1

Technology Transfer and the Seed Innovation System in India 

Mr. Bajrang Lal*

Presented in “EU‐US Early Research Conference on Research and Innovation Studies”, STeHPS Universiteit of Twente, The Netherlands During 1 ‐ 4th July, 

2008 under PRIME Network of Excellence 

ABSTRACT  Science, Technology and Innovation are critical to the development and economic

growth strategies of both developed and developing countries. Scientific and technological knowledge and information add value to existing resources, skill, knowledge and processes, leading to new products, processes and strategies. These innovative changes that are expected to lead improvement in socio-economic and environmental sustainability. Therefore, innovation became central to development economic theory.

Over the last few decades there has been substantial debate over the best way for science and technology to foster innovation in agriculture and its allied sectors. Current changes at institutional, technological, market and policy level in modern Indian seed sector makes it a suitable case for analysis through the lens of a sectoral system of innovation. Also, intuitively the seed sector quite naturally lends itself, as it appeared in other sectors like pharmaceutical, biotechnology and food processing, to be analyzed as a sectoral system of innovation. The study to be documented is first in the Indian seed sector, though, country like Canada have already applied this concept in the analysis of their seed sector.

The theoretical analysis suggested that it could be easily considered as a system or a network because innovative activities involve directly or indirectly a large variety of actors, including: diversity in seed firms, universities/R&D organizations, regulatory authorities and laws, financial institutions, and users. All these actors are different in their knowledge base, have different incentives and motivations, and different rules of action.

The study focuses on seed system of innovation and production as a set of new and established products for specific use and set of agents carrying out market and non-market interactions for the creation, production and marketing of the these varieties of generations and selections. The objective of the study is to create an enabling environment that encourages interaction and helps to put knowledge into socially and economically productive use in the seed sector. It presents a good case for theoretical development in advancement of knowledge in the area of seed innovation system.

• Author is a Ph.D. Student in Centre for Studies in Science Policy, Jawaharlal Nehru University, New Delhi 110067, Email bajrangb@gmail.com

2

1. INTRODUCTION 

India has one of the largest public National Agriculture Research System (NARS) in

the world. The country is also a biodiversity hotspot. India’s food, nutritional, livelihood and

socio-economic security depends largely upon agriculture and land resources. This situation

is not likely to change in the near future. However, the ability of the agriculture sector to

meet the changing demands of the growing population would require further technological

interventions in the sector. Of the various technological interventions seed is considered as

critical basic input for aiming sustained long term growth in agricultural production. The

availability of quality seed is necessary for attaining higher yield. Good quality seed acts as a

catalyst for realizing the potential of all other inputs in agriculture. Without good seed,

investment like fertilizer, water, pesticides and other input will not pay the desired dividends.

Scientifically speaking, seed is an “embryo”, a living organism embedded in supporting the

food storage tissue. An improved seed is a most dynamic instrument for increasing

agriculture production and also economical input. The fact that a genetically pure seed alone

could increase crop production by 20 percent and provide resistance against several menace

states the importance of this basic input in agriculture.

Since, the advent of technological change find their meaning in a particular socio-

economic context, it becomes imperative to identify the way technology interacts to changing

demands within an organization/firm as well as outside it and in turn is influenced by

regulatory and similar other system. Though, technology has different meaning to industry

and farmers, as far as the farmer is concerned, all the scientific innovation would have to be

of little value unless he gets seed, which are genetically pure (true to type) and posses other

desired qualities namely, high germination percentage and vigor, high purity, sound health

etc. When the farmers do not get seeds possessing these qualities the yield they obtain may

not be satisfactory. Only seed with assured quality can be expected to respond to fertilizers

and other inputs in a desired manner. Otherwise as has been aptly said, “What is known as

the seed of hope may turn into seed of frustration?”

However, seed firms – an important agent in the innovation system - major concern is

in making profit out of investment on technology development. In this regard, the role of

policy in catering to the interest of various stakeholders as well as facilitating the overall

growth of the sector becomes crucial.

The response of technology developer and users in sub sector (seed and food

processing) has changed over a period of time. Earlier there was little or no focus to study the

3

seed sector on the pretext that there was scarcity of big business units in agriculture.

Transnational corporations in other input sector like fertilizer, chemical pesticide, were

considered as only profit makers. As a result there was little interest to study the market and

technological behaviors of the firms in the agriculture sector. While, in recent past,

multinational firms, like Monsanto, Pioneer, Syngenta, and Indian multinationals like

MAHYCO, JK Seed Bio-seed etc. has started making several incremental innovations and

has adopted new market strategies. The literature developed to capture this changing trend of

the evolution of new strategies in the Indian seed market is useful in this respect. Similarly, in

the case of research institutions the initial period was characterized by very weak linkages of

research establishments with other actors in the system. However, recently this trend has

changed although not impressively.

Against this background the starting point of the study will be the theoretical stands

emerging from the existing seed sector literature/case studies/media/research reports. If the

seed sector is characterized by techno-historical path, specific knowledge base, production

processes, regulations, complementarities and demand by seed firms then it raises following

concerns: does the sectoral approach open out the production function of seed? Innovation

systemic perspective emerged from both theoretical and empirical investigation of seed sector

that differs in various dimensions and network of linkages with other related

sectors/institutions. The technical and non technical dimensions of the seed sector in India

during last 20 years may require integrated approaches and methods both from an

interdisciplinary perspective as well from various interactions of players, such as industry,

R&D scientists, and farmers. Approaches are needed to respond adequately to the

opportunities and challenges offered by transformation processes. Also, set of tools, which

may not only strengthen knowledge production system and ensure linkages in various actors,

but also offer competitiveness to the Indian and other developing countries seed market, is

required in this context. In conclusion the study would suggest approaches and mechanisms

in which various agents interacts and influences the competiveness of seed sector.

