes along with detailed information about new technologies and the best way, to use them properly. It is in each company’s commercial interest to educate users in order to create user satisfaction. Such commercial system has proven its power to launch new technologies in all countries of the developed and developing world.
However, farmers need a solid base of technical knowledge and financial freedom to make this system work properly whereas authorities need to watch potential risks and side effects. The lack of farmer education and financially independent farm structures are blocking use of technology in many countries - hardly developing today. I am fully aware that many more issues factor into these problems.
Private Sector’s Vision The private sector has to earn its funds in the markets. Two things are important: to detect and develop innovative products and to maximize use of such products during patent protection by high adoption and fast market penetration via a respective commercial organization. Success creates “margins” – a large part of that is reinvested into continued research. Innovation has been core to the private sector’s development. Private sector is struggling to find the best mix between efforts in each of the three innovation platforms. Big bets are being taken right now. Capital markets are aware and support investment in innovation. Intellectual property is core to the system as it protects the value of inventions for a certain period of time. Companies have to create maximum success within this time: one explanation to the efforts in marketing and sales shown in the previous slide. However, the increasing cost of leading innovation has driven concentrative trends in the industry. The seed and agrochemical industry has gone through a remarkable concentration process and change in the past 20 years. Public / Private Research Partnership are an increasingly “normal” element to complement proprietary research and to stay competitive in this environment. Especially in the biotechnology arena such cooperation has been fruitful in the past and will be fruitful in the future. The company I work for has just recently signed a long-term agreement with CSIRO from Australia for joint research in cereals. There are many examples on joint research projects large ones and smaller ones - with public sector institutions. Private sector’s role moves from being a sole originator of innovation towards being an integrator of technology towards an adapted final product - with a core competence in launching new technologies across a wide geography.
Cooperation is built on the use of the intellectual properties developed in the cooperation. With successful products such cooperation will generate funds for further research on both sides. The successful system in developed countries however has its limitations. The CGIAR institutes focus is to support the large areas of agriculture in the developing countries, which do not benefit from private company research.
Joint Technology Development Technology works globally. I see a strong scientific base for public / private sector cooperation especially in the area of biotechnologies. I believe such cooperation can be most rewarding to drive innovation and agricultural productivity gains. Given the challenges ahead of us to increase agricultural production globally, there is almost an obligation to be open and make synergistic (=cooperative) use of the limited R&D funds at hand across the sector borders. Biotechnology helps us increasingly to understand how plants actually work. The scientific challenge of today is to comprehend physiological and genetic factors driving yield and yield stability, water use efficiency and fertilizer use efficiency. The public sector institutes have done substantial work in the genetic area and accumulated a wealth of knowledge. Highly recognized success originated from committed, foresighted breeding work, improvement of yield potential for wheat and rice has been a globally admired highlight. To combine such knowledge base with state of the art application of private sector technology is an exiting thought. It is not difficult to see this opportunity. Practical implementation requires a commitment on all sides to establish and respect intellectual properties within the scope of joint project work. GMO products could be one potential result of such cooperation. Global deregulation, compliance issues and global product stewardship are additional “musts” in such case. Private sector will claim marketing rights for developed and fast developing countries – a necessity to earn back research funds put into a joint project. Public sector will benefit from a royalty share earned there. Public sector will be able to
67
work with the technology for further research work. With global applicability of technology all parties benefit from such win-win cooperation.
Commercial Aspects The commercial organizations of the private sector will continue to focus on markets of the developed world. Fortunately many developing countries in Asia and Latin America are considered equal to the developed countries. Private sector companies should be responsible for launching and marketing joint Public Private Research results in this part of the world. However, we have a large number of countries, which are lagging behind and are not in the private sector’s view. Innovation and adapted technology must be brought to the farmers in the slow developing areas, an important task of the public sector. Private sector will certainly be prepared to support development of adapted products for specific needs. If specific IP is required, I am certain it will be made available – provided the IP position in the markets with commercial structures is not compromised. The issues of global deregulation, compliance and stewardship will also apply in this cooperative field. The logic of this view on global cooperation includes also, that the public sector withdraws from activities in fast developing countries, which can support commercial systems. As long as products are provided by public institutes, private structures cannot develop. I believe public funds should be reserved for situations, where private sector structures are not functional.
68
Summary Agricultural production must go up. Productivity increase must contribute significantly. Water use efficiency as well as energy efficiency will increase in importance. Innovation will be required from all areas: Breeding, chemistry and biotechnology. However, biotechnology is expected to provide fastest progress. The scarcity of agricultural research funds in private and public sector makes it mandatory to look for cooperation. Areas of cooperation can be in research or in technology deployment to slow developing countries. Cooperation requires a clear contractual framework and clarity about each side’s interest and role. Intellectual property protection and product stewardship is core to the private sector. Biotechnology is an attractive platform as it requires no industrial structures for production. However, IP right management and product stewardship must be managed seriously. Technology is global. Attractive projects for the developing world will also drive applications in the developed countries. Jointly developed technologies will be marketed by private sector companies in the developed world. Royalties flowing back to public sector with successful product development can help to finance further research. Public sector has to maintain its task to launch innovation to the slow developing countries.
SYNERGISING STRENGTHS: Public Private Partnerships Can Help Augment Progress in Indian Agriculture Gurbinder Singh Gill Director, Business Development, Monsanto (India) Ltd., Mumbai
India is now one of the fastest growing emerging economies of the world, with a targeted annual growth rate of 8%. But this if the economy is to grow at this pace, there is a strong need to first upgrade the country’s infrastructure services. Public Private Partnerships (PPPs) have emerged today as one of the most effective mechanisms to do this. India has seen PPP investments in several key sectors such as health, telecommunications, electric power, transport, water supply and irrigation. In the health sector, for example, PPPs have contributed to improving health facilities for many deprived sections of society.
In recently years, this rate has crept slightly above three per cent, well short of the four per cent target set in recent Five-Year Plans. That we have not yet succeeded in touching four per cent growth yet is significant. It indicates the challenges we face in agriculture. Growth in agriculture leads to increased food, feed and fibre production and improved farm incomes. So far, the country has seen a growth only in fibre production with the use of insect-protected Bollgard Bt cotton helping farmers double cotton production in six years.
One such example is the Yeshaswini Cooperative Farmers’ Healthcare Scheme that was started in 2003. This is a health insurance scheme that was initiated by Narayanana Hrudalaya, a super specialty heart hospital in Bangalore and the Department of Cooperatives, Government of Karnataka. The fact that the poor were getting the best of medical treatments in a private hospital, with the Government paying for half the cost, attracted a lot of members to the scheme. The card holders could access free treatments in 160 hospitals in all districts of the state for any medical procedure costing upto Rs. 2 lakhs.
Increased production due to R&D of higher-yielding hybrid cotton seeds with only first-generation biotechnologies has led to the country becoming the second-largest producer and exporter of cotton in the world, second only to China – and leaving the US behind. Farmers derived an estimated Rs. 31,500 crores of additional value from 2002-2009 due to the introduction and adoption of better cotton hybrids. The Indian cotton farm environment has improved as insecticide usage has reduced by 20,000 MT p.a., reducing agriculture’s impact on environment and saving billions of litres of water from less spraying. Additionally, research has indicated 87 per cent of farmers are enjoying higher standards of living, 72 per cent invested in their children’s education and life insurance, and 67 per cent repaid their long pending debts.
According to the PPP Database, Ministry of Economic Affairs, in the last 5 years, there have been at least 450 PPP projects in key sectors like transport, education and infrastructural development and with a total estimated cost of about Rs. 2,24,175.75 crores.
This overwhelming success of cotton is an example of synergistic partnership between the seed industry, farmers, the Government, State Agriculture Universities (SAUs), select NGOs and media; and democratization of technology through improved seeds and increased choice.
With India still battling food insecurity and poverty, agriculture has become a key sector for research, investment and development. Agriculture has been the slowest growing sector of the economy. Over the past 60 years, Indian agriculture has recorded an average growth rate of 2.7 per cent per year.
Unfortunately, this success is not being replicated in other crops. The stagnation in agricultural growth overall in India has raised concerns over food and livelihood security of a large number of people in India, who make their living out of agriculture and related enterprise.
69
The bright side is that India has a unique advantage as it has the world’s second largest agriculture acres and a large body of agriculture scientists. Yet, the population of a billion and growing, rising incomes and wants of food and fibre, coupled with climate change making farmerled production unpredictable, creates a role for Indian agriculture as both cause and victim. Indian farmers can play a critical role to feed, clothe and fuel a growth never seen before. Our scientists can lead the way in safely meeting our country’s food and health needs by improving the farm productivity and efficiency, i.e. more from less. Agriculture is key to India’s ambition to become an economic locomotive in the global economy. Agriculture intersects the toughest challenges that we face on food, farm and forest. Although agriculture contributes 18% of India’s GDP, its importance in the country’s economic, social, and political fabric goes well beyond this indicator. The rural areas are still home to some 72 per cent of the population. These challenges can only be met with agricultural innovations: produce more and conserve more, and thereby improve farmer lives. Research in advanced technologies in agriculture are being carried out by several research institutions in the public and private sectors. But if these institutions could come together, to leverage and capitalize on each other’s strengths, the process of development would be speeded up. Several partnerships have already been developed between the public and private sectors with the laudable objective of achieving these goals. Monsanto, for instance, started a pilot project in 2009 — Project Golden Rays. Project Golden Rays is a PPP between the Government of Rajasthan and Monsanto (India), that aims at improving economic self-sufficiency of maize farmers by doubling maize yields and incomes in the State’s five districts; Banswara, Dungarpur, Udaipur, Pratapgarh and Sirohi. While Rajasthan constitutes 15% of India’s total maize acreage, its maize yields are 30% below India’s average maize yields. The majority of maize farmers are small or marginal in nature with minimal resources and lack of access to appropriate technology.
70
Farmer Laxman from Jibelapada, Rajasthan cultivated high-yielding DeKalb hybrid maize seeds on his one-acre farm for the first time as part of this project. He experienced a two-fold increase in yields, and obtained 30 quintals as opposed to the earlier 15 quintals with conventional seeds. With the extra income earned, he paid off his debts of previous years amounting to Rs. 10,000 and purchased some assets for his home worth Rs. 5,000. Many like Laxman have similar testimonials to offer that confirm the success of this project and the far reaching benefits of the scheme on famers. In 2010, Project Golden Rays benefited 7.8 lac tribal maize farmers. Several were able to fulfill the basic food needs for their families owing to higher yields, invest in education for their children, build pucca houses, repay their debts, invest in poultry and livestock businesses to earn their livelihood and better farming infrastructure, among others. Project Sahyog, another PPP initiative by Monsanto, in association with the Department of Agriculture, Karnataka, aims to provide critical training on best practices in farming. By promoting efficient learning programs for enhancing farm productivity and helping farmers receive the right price for their produce, the project has helped in increasing their income and quality of life. Its success can also be gauged by the fact that it has provided training to more than 200 farmers and 50 Agricultural Department Officials till date. These examples have helped to establish that PPPs can be extremely instrumental in translating the potential of biotechnology into products that will help in enhancing agricultural productivity and improving the economic condition of the farming community. India is at a critical juncture, and nowhere in the world are the issues of water usage, food security and agricultural innovation more pressing than they are here. There is an urgent need to work together to bring innovations via partnerships between the private and public sector, farmers and government to meet India’s food security needs through conservation and technology. India’s future depends on it!
Public Private Partnership for the Benefit of the Farmers K.V. Subbarao and Neelima Dwivedi Pioneer Hi-bred Seeds, A DuPont Business
Public Private Partnership with State GovernmentsAgriculture being the key mainstay in India, Pioneer Hi-breds, a DuPont Business, has been exploring alternate models to improve the productivity and profitability of farmers to meet agricultural growth challenges. Pioneer believes that Collaboratory efforts like public-private partnerships helps improve agriculture productivity, made through scientific advances, to enhance farmer productivity thus helping to meet the demands of a growing population. Adoption of Public Private Partnerships (PPP), one of the initiatives, to create a structure for adoption of hybrid seeds, improve crop management practices, thus creating market linkages towards a better price discovery. Public Private Partnerships has augmented Pioneer’s initiative to bring about a positive change by increase in farm prosperity, improved agronomy practices, thereby creating a marked difference in the livelihood of farmers through the introduction of superior hybrid seeds. In 2010 Pioneer partnered with the state governments of Uttar Pradesh, Gujarat, Orissa, Rajasthan and Jharkhand. In these states, the farmers of the respective villages have been predominantly using farm saved seeds or open
pollinated variety (known as OPV), lacking awareness and skills on the benefits of superior seed varieties and improved crop management practices. Project Krushak Uthaan-Engagement with Government of Orissa: Through a PPP initiative, Pioneer Hi-breds, in India engaged with the Government of Orissa to introduce high yielding corn hybrid seeds. For maize, Orissa has been prevalent in the open pollinated variety (OPV). A shift to hybrid seeds has encouraged farmers to achieve high productivity and profitability. With the adoption of PPPs, farmers have been continuously receiving agronomic support coupled advancement in technology practices to help increase productivity and enhance the livelihood of farmers. About more than 25000 farmers from six (6) districts of Orissa namely Ganjam, Mayurbhanj, Gajapati, Rayagada, Sambalpur and Bargada have benefited from this project. The benefits that Pioneer received from this project are greater visibility, image building and outreach to farmers. This is also an opportunity for the government to an approach towards addressing the food security challenge by 2050. Similar PPP initiatives were implemented in Gujrat,
71
Orissa Hon’ble Chief Minister’s visit to PPP location in Ganjam
Orissa Principal Secretary Agriculture speaks about Pioneer Corn
along with the Tribal Development Department and Agriculture, Gujarat in the five districts of Baroda, Sabarkanthana, Banaskantha, Panchmahal and Dahod. The project goal being to increase corn and mustard productivity through the use of high quality seeds and adoption of improved agronomic practices. More than 27000 farmers benefited from this project by increased productivity and profitability of corn and mustard.
were sampled to more than 7000 tribal/ BPL farmers in four districts - Udaipur, Banswara, Dungarpur and Baran along with training for implementation of improved agronomic practices to maximize productivity. The same model has been replicated in Devghar and Godda districts of Jharkhand, where more than 5 thousand farmers are getting benefit for the project.
l
l
Project Subhiksha (Subsistence to Surplus) Pioneer Hi-Breds, a DuPont Business, in partnership with Department of Agriculture, (ATMA), Government of Uttar Pradesh, initiated a two year project in 150 blocks of 26 rice growing districts of Uttar Pradesh. Crops covered have been Hybrid Rice for Kharif and Rabi for Hybrid Mustard. The objective of this project is to provide technical training and demonstration of extension services through “Farm School Model” through Dept of Agriculture with ATMA under support to extension services, working on various projects for improving farm profitability and state productivity of Rice and mustard. The model is scalable year over year based on the performance.
