Riesgos, oportunidades y
beneficios de la biotecnología
para los países de las Américas
Greg Traxler
Auburn University
El Foro Técnico “Riesgos, oportunidades y beneficios de la biotecnología
para los países de las Américas” --convocado por el Instituto
Interamericano de Cooperación para la Agricultura (IICA) el martes 11
de diciembre, 2007
Outline
Introduction
The context and experience of
Biotechnology in LAC
A model of biotechnology research
and access
The Risks: Necessary Institutions
and Institutional Capacity in LAC
Conclusions
Opportunities: What is Biotechnology?
1.
GMOs
–
–
–
–
2.
Molecular Techniques for Genetic
Improvement
–
3.
4.
Most visible (notorious) aspect
Widespread public interest; concern from some
Most studied aspect of biotechnology; most data
Focus of this presentation
Marker Assisted Selection, cellular biology
Vaccines and Diagnostic Tools for Animal
agriculture
Advances in Basic Science
–
New avenues of science; new scientific horizon
LAC had 78% of the total DC GMO area in 2006
Near doubling in GMO area in 5 years,
Use still concentrated in temperate/subtropical South Cone
GM area
Country
(000 ha)
2006
2001
Argentina 18,000 13,500
Brazil
11,500 2,000
Paraguay
2,000
500
Uruguay
400
50
Mexico
60
60
Colombia
30
0
Honduras
2
0
Total
31,992 16,110
GMO Impact studies have been completed in more than a dozen countries
Findings consistent in reporting:
Large economic and environmental benefits, large benefits to farmers
Number of pesticide applications
Average number of chemical pesticide applications
Benefit distribution,
1997-1998
12
10
Total
8
BBW
Other
6
Monsanto
16%
Farmers
84%
4
2
0
1995
1996
1997
Year
1998
1999
2000
Source: Traxler, et al., 2004
Pesticide use and benefit distribution from Bt cotton in Mexico
Broad Summary on GMO impacts:
A Paradox
Large benefits from GMOs
Economic benefits broadly distributed among producers
and industry
Large Environmental Benefits from reduced pesticide
use and facilitation of reduced tillage
But …
High geographic and crop concentration in access to GMOs
Three crops
Seven countries out 34 in LAC
What guidance does this paradox give for
accessing the potential of biotechnology
science?
A model of biotechnology
research and access
A three step model to analyze biotec
Risks and Opportunities
Genetic Improvement Research & Technology Roles
Basic Science
High
Applied & Adaptive
Research
Research cost and Spillover potential
Spillover definition:
Technology
Delivery
Seed Distribution
Low
The use of technology that was developed elsewhere,
thereby avoiding or reducing R&D investment costs.
Example: RR soybean in Argentina developed in US
Genetic Improvement Research & Technology Roles
Basic Science
Applied & Adaptive
Research
Technology
Delivery
Seed Distribution
Institutions with primary responsibility for research in each area:
Multinationals
Large NARSs
Indust. Country R&D
CGIAR Centers
NARSs
Regional networks, etc.
Local private sector
Farm input companies
Farmer-Farmer
Genetic Improvement Research & Technology Roles
Basic Science
Applied & Adaptive
Research
Technology
Delivery
Seed Distribution
Institutions with primary responsibility for research in each area:
Multinationals
Large NARSs
Indust. Country R&D
CGIAR Centers
NARSs
Local private sector
Farmer-Farmer
Regional mechanism, etc.
Critical Institutional Capacities for biotechnology
1. Basic Science capacity
2. Applied Science capacity
3. Biosafety Regulatory institutions
4. Investment Capital
5. IPR institutions / incentives for technology sharing
The Risks: Necessary Institutions and
Institutional Capacities in LAC




Basic Science Capacity
Applied (agricultural) science capacity
Biosafety regulatory institutions
Research Investment capital
– Public sector
– Private sector