4

2. CONCEPTUAL UNDERSTANDING OF AGRICULTURE AND THE SEED INNOVATION SYSTEM  

Agricultural development depends to a great extent on how successful knowledge is

generated and applied. Investment in knowledge, especially in the form of science and

technology has featured prominently and consistently in most strategies to promote

sustainable and equitable agricultural development at national level. Although many of these

investments have been quite successful (development of technology in food crops varieties,

milk, oilseed etc), (World Bank, 2006), the context for agriculture is changing rapidly in the

processes of knowledge management. It is increasingly recognized that value of traditional

agricultural science and technology investment such as research and extension, although

necessary, but is not adequate to enable agricultural innovation. Moreover, the changing

needs and demands of end users i.e. farming community and other customers are not entirely

met by technology generated under existing national agricultural research system

(Swaminathan, 2004).

Consequently, agricultural research system has witnessed substantial debate over the

best way to develop and manage science & technology for innovation. Therefore, the

scientific innovation in agriculture has been seen as the inter-connections between various

actors working in a complex system. Various schools of thought emerged for innovation

management in agricultural research and production system. Broadly two distinct views may

be outlined.

The first school of thought argues that the scientific research is the main driver of

innovation, creating new knowledge and technology that can be transferred and adopted to

different situations. This view is usually described as the linear model or “transfer of

technology” model that is very fit in agricultural development (Biggs, 1989). But the proper

attentions were not paid by “know-how” of local preferences. On the other hand, researchers

are subscribing to the second view, while not denying the importance of research and

technology transfer recognizes innovation as an interactive process. Innovation involves the

interactions of individuals and organizations processing different types of knowledge within a

particular social, political, policy, economic and institutional policy environment. The

second school of thought thus, increasingly discussed in terms of the “innovation system”

5

(Freeman, 1987; Nelson, 1992; Lundvall, 1992; Lundvall, 1993; Carlsson, 1995, Edquist,

1997).

Therefore, the innovation system is creating the evolutionary dynamics that often

create the new institutional forms that allow the creation and exploitation of new knowledge

and technologies. This process of institutional learning is the central feature of successful

innovation systems. Hence, the analysis of innovation system is more inclusive than the

narrower notion of research system. Then emerging framework of innovation system concept

thus seems viable option. There has been very little work applying this concept in agriculture

but there is an important sense in which it implicitly underlies recent debates. First is

regarding “technology”. Proposition amongst development analyst to regard technology as

resulting mainly to industry and by implication almost has little to do with agriculture.

Nothing could be further from truth. Technology, certainly in the sense used by economist1 is

a key factor in important problem associated with poverty and sustainability in the third

world agricultural development (World Development Report, 2007). But technological factor

is also important in agriculture as it’s important in industry (Chambers et.al, 1989; World

Bank, 2007). It is nevertheless true that it’s impinges in rather different way. Biggs and Clay,

1981 noted that in the early 1980s, agricultural production was inherently more unstable and

location specific than in case of industry and that is true, because it take place within the

context of natural (biological) system that continuously evolve over period of time and

space2. It is said that knowledge of agricultural technology primarily resides with farmers and

in their field. The management of technology at farming sector is something different from

other sectors. However, in changing perspective of market dynamic, management of

technological factor has also become an important component in agricultural sector. Second,

difference relates to the failure of market to allocate technological resources optimally in case

of agriculture. Unless the state intervenes, there will be under investment and everyone will

suffer. Thus, the small and marginal farmers have often a considerable fund of tacit

knowledge about the local environment but they have no position and money to invest in

formal R&D to improve production possibilities. For this reason, the investment of R&D

resources designed to upgrade the technological level of agriculture has traditionally been

seen as the business of public sector, research being conducted in centralized institutes and its 1 Technology mean by which resources are transformed into commodities that have value. 2 Note, there is no guarantee that a technology package that works in specific location in year one will be equally successful 200 meters down the road in that year. Hence, the term of the production and dissemination of usable knowledge, it is on the whole much more difficult to develop generic technology with universal applicability than is the case with industry. That is not to say that industrial technology is completely invariant across different contexts.

6

end result supposed to pass to the farmers by the means of network of extension/technology

transfer agencies. The major difference in developed and developing countries is high rate of

investment, extensive network of institutions and finally awareness of market and

technological knowledge among the farmers in the developed economies.

Clark, 2002 provided an understanding of the dynamic potential of innovation

systems in developing countries with the special focus on issue of agricultural poverty. He

suggests that in developing countries like Africa, India and China, there is a clear need for

institutional reform to accompany relevant technological change. Study by Hall, 2005 would

appear that innovation concept approach can integrate the issue of poverty and environment

into sector development planning by altering the role, and intonations of actors to develop

new patterns of alliance, governances and engage in new sectoral business model.

The concept needs to be further advanced in the sectoral system which provides the

multidimensional, integrated and dynamic view of sector. It is proposed that a sectoral

system of innovation and production is a set of new and established products for specific use

and set of agents carrying out market and non-market interactions for the creation, production

and marketing of the those variety generation and selection. Further, it may results in better

understanding about sectoral structure and boundaries, the agents and their interactions,

innovation and product processes, the transformation of sectors and the factors at the base of

the differential performances of firms (Utterback, 1994; Malerba-Orsengio, 1996; Malerba,

2000, 2002). At firm level, the development in new knowledge learning processes, which

flow from internal (from one domestic institution firm to other) as well as from external

sources (multinational to domestic firms) creates a kind of competitive environment. The

learning process may be seen in seed sectoral structure with the emergence of partnership

between transnational seed companies or firms with the Indian firms in technology

generation, transfer and marketing of their products (Mahadevappa, M., 2005).