The team from Pioneer, worked with the farmers in all the states throughout the crop cycle, right from the distribution of the seed to the beneficiaries, pre-season agronomy training to post harvest technology. We also facilitated grain procurement and market linkage to local industries. Technology transfer and knowledge dissemination to the farming community by Pioneer is being executed through the following routes: (Non PPP) l
Partnering with NGO’s and working with their Self Help Groups in promotion of sustainable livelihoods of small and marginal farmers in dry/irrigated lands. Established Agri-Business Resource Center (ABRC) to provide inputs, information & trainings to farmer members and Enhance livelihood opportunities by promoting agriculture based micro enterprises. These initiatives are self sustainable and are managed by the farmers groups with consultancy and facilitation by Pioneer—UDAY AGRI is the initiative which Pioneer India has been supporting for the last 3 years in Karimnagar and Medak districts of Andhra Pradesh. In July 2010 the group has been turned into a Farmer run producer company.
l
One of the constant endeavors’ of Pioneer has been to optimize the cost of cultivation and thereby work towards improving his income
In Rajasthan, Pioneer Hi-breds, a DuPont Business, signed a memorandum of understanding with the Agriculture Department, Government of Rajasthan for multiple projects–
1) Technical support to the State Seed Corporation in seed production of pearl millet. 2) Product development collaborations state agriculture universities (SAUs). 3) Silage development to meet local fodder needs. Corn and pearl millet hybrid seeds
72
Govt. officials (UP) Exposure Visit-Hyderbad
level from the same piece of land, Segmenting the market and positioning products which are appropriate to the growing conditions is one of the prerequisite which Pioneer follows religiously. Sampling is one of the biggest and most critical extension activities as SEEING IS BELIEVING and one need to demonstrate the benefits live in the fellow farmer field. Pioneer samples 1 Lakh+ farmers and spends approximately around 1% of its revenue in sampling and getting feedback from the farmers. Pioneer leverages latest developments in communication technology and employs ICT tools to get the right positioning and feedback from farmers before scaling up. Pioneer contacts around 2-2.5 Million farmers in all the 3 windows available to train them like Product demonstration, off season and Preseason activities. l
Understanding the limitation of reaching all the farmers on their own a unique programme called PIONEER PRAVAKTA (spokesman), has been launched. The Pravakata farmer is trained on the all the crop management practices twice in a year and he in turn goes and trains his fellow farmers—Pioneer is committed to making substantial investments around this
Visit of Hybrid Rice Seed Production Field
programme to reach into the remotest of the markets, Current strength Pioneer Pravaktas are 30,000 and plans in the next 2 years is to go to 1 Lakh. Pioneer commitment goes beyond sales of seed and as articulated earlier help farmer get the best out of Pioneer seed by recommending the right Agronomy practices suited to the growing conditions. l PIONEER UNNATI ABHIYAN is the umbrella programme under which Population recommendations (Rice/Corn), Seed rate optimization (Mustard/Millet), Nutrient Management (Soil Testing) and Seed treatments have been demonstrated on a consistent basis benefiting many million farmers. We employ around 1000 people year round on the ground for our extension activities. l One of the biggest and unique initiatives launched this year is providing all Pioneer farmers access to Weather, Mandi prices and Crop management information at all stages of crop cycle for their own locations. This transformational initiative is worth 4 Crores and Pioneer’s partner in respected leader in information area—Reuters.
73
74
Advanta India Limited—In Partnership with Indian Farmers Bhupen Dubey Head, Integrated Business, UNIPHOS
Advanta India Limited is the seed arm of United Phosphorus Limited. A renowned Agrochemicals Major in India with its presence since 1969. Today UPL is in service of not only Indian farmers, but also of farmers across Globe in providing them with knowledge, technology, and seed to harvest crop solutions. Advanta India Limited is an Indian company with Global foot prints, having a strong presence in domestic and international markets with its field crop seed and vegetable seed business. Advanta India Limited is partnering with various state governments in PPP programmes for the up-liftment of farming community by educating them on the use of right inputs and improved seeds to increase their farm productivity. Some of the initiatives taken by state governments where Advanta partners with them are as below: RKVY (Rashatriya Krishi Vikas Yojna) – We are actively partnering with the state governments in all major states for productivity increase programmes to the farmers providing our high quality hybrid seeds of Rice, Corn, Pearl Millet, Sunflower and continuous knowledge sharing programme and extension activities from seed sowing to harvest. We have participated in states of Rajasthan, Gujarat, Jharkhand, West Bengal, Orissa, Assam and North Eastern states. Project Sunshine – 1, Gujarat – Advanta India Limited is actively involved in the project planned for tribal areas of Gujarat for educating the farmers to grown hybrid seeds of Corn and also educating them with help of local NGO by organizing various farmers training camps and on field activities from seed sowing to harvest Green Revolution 2 programme under RKVY scheme – Advanta India is in touch with state government agricultural departments in eastern part of the country to provide support in the initiatives taken under NFSM programmes by
providing inputs and extension activities as agriculture service provider. Corporate Social Responsibility Initiatives – Our Parent Company United Phosphorus Limited is running various programmes as part of our social responsibility and some of these initiatives are: Farmers School – This program is focused on educating the farmer groups on crop diversification, productivity improvement and organic farming etc. more than 1,500 farmers are part of this program to get the education through these schools. Local Agricultural University help is also taken to develop curriculum for this program. We have already initiated such programme in Punjab, Rajasthan, West Bengal, Haryana. Health Care initiative – To support hospitals and run health care check ups Education for needy – Funded 60 school buildings runs gyan dham trust at Vapi in Gujarat – runs medical college and schools at various locations. Social and Environmental awareness – runs tribal development projects, large scale plantation initiatives, electrification of rural areas, tube-wells for villages etc. are part these activities.
Approach and Scope In its present form the partnership with the Government of India is initiated once the process of tender is over and a deal is signed. However the concept of PPP may be implemented even in the planning process with the GOI, and the various government institutions involved in the process, like Planning Commission, SFCI, NSC. A data bank/cloud can be created with the objective to allow the willing partners to access and upload data on areas of their operations and interest with the objective of improving the
75
farm productivity. All the data inputs required for successful cultivation be it weather, fertilizer, seed, water availability, crop productivity and global pricing should be made available on a mutually sharing basis. The scope of PPP programmes in enormous in bringing in a synergy between the Government which is committed to ensuring food security and the private organizations who are aspiring to grow and sustain the growth with better and smarter planning of production and resource utilization.
appreciable and have resulted in improvement of farm productivity. We would like to suggest few suggestions for further incorporation which we feel would be helpful in improvement of such initiatives;
Roadblocks Faced
Uniformity of Programmes (PPP models) – As now quite a few states governments have implemented PPP initiatives, thus having experience and learning out of these to implement these initiatives. If a Crop wise uniform model can be run under similar schemes in different states, so implementations can be easy if same is to be replicated for different states and at the same time the effectiveness of the program, monitoring and delivery would be more efficient. Similar guidelines from the central government to the state governments would be helpful.
In the present form of implementation of PPP, the major roadblock is lack of information till the last moment on the way ahead for a programme as decided by the respective state government. Wide diversity amongst the different states, as to the process of implementation of the programme. There seems to a gap in the seeds selection criterion and the subsidy therein, sometimes leading to many seed companies sensing discrimination. The storage of the supplied inputs in the various government departments is not up to acceptable standards.
Future Prospects
In Advanta we see a tremendous scope for PPP programmes in developing a resonance with the government and work together with mutual trust and understanding to ensure food security. On behalf of Advanta India Ltd. I would like to take this opportunity to reiterate our unflinching commitment to work for the Indian farmers and with the Indian Government to improve the farm economy and productivity.
Some Suggestions Though Government of India’s efforts, focus on Agricultural part and rural area are quite
76
Advance Planning of PPP initiatives – If any initiative can be decided well in advance will help the partners to arrange the resources timely, arranging different inputs and make an effective use of them for successful implementation of the program to deliver results as expected.
Seeds selection criteria (under subsidy programmes) – If a uniform criteria for seed selection (of various companies for their eligibility to participate in subsidy program) will be helpful for the industry and all will be following similar guidelines to be the partner in subsidy programmes. Subsidy on Seed Production – As seed production cost in increasing over every year, so request Government to consider subsidy initiatives in seed production as well, so private companies can keep investing in this area and farmers involved in seed production should also get encouragement.
Public and Private Partnership in Agriculture Past, Present and Future – Yesterday, Today and Tomorrow G.K. Garg Director, Krishidhan Seeds Pvt. Ltd., Jalna 431203
Almost 5 years ago, when I joined private sector company, after working 40 years in a university ambience and seeing the functioning of public institutions as well as government from close quarters, I was convinced that there is a need to forge public-private partnership where the benefit of technology being developed in our universities and research institutions can be utilized by private sector in developing appropriate product. In the back of my mind were early 60s and 70s when high yielding varieties of wheat and paddy were successfully developed by universities for improving the productivity and effectively disseminated first through public sector seed corporation(s). Subsequently the private sector in the form of traders joined the campaign and became significant player in seeds chain to achieve green revolution. The major brunt in spreading the technology were born by newly established National Seed Corporation and Tarai Development Corporation at Pantnagar which subsequently became model for development of Seed corporations almost in all States, it also catalysed growth of seed industry. Mahyco is believed to have set the trend for providing seeds for field and vegetable crops through informal but strong collaboration with IARI scientists. Bouyant with this success many traders established their own seed companies for production, processing and marketing and became a recognizable name with the farmers. The growth in seed sector was slow but steady. Jalna in Maharashtra and Kashipur in then U.P., now in Uttarakhand, became the hub of major seed industries, using the breeder seed of recently developed varieties/hybrids from the public sector and making the certified seeds available to the farmers which, by and large, became very popular in not so developed States like Bihar, North East etc. This was the model where the only control exercised by the system was the quality of breeder seed and quality of certified seed produced by the companies. This
was a free era and the model worked well to bring synergy in different stake holders and ensured the food grain self-sufficiency of the country. This era was yet free from IP issues. The Seeds Act permitted dissemination of public bred varieties, hence truthful label seeds were also available in case certification was not possible. It also encouraged many companies to start small R&Ds by making adoptive research and finding ways and means to bring in existing germplasm. There was a good cooperation between institutes and industries without any formal public private partnership schemes or documents and it saw the most productive growth in agriculture. Even today this remains the most dominant public partnership model for agriculture at least in the mind set of policy markers and many a scientists. However, the fact remains that both industry and academia have moved on. GATT changed the whole scenario. It led to development of treaties, conventions and protocols on bio-diversity, IPR including Plant Breeders Right and also triggered commensurate changes or new acts on Biodiversity, PVP & FR and Seed Act to accommodate these treaties. Then suddenly three things happened: l
Public-Private Partnership – required equitable benefit sharing.
l
The germplasm that were freely exchanged became a restricted entity.
l
The concept of PVP&FR and success of Bt cotton created an awareness about the economic benefit to the researcher in agriculture sector. Consequently cooperation and transparency which were hall mark during green revolution, suffered a set back. Also some time a potential idea without a rigourous proof of concept got introduced as a finished technology. Its failure caused both rancour and loss of trust.
77
These three factors led to end an era of openness and agricultural growth suffered both in terms of production and economic gain to farmers. Fortunately, introduction of Bt cotton through private-private partnership, gave a tremendous boost to cotton production – second largest cash crop after sugarcane. It did two things. (1) Brought economic growth in otherwise laggard agriculture sector. Farmers started having disposable income for improvement in farming – including desire to buy improved seeds with assured improvement in productivity, (2) seeds from private sector became more acceptable as the diversity, services and performance of varieties and hybrids from private sector improved. This spurred a growth in seed industry and also drew attention of large MNC Seed companies as well as investors in this sector. The result has been for all to see i.e. record food grain production, improved seed replacement rate, higher share of seeds from private sector, increase in the size of agricultural contribution in GDP although fall in terms of % due to much higher growth in Industrial and Service sector – both desirable. Farmer’s prosperity also contributed to growth in industrial and service sector and concommitant with industrial growth, labour migration. All these need to be welcomed as only this trend can lead to our transition from developing to developed country – notwithstanding noise and caution – sometime billigerent by committed and not so committed environmentalist. It is good that we are gradually opening our agriculture to global market and this limited liberalization has yielded exceptional benefit by exposing farmers to new technologies, higher yields and better product quality. Farmers having gradually started getting away from their excessive leaning on subsidy support, becoming demanding in product performance and favours quality product without consideration where from the seeds are coming. If India really wishes to become a real economic force in global market, it needs to avoid the excessive dependence on imported technologies just like we had to come out of ship-to-mouth dependence for food grains in early sixties to become politically independent free from pressures of US. No country can afford total dependence on external agencies in agriculture – more so developing countries. It is imperative
78
for India to drive its growth in agriculture in a competitive fashion with home grown technologies – as far as possible. This realization has spurred a paradigm shift in R&D in seed sector. Several leading industries like Krishidhan, Vibha, Rasi, Nuziveedu etc. now own a robust R&D division manned by both eminent retired scientist as well as young bright scientists. In fact, due to limited ability of public sector to provide employment for agricultural scientists, Agri-industry has become a major attraction for employment and growth opportunity. Besides many of them see fruits of their labour reach farmers faster than the established system permits at present. Neither Universities nor Industry alone at present is capable to compete with technological development, leave aside discoveries in other developed countries. Interestingly in some of the countries the roles of public sector and private sector have been redifined. In UK research institutes and university are concentrating on discoveries and basic research that can lead to development of recognizable traits – through conventional or biotechnological route. The industry addresses itself for product development. A synergy is created by partnership. Globally few giant MNCs and very few public institutions have remained capable of doing both things all alone. In India as yet neither R&D of any public sector nor that of private sector can stand alone to provide a credible technology with large impact in field of agricultural biotechnology. Let us look at Indian scenario today. Both Government and R&D organizations in public and private sector have realized that there is need for Public Private Partnership. Several schemes like SBIRI, BIPP (both DBT), NMITLI (CSIR) have come into vogue to promote partnership. Similar schemes have also been floated for international collaborations between academia and industry. Some of the scheme support and facilitate Industry-Industry collaboration too. It is a welcom sign that though these schemes are sector neutral but agriculture has also started receiving due attention albeit their implementation has not been without hick ups. In our limited experience to make these partnerships strong and effective following things need to be developed to serve agriculture which need to be recognised as strategic sector.
l
Industry is recognized as an equal partner in agricultural research efforts.
l
In areas and domains like genomics, molecular markers, gene discovery, RNAi technology that require large efforts and field operation industry be made a partner in consortium mode where the efforts made by it be duly taken in cognizance and full support be provided to industry for its designated research efforts. The data be put in common domain with free or conditional access.
l
Mechanisms be derived where easy exchange of germplasm is facilitated and shared germplasm be given due protection by both.
l
Scientists from both sectors be treated at par in committees and schemes for professional growth without compromising the conflict of interest from scientist from either sector.
l
Specific cooperation for product development may continue in the present form but some common guidelines for benefit sharing is essential. Many a time scientists from Public Sector get concerned because of possible repercussions deemed as financial impropriety.
Let me conclude by saying Public Private Partnership is must for agricultural Growth but it needs to undergo major change in mind set and evolve in details keeping in mind the changing ground realities.