IPR institutions / financial incentives for
technology discovery
Tremendous Diversity in Size of LAC Systems, 1996
16
14
•Three countries account for 85% of LAC expenditures
•2/3 have less than 100 agricultural scientists
Number of Countries (32 total)
14
12
10
8
6
6
5
4
2
2
2
Mexico
Argentina
1
Brazil
1
1
30014000
40015000
0
0
0-50
50-100
Source: Beintema and Pardey
100-200 201-500 501-1000
10002000
20013000
Number of FTE researchers in 1996
Research Output: Basic Science and
Applied Science publications in LAC
(Annual Average 1997-2006)
Brazil
Argentina
Mexico
Chile
Venezuela
Total
Canada
US
Spain
Biochemistry,
Genetics and
Molecular
Biology
2,094
891
713
314
139
4,151
6,682
55,418
4,545
Pct
LAC
total
45%
19%
15%
7%
3%
89%
Agricultur
al and
Pct
Biological LAC
Sciences total
357 45%
133 17%
126 16%
45
6%
40
5%
700 89%
634
4,200
507
Source: SCOPUS online database
Implications of the great diversity in
size and capacity among LAC countries
Institutions
that facilitate the sharing of research
discoveries are critical given the country-country
discrepancies in capacity.
IP
sharing is a key issue given the number of small
countries with limited research capacity.
Public
sector lagging the private sector in progress
in sharing IP. Intense amount of licensing of IP
within the private sector.-
The Risks: Necessary Institutions and
Institutional Capacities in LAC



Basic Science Capacity
Applied (agricultural) science capacity
Biosafety regulatory institutions
– Legislation
– Experience in overseeing biosafety field trials

Research Investment capital
– Public sector
– Private sector

IPR institutions / financial incentives for technology
discovery
Status of Biosafety legislation in LAC Countries
Specific
Biosafety
Legislation
Related
Legislation
No Information/
No Access to
Legislation
Argentina
Brazil
Mexico
Belize*
Bolivia*
Chile
Costa Rica*
Ecuador
El Salvador*
Guatemala
Grenada
Honduras
Jamaica*
Nicaragua*
Panama
Paraguay
Peru**
Dominican Republic
Uruguay
Venezuela
Antigua and Barbuda
Bahamas
Barbados
Dominica
Guyana
Haiti
St. Lucia
St. Christopher and Nevis
St. Vincent and the Grenadines
Surinam
Trinidad & Tobago
Experience in overseeing biosafety field trials:
Concentrated in a few countries
GMO Field Trials in Five LAC countries, by year (2000-2006)
Number of field trials
300
250
200
Costa Rica
150
Colombia
100
Brasil
México
50
0
2000
Argentina
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
7 LAC countries have approved at least
one GMO event for commercial use
Country
Argentina
Brazil
Paraguay
Uruguay
Mexico
Colombia
Honduras
Total
Number of
approved events
2006
2001
10
8
2
1
1
0
5
1
4
4
3
0
1
0
26
14
Same data as previous slide: GMO commercial approvals
by year
Number of Biosafety Approvals Granted in LAC, 19962006
Number of Approvals
6
5
4
3
2
1
0
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
Year
No increase in the pace of GMO approvals over time
Private sector has conducted 89% of all field trials
Number of GMO field trials in four countries, by
sector (2000-2007)
Public NARS
0
4
27
53
3
0
Universities
2
10
National Private
Multinationals
8
0
24
73
17
14
208
Argentina
México
477
Colombia
Costa Rica
The Risks: Necessary Institutions and
Institutional Capacities in LAC



Basic Science Capacity
Applied (agricultural) science capacity
Biosafety regulatory institutions
– Legislation
– Experience in overseeing biosafety field trials

Research Investment capital
– Public sector
– Private sector

IPR institutions / financial incentives for
technology discovery
Global R&D Expenditures on Crop biotechnology, 2001
-Concentrated in Industrial Countries
-Dominated by the private sector
$ millions
Private (70%)
Public (30%)
Industrial Country Tot. (96%)
China
India
Brazil
Others
Developing Country Tot. (4%)
World Total
3,100
1,120
115
25
15
25
4,220
180
4,400
Source: James, 2003
GMO royalties generated (US$ million)
US Cottton
US Soy
US Maize
Canada
Argentina
Other LDC
500
$ 942
450
$ 745
400
350
300
250
Argentina
200
150
Other DCs
100
50
0
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
Source:NASS/USDA and author’s calculations
2000 Annual Expenditures on Agricultural Research
Total annual Public Expenditures higher in Developing
Countries than developed countries
Billions 2000 int.$
Public sector spending
12
10
8
6
DC spending skewed by large
investments by “Super Nars”
(Brazil, India, China)
4
2
0
Industrialized Developing
Source: Pardey (2006)
Billions 2000 int.$
BUT, Near Absence of Private Funding in Developing
countries means that total ag research is nearly
twice as high in industrial countries
Private sector spending
Public sector spending
Industrialized Developing
Industrialized Developing
12
10
8
6
4
2
0
Source: Pardey (2006)
Total ag research spending Public and Private
Billions 2000 int.$
Industrialized
Total research expenditures far
higher in Industrialized countries
because of private sector
investments.
Private investments are a
compliment to public investment,
not a substitute
12
Developing
10
8
6
4
0
2
Source: Pardey (2006)
Agricultural Expenditures by
Public or Private Sector
Share of spending
Region/country
% Public
% Private
LAC
95%
5%
Asia–Pacific
92%
8%
Sub-Saharan Africa
98%
2%
Middle East and N. Africa
Developing-country total
97%
94%
4%
6%
Developed country total
46%
54%
The Risks: Necessary Institutions and
Institutional Capacities in LAC