In order to be aware of these dynamics of technology knowledge transfer related

strategies in sector by various agents (firms, institutions), we may require composite

intertwined system with regional, national and international level of integration of innovating

activities (Hozt-Harz, 2000). The international strategic S&T collaboration and relations

opening out the issues concerning how various spatial dimensions of innovation could

interact or could be combined for their strategic global business management(Hotz-

Hart,2000; Bunnel and Coe, 2001; Bathelt and Depher, 2003;) also including sector

specialties (Malerba, 2002) becomes important. The S&T collaboration with more than 50

countries includes collaboration in the area of seed as well. This shows that the sectoral

7

systems of innovation though work within the national framework but is also influenced by

factors beyond the national boundaries or system.

However, much of the initiative stimulating these developments has come from both

public as well as private organizations, which needs to be analyzed. There are certain

limitations to the extent despite that the innovation system approach would contribute to

build innovative capabilities. Partially, this related to gap in demand-supply of seed, narrow

research focus, and linkage among various actors (public-private institutes and regulations),

which helped to recognize the institutional learning and generation of institutional

innovations to address these problems that are noticeable in the Indian seed sector.

The data on Seed Replacement Rate (SRR) and Seed Multiplication Rate (SMR)

revealed that for almost all major crops the SRR is not at all close to the recommended.

Ideally computed seed replacement of cross-pollinated crops of 30-33.3 percent or 20 percent

for self-pollinated crops have been adequate. Obviously in case of hybrid the SRR is 100

percent as beyond F1 generation there is loss in vigor and quality traits. The low SRR implies

that farmers use crop produce as a seed. This has resulted in low demand for quality seed and

hence an unsold stock of some seeds was observed as the major reason for low replacement.

Also farmers are generally not aware of the correct package of practices and replacement

schedule of seed (Telay et al, 1999). Most of the farmers either used seed for sowing meant

for consumption or obtained from their fellow farmer (Banerjee 1994). Thus, farmers are

aware about hybrid seed but do not have the proper accesses of technology knowledge,

know-how and know-where and also about replacement schedule. A case study of

agriculturally most developed state of Punjab (Sidhu, 1996; Sidhu, 1999), and Haryana

(Chauhan, Rai and Chamya, 2002) indicated that most of seed used for sowing are self-

produced. The low seed replacement rate due to lack of awareness and farmer’s linkage with

R&D institutions among the farmers therefore requires proper mechanism to transfer

knowledge form R&D to farmers. State policy implementation efforts are also needed to

strengthen proper technology transfer. Even so, the farmers also complained that the

companies are not in favor of their demand for neglected crop/orphan crop seeds. Also the

issue of spurious and fake seed and high price at time of pick season were major issues of

concern among the farming community.

Other similar studies showed that most of companies were involved in low volume

and high value crops3 in order to maximize their profit (Seed Association of India, 2006).

3 Crops like cereals, millets and pulses are consider as low value and high volume crop whereas, crops like horticulture fruit, vegetable, cotton spices are consider as high value and low volume crops.

8

These findings showed that the companies are deviating their research & development

resources away from food crops to other high value commercial crops, where the economic

pay off is more. A study by the Bayer Crop Science internal estimate argued that top ten seed

companies holding increased from 70 to 90 % of private seed market in a decade time

(Gridhar, M., 2006). It shows the concentration of private seed market is rapidly growing in

India. This argument led that the untapped market has potential for the private sector.

Emergence of multinationals, internationalization of R&D, and protection regimes are

inducing processes of merger and acquisition (M&A) in the sector. The new pattern of

division of labour, collaboration among firms and other institutional actors like universities

and public research centre, testing laboratories and extension centre are creating opportunities

for multinational. These basic characteristics of system mentioned in the above literature

exhibit specific feature for an economic dynamic analysis, mainly; technical basis of

production that strongly depends on agro-climatic conditions which tend to learning of

technological change4. Learning processes, and transformation of sector and factors at the

base of the differential performance of firms, within national agricultural innovation system

may require to compensate or enhance natural resources use, technological, market

differences and minimize them since these advantage can also be enhanced and improved by

knowledge learning and building interaction among various actors.

4 Both space and time dimension are involved here as natural advantages of location benefit firms or producers undertaking cultivation and the biological cycle that prevails in agriculture and within some limits are responsible for a usually long production period.

9

3.  SEED INNOVATION SYSTEM IN INDIA  

Since, national agricultural innovation and production has close links with scientific

research this is a useful analytic starting point. A traditional way oftenly used in setting out

the general conceptual issue is to think in terms of a division of labour between “knowledge

search and knowledge use”. In India the ICAR and state funded research institution carry out

pure seed research according to cannon of objectivity determined by the cognitive authority

of peer review. The net effect of all theses initiative has been to blur the distinction between

knowledge search and knowledge use and hence to make the notion of knowledge pipeline

increasingly untenable. Instead attention is now placed on more multifaceted idea like market

and non-market concerns, which is defined as the “network of economic agents together with

the institutions and policies that influences their innovative behavior and performances”5 on

how such a system should be organized to improve the dynamics of seed and other allied

sector. Consequently, it seems that agricultural production system comprises of various

sectors which may have interdependences with each other through backward and forward

linkages. To understand these sectoral dynamics, the theoretical review of seed offers some

widespread points, which is sustained by the Pavitt taxonomy (1984) on sectoral innovation.