79
80
IFSSA – A Unique Model of Public-PrivatePartnerships in Agriculture Dinesh C. Joshi1 and Virupaxagouda Patil2 Indian Foundation Seed and Services Association (IFSSA), Hyderabad
Agricultural research can improve the lives of poor people in developing countries. Scientific advances in plant breeding led to the green revolution, regarded as the most important agriculture achievement of human kind. This resulted in doubling of food grain production in India in a short span. But, we should not become complacent at this point of time. At 1.9% population growth we are adding 19-20 million new mouths to feed every year. We will have to increase the food grain production by 50% by 2050. Agricultural research and technological improvements will continue to be a pre-requisite for increasing crop productivity. Over the years, the rate of public expenditure on agricultural research has slowed down dramatically. Against this trend, the private sector’s investment in agricultural research is increasing world wide. However, these resources are rarely invested in research that is directly or intentionally pro-poor. While public sector research played a major role in resource limited areas and food crops species, private sectors have played major role in more productive areas and commercial crop species. One way of ensuring that the pro-poor research programs are maintained and strengthened in the face of waning public commitment is through resource collaborations, partnership or other form of interaction between public and private sectors. As a science based activity, agricultural research is best performed by multidisciplinary and interinstitutional teams of scientists from both public and private sectors. Public-Private –Partnership can be defined as the pooling of public and private resources with the aim of providing value addition to both parties with the following points: Coordinator, IFSSA and Executive Director Barwale Foundation, Barwale Chambers, #3-6-666, street No.10, Himaytnagar, Hyderabad-500 029 (
[email protected]), www.ifssa. org.in 2 Scientist, IFSSA (
[email protected]) 1
l
Both parties must bring some resources to the partnerships that are valuable for the other party and for the common interest. These may be information, specialized human capital, germplasm, funds or research facilities.
l
Both parties must have an interest that overlaps. This does not mean that goals or outputs need to be same for each other- the private sector may seek increased market share while the public sector may want progress in sustainable rural development.
l
Both the parties must expect some net gain – something that they can not achieve as cheaply, as rapidly or as effectively when they operate on their own (Van de Meer, 2002).
Partnerships could arise based on the complementarity of assets and the overlapping of interests and agenda (Byerlee and Fisher, 2002). For example, in the area of biotechnology, the private sector may have protocols, genes and know-how, and the public sector may have large germplasm collections and network for multilocation testing and evaluation. Thus partnerships may be based on: resource and skill synergies; risk sharing in pre-competitive areas of research; or may relate to the wish of private companies to contribute to philanthropic activities. Alternatively, partnerships may relate to simpler, though no less important arrangements involving the private sale of public technologies (Tripp and Pal, 2001) or private purchase of public research and advisory services (Hall et al, 2002).
Benefits of Public-Private-Partnership in Agriculture Public-Private-Partnerships can generate significant benefits for private firms and public institutions while also serving the interests of resource poor or vulnerable households in developing countries.
81
Partnerships can offer private firms access to farmers in emerging markets; the chance to wield constructive influence in the development of legal and regulatory regimes: opportunities to participate in important local, regional and global forums on pro-poor research; and prospects to improve corporate profiles and reputations. Partnerships can provide public agencies access to privately owned knowledge and materials access for public good research; mechanisms for developing, marketing and distributing final products; and financial resources that are otherwise increasingly difficult to obtain. Some of the examples of Public-PrivatePartnerships in agriculture are given below: 1. Golden Rice Humanitarian Board between IRRI, Rockefeller Foundation, Swiss Federal Institute of Technology and Syngenta.
IFSSA, as a non profit organization enters into an agreement with public institutes for their developed hybrids and or varieties to make available quality seeds to farmers through seed companies. This model works on the principles of Public-Private-Partnership (PPP). With the above agreement, IFSSA will get access to the breeder seed materials of the hybrids/ varieties of public sector, undertake maintenance breeding and foundation seed production to share with seed companies (public as well as private). To accomplish the desired objective of the agreement with public sector, IFSSA will carry out its following core activities for maintaining seed purity and supply.
2. Sorghum and Millet Research between ICRISAT, India and consortium of private seed companies.
Core Activities
3. Monsanto Company and Kenyan Agricultural Research Institute (KARI) for the development of virus resistant sweet potato.
The poor quality of seeds, especially of the hybrid seed, is one of several factors limiting the genetic potential of the released hybrids. Hence, it is essential to maintain the purity and vigour of parental lines to realize the full potential of the hybrids/ varieties. Moreover the hybrids after their identification and release get contaminated and show a rapid genetic deterioration at different stages of handling, defeating the very purpose of hybrid breeding research. In order to prevent and safeguarding the genetic purity and identity of hybrid/varieties, every year, maintenance breeding is carried out.
4. Bt Genes for Rice Transformation between IRRI, Novartis (Switzerland), Planttech (Japan) and consortium of other public research institutes. 5. Capacity development through institutional change; partnerships in the Andhra Pradesh Netherlands Biotechnology programme. 6. IARI-IFSSA MoA for promotion of rice hybrid Pusa RH-10. 7. UAS, Bangalore-IFSSA MoA for the promotion of rice hybrid KRH-2. 8. GBPUAT-Syngenta MoU for production of rice hybrids PSD-1 and PSD-3. 9. KVK, Dapoli-Syngenta MoU for promotion of rice hybrid Sahydri. 10. CRRI-IFSSA MoA for promotion of rice hybrids Ajay and Rajalxmi. 11. DRR-IFSSA MoA for promotion of rice hybrid DRRH-3.
82
Indian Foundation Seed & Services Association (IFSSA) and its Model of PPP in Agriculture
Maintenance Breeding
Seed Multiplication IFSSA has been undertaking the production of the parental line seeds, i.e. breeder seeds and foundation seeds through generation system of seed multiplication. We meticulously multiply the breeder seed on our research farm under supervision of breeders. Foundation seeds are produced by using breeder seeds at growers’ fields with constant inspections by breeders and trained seed production staff. All precautions and standardized package of seed production technology, viz., isolation, land requirement, inspections, roguing, supplemental pollination,
harvesting, processing, etc is followed in time to produce the seeds of utmost genetic identity and purity.
5% of the foundation seed requirement of the total 2 m. ha hybrid rice area, which is constantly expanding.
Seed Distribution
Molecular Marker Services
It is one of the main activities of IFSSA. In order to facilitate the production and supply of parental line seeds of the public bred hybrids and inbreds, IFSSA is associated and in the process of formalizing MoU / MoA with more public research institutes for their promising materials. IFSSA would invite indents from its members for the different parental lines of their interest well in advance i.e. before the beginning of the every season. Accordingly Foundation seeds production programme will be organized. The suitability criteria of land and the source of purest breeder seeds are meticulously taken care which are very much essential for the production of quality foundation seed. In India, we are catering over
Research Activities
Apart from supply of Foundation Seeds to the seed companies, IFSSA also provide Molecular Marker Services like Variety finger printing, Seed Purity tests, Marker Assisted Selection for biotic stresses like Bacterial Leaf Blight (BLB), Brown Plant Hopper (BPH), etc.
IFSSA also undertakes research activities in the standardization of seed production practices for maximization of seed yield, improvement of seed produceability of parental lines for economization of seed production with the application of MAS, identification and standardization of molecular markers for the assessment of genetic purity etc.
Fig. 1. Flow Chart depicting the working model of IFSSA
83
The out-come of such research is made available to its members.
IARI-IFSSA Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) It is one of the leading and proven examples in the Public-Private-Partnership (PPP) and a relationship model in agricultural sector. This model has been well appreciated at national and international levels. Through this model IFSSA is facilitating the transfer of technology developed by public institutes (hybrids/ varieties) to the farmers through the private sector, meanwhile generating the revenue for the public institutes in terms of royalty collection and supporting seed industry by making available them access to quality seeds of public bred materials. The fruits of the efforts made are being enjoyed by our farming community
in terms of access to pure quality seeds. Thus the model is working on Win-Win situation for all stakeholders. During 2006-07, IFSSA supplied about 5.6 tones of parental line of the rice hybrid Pusa RH-10, which contributed Rs. 20.26 lakh to IARI in the form of royalty. In the year 2009, IFSSA supplied about 10 tons of parental lines, i.e, CMS (A) line Pusa 6A to the seed companies and generated revenue to IARI in the form of royalty payment of Rs. 34.62 lakh. The IARI-IFSSA partnership helped the area under Pusa RH 10 to reach nearly 0.5 million ha during Kharif 2008. With such a beginning, IFSSA entered another agreement with IARI for their rice varieties Pusa 1121 and Improved Pusa Basmati-1 (1460) and any other rice verities developed by them in future.
Fig. 2 Dr. Badrinarayan. R. Barwale handing over the royalty to Dr. S. A. Patil, Director, IARI in the presence of Hon’ble Union Minister for Agriculture and DG, ICAR
84
IFSSA’s Agreements with Other Public Institutes (SAU’s, ICAR Institutes and IRRI) i.
Between UAS, Bangalore – IFSSA: IFSSA has entered MOU with UAS, Bangalore for their rice hybrid KRH-2. Through this agreement IFSSA has been recognized by UAS, Bangalore as “Sponsored Breeder” for their hybrid KRH-2.
ii. Between CRRI-IFSSA: On the lines of IARI agreement, CRRI and IFSSA have decided to enter into similar agreement for CRRI developed rice varieties (Pooja, Naveen, Varshadhan, Swarna sub-1) and hybrids (Ajay and Rajalaxmi). iii. Between DRR-IFSSA: IFSSA has entered MoU with DRR for their rice hybrid DRRH-3, which is having the highly marketable grain type of BPT 5204 with yield advantage of 30% as well as earlier duration than BPT 5204. iv. Between IRRI - IFSSA : IRRI-IFSSA entered into agreement to popularize the hybrids and / varieties developed by IRRI in India. IFSSA has been enrolled as member of Hybrid Rice Development Consortium (HRDC) in the public sector category. IFSSA shall act as a nodal agency in India for the production, distribution and supply of parental lines developed under HRDC.
Opportunities for Public-Private Partnership There is no denying the fact that public sector is in a unique position to play a key role in biotechnology R&D in developing countries, but working without partnership will make a slow progress. Therefore, public-private partnership is highly desirable for the developing countries to harness the benefits of biotechnology. There is no greater incentive for collaboration between the public sector in agricultural research than the enormous challenge posed by global food security. A large investment of the private sector in biotechnology has clearly demonstrated the need for and significant advantage associated with collaboration between the public and private sectors in agriculture for overall public good.
The public sector organizations invest in agricultural research to maximize societal benefits and private firms need to earn profits in order to give good returns to their share holders. Both public and private sectors have complementary assets, which are a magnet for collaboration. Public sector assets include germplasm, evaluation networks, experts in breeding and familiarity with local growing conditions, relationships with extension organizations and in case of International Agricultural Research Centers, reputation and in case of International Agricultural Research centers, reputation and goodwill they enjoy with NARS. Global life science companies have assets in the form of biotechnology tools, genes, promoters, markers, technical know how, financial resources, and skills in dealing with regularity agencies. The goal of partnership is not to transform public sector institutions into private companies. The private sector is unlikely to replace the role of the public sector in research or in facilitating broad applications of biotechnology in developing countries. Rather the role of the public sector will remain vital, as the private sector is unlikely to deliver biotechnology applications for many crops grown by the poor farmers and orphan crops and to address all biotic and abiotic production constraints important in developing countries. It is the responsibility of public sector to fill these gaps. Moreover, the public sector will continue to provide a critical role in addressing broad policy issues, and guiding programs that optimize public benefits from technological innovations in agriculture. The private sector is no less important in addressing these same broad policy issues. There are now a growing number of cases of Public-Private-Partnerships in the field of agriculture. Overall however the picture is much more mixed and the prevalence of these arrangements is less than might be expected. A number of generic problems emerge that relate, first, to forming partnerships between Public and Private Sectors, and secondly, operating together in a partnership framework. Reasons include the following (Hall, 2006): 1. Bureaucratic procedures on the part of the public sector. 2. Different working styles and reward structures.
85
3. Lack of business culture in the public sector and limited experience of working in commercial settings. 4. No tradition or experience of working with the private sector or even in partnership more generally. 5. Lack of trust. 6. Complex IPR issues, especially where multiple public and private partners are involved operating in a number of countries. 7. Weak negotiating and IPR skills in the Public sectors. 8. Private sector concerns that unpredictable policy changes may affect partnership agreements. 9. Fragmentation of public scientific resources across different ministries and weak communication channels even within public sector. Spielman and Von Grebmer (2004) exploring the PPPs in the CGIAR system conclude that while incentives and perceptions do differ between the two sectors, sufficient common space exists or can be created through incentive structuring to facilitate greater partnership. However partnership development is constrained by insufficient accounting of the actual and hidden cost of partnerships; persistent negative perceptions across the two sectors; undue competition over financial and intellectual resources and partners discount the need for the brokers and third-party actors to manage collaborations and reduce competition between sectors; and PPP are operating without sufficient information on existing partnership experiences and lessons. A conference convened by ICRISAT to share experience of partnerships and new architectures of innovation in agricultural research (ICRISAT, 2003) highlights the following points associated with more successful cases. 1. Partnership arrangements arose in very context specific ways, each with its own individual history of why the problem was considered important and why particular partners came together. 2. Critical in successful partnership were the issue of shared values and the development of trust between partners.
86
3. Complementary resources and skills are certainly important in building partnerships, but complimentary values and cultures are also required. 4. Not just about raising cash but also about partners achieving goals. 5. Using private sector actors as part of public advisory committees and other governance structures is a way of starting to build bridges. 6. Successful cases have often involved explicit efforts to change culture of science. If Public and Private sectors are willing to take the steps to reduce the inhibitions and to promote the trust and efficiency, both may realize the potentially significant benefits of greater intersectoral collaborations, including improved access to scientific and financial resources, new synergies in research, access to new and emerging markets, and greater capacity to solve problems that can not be addressed by a single actor. Most important, if structured properly, greater Public-Private-Partnerships may contribute to the improvements of livelihoods of small-scale, resource-poor farmers, food-insecure urban and rural households, and other vulnerable individuals and households in developing countries.
Acknowledgements We acknowledge our visionaries Dr. B. R. Barwale, Chairman Mahyco and Barwale Foundation and Dr. Wayne H. Freeman, Member, Board of Directors, Barwale Foundation, for establishing IFSSA and for their valuable guidance. We also acknowledge all our members (public institutes and private seed companies) for their valuable association. Also we extend our special thanks to all ICAR institutes specially IARI- New Delhi, DRR-Hyderabad, CRRI-Cuttack and all State Agricultural Universities with special reference to University of Agricultural Sciences, Bangalore and Tamil Nadu Agricultural University, Coimbatore. Special thanks are extended to CGIAR institutes mainly IRRI, Philippines and ICRISAT, Hyderabad for their association and cooperation. We acknowledge the support extended by Barwale Foundation.
References Byerlee, D. and Echeverria, R.G. 2002. Agricultural Research Policy in an Era of Privatization: Introduction and Overview, In Byerlee, D. and R. G. Echeverria (Eds.) Agricultural Research Policy in an era of Privatization: Experiences from the Developing World. CABI. Hall, Andy. 2006. Public-Private Sector Partnerships in an Agricultural System of Innovation: Concepts and Challenges. The UNU-Merit Working paper Series. Hall, A.J., Rasheed Suliaman, V., N.G. Clark, M.V.K. Sivamohan and B. Yoganand. 2002. PublicPrivate sector interaction in the Indian agricultural research system: An innovation system perspective on institutional reform, In Byerlee, D. and R.G. Echeverria (Eds.) Agricultural Research Policy in an era of Privatization: Experiences from the Developing World. CABI.
ICRISAT. 2003. www.icrisat.cgiar.org/gt1/gt1ws/ DetailedProgram.htm Spielman, D.J. and von Grebmer, K. 2004. PublicPrivate-Partnerships in agricultural research: an analysis of challenges facing industry and the Consultative Group on International Agricultural Research, Washington, DC. International Food Policy Research Institute (IFPRI). EPTD Working Paper No. 113. Tripp, R. and S. Pal. 2001. The Private Delivery of Public Crop Varieties: Rice in Andhra Pradesh, World Development 29(1): 103-117. Van der Meer, K. 2002. Public-Private Cooperation in Agricultural Research: Examples from the Netherlands, In Byerlee, D. and R.G. Echeverria (Eds.) Agricultural Research Policy in an era of Privatization: Experiences from the Developing World. CABI.
