Friday 20th April

Workshop 4:  Bridging the technology divides

Dr Claire Cockcroft

With a world population predicted to reach 11 billion by the middle of this century, global food security is a pressing concern. The erosion of the earth’s natural resources through overuse and abuse, soil infertility and drought are reducing the viability and total area of land suitable for agriculture. The rate of food production cannot keep up with population growth and agriculture faces tough choices in the years ahead. Technology will play an increasingly important role in delivering the incremental yields necessary to balance the global food demand-supply equation but technology transfer is a problem that needs to be addressed if less developed countries (LDCs) are to produce sufficient food, at a local level, in an environmentally-sustainable way.

This issue was raised by organisers of the “Global Agriculture 2020: which way forward?” conference held at the John Innes Centre, Norwich. To provide equitable access to technology, it is essential to not only create appropriate mechanisms for transferring the technology but also to continue to provide adequate returns for those investing in the creation and provision of technology,

Technology offers solutions for food security
The evolution and success of society has always been driven by technological innovations. Biotechnology offers methods that could significantly enhance agricultural productivity, in a more sustainable way, without compromising ecological security. Together with traditional agricultural techniques, the advent of genetic engineering and an increasing wealth of knowledge from genomics resources herald a new renaissance for agriculture. These are valuable tools for the struggle to produce more food from a shrinking area of fertile land using fewer inputs like water and environmentally-damaging chemicals.

However, public acceptance is a limiting factor and without investment in communication on a global scale, agriculture may be left in the dark ages, dependent upon practices such as the prolific use of agrochemicals to drive yields. Only a combined approach that integrates the very best technology and practices can deliver an “evergreen revolution” to provide a sustainable system of global agriculture and an equitable perennial green revolution in which everyone can share.

The complex interplay between food security, economic interests, public opinion and intellectual property rights (IPR) has made biotechnology something of a political football and the incorporation of biotechnology with agriculture, while a pressing need, is far from straight forward. Technology transfer incorporates several elements, the science itself (the knowledge basis), mechanisms for transferring the technology such as material transfer agreements (MTA) or license agreements, and the benefits of the protection process, namely IPR and compensation for providing access to the technology.

The mechanisms for technology transfer will also depend on the nature and direction of the transfer — from the financially-rich north to the poorer, biodiversity-rich south, large to small-scale farms, from one country to another or from industry to agriculture. In some instances, technology transfer may occur in both directions. As the benefits of biotechnology proliferate, indigenous knowledge, passed down from one generation to the next, and traditional methods used by farmers in developing countries are becoming recognised as valuable intellectual property in the developed world.

Overcoming the digital divide
Although technology makes significant differences to the life in the privileged western world, the IT revolution has yet to influence the everyday lives of many millions of people in the rural areas of developing countries. A major challenge facing world agriculture is attracting and retaining youth into farming and making it intellectually stimulating. Introducing new technologies into the field, and improving access to information technologies that improve agricultural efficiency, could help to raise the reputation of farming. But the technological explosion has seen a digital divide develop between those who have access to information technology and those that do not. Developing mechanisms that will ensure the transfer of technology and sharing of valuable resources are crucial elements for a global agricultural strategy.

By 2020, drought, soil infertility and rising temperatures will place global agriculture under renewed pressure. There is a need to engineer crops that are “shaped to the environment” to combat climate change and environmental stresses thereby facilitating local food production. Access to new technologies, bioinformatics and software tools can speed up the search for genes conferring adaptation to stresses and ultimately improve the efficiency of crop design.
 
Enabling LDCs to reap the rewards of technological innovation
Farmers’ needs must drive the adoption of new technologies that are regarded by them as appropriate. In several countries, including Kenya, Zimbabwe and India, scientists have made a move towards working with local farmers to identify the needs of the community. Effective dialogue between scientists and farmers is therefore critical to understand the social and cultural context in which farmers are working and to enable complementary technologies to be introduced into their agricultural practices. Scientific innovations, as well as improving crop quality, provide both personal profit and raise self-esteem of farmers who are better able to compete in the market.

Banana farming provides a livelihood for many Kenyans, especially peasant women. Rapidly declining yields, due to environmental stresses, pests and diseases, threatened food security and income for the 80% of small-scale farmers in Kenya who provide 90% of the country’s food. This prompted scientists to start working with local farmers to identify their needs and provide culturally acceptable solutions. Acquiring disease-free seedlings was the main concern. Propagating “clean” plantlets in tissue culture until they are hardy enough to transplant to the field has boosted yields and encouraged entrepreneurialism within the local farming community.

Managing Intellectual Property Rights
Three small letters, but the IPR battle spells controversy and presents a moral dilemma for private and public sectors who need to protect their inventions. The IPR issue has, to some extent, been demonised. A consensus view is that patenting is not inherently wrong; the bone of contention is that ownership of IPR permits denial of access to knowledge and technology. Privately-held patents potentially prevent access to genetic resources and their possible benefits. There is also some debate over the extent to which developed world organisations are seeking to assert IPR over long established indigenous practice in LDCs, transferring technology from local to corporate spheres.

The implementation of IPR has to be effected in such a way as to strike an appropriate balance between industry’s desire to protect and capitalise on investments and society’s ostensible right to benefit from the technological progress as a multiplier of human endeavour. In the healthcare sector for example there is a clearly identifiable target population that will benefit from an innovation. Because some groups believe that there should be unfettered, free access to relevant IPR, healthcare companies consequently come under tremendous pressure to waive the IPR. This is often an emotional debate rather than a reasoned one, with little regard for the endeavours, sometimes multi billion dollar investment required to bring an innovation to fruition.