His argument on sectoral specific taxonomy (specialized suppliers, science based,

scale intensives and suppliers dominated) is a good starting point to account of sector specific

features of the dynamics of competition within any industry. Under his classification

agriculture is considered as a supplier dominated sector6. Only supplier dominated features as

an approach focusing on innovation and competition would be misplaced in this regard.

However, as mentioned earlier, sector specific characteristics are not only acknowledged in

this approach but they provide the very basis. Agriculture should not be claimed as different

from other industrial sector justify a whole economic analysis or even a theory, for its own

use. But this is not to say that to analyze this sector as a supplier dominated one is enough.

5 See, Lundvall(1992) and Edquist (1999) for detailed discussion of this concept. There is actually a burgeoning literature on the topic but these two sources provide a comprehensive review. 6Like many industrial sectors under this heading most of market exhibits a very low degree of market concentration, absence of oligopolistic structure, product homogeneity and high level of price concentration; low rate of technological change and limited capacity of innovating by its own mean, with insignificant R&D expenditures. Innovations technical changes in agriculture are almost entirely due to supplier industries, both equipment manufacturing and input suppliers (fertilizer, seeds and pesticides). In addition the remarkable presence of polices and pubic institutions providing research fund and carrying out research activities cannot be overlooked ( Passes,et al ,1996).

10

Last but not the least, diversity being a very important issue in the sector is important to

understand its competitive dynamics from the theoretical point.

To understand sectoral specialties the dynamisms of sector, the fundamental wide-

ranging circumstances observed in seed, may be needed to analyse the relationship opening

out among various actors carrying out market and non-market interactions. The agents

comprising the sectoral system are organizations (firms and non-firms) individuals, which are

characterized by specialized learning processes competence for the competitiveness. These

interactions are shaped by institutions (rule and regulation), over time, it may provide the

insights on undergone processes of change and transformation, which is expected to provide

future directions to sectoral dynamics of competitiveness.

3.1. Innovation System Approach

The innovation system is an interactive process among various actors and agents. It

has stressed the points that firm do not innovate in isolation, so that innovation could be seen

as a collective and interactive process for knowledge learning for technologies and process

(Matcalfe, 1998; Dosi, 1997). In the innovation process firms interacts with other firms as

well as with non-firms organization such as universities, research centres, government

agencies financial institutions and so on. The interaction is shaped by institutions, (Nelson,

1992; Lundvall, 1993; Cowan, et al, 2000; Carlsson, 1995; Edquist, 1997). The strong

national innovation has been developed over the year in India to promote and support the

technological capabilities for the growth and competitiveness of seed businesses and industry.

3.1.1 Seed Science Technology infrastructure

The reviews of the literature on the Indian seed industry suggest its heterogeneous

nature. It has many dimensions. The product segment corresponds to all the major field crops,

horticulture and vegetable and plantation crop. The current structural infrastructure and

interaction of the seed industry for major players is shown in (Annex-1). The arrow indicates

the movement of technology, germplasm and seed among the organizations and Institutes of

Indian Council of Agriculture Research (ICAR), State Agricultural Universities, private firms

and the International Agricultural Research Centre and Non-Governmental Organization

(NGO) conducting plant-breeding research and production of all three types of seed - breeder,

foundation and certified seed (Figure-1 and Table-1). The seed transfers through the

marketing and distribution network in the both public and private sector. The public sector

National Seed Corporation (NSC) and State Seed Corporation (SSC) distribute seed through

their own seed outlets, co-operatives. The private companies have their own system of

marketing consisting of dealers/dealer shops, sale and marketing officer at regional, district

11

and local level in country. Various study on the seed sector again raise issues that such a huge

system yet not efficient to supply quality seed at right quantity, time and cost to the user and

farming community. That can justify by the low seed multiplication and replacement rate in

except few commercial crop in country (See Annex-2).

Table- 1 Agriculture Science Technology Infrastructure in India

S.no. Research and education Institute and technology transfer agencies/ ATMA/KVK

No Activities undertaken

A Research and Development 1 Sate Agricultural Universities 42 All 2 Research institutes 47 Region specific (crop, animal fish

water soil) 3 National Research Centre (NRC) 26 Various crops horticulture commercial

policy fish, poultry, water, soil etc 4 National bureau 5 (Plant, animal, fish, soil and micro-

organism) 5 Project directorates 10 Crops water animal poultry etc. 6 International Linkage 16 CGIAR, FAO WTO, etc B Transfer agencies 1 ATMA 2 Agriculture extension KVKs 547 3 State Agriculture Department 28 - 4 Private Seed Companies

>400Large, medium, small and others

C. Seed Production/Distribution/Marketing

1 National seed corporation 1 Apex public sectoral central agencies 2 State Seed Corporation 13 Region specific 3. State Seed farm Corporation 2 4 Seed Companies 400 D. Regulatory agencies 1 PPV & FR authority 1 At national level 2 Plant quarantine 1 With regional office E Marketing policy regulation body 0 Absent F Centralized authority 0 Absent

Source various reports, 2005-06, 2006-07

3.1.2 Investments

The stagnation of the 1980s, which continued into early 1990s, was essentially due to

decline in public sector gross capital formation. Taking a cursory look at the prevailing

12

agriculture research system in India 90 percent of the agricultural research in India is publicly

supported. Yet, research investments account for barely 0.5 per cent of agricultural GDP. The

outlays allocation of expenditure indicated declining trend in research and education and an

increase in the share of extension (Table-2). The central component of the public R&D

system is the Indian Council of Agricultural Research accounts for more than 40 per cent of

the financial and around one-fifth of the manpower resources of the national agricultural

research systems (NARS). Though, the private investment is trying to compensate for the

relative decline in state-sponsored investment the nascent private sector accounted barely 10-

