Private rights and Public goods: conflicts in agriculture R&D

Abstract not available

The role of intellectual property in agricultural public-private partnerships in the context of development

PhDFood insecurity is an important global problem severely affecting developing countries, particularly those in Asia and Africa. Agricultural research in developing countries is characterised by the following tension: the private sector has plenty of applied research skills and experience but these are primarily used for commercial gain; the public sector has excellent research but the research is often not applied. Agricultural public private partnerships are currently acclaimed as a means of redressing this tension through optimising the complementary synergies between the two sectors in order to address food security. Private sector involvement in agriculture, including public private partnerships (PPPs) has increased in the past two decades as has the use of intellectual property rights (IPRs) in agriculture research. The two sectors have differing and sometimes conflicting perspectives on IP as a concept and in the strategies used to manage intellectual property. IPRs have the potential to enhance or hinder the achievement of a partnership’s objectives. This thesis investigates whether, to what extent and in what ways IP is relevant to food security oriented PPPs. It uses two case studies in India and Kenya involving two centres in the Consultative Group on International Agriculture Research (CGIAR) to locate the role that IP plays in the formation and execution of food security oriented PPPs in the context of development. It argues for a bespoke analysis of PPPs as the preferred means through which the impact and effect of factors such as IPRs can be meaningfully examined. It finds that the relevance of IP to food security oriented PPPs in developing countries is determined by two factors: the nature of the technology used in the partnership and the stage of the partnership

Exploring the flexibilities of TRIPS to promote biotechnology capacity building and appropriate technology transfer

Produced for the European Commission's 6th Framework Programme as part of the project 'Impacts of the IPR Rules on Sustainable Development (IPDEV)

Understanding development trajectories for biotechnology governance frameworks in sub-Saharan Africa: the policy kinetics model

Using case studies on development and implementation of biotechnology governance frameworks in four African countries, we introduce and build the case for a policy kinetics (PK) approach to analysing and unpacking complex policy processes. The PK approach proposes a comprehensive approach to understanding how various ‘pieces of the policy puzzle’ interact in arenas to facilitate or constrain attainment of desired outputs. Borrowing from reaction kinetics in chemistry, which is the study of rates of chemical processes, our argument is that complex policy processes can indeed be broken down into reactants, processes, catalysts and outputs, all interacting at various levels in space and time. We also bring attention to the presence of various intermediate outputs of processes with the potential to facilitate or constrain the process, including bringing a shift to the direction, duration and pace of the overall process. The presence or potential emergence of components that mimic process catalysts is another area that this approach brings to the attention of policy actors. By engaging with what happens at the level where the various components of a policy process interface with each other, we argue that this model is a useful tool for unpacking, understanding and influencing not only the development and implementation of biotechnology governance mechanisms in Africa, but other policy arenas elsewhere

Review of the Policy, Regulatory Mechanisms and Administration of Biosafety in Eastern and Southern Africa: A study of Kenya, South Africa, Malawi and the ASARECA initiative

This report summarises the results of a review of the policy, regulatory mechanisms and administration of biosafety in Kenya, Malawi and South Africa and under the ASARECA regional initiative. The report focuses on the current situation and provides insights as to the form that developments in the area of regulation of biotechnology are likely to take. The first section is an introduction, which provides the definition and scope of biotechnology as used in this report. It provides a brief status of agricultural research; the areas of research and the actors involved in biotechnology in the study countries. With the exception of South Africa, experimentation in transgenic crops is still under development. Most of the current agricultural biotechnology R&D activities focus on improving crop productivity. The actors are mainly National Agriculture Research Institutes, International Agricultural Research Centres and universities. Private sector involvement is in the form of multinational companies. The second section discusses the frameworks for the regulation of biotechnology. These include international obligations, regional attempts, as well as national efforts in regulating biotechnology in the study countries. Regulation at the national level has been in the form of national policies, national strategies and through legislation. In Kenya and in most countries under the ASARECA initiative, acts of parliament are yet to be enacted. The proposed bill and regulations in Kenya and the proposed regional regulatory structure under ASARECA are discussed with the aim of providing an insight as to the trend regulation in these jurisdictions is likely to take. The third section is a discussion on institutional arrangements in the field of agricultural biotechnology. Who are the institutional actors? What are the synergies? What is the institutional capacity in terms of human resources and physical infrastructure? This section also explores the commercialisation and innovation attempts in the study countries. It examines public perception and acceptance of modern biotechnology and ends with a brief mention on intellectual property protection in the study countries. South Africa has a developed institutional structure with impressive facilities and adequate human resource capacity. Critical mass in modern biotechnology in the other study countries is yet to be attained. Facilities for experimentation in GM technology are likewise lacking in Kenya, Malawi and other ASARECA countries. The fourth section summarises the review and presents the way forward. South Africa is best placed to handle applications for testing transgenics such as the rosette-resistant groundnut developed by ICRISAT. A representative from the Malawi biosafety committee should be involved in the testing of the groundnuts in RSA as part of a capacity building exercise and also to pave the way for the testing of the groundnuts in Malawi. In Kenya, there are indications that once an event is approved elsewhere, it is likely to receive timely approval subject to any additional testing that the National Biosafety Board may deem necessary. ICRISAT would have to collaborate with the KARI Institutional Biosafety Committee through which the application to the National Biosafety Committee would be made

Below the Radar: What does Innovation in Emerging Economies have to offer other Low Income Economies?