Capital for Research Investment
– Public sector
– Private sector




Basic Science Capacity
Applied (agricultural) science capacity
Biosafety regulatory
Ability to generate revenues from
seed use
Mobilizing resources to Finance Biotechnology and Seed research:
The Traditional Way
Research leading to
a transformation
event
“Biotech” Companies
Field Testing
Regulatory/Biosafety
Approval
$$$
IP negotiation
Genetic
Resources
Plant
Breeding
Adapted
Transgenic
Variety
Seed Markets
(Royalty
collection)
$$$
Seed Companies
Farmers
Difficulty in collecting royalties in developing countries
blocks private sector investment
Research leading to
a transformation
event
“Biotech” Companies
Field Testing
Regulatory/Biosafety
Approval
IP negotiation
Genetic
Resources
Plant
Breeding
Seed Companies
X
X
$$$
X
$$$
Adapted
Transgenic
Variety
Seed Markets
(Royalty
collection)
Farmers
Institutional Innovation: End Point Royalty
Scheme - IP Royalties Collected When Grain is Sold
Transformation
event
1. Biotechnology Research
$$$
Regulatory/Biosafety
Approval
IP negotiation
Genetic
Resources
Plant
Breeding
Adapted
Transgenic
Variety
2. Plant breeding Research
X
Royalty
collection
End point
Royalties
Farmers
Grain
Dealers
End point
Royalties
$$$
Seed Sale versus Endpoint Royalty
collection scheme



Seed Sales
“Royalty” included as part
of seed price
Seed companies pay GM
gene license fee to
Monsanto
“Bolsa Blanca” seed sales
destroy private sector
investment incentive




Royalty Collection at
Grain Sale (endpoint)
Royalty collected at
elevator when grain sold
Royalty based on % of
grain value
Administrative fee paid to
elevators for collecting
fee
Examples: Australia,
France, UK, South Cone
GMOs
Royalties in Paraguay


Adoption 50% (1.8 million ha)
Collection begun in 2005
– $3 - $6 ton, increasing over time
– Distribution of Royalties
53% Monsanto
 17% Seed Companies
 8% Grain handlers (50 firms)
 10% Public Research Foundation
 12% Administrative expenses

Source:
http://www.inbio-paraguay.org/html/acuerdo_marco.htm
Summary: Necessary Institutions and
Institutional Capacities in LAC



Basic Science Capacity
Applied (agricultural) science capacity
Biosafety regulatory institutions
– Legislation
– Experience in overseeing biosafety field trials

Research Investment capital
– Public sector
– Private sector

IPR institutions / financial incentives for
technology discovery
Perspective: Opportunities to
Support Biotechnology
Support for new mechanisms for mobilizing private sector R&D
investment
Endpoint royalties is one experiment
Improved institutions/mechanisms for Public-Public sharing of IP
Public sector has more difficulty sharing IP than private sectot
Continued support for biosafety capacity
Public sector agricultural research must not be reduced, even if
private sector investment increases – Distinct roles for each
class of institution
Large opportunities for payoffs from biotechnology research in
areas other than GMOs, but data on impacts to date lacking
– Molecular Techniques for Genetic Improvement
– Vaccines and Diagnostic Tools for Animal agriculture
– Advances in Basic Science
Gracias
Descargar

Using Seed Markets to Mobilize Research Funds