Mike Robinson

GCP GRM, September, 2011

Public Private Partnerships

Models for closing the yield gap

● Building partnerships – complementary strengths

– High tech genomics and supply chain: private sector

– Phenotyping and germplasm diversity: public sector

● Managing intellectual property

– Open innovation / patent pools

– Crafting products for joint development

● Value chain

– Engaging seed companies

– Financing

2

1

2

3

Four types of public-private partnerships in agriculture

Infrastructure

Knowledge

Tech expertise

R&D

Supply chain

Market access

• improved crops

• services, methods of delivery

• mechanization, fertilization, irrigation

• supply chains

• agro-dealer networks

• processor/buyer links

• mobile banking & applications

• irrigation, transportation, electrification

• storage, agro-processing, packaging

• data & knowledge sharing

• e.g., cocoa, tef genome projects

Source: Boettiger/GATD/SFSA (adapted)

1

The landscape of AG PPPs: the linkages(37 projects, mainly in 2000-2010)

4

Size of nodes: no. of PPP projects

PPPs: The power of

partnershipLinked by

shared projects

Linked by

shared private

partners

Includes Spielman (25), plus 12 new

(37). It is not meant to be exhaustive.

The landscape of AG PPPs: the stakeholders(Agricultural PPPs mainly in 2000-2010)

5

Size of nodes: no. of PPP projects

Lines: connect public institutions which share the same private partners

Syngenta F 3Pioneer Hi-Bred 3

BMGF (Gates) 3Academia Sinica 1

Syngenta (F) 2(1)Monsanto 1

Pioneer Hi-Bred 1Bayer CropScience 1

Mitsubishi 1Socioconsult 1DuPont 1

Pioneer Hi-Bred 2Syngenta (F) 1(1)Monanto 1

BMGF 1Coca Cola 1

Pte Seed Companies 1

Pioneer Hi-Bred 2

Syngenta F 1

BMGF (Gates) 1

Nestlé 1Mars 1Academia Sinica 1

Monsanto 1Pioneer Hi-Bred 1BMGF (Gates) 1

Academia Sinica 1

BMGF (Gates) 1

Dow AgroSciences 1

Syngenta F 1Monsanto 1

Pioneer Hi-Bred 1Bayer CropScience 1

Axis Genetics 1

Syngenta F 1

Syngenta (F) 4(2)Monsanto 1

Pioneer Hi-Bred 4BASF 2Limagrain 1

Public sector

Syngenta 1

Grup PapalotlaUnilever 1

PPP primer: key points when starting

● Mindsets, expectations, trust

● Strategy and outputs

● Benefit sharing and obligations

● Project and risk management

● Realistic timeframes

● Commercial rights and route to farmer

● Memorandum of Understanding

● Governance and dispute resolution

● IP management

Plant variety protection and breeding progress

Source: UPOV Impact assessment study; www.upov.org

Protection spurs

innovation2

Patents, „open innovation‟, „open source‟ ...

● Certain IP assets are not best utilized by exclusivity Germplasm collections, enabling technologies …

● Open source can increase responsiveness and IP

utilization

● Public Domain - No

● Viral - Not necessarily

● Immune from IP rights - No

● Free Lunch - No

● Free to Do what I want - No

● Just a way to publish - No

What Open Source is Not:

Never

SharedOpen

SourceFreely

GivenLicensed

Continuum of opennessMost IP is neither completely open nor closed

Patent

Pools

Matching openness

to purpose

www.syngentafoundation.org

Open Innovation Patent Pool

Company

grant back

of IP licence

to the pool

Public

sectorsub-licence

to other

members of

the pool

Company A files a

patent on plant alleles

xyz that relate to e.g.

drought tolerance

(“general IP”)

Partner receives a sub-

licence to use the

general IP generated

by Company ACompany

B

Company

C

Know-

how

Materials

Company C cannot access

the data without joining the

patent pool

Know-how and

materials are

managed within

the patent pool

“Carve-out”: Company A can

protect specific products (variety,

event) by patents or plant

breeders rights – no license is

granted to those specific products

Developing

world

national or

private org

Late joiners need to “buy”

into the pool through

higher contributions

“Click-licence” royalty

free, in return for dataSub-licence royalty

bearing, for commercial

purposes

Patent

commons

USAID funded project facilitated entrance of private sector into certified

seed production; strong return to investment to smallholder (Kenya)

0

200000

400000

600000

800000

1000000

1200000

2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011

private public

Project start

No.

mini-

tubers

Project end

Seed source Cost per

acre (KSh)

Income per

acre (KSh)

Farm saved 18,890 36,930

Certified 52,930 153,330

Source: Barker/CIP/SFSA

3

Kenya: Private-sector produced quality potato seed of a public-bred

variety doubles or triples smallholder yields

Source: Barker/CIP/SFSA

Financing PPPs in the value chain (by governments, donors)

● Procurement of services

– Time-honored practice; little private sector risk and

investment; developmental benefits not excluded

● „Push‟

– Workhorse of development aid; execution typically by public

or non-profit actors; not transformational

● „Pull‟

– The right idea: payment on delivery (prizes; advanced

market commitments); difficult to do in agriculture

● Co-investment

– Promising as a combination of push and pull; few deals so

far: convincing business plans are scarce