Between 1970 and 2000 the proportion of global R&D occurring in low income economies rose from two percent to more than 20 percent. However, this rising commitment to R&D does not easily translate into the emergence of a family of innovations meeting the needs of low income consumers "at the bottom of the pyramid", since much of these technological resources are invested in outdated structures of innovation. A number of transnational corporations are targeting these markets but it is our contention that much of the previously dominant innovation value chains are either ignorant of the needs of consumers at the bottom of the pyramid, or lack the technologies and organisational structures to meet these needs effectively. Instead, the firms and value chains that are likely to be most successful in these dynamic new markets are those that are emerging in China and India and other developing countries, disrupting global corporate and locational hierarchies of innovation.Science and Technology, Asian drivers, Innovation Systems, Millennium Development Goals

Below the radar: What does innovation in the asian driver economies have to offer other low income economies

Between 1970 and 2000, the proportion of global R&D occurring in low income economies rose from two percent to more than 20 percent. However, this rising commitment to R&D does not easily translate into the emergence of a family of innovations meeting the needs of low income consumers “at the bottom of the pyramid”, since much of these technological resources are invested in outdated structures of innovation. A growing number of transnational corporations are targeting these markets reflecting dynamic new currents in best-practice innovation. Yet it is our contention that much of the previously dominant innovation value chains are either ignorant of the needs of consumers at the bottom of the pyramid, or lack the technologies and organisational structures to meet these needs effectively. Instead, the firms and value chains which are likely to be most successful in these dynamic new markets are those which are emerging in China and India, disrupting global corporate and locational hierarchies of innovation

A discussion paper on IP rights in public research in Agriculture: management issues

This discussion paper is intended to raise the most pertinent issues in intellectual property (IP) in Agriculture with specific reference to public research in developing countries particularly under the Consultative Group on International Agriculture Research (CGIAR or CG) system. It is by no means exhaustive and is aimed at generating debate on the highlighted issues. This paper is divided into two main parts; the first deals with IP in the CG system while the second outlines strategies for management and implementation of IP at institutional, national and regional levels. Part I begins with a brief overview of the IP international regime specific to agriculture. An analysis of IP policy in the CGIAR system follows with a discussion on the implication of IP on commercialisation of public research products; issues incident to income generation are also raised. Part II considers regional initiatives in harmonising seed policies and regulations in Africa and the effect of Plant Variety Protection (PVP) on regional seed trade. The section also includes strategies for IP management in public research organisations and considers options for PVP administration. Part III provides a summary of discussion issues and makes suggestions on the way forward

Access to medicines: intellectual property rights, human rights and justice

Conceptually and philosophically, intellectual property rights are about power relations. These power relations are shown in particularly stark terms in the field of health. Discourse often refers to “the 90/10 gap”, that is, approximately 90% of all medical research is directed towards diseases affecting only 10% of the world’s population. The true figures are probably bleaker than this. The pharmaceutical industry, premised as it is on profit return, invests in diseases with a large market that can bear higher prices and sidelines research in diseases with a low rate of profit return, typically those in the developing countries. This chapter is concerned with the dynamics between pharmaceutical companies who own patents to medicines, the human right to health and the access of the poor to 'essential medicines'. We consider the responsibility of pharmaceutical companies in sharing scientific advances and the various initiatives undertaken by the public and private sectors, including pharma, to promote the right to health. We will argue that human rights concepts have shaped the use of intellectual property rights and the development of health-related organisational mechanisms in poorer countries

Improving access to health technologies by the poor: the social context in Tanzanian bed net production and delivery

This article considers the factors that determine the ability to innovate health technologies in order to make them available to those who need them most in developing countries and rid populations of disease. It uses the case of Tanzanian bed/mosquito nets – particularly those treated with insecticide – which are promoted as a key prevention mechanism in the fight against malaria. Reviewing the success story of Tanzania in the production, distribution and use of bed nets, the article asks questions regarding the future ability to sustain progress. Using the concept of ‘social technologies’, the article highlights the importance of understanding the social context of the bed net innovation process. It therefore highlights the need to consider the bed net story as one not merely of effective distribution but, more significantly, of the whole innovation value chain from inputs to the textile factories making the nets to consumer needs and demands. It enriches our understanding of the complex nature in which the physical technologies (bed nets) are accessed by the poor and how this relates to the overall health system