15 percent in seed research. After the reform period, the investment of private investment

increased both in number and volume. The number of firms conducting research increased

from 17 to 38 (Pray and Ramaswami, 2001). The private sector companies in India started

looking India as a strategic location for technology development, and managing flourishing

business in Asia subcontinent and against it very few Indian seed companies are able to

expand their business in other country at technology and marketing level. It would be

important to analyse how much of that increase is because of reforms? Economy theory

suggests that, in addition to policy changes major factor influencing firm’s research

investment decisions are expected sales of the product of R&D, the ability to capture the

benefit of research through Intellectual property rights or new innovative technical mean and

the expected cost of research. To identify the relative importance of the reform in increasing

research it is necessary to examine the pattern of deployment of institutional impact.

Table-2 Plan outlay of ICAR Plan Total

outlay Shares in total expenditure, %

Rs. in crore

Research Education Extension Others

V (1974-79) 153.6 60.7 43.2 4.6 0.1 VI (1980-85) 340.0 73.4 21.7 4.4 0.4 VII (1985-90) 425.0 74.6 16.7 7.5 1.2 VIII (1992-97) 1300.0 73.2 11.9 12.6 2.6 IX (1992-02) 2748.3 73.3 10.5 10.8 5.4 X (2002-07) 5368.0 57.2 16.4 19.6 6.8

Soure Jha etal1995,ICAR budget books and DARE and ICAR(2001) tenth Five year Plan (2002-2007) including Annual plan(2003-04)

3.1.3 Human Resources

The ICAR has articulated a normative ratio of 1:2:5 between principle scientist, senior

scientist and scientists. The census data from 2001-02 shows a deceleration in recruitment of

young scientists (1.0:3.1: 3.4), (ICAR, 2005). This is obvious and important; that the full

13

exploitation of resources similarly requires considerable size of expenditure, supportive

policy to private participation and scientific knowledge base.

In India plant-breeding training under public sector, the technical human resources

produced by these institutes absorbed in public as well as in private breeding programs. The

human resources developed in agriculture are around 11565 and 8650 Graduate and

postgraduate produced by agricultural universities in various disciplines of agriculture

(www.indiastat.nic/agri/data). Out of which only 1 percent candidate opted plant breeding at

master level, this number is less as compared with other nation.

Though, Agricultural universities are offering master PhD programme in plant

breeding in India. Consequently, most of these state agriculture universities (SAU) run by

state funding with partially assisted by central government. The decline trend in HR capacity

building may be due to the lack of research fund, infrastructure, and lack of employment

opportunities in academic research.

The number of research personnel’s in private sector increased substantially. This can

be seen as a new trend emerging in private resources capability building. The study suggested

that research scientist/researcher with PhDs went up from 31 to 111. The number with

M.Sc.’s increased from 45 to 140 and similar trend observed in research area in private sector

(Pray and Ramaswamy, 2001).

3.1.4 Supportive Infrastructure – Marketing and Distribution Networks

The public sector consists of the National Seed Corporation (NSC), the State Farm

Seed Corporation of India (SFSCI), and 13 State Seed Corporations and with supported by

107 seed testing facilities. The private seed sector consists of more then 200 seed companies.

Theses seed companies are classified in large, medium, small/unorganized local players on

the sale turn over (Table-3).

Table -3: Size of Private Seed Sector in India

S.No No of Companies Size of companies Sales turn over (in million Rs)

1 40 Large >200 2 Small number Medium 200 3 Large number Local player and

unorganized <20

Sources: Seed Industry in AP- A profile, 2004

This classification is again not homogenously accepted other studies divided in

private seed sector in multinational, domestic and small seed companies (Singh, 2006;

Gadwall, 2003). Interestingly, one can observes that the share of multinational companies as

14

seed market is growing in compared with public seed sector. Thus, it is argued that the

companies both multinational and domestic corporations multiply and market varieties bred

by their own in-house R&D and the public sector institutions. But against it, argued that

global private player developing new innovative varieties in various agricultural important

crops in various global locations.

3.1.5 Seed Market Potentials

The analysis of the size of the global seed market is estimated to be US $ 28,376

million in 2007. The largest commercial market is USA (US $ 7000 million) followed by

China (US $ 4500 million) Japan (US $ 2500 million) and India (US $ 1300 Million) is

ranked seventh in commercial seed market (World Seed Trade Statistics, 2007) and (Table-

4). Against total seed business of world, the world seed export market estimated US $ 4904

Million; out of which USA is highest exporter (US$ 922 Million). The US share in world

seed export market is 19 percent and followed by Netherlands, France, Germany and the

Indian seed export market (US $ 16 million) is ranked 30th in year 2005. The import of

world seed market shows similar trend: USA tops the list with ( US $ 506 Million) followed

by Mexico (US $372 million ),France (US $332 Million), Netherlands( US $ 329 million)

and India is ranked 36th (US $ 26 million). Even in India, the overall import-export market is

merely 0.5 percent of world seed trade and 4.5 percent in domestic market7 (World Seed

Trade Statistics, 2007).

7 The data presented here are estimates prepared by the ISF Secretariat based on internal surveys, documents obtained from the UN, WTO, APSA, GNIS, Rabobank, Per-capita and elsewhere, and information collected at congresses and trips to various countries.