87
Revenue Sharing Models in a “Public Private Partnership” (PPP) Context Pradeep Valsangkar GCS India (E-mail:
[email protected])
Abstract This paper tries to bring out different revenue sharing models in a PPP deal between the government and private enterprise. Since the ability of the government to invest in to and run large e-governance projects may be limited, these models present a very interesting mix of risk and reward for the government as well as the private vendor.
Introduction Since the availability of funds with state governments to implement e-governance initiatives is limited, governments are looking for PPP models to implement these projects. PPP initiatives not only save the costs for the government but also inject the much needed private sector efficiency in the government sector domain. While there is a need to create PPP deals, these need to be structured to ensure a win – win for all the stake holders. Some times it is also ambiguous whether the proposed PPP contract is, indeed in the PPP domain or not. For example, in one such project, the vendor gets paid on a yearly plan linked to certain productivity. While the payments might have been staggered, the model doesn’t construe a PPP structure. So, how do we exactly define Public Private Partnership? While a number of definitions have been proposed for the PPP projects. The one that equally apportions the risk and reward to the government and the private vendor is considered the most appropriate. It is important for the governments and the private vendor in a PPP contract to share the risk and the return on the project. The governments should be ready to dilute their overall control over the project and should be ready to share the expected revenue
88
with the private partner. The private partner, on the other hand, should invest in to the project in anticipation of the expected revenue. E’Seva kiosks for delivery of government services, toll payment based construction projects in the roads sector are good examples of well structured PPP projects. Projects where future revenues can be predicted fairly reasonably are likely to attract private partnership. If historical revenue data in respect of such initiatives is available then it may be in the interest of the project to share such data with the prospective vendors to encourage them to participate in PPP ventures with the governments. A Public Private Partnership construes sharing of a number of entities. These include the capital, working capital, revenue, risk, responsibility, assets and authority. However this paper essentially deals with models that provide a basis for sharing of capital investment and revenue. Revenue sharing models have to be based upon the risk / return relationship principles of finance. Risks can be measured in terms of financial, business, social and administrative risks. Returns have to be in proportion of the risk faced by the PPP partner. This paper suggests a number of revenue share models in running the PPP projects between the state government and the private enterprise. The revenue share model looks at the vendor, state government and the business as three different entities. The flow of capital, fixed and variable costs for running the business and revenue sharing through fixed and variable payoffs constitute the business models. Accordingly different business models are being postulated. Some of these are as shown below. The vendor is presented with one of these models to decide upon the values of capital, fixed and variable costs and revenue sharing through fixed and variable pay offs.
Model - 1 This model basically relies on the private partner’s ability to fund the project and run it independently of the public sector partner’s intervention. The public enterprise authority is vested with the private partner for a limited period of time. An effective Monitoring and evaluation framework is needed for implementing such a model. Invariably the business is run under strong business related service level agreements. These SLA are monitored by the government through an effective M&E framework. This model is particularly suitable where the capital investment is low and many private vendors can be attracted to invest in to the venture. E-Sewa kiosks run using this model. The model is pictorially depicted in Fig. 1.
Model 1A (Fixed Pay off variant)
Fig. 2. Fixed Pay off variant
Model 1B (Variable Payoff variant)
Fig. 3. Variable Payoff variant
Model - 2
Fig. 1. Model 1
Projects like e-procurement may be quickly implemented and made operational using this model. Risk Perception: While the vendor shares the entire financial risk of the venture, the government shares the risk of loss of administrative control leading to citizen dissatisfaction. However, given the current low satisfaction levels with government services amongst the citizens, it is expected that this model will lead to improvement in these levels rather than deterioration of service levels. Accordingly it is considered appropriate for the private vendor to have a larger share of the revenue in this model of PPP. Two variants of this model can be created by having just a fixed pay off by the vendor to the government or having just a variable pay off. These are as shown below. Where the revenues can be predicted with certainty, the fixed pay off variant will be useful. However when revenue figures are completely unpredictable Model 1b will be more useful. Model 1 shown above should be used when the revenue predictability is between the two extremes.
In this model the capital investment is done by the government and the business is run by the private partner. This model is specially useful where the government wishes to utilize the efficiency of the private sector in running important citizen services. However the capital costs are high enough for private enterprises to be in a position to invest in to the project. The governments ability to invest high capital and the private vendors ability to run the business efficiently is combined to provide a best of breed solution. This revenue model is as shown in Fig. 4.
Fig. 4. Revenue Model
Risk Perception: The entire financial risk in this model is taken by the government. The government also incurs the administrative risk of project failure and subsequent loss of credibility amongst the citizens. Thus this model needs to be run under strong Service Level agreement. Government needs to exercise close control over the vendor in this model. Government also becomes the major beneficiary of the revenue generated through this model. Large facilities like Hotels and hospitals may be run using this model. This model can also be used for running of large airports, rail stations and
89
ports. Two variants of this model are as shown in the Fig. 5 and Fig. 6. In the first variant the vendor is paid a variable amount in relation to the revenue generated. In the other model vendor gets a fix sum for running the facility against laid down SLAs. Invariably when revenue generation is not linked to the services provided by the private vendor, the fixed pay off model will be used. However when the services provided by the private vendor directly impact the revenue generation process, the variable pay off model should be used. Model 2A
large stake in the success of the project. Thus the model is likely to work with fair degree of autonomy to the vendor. Government may make initial investments and then accrue annual revenue for their investments.
Fig. 7. PPP Revenue Models
Only a fixed pay off or only a variable payoff creates two separate alternatives of this model (Fig. 8 and Fig. 9). Model 3A
Fig. 5. Revenue Model (2A)
Model 2B Fig. 8. PPP Revenue Models (only a fixed pay off)
Model 3B
Fig. 6. Revenue Model (2B)
Model 3 This model is a true PPP model since it tries to divide the risk and return between the PPP partners equally. Both partners invest capital in to the project. Returns are shared as per the original capital investment ratio as well as the risk perception of the partners. It is advisable for the project to be run by the private enterprise to draw upon its efficiency and past experience of running similar business. Projects requiring large capital like oil refining etc may fall under this category of PPP revenue models (Fig. 7). Risk Perception: This model tries to equally distribute the risk and return amongst the PPP partners. Invariably the vendor will also have a
90
Fig. 9. PPP Revenue Models (only a variable payoff)
Concluding Remakes The above models provide a basis for structuring PPP deals in an e-governance scenario. Various Equity and revenue models can be envisaged. The government and the private partner can either invest together or individually in to the project. Higher, the equity stake in the project, higher is the risk for the participant and hence higher should be the entity’s share of the over all revenue generated by the facility created under the project. Governments and private vendors can discuss the percentages of equity / fixed pay off /
variable pay off to arrive at equitable distribution of wealth created under the project. This paper only touches the surface of different financial models perceived in structuring a PPP deal in an e-governance framework. Each of these models
can be investigated further for risk return patterns and advantages gained to government and the private enterprise to arrive at well structured PPP contracts.
Reproduced from the website of Computer Society of India (CSI) on e-governance with the kind permission of the author.
91
Public - Private - Partnership with Special Reference to Seed Industry@ Y. Yogeswara Rao and P.N. Chowdary Vikky Agri Sciences Pvt Ltd
The country could achieve the targeted seed production of 258.87 lakh quintals as envisaged in National Seed Plan 2005. However there are certain mismatches in production. The Public Private - Partnership (PPP) will help to produce the seeds of hybrids / varieties released recently by ICAR / SAUs which in turn helps to increase the productivity in crops. This can help to reduce the usage of farm saved seed and to minimise the mismatches. The Public - Private -Partnership plays a great role in technology development, sharing the location specific hybrids / varieties developed recently by public sector with private sector seed companies. After introduction of liberalized “New Policy on Seed Development”, in 1988, the Private Sector Seed Companies had expanded their research activities and some of them had collaborative arrangements with foreign companies. This has helped for free flow of germplasm material into the country from private companies abroad. In addition to this, CGIAR institutions like ICRISAT, CIMMYT, IRRI, AVRDC have also provided required germplasm lines to private companies. Till early nineties ICAR/SAUs were supplying germplasm material liberally to private sector seed companies. Subsequently this facility was discontinued by many of the ICAR institutes and SAUs. Consequent to this, the private companies started utilizing the germplasm material provided by ICRISAT, IRRI, CIMMYT and few national institutes like Directorate of Maize Research only. Some of the Private Sector seed companies are producing and marketing the hybrids of their own in many crops along with public bred hybrids of rice, sorghum, maize and pearl millet etc. The private sector seed companies, particularly the medium and small companies which don’t Paper presented in the National Seminar on Millets held on 12 November 2010 at NIRD, Rajendranagar, Hyderabad. @
92
have recognition of DSIR, Ministry of Science and Technology, Government of India will have more advantage with PPP. These seed companies also have good marketing network. To enable the farmers to have access to the best hybrids developed by ICAR/SAUs in different crops it is highly necessary to develop relationship between public and private sector organizations leading to “Public –Private- Partnership.” The hybrids developed by ICAR/SAUs are to be marketed by Public and Private sector Seed Companies under an MOU/MOA. This will help for continuous flow of seeds of location specific, biotic and a biotic stress tolerant hybrid / varieties to the farming community which ultimately helps to increase productivity levels in different crops. In the recent years, the increase in crop yields has come from new hybrids / varieties of crops. The popular public sector hybrids in different crops are given in Table 1. Table 1. Popular hybrids released by public sector. Crop Maize
Hybrids Ganga - 5, DECCAN 103 , TRISULATHA, PEHM-2 Jowar CSH-9, CSH -16,CSH-13R Bajra BK -560, BJ -104, HHB 67, MH -179 Sunflower APSH-11, KBSH -41, KBSH -44, NDSH-1, RSFH-1 Cotton Varalakshmi,NHH-44 Rice Castor
KRH-2, Pusa RH-10, DRRH-2, DRRH-3, SAHYADRI GCH-4, GCH-5, DCH-519, GCH-7,
The MOU/MOA conditions must be liberal in trade related issues, to avoid unhealthy competition among companies. During the past five years, many companies have entered into MOU/MOA
with ICAR Institutes / SAUs. The parent material of hybrids i.e., A, B and R lines or female and male lines seed of the hybrids were provided by licensors.
Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) between ICAR Institutes/SAUs and a Private Sector Seed Company There are 21 clauses in the MOA. Only a few clauses need modifications which are as follows. Clause Existing clause No. 4 The Licensee agrees that it would use the given parent line(s) only for the purpose of commercial seed production and sale of the said hybrid and its marketing as per this agreement
5
9 & 10
12
14
Modification suggested The parents of the hybrids particularly ‘R’ lines to be permitted for marketing as a variety, if desired by the company. The royalty for such varieties is to be paid on par with Article 6.7 of SMTA of CGIAR, which is about 1.1% or 1.0%.
This goes a long way in commercializing public bred varieties. In case the Licensee wants to use any exclusive The Licensee agrees that it would market the seed under the same name as given by denomination (brand name) to trade the licensed the licensor. hybrid/variety, the seed packet should contain a visible statement “This hybrid is produced by using the parental lines licensed by ICAR/SAUs”. This will help to avoid unhealthy competition among companies. Licensee to be permitted to sub-license the product The Licensee agrees not to sub-license to to its subsidiaries/associate companies operating in produce/multiply/market the seeds of the India. said variety/hybrid to any other company including its own subsidiaries/associate Some of the big national companies having share companies operating in India or abroad. holding in other companies are selling popular products through all their associate companies. In case the Licensee desires to further This will help for sale of large volumes of seed. sub-license the seed multiplication and marketing or any other use, of the said Not to insist for specific permission from licensor, variety/hybrid, the Licensee agrees that when marketed through its subsidiaries/ associates it shall be done only with specific written companies. permission /agreement with the licensor. The Licensee agrees to be fully responsible The Licensor if required, to depute scientists to for any complaint made /liability claimed by inspect the fields under complaint and to give the any affected party (ies) including farmers/ feedback to the company. farmers organization/court decisions etc. and the licensor will not be responsible for any complaints/litigation. The Licensee agrees to pay upfront Better to increase royalty instead of upfront payment of Rs……..lakhs at the time of payment and royalty. The middle level and small signing the MOA. On payment of above companies will be at a disadvantage, since they mentioned amount by the Licensee; the may not be able to pay upfront. Licensor will supply 30 kg. seeds of the To encourage the above two categories companies, variety or it is better to charge royalty only. The Licensee agrees to pay upfront payment of Rs……..lakhs at the time of signing the MOA and will pay royalty @4% on the total amount of net realization value
93
17
(Net realization value =Invoice price-Dealers discount) of sale of hybrid seed produced subject to a minimum payment of Rs…… lakhs every year starting from the third season (second year) during the period under which MOA is in force. On payment of the above mentioned royalty every year by the Licensee, which is mandatory, the Licensor will supply the seeds of parental lines of the hybrid(10 kg. of A line, 5 kg. of B line and 5 kg. of R line). The Licensor and the Licensee agree that Agreement period to be valid for five years this agreement is valid initially for a period uniformly. of …….years from the date of signing the agreement, and thereafter, it is renewable for any further period on mutually agreed terms and conditions.
Sharing of Breeding Material with Private Sector Seed Companies
Consultancy Services to be Provided to Private Sector Seed Companies
Breeding material developed by the ICAR/ SAUs
Services of the Expert Scientists
Fully developed material (released and ready for release varieties/ hybrids/ parental lines) and advanced generation lines tested for specified traits in F5, F6 and F7 bulks to be provided on royalty payment basis to seed companies. The companies may be permitted to use these lines along with their lines to develop hybrids. Raw germplasm and new introductions Early generation pedigree bulks of F2, F3 and F4 to be provided to seed companies from which they will develop further lines. There should not be any restriction in sharing raw germplasm and exotic introductions. This material can be shared with the private sector on Non-Exclusive basis. The terms for sharing of credit and IPRs on products developed under joint program with a given seed company shall be decided prior to undertaking such research programs through an MOU. The private companies to be permitted to produce and market the public sector products by a popular name of it’s choice
94
Provision of short and long term consultancy including long term deputation of ICAR/SAU scientists to guide/assist private sector research and development programs to be considered. The scope of consultancy shall include project formulation, project implementation, project review, guidance and processing proposals to DBT etc. in case of transgenics. The Public Sector Institutes shall provide the services of a scientist of company’s choice for consultancy and ensure that the same person's service is extended for repeated visits during the contract period. Problems of common interest to the industry will receive priority over those of individual companies. Both the parties shall respect the confidential nature of advice or information provided. Short term consultancy of one to two days for field visits for opinion seeking on field grow out test plots, providing guidance in seed production plots and to make evaluation of the hybrids /
lines for tolerance to pests and diseases etc. to be provided. Participation in Technology Transfer Programs The ICAR/SAU scientists to participate in technology transfer related programs such as field days, farmers meets etc. organized by the private sector, to enlighten farmers on latest crop production technologies. Training on Seed Production Training to the personnel of private sector to be provided through short term courses on subjects of their interest which would include, seed production technologies, DUS testing, IPR, hybrid breeding, maintenance breeding, molecular marker based screening /selection techniques, DNA fingerprinting, application of biotechnology tools for crop improvement, regulatory system for food/environment safety etc. This is being followed to some extent now. All the licensor institutes to provide the above services.
c. Evaluating private sector hybrids / varieties, which are not included in ICAR trials for tolerance to pests and diseases and for quality of grain, at a reasonable and uniform cost to be fixed by ICAR. d. In case of hybrids, synchronous flowering parents with high seed yield potential to be developed and they should be free from seed production problems. e. In maize, hybrids with good tip filling, thin shank, orange coloured bold seed to be developed. The maize hybrids must also have specific tolerance to high temperature/ low temperatures at flowering, as per need of the locations. f.
