cultivar_22_Final_EN

20 ANALYSIS AND PROSPECTIVE STUDIES CULTIVAR Issue 22 APRIL 2021 The first path (efficient input use via more precise or careful application) depends above all on new infor- mation technologies (IT), including geographical information systems (GIS), sensors and remote sens- ing. The second path (replacement of inputs with ecological processes) is based on better knowledge of the way agroecosystems work. Both may also use biotechnologies to resolve problems of precision or replacement, respectively. Intensification of the ecological base (second path) depends on boosting the provision of resilient polli- nation services, biotic pest and disease control, soil fertility and other ecosystem services. It therefore depends on healthy and functioning ecosystems to support the reduction in the current dependence of food production on increas- ingly expensive energy-rich industrial inputs. Ecosystem protection does not stem from their intrinsic value but from the recognition of our dependence on them to ensure food production in a new era of more expensive energy, when it is necessary to boost environmental sus- tainability. Moreover, many of the new techniques discussed above already exist or are under development. What does not yet exist is an alternative technolog- ical model that can boost the rapid development of these techniques and interconnect, complement and synergise them. It is also important to note a relevant difference between the two strategic paths for transitioning to a new model as far as its scientific and technological development is concerned. Better knowledge of the way agroecosystems work (second path) is a public good, in the economic sense of the term. Once avail- able, this better knowledge can be used freely by any farmer to improve his/her production system and, as a result, it is difficult to remunerate adequately who- ever produced the knowledge for their R&D. Because it is knowledge, it is hard to patent, i.e. to restrict access in order to charge a price for its use. Thus, private investment in the technological R&D associ- ated with the second strategic path will necessarily be limited. On the other hand, higher input use efficiency via more precise application (first path) generally implies artefacts, equipment, software and seeds, such as drip irrigators, GM seeds, precision seeders and GIS software – i.e. private goods that are easier to patent and sell to recompense the technological R&D effort. The first path is therefore naturally more attractive for private R&D investment. This difference between the public and private nature of the final output of the tech R&D process explains the uneven level of development in various branches of agricul- tural science and technology when the essential investment in tech R&D is private. We also note that, surprisingly, public investment priorities in science often closely coincide with those of the private sec- tor and as a result, contrary to what might be expected, the desired complementarity (divi- sion of labour) between public and private in tech R&D financing fails to occur. This complementarity would imply that the state would primarily fund research that essentially creates pub- lic goods (e.g. knowledge on the working of agroe- cosystems) in which the private sector would not be interested. The private sector would focus, as today, on research that essentially produces patentable private goods (predominant in the first path of pre- cision use of inputs). Vanloqueren and Baret (2009) used exactly this logic of the lack of complementarity to explain the incipient development of agroecolog- ical innovation when compared with the advanced state of genetic engineering within the agricultural research system. The obvious answer is that due priority in research policy is missing from areas of research that essentially produce non-patentable knowledge, such as that relating to the working of agroecosystems. … the state would primarily fund research that essentially creates public goods (e.g. knowledge on the working of agroecosystems) in which the private sector would not be interested. The private sector would focus, as today, on research that essentially produces patentable private goods