15

Table -4 Growth of International Seed Market

16

Source: - International Seed federation/www.worldseed.org/2008

The share of private to public sector participation in the Indian seed industry has gone

up around 60: 40 by volume of turnover (Table -5). The increasing share of domestic seed

market and flow of multinational in agro-biotech seed sector in India constitute global good

seed sector. Presently, the top world seed companies investing and managing their business

in India, which is globally and nationally dominated by big trans-national companies (TNC),

it also has seen an upsurge of smaller companies and other big companies eyeing this sector

(Table-6 and 7 ). Moreover, owing to rapid emergence of techniques and tools in the field of

biotechnology the organization which will overcome the lag (Cantwell, 1989, 1992), between

17

the wage increase following productivity increases, by adopting faster rate if innovation, will

create a niche for themselves in the market. Therefore, it is necessary to define the

technology strategies that will drive innovation. It may argue that the cheap resources,

adaptability of Indian germplam in Asian and African continents genetic resources,

geographical location of breeder seed production, large segment of market availability or may

be stagnation/saturation in other European seed market attracted MNC’s in Indian seed

market.

Table-5: Indian seed markets

Market size Rs (million) Sector

1994 % 1998 % 2000 % 2004 %

Value of seed in exports

Public sector

4,000 40 5,200 27 5,500 25 NA 21* -

Private sector (organized)

3,500 35 11,170 55 13,200 60 NA 60*

Unorganized

2,500 25 3.500 18 3,300 15 NA 15* -

Total 10,000 - 20,190 - 22,000 - 39,000*

1000*

Sources: Kapoor, Arvind. Private Sector role vital, The Hindu Survey of Agriculture (1999).

* Agriculture Today, Industry source, 2004. NA – not available

18

Table -6:- Indian Seed Companies Concentration

Company Holding structure Turn over Focus areas

Mahyco Monsanto –26% 1000 All crops

HLL Unilever –50% 00 All crops

Proagro Aventis 600 All crops

Ankur - 400 Cotton, Veg.

Namdhari seeds - 500 Veg.

Advanta Adventa &ITC(50%each)

380 Sunflower, cotton, millet

Syngenta Synegenta 350 Sunflower, cotton, veg.

Indo-American Family 300 Veg.

Mahindra Hicks Muse Tate&Furst 300 Millets, Cotton

Spic PHI POC-100% 250 Corn, sunflower

Cargill Mansanto-100% 200 Sunflower, cotton

EID Parry Family, mansanto-51% 10 Corn sunflower

Nath Nath Group - Cotton, millets, corn

Total 9000 -

Source- Seed Industry, Manage, 2005

Table 7: Top Ten Seed Companies India S.No Seed companies Seed sale (US)

million s, 2004 Seed sale (US) million s, 1998

1 Monsanto (USA) 2,803 1,800 2 Dupont (USA) 2,600 1,835 3 Syngenta (Novartis)(SWD) 1,239 1,000 4 Groupe Limagrain(France) 1,044 733 5 KWs AG (Germany) 622 370 6 Land O’ lakes (USA) 538 370 7 Sakata (Japan) 416 349 8 Bayer crop science (Germany) 387 - 9 Taikii(Japan) 366 300 10 DLF Trifolium (Denmak) 320 -

Sources: Global seed concentration-2005- ETC and www.PANNA.org/resources

3.1.6 Policy

19

Despite the fact that, the economic liberalization may open up new opportunities as

well as challenges it is important that scientific innovation in “genetic engineering

technologies” is aligned with field crop seed product demands and increasing with other crop

inputs and rapidly entering in new value added agri-business supply chain. These techniques

hold enormous promise in developing crop varieties with higher level of tolerance to biotic

and abiotic stresses. Therefore the aims of new seed policy are …. “Provision of create an

appropriate climate for Indian seed industry to utilize available and perspective opportunities,

safeguarding of the interest of Indian farmers and conservation of agro-biodiversity. While

necessary regulation needs to be dismantled, it must be ensured that gullible farmers are not

exploited by unscrupulous elements. A regulatory system of new genre is, therefore, needed,

which will encompass quality assurance mechanism coupled with facilitation of vibrant and

responsible seed industry….”New Seed Policy’s (2002). Though, these relevant policy

reforms expected to provides the opportunity to the private sector to fill the gap.

Henceforward, it grew rapidly in the last decade and made its reputation in the farmer

community in various regions of country and the same time companies are complaining

against prejudiced policy reform for land acquisition and carry over seed8 etc. Whilst, the

interaction among various players for technologies development, transfer and seed

distribution yet not seem to be faceable to firms as well as farmers.

Innovation system approach should be considered as an interactive process among a

wide variety of actors - technology developer, suppliers and users. Innovation could be seen

as a collective process which guide systematic understanding of the nature of technological

change and corresponding trajectories how could go ahead the vibrant and competitive seed

sector in India.

3.2 Technological Change and Transformation

The nature of technological change (corresponding trajectories) and trends,

transformation evolves over a period of time in a phase manner in sectors. The argument

supported by industrial life cycle (Utterback, 1994; Klepper, 1996; Malerba and Orsenigo,

1996). The continuous development of key resources in seed (germplam and enabling

technologies) and emergences of new laws of regulation and shift chemical based R&D to

life science based technology. It may show the transformation phase and also promotes

viability of private seed sector.

8 The certified seed left unsold in the companies in growing season.

20

The advent of “technological changes” and transformation are influencing the seed

industry structure and functions. Until few decades ago, the modern seed industry was based

on farmer’s varieties, conventional varieties9, hybrid varieties10 or other varieties. The

varieties are developed and released by government of India are given in last fifty years

(Table-8).