Prioritizing research on developing transgenic traits tolerance to abiotic stresses particularly to drought.
Public-Private - Partnership to Develop Technology
Maintenance of Parental Lines and Production of Parental Lines
The Central / State Government can collaborate for developing and testing of technology tolerant to pests / diseases / drought, with international institutes like ICRISAT, CIMMYT, IRRI, AVRDC and MNCs like Monsanto, DuPont and Syngenta.
Maintenance of Parental lines is to be done by the originating breeder of public sector institute. The breeders of the private companies can be recognized as sponsored breeders and they can be entrusted with the job of breeder seed production of parental lines A, B and R where large quantities of F1 seeds are to be produced. However the maintenance breeding has to be done by originating breeder.
The technology / transgenic traits developed under this project to be made available to the farming community at a reasonable additional cost. This also helps to integrate the transgenic traits into varieties.
The foundation seed is to be produced invariably by the private companies looking into their requirements, under the supervision of the breeder of the licensor.
Further Support needed from ICAR Institutes / SAUs a. Monitoring of genetic purity of the seeds of varieties / parental lines. b. Sharing of laboratory facilities for testing genetic purity and transgenic traits,
The hybrids / varieties / transgenic traits developed under the collaborative project to be made available to public – private sector research and seed organizations.
The collaboration can be led by ICRISAT/CIMMYT The technical program and progress of the project is to be monitored by a Core Committee consisting of public and private sector research and seed organizations, other stake holders and officers of Ministry of Agriculture, Ministry of Environment and Forests, Science and Technology of Govt of India/ State Govts The committee is to function under the chairmanship of Hon’ble Minister for Agriculture, Govt. of India / State Govts.
95
Events ICAR-CII Industry Meet, 2011 Indian Council of Agricultural Research (ICAR) in its efforts to augment its relationship with agri-industry of all kinds and scale organized the ICAR-CII Industry Meet 2011 in collaboration with Confederation of Indian Industry (CII) on 23 May, 2011 at New Delhi. The key objective of the
each agriculture and allied sector. Initiatives are needed to address new R&D requirements and to facilitate commercialization of NARS goods and services within the available policy framework of regulatory regimes. Salient recommendations from the Session were:
Meet was to foster and strengthen linkages between public sector National Agricultural Research System (NARS) and industries working in the area of research and technology transfer in agriculture and allied sectors. A special focus was kept on three thematic areas viz. (i) Research and Development Requirements of Industry, (ii) Technology Transfer and Agri-Business, and on (iii) High-End Research. The mission of the Meet was to generate business prospects for goods and services available in ICAR as also to enhance human resource competence through mutual engagement with industry. The Meet was inaugurated by Shri Sharad Pawar, Hon’ble Union Agriculture Minister. Shri Harish Rawat, Union Minister of State for Agriculture chaired the Inaugural Session. Dr. S. Ayyappan, Secretary, DARE & DG, ICAR; Shri Ashok Sinha, Secretary, DFPI and Shri Rakesh Bharti Mittal, Chairman, CII National Council on Agriculture, also spoke on the occasion.
l
l
l
l
l
Recommendations of Technical Session I: Research and Development Requirements of Industry There is need to build synergy between NARS and Private Sector for effective utilization of resources. The focus of R&D collaboration should cover the entire gamut of issues to address the exiting gaps in the chain of activities in
96
l
Food security issue must move beyond food grain availability. While activities need to be specifically worked out to address requirements of both fruits & vegetables and animal-based products, collaborative efforts in crops, especially in open pollinated crops, will go a long way in addressing the basic necessity of cereals, coarse cereals, pulses, oilseeds and others. Agriculture and livestock are two important parts of agriculture. While a relook for strengthening extension services is urgently needed, extension services in horticulture, dairy, veterinary and fisheries sectors need specific attention. Scientists and development officials working in public as well as private sectors need to take proactive steps to voice their concerns regarding research and extension. The R&D institutions need to regularly update on new technologies and package of farm practices. A faster movement of technologies to Industry is required for extending their reach for the benefit of the farmers and other consumers. Requirements of appropriate farm implements and machinery have to be addressed for introducing much needed efficiency in agriculture operations. Research institutes undertake need-based projects to provide sample specimens and offer design and testing facilities, but Industry is a crucial link between laboratory and farmer, and should address the gap between design and manufacture. It is important that the Industry ensures stringent standards to maintain the quality of machines being manufactured. As it is not possible for small and marginal farmers to buy all equipments, it is important to develop models with private sector collaboration
l
l
l
l
l
l
l
for leasing this critical requirement. The models should also address the issue of repairs and maintenance of farm implements and machinery. It is essential to make agriculture and allied sectors more remunerative and productive through specific efforts in processing and value addition. A meeting of scientists, manufacturers and potential entrepreneurs was proposed to be organized at CIAE, Bhopal. State wise / Crop wise / area wise soil health and other maps need to be developed and firmed up with help of technologies like GPS. It is important to attract and retain youth in agriculture. This requires capacity building by designing suitable internship programs for students at all levels. Industry should be forthcoming to support Experiential Learning programs for agriculture graduates. Imported technology is not always directly applicable under our conditions; it is to be made compatible to local environment, which requires collaboration for identifying appropriate technologies for adaptation and validation. Private sector investments in high quality research and technology development needs to be enhanced; the Business Planning and Development Units (BPDs) established by ICAR can provide the required platform for convergence. Vision 2030 documents published by ICAR and its institutes should be referred by the Industry as well to set their own Vision 2030 for agriculture R&D. This will help to prioritize collaborative R&D activities that can be taken up in PPP mode.
l
l
l
l
l
l Recommendations of Technical Session II: Technology Transfer and Agri-business l Protection and management of intellectual properties generated in the NARS and
consequent distribution/commercialization should have enhancing public benefit as the main objective. While working for involvement of public and private sectors together, the much-needed mutual trust and confidence must be considerably augmented. Points needing particular attention for effective public private partnerships would include: (i) socio economic aspects - knowing market, farmers and consumers; and (ii) education and product valuation. Linkages with Industry can help in production, marketing and popularization of ICAR’s products, processes and other technologies. Also, the NARS and Industry need to share technological information and infrastructural facilities for joint research, including testing and validation of products. CII should also like to scrutinize the important technologies of ICAR/NARS and provide a feed back on their commercial feasibility. Expertise in NARS can be used for projects on production and processing plants in different sectors viz. agriculture, horticulture, dairy and animal husbandry, fisheries, agriculture engineering, etc. Professional extension of skilled services from ICAR, such as consultancies, contract research, contract service, customized capacity building, etc. should also be made available for the Industry in important areas. Activities for research, education and other capacity building in agriculture and allied sectors should be taken up through publicprivate partnerships depending upon the core strengths of the partners. In the modern times of competiveness, an agriculturist requires all the skills of a businessman. Mechanisms should be devised in partnership with the Industry to develop such skills, thereby integrating proficiencies in agriculture sciences with management, including issues of market intelligence, pricing and valuation, to nurture demand-driven research. Public-Private Partnership at district level is required for assessing effective requirement of technologies and their dissemination. There are 591 Krishi Vigyan Kendras (KVK) working at the district level in India; and are undertaking technology assessment,
97
refinement and demonstration. Up scaling of available potential is the most important part that needs partnership with private sector. Important areas for collaboration can be: soil testing and advisory to the farmers, need-based timely supply of inputs, training strategy and capacity building for farmers and landless laborers, facilitating efficient utilization of outputs for their enhanced income generation, ICT and e-connectivity to provide useful information, development paradigm through group dynamics, study tours for encouraging extension by villagers themselves, documentation of success stories, and initiation of awards to acknowledge the contribution of farmers and other villagers. l The initiative of ICAR and Industry partnership can also be taken forward in the global context by exploring avenues for setting up research and production farms outside India, especially in Africa and the Asia-Pacific region.
l
l l
Recommendations of Technical Session III: Panel Discussion on High-end Research ICAR and Industry need to become both complementary and supplementary in each other’s work. There should be a clear idea as to what both the sectors should be doing so as to increase much needed effectiveness and efficiency. The possibility to advertise identified research areas/issues to invite expression of interests could be explored by both private and public sectors. l Since the frontiers of new sciences are advancing very fast, high end research would require exchange of human resources between public and private sectors in order to take advantage of the strengths of both the systems. l Public-private partnership model of operation is required for high-end agricultural research. For this model to operate, joint committees need to be set-up. The committees will identify research areas based on needs of the stakeholders. Such committees should clearly define the mode of sharing of responsibilities and credits and the mechanism for joint funding of highend research. l Ensuring much higher Seed Replacement Rates (SRR) in almost all the crops is a key challenge l
98
l
l
l
l
l
faced today. A Committee representing both public and private sectors can deliberate on this issue to suggest the modalities. Biotechnology is a potential option to increase agricultural productivity. With the advent of biotechnology in the seeds business, India has seen dramatic growth in the productivity of cotton crop. The process for approval of biotech seeds needs to be made transparent. Efforts are also needed to convince the various stakeholders that India needs GM seeds for higher productivity. The anti-GM seed campaign also needs to be contained and made science-based. There is also need to develop a clear policy on biotechnology from the Government side so as to give a thrust to developments in this field through public as well as private research. The priority areas for research in the PPP mode should include the following: Trait discovery through high throughput phenotyping and genotyping, and development of designer crops having multiple desirable traits, including stress tolerance. Greater input-use efficiency for efficient management and utilization of natural resources by designing and deploying technologies such as remote sensing, nanotechnology etc. Harnessing innovations in post-harvest processing and value addition, with due regard to selection, preservation, processing, packaging and distribution of wholesome food; thereby enabling food businesses to become much more acceptable and economically meaningful even to small and marginal farmers. Mechanization to increase efficiency in farm operations and reduce drudgery, to save postharvest losses etc. Energy research for generation and efficient utilization of bio-energy; utilization of agricultural by-products etc. Green technologies i.e. uses of environment friendly and cost effective alternatives to industrial chemicals, such as bio-fuels, biofertilizers and biopesticides; to not only result in enhanced crop output, improvement in health and safety standards, but also in less environment pollution.
Stakeholders’ Interface on GM Food Crops The Asia-Pacific Consortium on Agricultural Biotechnology (APCoAB) and Trust for Advancement of Agricultural Sciences (TAAS) organized a “Stakeholders’ Interface on OM Food Crops” on 19 May 2011 at National Agricultural Science Complex, New Delhi to deliberate on issues related to adoption of OM food crops in India. The event was co-sponsored by the Indian Council of Agricultural Research (ICAR). The day long event was held in the background of ongoing controversy surrounding the moratorium imposed by the Ministry for Environment on the release of Bt brinjal, that has sparked a debate on future of GM food crops in India. The meeting was attended by 45 participants representing a wide cross section of stakeholders including policy makers, technical experts on biotechnology and biosafety, agricultural scientists, representatives of seed sector, NGOs and the farmers. Dr. M.K. Bhan, Secretary, DBT; Dr. S. Ayyappan, Secretary, DARE and DG, ICAR; Dr. R.S. Paroda, Former Secretary, DARE and DG, ICAR, Dr. Manju Sharma, Former Secretary, DBT and Dr. R.B. Singh, President, National Academy of Agricultural Sciences (NAAS) were among those present. Besides, opinions on the subject were also received from Dr. M.S. Swaminathan and Dr. G. Padmanaban and the same were circulated in the meeting, since they were unable to attend. The technical program was structured to include key note presentations on national and regional agricultural biotechnology and biosafety status and future needs, followed by panel discussion which focused on four key issues: (i) Is GM technology necessary for Indian Agriculture? (ii) Is the present biosafety regulatory system adequate? (iii) How to address public concerns on GM food crops? and (iv) How to ensure public private partnership for promoting GM crops? The seed industry was represented as a resource person in the Panel Discussions, besides active participation in other sessions. The recommendations which emerged from the deliberations at the meeting were: 1. The second Green Revolution is needed in India especially for our nutrition security,
Mr. M.K. Bhan, Secretary DBT, Inaugurating the Stakeholders Interface
since India has the maximum concentration of malnourished children and anemic pregnant women in the world. We also need good nutrition now than food alone. For this, the use of GM technology is highly relevant in the present context. This technology offers new options to enhance nutrition security through designer crops and to meet the challenges of biotic and abiotic stresses as well as those of global climate change. Moreover, the poverty of small holder farmers can be overcome by providing them new technologies that can reduce cost on inputs, build resilience in farming and increase their income by linking to the markets. In this context, we do see a prominent role of biotechnology, which needs to be harnessed on priority. 2. Development and adoption of appropriate GM technologies would need a Mission Mode approach for which a strong public research system needs to be built / strengthened. Along with public sector, the private sector investments on GM technologies have to be enhanced for which an enabling environment is a must. 3. There is an urgency now for the prioritization of crops in order to effectively use GM technologies for improving specific traits. To achieve this, a National Mission on GM food crops be initiated soon, being a national priority, jointly by DBT and ICAR. It should be
99
a time targeted and well monitored program linked to specific outputs.
of not adopting the technology should be a part of this assessment.
4. It was strongly felt that the Biotechnology Regulatory Authority of India (BRAI) Bill, which is already with the Parliament, must be cleared soon and a strong message in this regard needs to be sent to all concerned policy makers and authorities since we have already lost valuable five years. The proposed BRAI is also recommended in order to ensure a single window system for testing, clearance and monitoring. At the same time, the regulatory system should not be too stringent, to slow down the release process.
7. Plant breeders and biotechnologists must join hands and work as one team to address specific research problems. Their efforts should be synergistic and not competitive. Similarly, strong public-private-partnership right from the beginning of the project, with needed understanding, mutual trust and defined roles for research and benefit sharing, be encouraged through enabling environment. This is a must for faster delivery to the end users of agricultural biotechnology.
5. The biosafety regulatory system though well defined and in place, ‘needs to be made more efficient and fool proof so as to facilitate effective and safe application of biotechnology. We need a clear and well defined pathway and transparent system for which there is an urgent need to establish a few accredited laboratories in reputed public sector institutions like NIN, IARI, CDRI, etc. having excellent infrastructure with modern equipments and well trained staff. Accreditation of some of these public sector laboratories is a must in order to build much needed public confidence. Also a referral laboratory needs to be established so as to deal with any dispute arising on account of variations in results of different laboratories. There is no mechanism existing presently for the seed testing of GM crops. Hence, efforts are needed to establish accredited laboratories for this purpose. 6. There is also an urgency to have proper post-release monitoring system, for which a suitable mechanism be put in place jointly by ICAR and DBT. Also, need for undertaking survey on farmers’ fields is justified in order to assess the uptake and impact of GM technologies. Socio-economic assessment should be an integral part of GM crops evaluation process. Also, opportunity costs
100
8. Public perceptions about GM technology are often not based on scientific facts. Information communication system, including public extension and awareness services, need to be considerably improved in order to effectively deliver correct and unbiased information to farmers and the general public. Also, there is an urgent need to properly inform and educate people at all levels, including policy makers and planners, farmers, consumers and other stakeholders on all aspects of agricultural biotechnology and biosafety. Required communication tools must be used for effective delivery of knowledge. 9. Priority investments are needed on capacity building, especially in areas of biosafety research, regulatory systems (including legal aspects), communication tools and IPR issues since they are all critical for outscaling innovations for greater impact. 10. There must be a defined focus on agrith business and agri-biotechnology in the 12 Five Year Plan for which ICAR should take a major initiative and DBT must extend required funding support. Agri-business Platforms and Technology Parks have to be established for building much needed publicprivate-partnership and for faster delivery of GM products to both the farmers and consumers.