The recent development concerning the provision of AIDS drugs to LDCs is an interesting case study. Pharmaceutical companies, the IPR originators, recognise profits are at stake, but have agreed to waive legal claims against patent infringement in LCDs as a humanitarian gesture, in the face of enormous pressure across the board, ranging from AIDS campaigners to LDC NGOs.

It is essential to remember that IPR is a double-edged sword. Without it there is no incentive to invest, capital formation would decline and since it is unlikely to be replaced by publicly-funded research, the pace of innovation suffers and mankind loses out.

IPR is a structure to encourage investment in the development of a broad range of products, services and technologies. The investment requirement in plant biotechnology and the pharmaceutical industry is enormous and to force companies to routinely waive the IPR would be to potentially undermine the system that has given rise to so many remarkable innovations. It is a dynamic that must be acknowledged and dealt with in a fair manner, rather than dismissed as a symptom of corporate greed.

Moreover, the present obsession with corporate IPR ignores the very real concern of the public liability that comes with ownership of IPR. For example, a company might wish to make its IPR freely available, but in doing so would potentially open itself to liability claims consequent to the use of that IPR. For applications where the IPR have been waived, and therefore do not offer the promise of profits against which to offset these potential liability claims, there is no incentive make the IPR available.

Challenging the system of IPR is not the answer. Working with organisations to find equitable solutions is the only way forward. With regard to the real issue of liability for instance, there would have to be mechanisms through which to assign “gift” IPR for certain applications where upon the recipient would fully indemnify the IPR provider of any liability. However, this would require support at government level because no farmer would ever be empowered to indemnify a large corporation. The problem requires a multilateral solution.

Communication at a global level is key
A major factor limiting the acceptance of new biological innovations in the field of agriculture is, and will continue to be, the lack of understanding and consequential rejection of products by the public based on misconception and a fear of the unknown. Public and private sector alike must accept the social dimension of their responsibilities rather than focus solely on the productivity and profitability issues. This is especially pertinent for the agriculture sector and those working on GM products in contrast with the healthcare and pharmaceuticals market where public acceptance is less of a problem due to the clear benefit of the technology for the patients.

The current public distrust and disaffection for GM crops has made governments aware of the value that is placed on gathering and disseminating information and monitoring public opinion of emerging technologies, incorporating the findings into risk assessment criteria. It is crucial that the appropriate legislative frameworks and government procedures are established around these technologies. The benefits of biotechnology can be fairly represented and effectively communicated through forums and partnerships between different individuals, organisations and sectors, and will be instrumental in ensuring appropriate and equitable technology transfer and resource sharing. The role of communicators has never been more crucial and as Prof Alan Gray, from the Centre for Ecology and Hydrology, said, “the future of agriculture may actually depend on the ability of the persuaders”.

Which way forward?

There are several potential beneficiaries in the enhanced “value chain” yielded from the application of biotechnology. These range from agribusiness corporations to farmer to wholesalers and retailers and finally to consumers. Complex trade rules dictate how trading is managed and who will reap the economic rewards. Rather than attempt to re-engineer global trade patterns and practices in the face of complex rules, established practices and significant vested interests, it makes more sense for the beneficiaries of technology to pass on some of that benefit. Mechanisms need establishing for the redistribution of economic benefit from biotechnology through a pareto-efficient implicit economic subsidy. It is the agribusiness corporations who are in a position to do something about this: the profits the technology brings can be passed on to LDCs through a cross-subsidy, in other words providing LDCs with access to the technology at low cost off the back of the considerable economic benefit derived from the application of the technology in the developed world. This could be done bilaterally, or as a wider initiative with the support of organisations such as the World Bank or International Monetary Fund.

One potential breakthrough solution is that proposed by the Rockefeller Foundation, currently discussing with stakeholders the prospect of setting up an institute that would pool the rights to biotechnology inventions, thereby facilitating technology transfer and resource sharing. The information would be handed out free to those unable to pay. Many countries do not have experience in negotiating the finer points of IPR or designing patents. This institute would also provide guidance for those lacking the experience in executing specialised negotiations but it is important for LDCs to develop their own negotiation skills and become savvy in the ways of IPR. This requires investment from public sector and technology transfer from the private.

The way forward is paved with good intentions and although there is much dialogue, there is an urgent need for focussed action and for all parties to work together to implement appropriate strategies for technology transfer and resource sharing. There are no easy solutions to this complex web of inter-related issues, but there are some clear directions. Technology development thrives on investment, which is in turn driven by IPR. IPR must not be demonised. Furthermore investment in communication is essential. Without this, a public that has been fed a diet of sensationalism and which is increasingly fearful of the unknown will cast the benefits of technology aside. Finally it is essential that local level initiatives must not get lost among the grand, often slow-moving schemes painstakingly negotiated on a global level. If countries facing food insecurity wait for the northern hemisphere to organise their access to technological innovations, they will be at mercy of political and economic squabbles –– the “haves” versus the “have-nots” debate in which they will always have the weaker hand.

It is vital that agribusiness corporations, following examples provided by companies such as Syngenta, continue to develop bilateral relations between themselves and the recipient countries, and equally important that organisations like the Rockefeller Foundation continue their good work. Initiatives like these provide the concrete steps towards a solution that allows sharing of technological resources and provides sustainable agricultural security for all mankind, regardless of means.