Table-8: Number of Varieties/Hybrids Developed and Released for Cultivation in

India

S.No. Crops No of Varieties released Before 2000-04 1 All cereals/millets 1254 2 Pulses 466 3 Oil seed 400 4 Food Crops 92 5 Fiber Crops 216 6 Other Crops 20 Total 2442 7 Vegetables 372 Total 2814 8 Total from 2000-04 515 9 Total 3429

Source: Ministry of Agriculture, 2006 GOI India

In recent past the new technologies led “Round-Up” or GM technologies and “elite

germplasms” innovations (narrow and large) transform the seed sectors structure and

functioning (Joly and Ducos, 1993). Therefore, the advance applications of plant breeding

research, the research institutions/firms are rapidly shifting their R&D activities and business

from chemical to hybrid to transgenic varieties. Though, they also have organizational and

culture differences in their strategic management behavior in acquiring new technologies,

exploiting natural resources management of advancement of genomic based technology11.

9 “variety” means a plant grouping except micro organism within a single botanical taxon of the lowest known rank, which can be - (i) defined by the expression of the characteristics resulting from a given genotype of that plant grouping; (ii) distinguished from any other plant grouping by expression of at least one of the said characteristics; and (iii) considered as a unit with regard to its suitability for being propagated, which remains unchanged after such propagation, and includes propagating material of such variety, extant variety, transgenic variety, farmers’ variety and essentially derived variety. (PPV&FR Act, 2001) 10 The hybrid variety is developed by the crossing of desirable character. 11 The large well-known companies also involved in combined business of pesticides/fertilizer and seed in international markets. The long-term deleterious effect of chemical/fertilizer on land and natural resources raise the issue health, other, and change consumers demand at global market. While, chemical based establishment transform their preexisting strategies towards life science based research and development activities i.e. or technology provider, technology solution providers at global long-term business strategies. While the hybrid seeds will continue as the core product of the postmodern seed industry, the focus is rapidly shifting from chemical to hybrid to biotechnology and transgenic varieties, which off course can also be hybrids.

21

These changes have taken place throughout the world and the Indian seed sector is also

getting influenced by these changes.

The re-examination of the seed industry with regulatory framework including other

factors mentioned above. But the deep-seated issue that needs to be addressed here is that

even if public-private partnership could be developed, will the resulting technologies ever get

to the marginal farmers? Private investment in plant breeding has a propensity to focus

moreover on selected crops that favour particular technological trajectories (e.g. dwarfs,

chemical responsive, resistance against diseases/pests and yield as opposed to quality). This

often reinforced by marketing decision and scale of economics which could promote a

portfolio of marginally differentiated varieties that map across a narrow set of characteristics

(Rangnekar, 2004). These transformations are paying attention on dry land farming and

neglected crops? There is may no assertion that the new biotechnological trends will fare any

better. The investment on technology will worthwhile, if the current dilemma which many

developing countries including India and African are facing that delivering conventional and

modern technologies to subsistence farmers can be reversed. And how much responsibility

should rest on the public sector for future technology development? What kinds of role can

the private sector playing in this respect? How far seed sector relied upon these changes to

meet the urgent productivity challenges? Yet, the different actor public and private seed

sector has difference focus on crop, is not essentially on these neglected crops. To accelerate

growth in seed technology one has to look into the inherent nature of technological change in

system and various internal and external barriers. The analysis of technology knowledge

generator and users and their interaction could provide the sustainable inclusive growth in

agriculture seed sector.

3.3 Strategic behavior of different agents –

The strategic behavior of different agent and response of seed unit to the market

signals and perspective opportunities are defined by the technological change. The new

competitive pattern and competitive strategies are emerging from the other firms/institutions.

In other word, Oosterwijk (2003) claim that such a combination would be appropriate. He

concluded in his research on telecommunication, agriculture/chemistry in Holland. His study

claim that the additions of a sectoral perspective to NIS approach gives a more precise and

deeper understanding of mechanism that constitutes an innovation in any given country. The

Joint, public-private tendencies have implied a sharp increase in the resources needed to

develop new seed. Equally important, this has led to redefinition of the nature and

22

complementarities between the fundamental sources of competitive advantages in seed

industry, namely R&D, innovative competencies, marketing and distribution capabilities.

The private seed sector make substantial investment in seed strategic research and

development while, the main focuses of private firm on the marketing of seed. A study

reported that the 38 seed firms which are all large private firms were actively involved in

R&D activities, which account only less than 1 percent of total R&D in development

activities in 1987 (Pray, Ramaswami and Kelley., 2001). The companies are investing more

R&D on vegetables and commercial crops then cereals, pulses and small millets with the high

expectation of return on innovation.

In vegetable, a study conducted by the South East and South Asia (AVRDC) has

highlighted that in recent past, out of total companies in South Asia region around 32 percent

of the seed companies have established research and development (R&D) budget below 5

percent of their total budget. The 55 percent seed companies are in range of 5 to 20 percent

and only one company has a budget above 20 percent. The allotted budget is mostly confined

to developing new varieties and hybrids for local and international vegetables market.

The data on sector wise distribution of patents in India showed that 3817 patents

granted in India given (Table-9). The highest number in drug pharmaceutical followed

computer, electronic design whereas the patent granted in seed sector or plant protestant (59)

and plant variety projection number is only 68. The most distinctive aspect is the share of

universities and research institutions which is less than two per cent. The patent granted to

foreign companies in India showed emerging partnership among different actors of Indians

and foreign inventors’ firm (Table -10).Over the period, partnership between Indian and

foreign inventors has gone up significantly. Other important component Foreign R&D Centre

concentration in India again increased significantly across the sector (Agarwal and Bajrang

Lal, 2008). Though some industry expert argued that some weird reasons, The firm find lack

of clarity in convention country regulation so that foreign firm hesitate to file application

plant protection authority of India (PPV&FR, 2003). In situation the Indians and foreign firm

have not cooperate much in filing patents except in collaboration with Indians. There is a

need to strengthen the partnership between Indians in India and abroad.