Global Summit on Green Revolution- II: Growth Engine for Transformation Global Food demand is likely to double in the first half of the 21st century. This rapidly growing demand can be satisfied by expanding the agricultural acreage or by producing more on the land being farmed already. From the 1960s to 1980s about 80% of the global food production growth was the result of the productivity growth and only 20% was accounted for by expanding the acreage. As the land that is available for food production is limited on a global scale, the production growth necessary to meet the rapidly growing world food needs must be based even more on productivity growth. Therefore, by organizing the Global Summit on Green Revolution II on 15th June 2011 at Hotel Taj Deccan, Hyderabad, Andhra Pradesh, ASSOCHAM took the initiative to bring stakeholders cutting across the domains together to deliberate on tackle the problem in hand and how to share the science and technology resources as well as services for enabling healthy growth in agriculture. There were deliberations on national and global issues of concern so as to promote agricultural growth and enhance scientific research efficiency as well as foster partnerships to pave way for evergreen revolution. National Seed Association of India was a ‘Partner Association’ for the Summit and senior industry experts addressed the Summit.
Dr. William Dar, Director General, ICRISAT and Mr. Dilip Modi, President, ASSOCHAM releasing the study report on “Second Green Revolution: Role in Transforming Indian Agriculture”
The following recommendations emerged for sustainable development of Indian agriculture, food and allied sectors.
A. Policy and Planning 1. Large scale investment in agriculture has to be taken up by the states in collaboration with the private sector. If the infrastructure in agriculture is in its place, we can hope to see more private corporate companies coming up in agriculture, which would be beneficial for the farmers. This would incorporate the farmers in the mainstream and it might put an end to the incessant subsidies in agriculture. 2. Increasing inter-state and inter-district disparity in per worker productivity the main determinant of income of agricultural workers, poses a serious challenge to policy makers. Raising yield levels in agriculture and relieving the population pressure on agriculture by creating productive jobs in the non-farm sector are the only solutions of raising productivity levels in under-developed regions and districts. 3. Food processing and distribution sector needs to be strengthened by evolving policies for greater private sector participation in the entire value chain. Incentives through appropriate tax structure should be such that agro-processing, especially in the rural areas, becomes a lucrative option both for the farmers and the private sector. Current post-harvest losses are also to be minimized for which construction of modern silos is a matter of national priority. 4. Globalization of agriculture offers immense opportunities for enhanced agricultural export of a number of products. This can be harnessed only through increased efficiency in our production systems, improved quality of produce, value addition, market intelligence and long term well targeted export policies and planning, supported fully well by an enabling environment both within and outside the country. An institutional mechanism, with emphasis on a single window system, would catalyze the whole process of agricultural
101
approach for which a strong public research system needs to be built / strengthened. Along with public sector, the private sector investments on GM technologies have to be enhanced for which an enabling environment is a must.
Speakers at the Technical Session
exports from India, for which tremendous opportunities exist but have not been tapped presently. B. Research and Development 5. The policy and incentives of the government do not reach the intended audience due to multiple roles and channels of service delivery. Government needs to bring all these under one window to improve clarity in roles and improve service effectiveness/efficiency of delivery. 6. ASSOCHAM emphasizes a pluralistic system of research providers. Private sector can efficiently provide near-market research services with scope for appropriation of benefits, the public sector should be prepared to play a complementary role. There are many areas where public-private linkages can enhance the effectiveness of both sectors. Enabling institutional mechanisms, especially IPR protection and capacity within the public sector to manage partnerships, can help develop and sustain these linkages.
102
Mr. M. Prabhakar Rao, Past President, NSAI in discussions with Mr. Dilip Modi, President ASSOCHAM
C. Hand Holding, Technical Assistance & Opportunities 9. Ensuring the availability of farm inputs, credit facility and other supporting systems of farming for over all development of farming. Linking farmers to markets is a pre-requisite for augmenting farm production and farmers’ income. Role of innovative institutions would be critical in this context to reap the benefits of emerging opportunities. Krishi Vigyan Kendras (KVKs) should be involved more to play a pivotal in the entire supply chain through access to best practices in production to marketing continuum as they are more aware about the ground realities.
7. The use of GM technology is highly relevant in the present context of food & nutritional security. This technology offers new options to enhance nutrition security through designer crops and to meet the challenges of biotic and abiotic stresses as well as those of global climate change. Moreover, the poverty of small holder farmers can be overcome by providing them new technologies that can reduce cost on inputs, build resilience in farming and increase their income by linking to the markets. In this context, we do see a prominent role of biotechnology, which needs to be harnessed on priority.
10. Propagation of environmental friendly, gender friendly farm/rural technologies and capacity building of rural farm women groups to establish healthy rural families for over all development of farming sphere.
8. Development and adoption of appropriate GM technologies would need a Mission Mode
12. Promotion of integrated crop management techniques for conservation of natural
11. Value addition to crops especially to horticultural crops by strengthening of infrastructural, technical support to farmers in terms of harvest, cold chain management systems and export oriented quality management in systems of crop production (good agricultural practices) to make Indian produce globally competitive and realize higher returns to Indian farm produce.
resources and to realize optimum productivity to sustain the same. Strengthening of market intelligence to facilitate remunerative price for farm produce. D. Problems in Hand With the recent rotting of food grains and an ensuing public outcry ASSOCHAM suggests and supports the establishment of ultramodern grain storages at prominent locations across the country each with a storage capacity of a million tones of food grains. Government should remain at the commanding height of the food security system. Water resources are depleting. So, in the near future it will be the most critical natural resource for the future growth of agriculture. High inefficiencies in water delivery, distribution and on-farm use are adversely affecting the agricultural production. Irrigated area can be expanded considerably with improved efficiency in water use by using the modern technologies of drip & micro irrigation. Innovations in governance and pricing of surface and ground water for the desired water use efficiency, through an integrated approach among ministry of water resources, irrigation department of various states, private sector, and farmers associations are urgent issues for coordinated action by all stakeholders. Global Warming & Climate change has added a new dimension to future agricultural growth, which is a major concern. The worst affected would be small farm holders located in the marginal and under-privileged areas. Therefore, investment options for both adaptation and mitigation, and policies which can help in reducing the impact of climate change, are urgently needed at this stage, especially to provide incentives to the small farm holders for the adoption of technologies and practices such as conservation agriculture, carbon sequestration, etc., that can mitigate the impact of climate change. There should be a defined focus on agriculture, agri-business as well as agri-biotechnology in the 12th Five Year Plan for which stakeholder ministries like Agriculture, Food Processing industries, Rural Development, MSME etc. and departments like NABARD, ICAR, DBT etc. should take some major initiatives and Government of India and State Governments must extend
required funding support. Agri-business Platforms and Technology Parks have to be established for building much needed public-private-partnership and for faster delivery of mechanisms in place to both the farmers and consumers. Below is a snapshot of the needs of the farmers in different inputs & activities of farming along with the interventions which are addressed & to be addressedFarmers’ Need Increased productivity Quality seed, agri inputs
Marketable produce, Market Access, Price Realization Updated technology
Irrigation facility
Agri Financing
Storage infrastructure
Measure to combat climate Change Weather information
Need addressed & to be addressed • Satisfactory results in food grains • Attention required in pulses & oil seeds • Work done in bajra, rice, maize, cotton, sunflower, vegetables. • Varietal improvement required in pulses & other oil seeds • Needs fair & effective distribution for fertilizers • Quality awareness is increasing • Needs effective govt. policies on quality, safety & pricing
• Partial work done • Needs focused attention on genetic resource • conservation, soil health, input use efficiency, post harvest management • Partially been taken care • Attention required on water availability, its quality & modern technology for better water use efficiency • Policy is in place • Need fair, transparent & easy to reach financing system & effective crop insurance • Available, needs updation in available ware houses to minimize post harvest losses • Special attention required for fresh produce • Work not yet done, need to start from scratch • Mobile forecast started • Need to extend coverage & its accuracy
103
SAARC Seed Congress The First SAARC Seed Congress was organized on 10-12 April 2011 at Dhaka, Bangladesh. The Congress was organized by the SAARC Agriculture Centre and Bangladesh Seed Association with the support of the Government of Bangladesh. Bangladesh Seed Fair was also organized on the sidelines of the Congress. Ms. Sheikh Hasina, Hon’ble Prime Minister of Bangladesh inaugurated the meet at the Bangabandhu International Conference Centre on 10 April 2011 in the presence of Bangladesh Agriculture Minister, Begum Matia Chowdhury and Bangladesh Foreign Minister, Dr. Dipu Moni Dr. Malavika Dadlani, IARI, New Delhi; Mr. W.T. Beloe, Regional Business Line Leader of IFC and Mr. Anwar Faruque, Director General Seed Wing of Ministry of Agriculture, Bangladesh were also present at the Inauguration Ceremony chaired by Mr. C.Q.K. Mustak Ahmed, Secretary, Ministry of Agriculture, Bangladesh.
Agriculture scientists, representatives of various national and international research institutions and high government officials from the SAARC member countries also participated in the Seed Congress and exhibition. The slogan of the SAARC Congress was ''Good seed, good crop''. Inaugurating the Congress, Prime Minister Sheikh Hasina called for concerted efforts to tackle the challenges in the agriculture field in South Asian region. She advised the farmers to be more cautious in selecting seeds, using modern technologies and cultivation techniques to ensure food security in the country. As it is not possible for one single country to face all the agricultural challenges, she has proposed to establish SAARC Seed Bank at the last SAARC Summit, the Prime Minister said. She felt that if the Seed Bank is
104
established, the member countries would be able to exchange quality seeds easily which will ultimately increase food production in the region. "Balance will also come in the laws on seeds in the countries which will make exchange of seeds and germplasm much easier," she added. Prime Minister Sheikh Hasina, accompanied by the Agriculture Minister, Begum Matia Chowdhury and Foreign Minister, Dr. Dipu Moni, Dr. Malavika Dadlani and other dignitaries also Inaugurated the Bangladesh Seed Fair 2011, which showcased the new technologies in agriculture from the Bangladesh research centres / agricultural universities etc. besides the private sector seed and other agricultural input companies and technology providers. Several seed companies with Indian joint venture partnership, participated in the exhibition.
The Congress had invited presentations by eminent agriculture scientists / industry experts and policy makers from Bangladesh, besides country papers from SAARC member countries. Dr. Santanu Dasgupta (Monsanto) also addressed the Congress. NSAI Director, Dr. N.K. Dadlani was also invited to the Congress. He also addressed the First Anniversary of the ‘SAARC Seed Forum’, where Dr. Muhammad Abdur Razaque, Hon’ble Minister for Food was the Chief Guest. The celebrations were chaired by Mr. Anwar Faruque, Director General Seed Wing of Ministry of Agriculture, Bangladesh and Convener, SAARC Seed Forum. Dr. Wais Kabir, Executive Chairman, Bangladesh Agricultural Research Council and Dr. A.K.M. Azad, Director, SAARC Agriculture Centre were the Guests of Honour.
National Seminar on “Quality Seed for Food Security through Public-Private Partnership” A National Seminar on “Quality Seed for Food Security through Public-Private Partnership” was jointly organized by the Indian Agricultural Research Institute (IARI), New Delhi, the National Seed Association of India (NSAI), New Delhi and the Trust for Advancement of Agricultural Sciences (TAAS), New Delhi from April 13 to 14, 2010. It was aimed to identify the strengths of both public and private sectors for crop variety improvement and seed production programs; to identify the issues and difficulties in the commercialization of technologies; to draw a work plan in partnership mode; to suggest policy interventions; and to prioritize the areas for collaboration, which can help in making available quality seeds of improved plant varieties and hybrids at affordable prices to the farmers across the country, and fulfilling the needs of different agro ecosystems. The seminar was attended by more than 200 participants representing policy makers from ICAR and the Ministry of Agriculture, public research institutions, state agricultural universities, public and private seed sectors comprising Indian, joint venture and multi-national companies and subject matter specialists. Dr. S. Ayyappan, Secretary, Department of Agricultural Research & Education (DARE) and Director General, Indian Council of Agricultural Research, inaugurated the National Seminar. Dr. R.S. Paroda, Chairman, TASS, presided over the Inaugural Session. Dr. H.S. Gupta, Director, IARI welcomed the participants and the invitees to the Inaugural session. Mr. Uday Singh, President NSAI also spoke at the Inauguration. The technical content of the Seminar was structured over four sessions focusing on specific theme areas, namely: ‘National and Regional Perspectives for Development of Public Private Partnership; ‘Promotion of Hybrid Technology; ‘Initiatives for Strengthening Public Private Partnership and ‘Public Private Partnership – the Way Forward. In the first three sessions, eminent scientists and industry experts presented their
Inaugural Session
views, which were discussed at length, the fourth session was an interactive one, with panelists drawn from both public and private sectors, putting forth suggestions on how do we take forward the process, based on the lessons learnt and constraints experienced in the public private partnership during the last nearly a decade it had been actively practiced. Based on the discussions in the different sessions, more particularly the interactive session, the following major recommendations emerged for speedy implementation by all concerned. 1. A Policy Paper needs to be brought out immediately based on crop-wise desired and current seed replacement rates (SRR), total seed requirements and availability, giving varietal shares and strategy to be followed to increase crop productivity by increasing the SRR. The ICAR may coordinate with the Department of Agriculture & Cooperation (DAC) and NSAI to bring out this paper to become the basis for strengthening of seed development program in the country. 2. Increased availability of HYV seeds can fast bridge the yield gaps and thus, increase the national productivity. Hence, there is an urgent need for the Council to enhance the SRR of selected crops and vegetables, with emphasis on improved varieties of pulses and groundnut, where the SRR is still far from satisfactory. Wherever hybrids are successful,
105
a special drive to increase the area under them would be desirable. For instance, in rice, the area under hybrids can be enhanced from the current 1.5 million hectare to at least 5 million hectare in the next five-year plan period. Similarly, in maize, the production can be doubled by increasing the area under single cross maize and QPM hybrids from the current 40–50% to at least 70–80% in the next 4 to 5 years. 3. The success of partnership lies in trust, openness, and transparency. This can be built by regular interactions and dialogues, and appropriate policy framework to strengthen public-private partnerships. Therefore, a Standing Working Group in the Ministry of Agriculture (DAC/DARE-ICAR) may be constituted as a matter of priority under the leadership of an eminent scientist, comprising, in all, around 7 members representing DAC (2), ICAR (2) and seed industry (2). This could work as a “Think Tank” and play an oversight as well as honest brokers role in promoting public-private-partnership (PPP). The proposed Working Group could also review the existing guidelines for incentives and rewards and suggest ways for building new partnerships while taking care of access and benefit sharing (ABS) mechanisms. 4. Good models and success stories on PPP existing in the NARS and the CGIAR system, such as that of IARI, NRCPB, IIHR, ICRISAT, IRRI, etc., can be replicated or further refined, as needed, by other institutions/universities. However, some of these institutions expressed concerns about the break in the continuity of Breeder Seed procurement by the commercial organizations, which has to be addressed to build partnership. 5. For the access to new hybrids/varieties/ genetic materials, the private sector may consider paying royalties between 3-7% on sale proceeds – based on negotiations, on a case to case basis, and depending on exclusive/non-exclusive rights. The public sector seed corporations should also join hands with the research institutions in popularization and fast delivery of improved varieties, especially the hybrids. In view of the poor conversion of breeder seed to
106
foundation and certified seed, the public sector should use PPP mode to convert maximum of breeder seed to certified seed. The public sector should, henceforth, pay a royalty on breeder seed on mutually agreed terms. 6. There is an urgent need to build crop-based/ institution-based Technology Parks/Incubators so that scientists from both public research institutions and private seed sector could work together right from the beginning of the partnership in evaluating germplasm and breeding lines, and in developing, evaluating and commercializing varieties with the desired traits. This may encompass the development of transgenics, biosafety assessment, field evaluation, public awareness and release of the final product keeping in mind the national interest. 7. Germplasm conservation through use can help in achieving both sustainable agricultural growth and development. Hence, it was emphasized that the national germplasm collection available at the NBPGR, being the national public goods, be made available more freely on request, to Indian scientists/ institutions/seed companies engaged in crop improvement (R&D) programs. For this, the Standard Material Transfer Agreement (SMTA), as adopted recently by the FAO International Treaty on Genetic Resources for Food and Agriculture (ITGRFA) for multilateral access, can be adopted for immediate implementation, with necessary safeguards as needed. All data on available germplasm must be documented / catalogued and placed on NBPGR website. 8. Some of the policy related issues for consideration of the DAC are: l
The DAC may like to harmonize, to the extent possible, seed related regulations both at the central and state levels. The New Seed Bill, currently under consideration of the Parliament, is expected to provide enabling environment for faster seed sector growth in the country.
l
The quality seeds, whether certified or truthfully labeled, must qualify for seed
subsidy. Subsidies need to be linked to promote area coverage under new HYVs and hybrids for increasing productivity, irrespective of whether produced by the public or private sector. This will benefit both farmers and the nation and avoid discrimination, which otherwise is counterproductive. l
For accelerating hybrid seed production, the present system of receiving indents of the parental lines of notified hybrids
by the public/private sector (through NSAI to DAC) and fixing one uniform price, irrespective of their commercial value, must be reviewed at the earliest in consultation with the ICAR and NSAI. 9. For crisis management, it is essential to establish Regional Seed Banks as a contingency measure. There is an urgent need for establishing Seed Processing and Storage Facilities by the public / private sector for common use, on a fixed charge basis.
Note: Based on these recommendations, a ‘Working Group’ chaired by Deputy Director General (Crop Sciences), ICAR and including two (2) members each from ICAR, Deptt. of Agriculture & Cooperation, Ministry of Agriculture; and NSAI has been constituted to review the existing guidelines for incentives and rewards and suggest ways for building new partnership.
107
Honours and Awards Indian Society for Cotton Improvement, Mumbai Fellowship Awarded to Parchuri Vidyasagar CMD Vibha Seeds Group and Chairman Vidya Sagar Foundation (VIFOU) Indian Society for Cotton Improvement (ISCI) at Central Institute for Cotton Technology, Mumbai felicitated Mr. Parchuri Vidyasagar by conferring Honorary Fellowship Award of ISCI in appreciation of his outstanding contribution to the development and popularization of Long staple Bt-Cotton in India. Padmashri Dharmadhikari, Honourable former Chief Justice of Maharashtra High Court, Mumbai as Chief Guest presented the award to Mr. P. Vidyasagar in the function organized specially for this occasion on 9th June 2011 at Silver Jubilee Auditorium at CIRCOT. Citation was read out by Dr. C.D. Mayee, Chairman ASRB New Delhi and Parchuri Vidyasagar was honoured with citation, silver plaque, shawl and Shriphal. On this occasion, Parchuri Vidyasagar delivered Dr. V. Sundaram Memorial Lectrure-2011 on “Cotton Improvement in India - Contribution & perspectives of private seed industry” by bringing out significant contributions of both Public sector and Private Seed Industry and the special
108
role played by seed industry in contributing to white gold revolution in the 21st century through development of superior yielding Bt-transgenic hybrid cottons and supplying high quality seeds to cotton growers. Parchuri Vidyasagar also brought out the need for new germplasm supply from CICR for diversifying the genetic base by private industry, need for attention to new areas of research in anatomy, pest & disease resistance, drought and salinity tolerance and fibre quality to develop third generation super hybrid cottons to break yield barriers. The speaker also spoke about progress in testing & introduction of the advanced herbicide resistance technology and also researches undertaken by the Vibha Seeds Group for development of cotton genotypes with suitable phenotypes for mechanical harvesting apart from need to develop economical hybrid seed production through genetic and biotechnological approaches involving less labour as India may need 4 to 6 times more hybrid seeds for planting. While concluding his speech, Parchuri Vidyasagar expressed the need for frequent inter-phase of textile industry with seed industry for effective progress in cotton and textiles production.
News Affordable, Accessible, Asian (AAA) Drought Tolerant Maize Project Launched The launch meeting of the Affordable, Accessible, Asian (AAA) Drought Tolerant Maize Project was held at the ICRISAT- Patancheru campus in Hyderabad, India during 27-28 April 2011. This partnership between Syngenta and CIMMYT, funded by the Syngenta Foundation for Sustainable Agriculture (SFSA), aims to help smallholder farmers in Asia grow more food and better provide for their families through the development of improved maize varieties. The five-year program will support smallholder farmers in Asia who lack access to irrigation by developing affordable and accessible drought tolerant maize for the region. Some National Agricultural Research Systems (NARS) in Asia are other partners in this effort.
Presentations and detailed discussions on the development of drought screening facilities, germplasm, drought phenotyping and genotyping were led by R.P. Singh of Syngenta, Vivek, CIMMYT Senior Maize Physiologist P.H. Zaidi, and Syngenta’s Subash Bose, respectively. To conclude the launch, Dirk Benson of Syngenta led discussions on project management. Drought-tolerant African maize developed by CIMMYT will be crossed with Syngenta varieties bred for Asia, applying Syngenta’s genetic mapping technology to speed up and refine the selection of high-yielding, drought-tolerant maize varieties. Both organizations will contribute valuable expertise in crop breeding for enhanced drought tolerance. Seed varieties and information generated will be made available for use by local seed companies and public crop breeding programs throughout South and Southeast Asia. By supporting this partnership between Syngenta and CIMMYT, the Foundation aims to help Asian smallholder farmers to grow a key crop more sustainably.
ABI-ICRISAT Shares PPP Model at DOR Stakeholders’ Meeting
The launch was attended by 25 representatives of Syngenta, CIMMYT, and NARS. Mike Robinson of the Syngenta Foundation for Sustainable Agriculture began the meeting with and introduction about the need for more publicprivate partnerships in the seed development and distribution industry, stating that too few currently exist. Next, CIMMYT Senior Maize Breeder B.S. Vivek introduced the scope of the project and its proposed activities, followed by a presentation by B.M. Prasanna, director of CIMMYT’s Global Maize Program, about CIMMYT’s role in partnerships. Presentations on the relevance of drought tolerant maize in India, Indonesia, and Vietnam were made by the respective NARS representatives and then Syngenta’s Manny Logrono described his organization’s perspective on tackling drought.
ICRISAT shared its models on engaging the private sector to accelerate the adoption and impact of research innovations during the stakeholders’ meeting on Public-Private-Partnership (PPP) in the Oilseeds Business. Organized by the Directorate of Oilseeds Research (DOR), the meeting was held on 14 June at Rajendranagar, Hyderabad, and was attended by over 30 delegates from the seed, biofuel and bio-products industry, processing companies, the academe and NGOs. ICRISAT was represented in the meeting by Karuppanchetty and Purushotham from the Agri-
109
Business Incubation (ABI) program. During his presentation on Technology commercialization initiatives @ ABI-ICRISAT, Karuppanchetty highlighted ABI’s various incubation models and partnership opportunities through co-business incubation. DOR Director Vara Prasad also presented the Directorate’s programs and activities, and expressed interest in collaborating with ICRISAT in commercializing DOR technologies through the various PPP modes of ABI.
Public Private Partnerships: Syngenta Foundation The Foundation’s overarching goals are food security for all, sustainability, and agricultural transformation that helps close the gap between rural and urban incomes. Achieving these goals requires ‘enablers’ of many kinds, usually only made possible by partnerships. The aim is to use complementary assets to maximum advantage; the challenge lies in alignment. Partners must agree objectives, roles, responsibilities and incentives. They also need jointly to protect and benefit from intellectual property, and work towards a unified vision of enhanced farm productivity. Public investment in productivity-enhancing agricultural R&D has been declining for some time in most of the world outside China. Private investments and capability, on the other hand, continue to grow. These trends open up the need and opportunities for R&D partnerships that pool assets to farmers’ benefit . The public sector provides strength in crop improvement; private organizations contribute expertise in plant sciences, genomics, bioinformatics and the marketing and delivery of products and services. The Foundation builds partnerships worldwide Public-private partnerships (PPPs) are essential for advancing agriculture to meet global challenges in food security. They help widen access to technology and link farmers to markets. By combining strengths, the partners can all make better progress than on their own. The
110
Foundation is involved in a wide range of such partnerships. PPPs can take many forms, and have a wide range of goals. In 2009, the Syngenta Foundation hosted a workshop in Switzerland, to examine PPPs in agricultural R&D. The meeting brought together representatives of the CGIAR*, the private sector, academia, NGOs and donors. They discussed principles of how to craft R&D collaborations; key topics included product stewardship and liability, as well as intellectual property. The Foundation continues to develop new PPPs, with the aim of providing solutions along the entire agricultural value chain. For example, we have recently initiated a partnership to improve disease resistance in wheat . Syngenta scientists in France and the USA work directly here with colleagues at CIMMYT** in Mexico. They will make their data available to researchers in the public and private sectors. Further examples of R&D PPPs are the HarvestPlus multi-crop biofortification initiative and our Ethiopian tefproject. Cooperation in practice Partnerships also form the basis of the Foundation’s extension projects in many parts of the world. Our program in India provides several good examples. There, thousands of smallholders have already benefited from improved access to knowledge and technology, delivered through diversified extension strategies. The PPPs providing advisory services involve the government, universities, NGOs and commercial partners. The spread of knowledge is achieved through farmer workshops, village-level interactions and technology demonstrations in the farmers’ own fields. Major scale-up of these projects is now underway. PPPs cover a wide range of further areas. As well as R&D or extension services, the Foundation’s partnerships also include an index insurance initiative in Kenya. This aims to develop agricultural micro-insurance that will help smallholders mitigate weather risks, thereby enabling them to invest in fertilizer and other productivity-enhancing inputs. Another crucial focus of PPPs is improved smallholder access to markets for their produce.
A recent addition to our partnership portfolio aims to establish an integrated supply chain for high-quality vegetables in the Peruvian Andes. The partners here include an NGO and Arcos Dorados, who run McDonald’s operations in Latin America. Successful agricultural PPPs should all lead to ‘win-win situations’ that benefit farmers. Many key lessons are emerging from the Syngenta Foundation’s work in this area. Among them is the importance of due diligence to bring together the right partners, create complementary incentives, agree on the terms and conditions, and lay down clear responsibilities.
First PPP Model Agriculture Project in Gujarat Deere & Company, a world leader in the field of agricultural equipment, will work with the Gujarat government on an innovative public-private partnership to benefit marginalised tribal farmers over the next five years. The company also plans to build a new tractor facility in India in addition to its Pune factory According to a company press release, the programme could benefit approximately 50,000 farm families, who will learn skills to help mechanise their farms, which could increase crop yields. “The world is challenged to increase food production significantly in the next few decades,” Samuel R. Allen, the Chairman and CEO of Deere & Company, was quoted as saying in a press release. “All around the world, John Deere is working to help customers be more productive. Deere supports developmental projects such as this one in India to help farmers increase their chance for prosperity and improve their quality of life,” he said.
equipment for crop cultivation will pay only for operating and maintenance costs and not for the actual tractor or implements. According to Narendra Modi, the Chief Minister of Gujarat, the new public-private partnership is the first of its kind in the agriculture sector in India. “This is a shining example of a programme that will help empower and provide economic wealth to our marginalised farmers and tribal brethren,” he said at the inaugural ceremony, organised jointly by the Gujarat Tribal Development Department and John Deere. The ceremony was attended by beneficiary tribal farmers, representatives of NGOs, senior government officials and John Deere staff. The Gujarat government not only aims to train farmers on the productive use of tractors and farm implements, but also to help develop additional skills in soil testing and micro-irrigation. John Deere will help ensure technical skill development and enhance future employment opportunities in Gujarat by training approximately 1,000 local individuals as tractor operators and another 500 as tractor mechanics. “We have seen many policy initiatives in recent years in Gujarat to improve agriculture, including significant efforts to facilitate farm mechanisation in the state,” said Allen. “The initiatives have addressed important topics such as market access, contract farming, agriculture extension services, water conservation, micro irrigation and the availability of quality electricity,” he said.
Vidya Sagar Foundation conducts Training Program on Seed Production for Officials of Government of Mozambique
John Deere, the Moline-based company in Illinois, will open small agricultural implement resource centres across Gujarat, making more than 500 tractors available for use by local farmers and providing the farmers access to a set of 13 different implements for various operations. Each centre will include a trained operator and maintenance staff. Farmer groups that use the
111
As per the assurance given by Mr. Parchuri Vidyasagar, CMD, Vibha Seeds group, to the President of Mozambique, Vidya Sagar foundation (Vifou), a group company of Vibha Seeds, conducted fully sponsored, two and a half month, training program on “Seed Production in Field and Vegetable Crops” at Vibha Seeds Group Companies from 6th March to 14th May 2011 to the three officials from the Government of Mozambique. VIFOU, in a simple ceremony held at Hyderabad on the 14th May 2011, awarded Certificates to three trainee participants from Mozambique, on completion of this Field and Lab oriented intensive training program. The trainees were Mr. Beneditto S. Chellengue, Groundnut Breeder & regional representative for SEMEOC Seed Company in Mozambique, Mrs. Rita Isabel Muando Grachane, Agronomist in Seed Department, Governement of Mozambique, and Mrs. Morica Tomas. Mr. D.M. Pawar, Public Relations Coordinator, Vibha Seeds,
112
welcomed the gathering and Dr. A.R. Sadananda (Global Technical Lead) gave a brief introduction about the course and the trainees’ background. Mr Parchuri Vidyasagar, CMD of Vibha Seeds Group and Chairman of the VIFOU handed over the Certificates to the trainees. Mrs. Chandravathi Parchuri, ED and Director VIFOU also joined the Chairman in handing over the certificates to the trainee officers. Mr. Parchuri Vidyasagar, Chairman urged the trainees to use the advanced knowledge imparted in various crops to use in their country’s seed & agriculture development programs. Mrs. Chandravathi, Co-chair and Director of VIFOU, exhorted the trainees to work for agricultural development of their country through improved high quality seeds production and distribution Mr. Vidyasagar, Mrs. Chandravathi and Mrs. Anushree Vamsi Krishna, Director (HR), handed over mementos to the trainees on behalf of the Vibha Seeds Group.
New NSAI Members S. No Name of Company
S. No Name of Company
1
Rijk Zwaan India Seeds Pvt. Ltd. 481/25, 40th Cross, 10th Main 5th Block, Jayanagar, Bangalore-560041
2
Savannah Seeds Pvt. Ltd. 904, 9th floor, "Signature Tower" (Tower-B), South City-1, NH-8, Gurgaon-122001
10
Dhaanya Seeds Ltd. Survey No. 25/1, Gundlapochampally Village Medchal Mandal, R.R. Dist-501401
3
Sabasta Crop Technology Flat No. 403, Quayyam Apartments, Plot No.72, Above Syndicate Bank, Hydersha Kote, Rajendranagar (M) Hyderabad-500086
11
Mahindra & Mahindra Ltd-Agri Business Seeds Division, Farm Equipment Sector, Gate No. 2, Kandivali-E, Mumbai-400001
12
Prasha Agri-Consultants Pvt. Ltd. G-82, Ground Floor, Ashok Vihar, Phase-1, New Delhi-110052
4
Krishak Bharati Cooperative Limited Plot No. A-1/10, Sector-1, Noida, Distt. Gautam Budh Nagar (U.P)
13
Shree Ganesh Biotech (India) Ltd. 29, NC, Block B" New Alipore, Kolkata
5
Kalna II CADP Farmers Services Co-operative Society Ltd. P.O Baidyapur District Burdwan-713122 (W.B) Sahyadri Seeds Pvt. Ltd. 20-A, Phule Colony, Dhule, Dist. Dhule (Maharashtra)
Barnalee Seeds At: Brooks Hill, Near Syndicate Bank, Sakhipada, Dist. Sambalpur-768001 (Orissa)
6
14
7
Neo Seeds India Ltd. A-24/25. APIE Balanagar, Hyderabad-500037
15
ASR Seeds (P) Ltd. No.5-91-18/2 3rd Line, Lakshmipuram, Guntur-7
8
Patel Jadavjibhai Devrajbhai Main Bazar, Kuvadva, Dist. Rajkot (Gujarat)
16
Sunera Eseal India Pvt. Ltd. Block-1, Flour-III, NSL Arena, Uppal, Hyderabad-500039
9
Southern Petrochemical Industries Corporation Limited Spic Agro Biotech Centre, Chitirai Chavadi, Pooluvapati Post, Siruvani Road, Coimbatore-641101
17
Aditya Agri. Tech. 1-6-72/2, Mateeb Tower, Station Road, Mahabubnagar
113
Annexure : 1
Public Private Partnership Initiatives in India
Several Seed Companies in India have developed partnerships with leading Public sector organizations to reach better technologies (varieties) to the farmers and help improve their availability. Some of these initiatives are listed here. Advanta India Ltd. S. No.
Partnership Organization
Name of the Crop
Name of the Technology/Project
Year of Initiation
1
State Govts
RICE, CORN, PEARL MILLET, SUNFLOWER
Extension Activities/ Rashtriya Krishi Vikas Yojna
-
2
Gujarat State Govt
CORN
Training & Education/ Project Sunshine - 1
-
3
State Govt. Agricultural Departments (Eastern Region)
-
Inputs & Extension Activities/ Green Revolution 2 (Program under RKVY Scheme
-
Avesthagen S. No.
Partnership Organization
Name of the Crop
Name of the Technology/ Project
Year of Initiation
1.
DBT-BIPP
PEARL MILLET
Development of self-glucogenic Pearl Millet adapted for marginal lands.
Dec 2009Ongoing
2.
DBT-NABARD
JATROPHA
Study of transgene expression towards increasing oil content in Jatropha.
Oct 2007-Apr 2009
3.
CSIR-NMITLI
SUNFLOWER
Recombinant approach to produce Mar 2003-Sept alpha-linolenic acid and docosahexanoic 2005 acid in Sunflower, Brassica and Yeast
Bejo Sheetal Seeds Pvt. Ltd S. No.
Partnership Organization
Name of the Crop
Name of the Technology/ Project
Year of Initiation
1.
ICGEB, New Delhi
ONION
Drought tolerant Gene /Development of 2010 ‘Herbicide & Stress tolerant’ transgenic Onion
2.
ACPV, Division of Plant Pathology, (IARI)
TOMATO
ToLCV Resistant Gene /Dual Resistant in Tomato against ‘Virus Infection Insect and Disease’
2011
Biogene Agritech S. No.
Partnership Organization
Name of the Crop
Name of the Technology/ Project
Year of Initiation
1.
ICRISAT
Hybrid Pigeon Pea
ICRISAT- Private Sector Hybrid Parent Research Consortia
Phase II 2004-08 Phase III 2009-13
114
GEO Biotechnologies India Pvt. Ltd S.No.
Partnership Organization
Name of the Crop
Name of the Technology/ Project
Year of Initiation
1.
International Maize and Wheat Improvement Center (CIMMYT), Hyderabad
MAIZE
Consortium member with CIMMYT (International Maize Improvement Consortium for Asia) for hybrid Maize research, elite sources of germplasm, training and a framework (and a platform) for evaluation of Maize hybrids in the Asian region.
2010
Indian Agricultural Research Institute (IARI), New Delhi
RICE
Seed Production & Marketing of Rice Variety: Improved Pusa Basmati -1 (Pusa 1460): A Product of Molecular Assisted Breeding for resistance to Bacterial Blight and Blast Diseases. This was Released and Notified in April, 2007.
2009
2.
(Five Years)
Indo American Hybrid Seeds India Pvt. Ltd. S. No. Partnership Organization
Name of the Crop
Name of the Technology/ Project
Year of Initiation
1.
DBT-SBIRI/GOI
RICE
Marker Assisted Selection / Utilization of Marker Assisted Selection for development of salt tolerant hybrids in rice (Oryza sativa).
2011-2013
2.
UASB, GKVK, Bangalore
RICE
Rice Blast Screening /Selection and enhancement og Rice germplasm for resistant against Blast disease.
INCOTEC India Pvt. Ltd S. No.
Partnership Organization
Name of the Project
Name of the Technology/ Project
Year of Initiation
1
Tamil Nadu Agricultural University
Title “ Evaluation of disco brand seed coating polymer of incotec on major agronomic crops for storability”
Seed Coating
1. Initiated in 2008 2. Trials done for two years for our products in Corn, Cotton, Pearl Millet, Sunflower. 3. The project was effectively completed in 2009
2
Tamil Nadu Agril University and Amrita School of Engineering
“Advanced Seed Sorting system for Upgradation of Seed Quality” proposed fundamental research project among three party as joint partnership INCOTEC Group , TNAU and Amrita School of Engineering.
Seed Upgradation
2011-2014
115
3
Directorate of Groundnut Research (ICAR)
Evaluation of High-bond seed coating polymers to enhance the shelf life of shelledgroundnut seeds during transport
Seed Coating
2011 (Proposed)
4
Tamil Nadu Agricultural University
Evaluation of Pelleting and Priming products and Actives for yield enhancement
Priming, Actives, Pelleting, Seed Coating
2011-2012
J K Agri Genetics Ltd S. No. Partnership Organization
Name of the Crop
Name of the Technology/ Project
Year of Initiation
1
ICRISAT - Consoria Membership Patancheru-502 324 (A.P.)
PEARL MILLET
Development of hybrids
2000
2
BREF BIOTEK, Kharagpur
COTTON
Development of Insect resistant Transgenic
2000
Indian Institute of Technology, Kharagpur-721 302 (West Bengal) Phone No. 777028 3
UNIVERSITY OF DELHI, SOUTH CAMPUS Benito Juarez Road, NEW DELHI - 110 021
COTTON
Development of Insect resistant Transgenic
1999
4
National Biotanical Research Institute, Rana Pratap Marg., P.B.No. 436, Lucknow- 226 001
COTTON
Development of high throughput marker assisted selection systems for improvement of drought tolerance and fiber quality related traits in Cotton, under CSIR’s NMITLI program.
2007
RICE & COTTON
Novel approaches for production of hybrid seeds with characteristics of improved insect resistance and high yield in Rice & Cotton crops.
2007
Tamilnadu Agricultural University, Coimbatore – Tamilnadu 5
(i) NBRI, Lucknow (ii) TNAU, Coimbatore (iii) CICR, Nagpur (iv) Bose Institute, Kolkata (v) UDSC, New Delhi (vi) UAS, Dharwad
116
6
International Rice Reseach Institute (IRRI), DAPO Box 7777, Metro Manila, Philippines. Phone No.+63 (2)580 5600 (Ext.2769)
RICE
Development of high yielding and quality hybrid seeds.
2008
7
AVRDC - The World Vegetable Centre, Regional Centre for South Asia (RCSA) ICRISAT, PATANCHERU, A.P., India
VEGETABLES Development of high yielding and disease resistant hybrids.
2005
8
Dr. Balasaheb Sawant Konkan Krishi - Vidyapeeth, Dapoli, Dist. Ratnagiri, Maharashtra
RICE
Seed Production & Marketing of Hybrids developed by the University.
2010
9
Rajasthan State Agricultura Department & Universities
Various Crops
Joint development of various crop hybrid seeds of commercial importance in Rajasthan
2010
Kamboj Seeds Pvt. Ltd S. No.
Partnership Organization
Name of the Crop
Name of the Technology/ Project
Year of Initiation
1
CCS HAU HISAR
Maize
Hybrid Maize seeds production and distribution.
2010-2015
Kaveri Seed Company Ltd. S. No.
Partnership Organization
Name of the Crop
Name of the Technology/ Project
Year of Initiation
1
BIRAPBiotechnology –Industry Research Asi\ssitance progrmme of DBT
RICE
Bio & Hybrid Technologies / Development of biotic stress resistant rice through conjunct use of bio & hybrid technologies.
2011
2
Centre for Plant Molecular Biology, Osmania University, Hyderbad
RICE
Breeding /Introgression of transgene conferred resistance to sucking pests.
2010
3
National Botanical Research Institute Lucknow
Exchange of Germplasm and Field Evaluation.
2010
4
Barwale foundation
PEARL MILLET
Evaluation of Breeding lines / 2009 Genetically enhanced micronutrientdense pearl millet grains for improved human nutrition in India.
117
Krishidhan Seeds Pvt. Ltd S. No.
Partnership Organization
Name of the Crop
Name of the Technology/ Project
Funding
1
A group of nine institutions including 3 Universities and 5 National Research Institutes
FIELD CROPS
Insect Resistance and male sterility in important field crops.
Govt. PPP scheme and industry
2
A National University
VEGETABLES
Virus Resistance.
Govt. PPP scheme and industry
3
International and National Research Institute
FIELD CROPS
Drought Resistance.
Collaboration under International collaboration programme
4
A National Research Institute
FIELD CROPS
Fermentation based micro nutrient formulation.
Licenced by Krishidhan
5
National Research Institute
VEGETABLES
Insect Resistance.
Licenced by Krishidhan
6
Two Agricultural Universities
FIELD CROPS & VEGETABLES
Research and academic collaboration.
University and industry
Partnership Organization University of Delhi, South Campus
Name of the Crop RICE
Name of the Technology/ Project
Year of Initiation 2007
Indian Institute of Science, Bangalore ---
COTTON
MAHYCO S. No. 1
2
3 4
RICE RICE & COTTON
Development of High Throughput Approaches to Understand Molecular Basis of Heterosis in Rice for Precision Breeding (COE) Evaluation of transgenic cotton containing antisense AV2 gene for resistance to cotton leaf curl disease (Phase-I) (SBIRI) Stress Tolerant Rice (BIPP) Development of Sucking Pest Tolerant Rice and Cotton (BIPP)
2008
2010 2010
Monsanto India Ltd
118
S. No.
Partnership Organization
Name of the crop
Name of the Technology/ Project
Year of Initiation
1
Government of Rajesthan
MAIZE
Project Golden Rays
2009
2
Department of Agriculture, Karnataka
-
Training/ Project Sahyog
-
PHI Seeds Ltd S. No. 1
Partnership Organization Pioneer Hi-bred
Name of the Crop RICE
Name of the Technology/ Project
2 3
Pioneer Hi-bred Pioneer Hi- bred
-
4
Pioneer Hi-bred
-
5
Pioneer Hi-bred
-
Extension Activites/Project- Sunshine, Gujarat
2010
Name of the Crop RICE
Name of the Technology/ Project
Year of Initiation June 2006
Extension Activities and imparting modern Agronomic Practices in Hybrid Rice/Krushak Utthan, UP Extension Activities/Krushak Uthhan Orissa Extension Activities/ Krushak Uthhan, Rajasthan Extension Activities/Krushak Uthhan Jharkhand
Year of Initiation 2010 2010 2010 2010
Rasi Seeds Pvt. Ltd S. No. Partnership Organization 1 University of Ottawa, Canada 2 University of Ottawa, Canada 3
4 5
6
Madurai Kamaraj University, Madurai, Tamil Nadu Indian Agricultural Research Institute (IARI), New Delhi Tamil Nadu Agricultural University, Coimbatore Indian Institute of Science, Bangalore
BRINJAL
BHENDI
TOMATO CASSAVA
COTTON
Insect resistance /Genetic Engineering of Rice for Yellow Stem Borer (YSB) resistance Insect resistance /Genetic Engineering of June 2006 Brinjal for Fruit and Shoot Borer (FSB) resistance Viral disease resistance /Genetic Engineering of Bhendi for Bhendi Yellow Vein Mosaic Virus (BYVMV) disease resistance Insect resistance /Genetic Engineering of Tomato for Fruit Borer Resistance Viral disease resistance /Genetic Engineering of Cassava for Cassava Mosaic Virus (CMV) disease resistance Viral disease resistance/Transgenic cotton production with genes conferring resistance to Cotton Leaf Curl Virus Disease (CLCuV)
May 2009
October 2009 March 2008
October 2009
Syngenta India Ltd S. No
Partnership Organization
Name of the Crop
1
National Research Grapes Center for Grapes, Manjri (ICAR institute)
Name of Technology/ Project
Year of Initiation
Development of spray schedule for effective control of diseases and pests in grapes with quality grapes/Free Trade – Grape Spray Schedule
2010 (will be continue for 2 years)
Yaaganti Seeds Pvt. Ltd S. No. Partnership Organization
Name of the Crop
Name of the Technology/ Project
Year of Initiation
1
Maize
Maize Breeding/ International Maize Improvement Consortium
2010
CIMMYT
NOTE: This report is prepared on the basis of the information available in the NSAI Secretariat and is not considered complete at this stage.
119
Annexure : 2
Public Sector MOU’s with Private Seed Companies (HYBRID RICE) S. No. 1
Public Sector Organization DRR, Hyderabad
2
IARI, New Delhi
3 4 5
GBPUAT, Pantnagar TNAU, Coimbatore CRRI, Cuttack
6 7 8
UAS, Mandya BSKKV, Karjat JNKV, Jabalpur
Partnership Company
Name of Hybrid
Sampoorna Seeds Pvt. Ltd. Pratham Biotech Ltd. Neo Seeds Pvt. Ltd. Vikky’s Agri Sciences Pvt. Ltd. IFSSA J.K. Agri Genetics Pvt. Ltd. Nath Biogene (I) Ltd. Devgen Seed & Crop Technology Ltd. Zuari Seeds Ltd. Advanata India Ltd. Yashoda seeds Pvt. Ltd. Namdhari Seeds Pvt. Ltd. Amareshwara Agri Tech Ltd. Bhavani Seeds Pvt. Ltd. Mahyco Krishidhan Seeds Pvt. Ltd. Nuziveedu Seeds Pvt. Ltd. Atash Seed Pvt. Ltd. Indo American Hybrid Seeds India Pvt. Ltd. Ganga Kaveri Seeds Pvt. Ltd. Geo Seeds Pvt. Ltd. Rasi Seeds Pvt. Ltd. Syngenta India Ltd. Rasi Seeds (P) Ltd. Annapurna Seeds Pvt. Ltd. Vikky’s Agri Sciences Pvt. Ltd. Namdhari Seeds Pvt. Ltd. Syngenta India Ltd. Vikky’s Agri Sciences Pvt. Ltd.
DRRH-2
Pusa R H 10
PSD-1 and PSD-3 CORH-3 Ajaya Rajalakshmi KRH-2 Sahyadri-1 JRH-4, JRH-5
Source: Accelerating Hybrid Rice Development, IRRI 2010 Edited by: FXIE and B. Hardy
120