23

Table -9 Sectoral category-wise distribution of patents granted to Indians at USPTO

1976 – September 24, 2006

S.No. CATEGORY PATENT 1. Drugs, herbal health formulations and nutriceuticals: cancer, anti-

inflammatory, cosmetic (skin, personal and hair care), antimicrobial, antibiotic, cardiac, neurological, reproductive, etc.

677

2. Computer: software, data processing, debugging, integrated circuits, visualization, graphics, printer, semiconductor, memory, hardware, image analysis, etc.

522

3. Organic chemistry and compound 480 4. Data Processing: Structural design, measuring, software, artificial

intelligence, speech, design, management, etc. 360

5. Electrical: switch, circuit, chemistry, connectors, heating, measuring and testing lamp, modeling, power management, transmission, x-ray tubes, etc.

259

6. Synthetic and natural resin: polymer, adhesives, leather, tyres, etc. 167 7. Molecular biology, biochemistry, biotechnology, molecular chemistry 125 8. Communications: telecommunications, radio, television, multiplex

communications, internet, pulse and digital communications, optical, etc. 171

9. Minerals & Hydrocarbon: chemistry, fuels, petroleum, gas separation, lubricant, LPG, mineral oils, etc.

80

10. Electronics: Measuring, Circuit, Digital Thermostat, Documents, Switches, Magnet, Cooling device, Amplifiers, Thermoelectric batteries, Fuse

89

11. Plants: variety, tissue culture, sexual reproduction, breeding, hybrid, genetic engineering, etc.

68

12. Coating composition: paints, bleaching and dye, etc. 60 13. Agrochemicals and fertilizers: plant protectant, bio-fertiliser, fertilizer, herbal

plant protectants, etc. 59

14. Cleaning composition: detergent, bar, washing material, etc. 54 15. Design: Drug, Ornamental, Vehicles, Jewelry, Stones, etc. 61 16. Catalyst 43 17. Inorganic chemistry and compounds 49 18. Automobiles & Engines: tractors, brakes, clutches, tools, etc. 45 19. Others: Metallurgy & Alloys, Surgery and medical equipments, food

products, heat generation, refrigeration, air coolant, analytical processes and chemistry, fluid dynamics, civil engineering, stock materials, liquid purification, kitchen utensils, magnetic compositions, glass, paper, plastic, nuclear, fabrics, textiles, etc.

448

20. Total 3817 Source: Anil K Gupta, Vikas S Chandak and Manish Anand 2006, Do Patents Matter: Review of Indian filings in US and in India and linking macro with micro level understanding of innovation system in India 1

1 Paper prepared for presentation at the Management Development Programme for “Harnessing Intellectual Property for Strategic Competitive Advantage” 26 – 28 September, 2006 at KLMDC, IIM-Ahmedabad. The paper is written in first person by the first author for stylistic convenience though the work has been done collectively.

24

Table-10 Distribution of Patents Granted to Resident indians at USPTO from 1976- sep. 24, 2006

Sr. no.

Agencies Patents Granted

(%)

1 Foreign private Agencies & Organizations 1701 45.292 Council for Scientific and Industrial Research 868 23.113 Other Public sector Companies, Labs. And Govt. Dept 170 4.534 Private sector Companies and Labs. 515 13.715 Individuals 276 7.356 Foreign Universities 102 2.727 Indian Universities and Institutions 69 1.848 Foreign State institutions 50 1.339 NGO 5 0.13 3756

Sources Ibid

The private seed companies had to redesign their competencies and strategies in

changing market structure. In particular, the rising costs and the new logic of R&D and

technology have induced processes of Mergers-Acquisitions (M&A), increasing

concentration internationalization of the R&D in seed industry (Mahadevappa, M., 2005)12.

At the same time, new patterns of R&D, collaboration among firms are emerging i.e. Public-

private research centers in universities primacies, seed valley special economic zones that

provide the fiscal and non-fiscal initiatives to the seed firm that could be seen Hyderabad,

India and Canadian seed system. The new ways and strategies which are followed by

companies also have commitment to sustainable growth of seed sector in India.

3.4 Sectoral Interdependence, Boundaries and Links-

Conceptually, the boundaries of sectors should include interdependencies and links among

related industries (food processing, biotechnology other value add) these boundaries are not

fixed, but change over time. The dynamic complementarities among technology and activities

thus provide force and trigger mechanism of growth and innovation (Euduist, 1997; Nelson,

1995; and Nelson-Rosenberg, 1993). These types and structures of relationships, and network

differ from one sectoral system to other system, and consequences of these features of the

knowledge base, the relevant learning processes, the basic technologies, the characteristics of

demand, the key link and the dynamic complementarities play key role. The role played by

12 The companies like Monsanto the licensing agreement, Monsanto-Maharashtra Hybrid Seeds Company, producing seed in India with Indian partners. (Zencea(UK) and ITC (Indian Tobacco Company) marketing or thorough creation of Indian subsidiary (Proagro Seed Company Ltd and Plant Genetic System), marketing without Indian partners (Seminis India Private Ltd), marketing through creating Indian Subsidiary (Bigo Zaden BV (Netherlands) and (Bejo Sheetal), technology agreements; Agrevo (Germany and Nagarjuna Fertilizer) and by mean of Acquisition (Emergent Genetics and Mahendra Hybrid Seeds Company ltd).

25

networks in sectoral system leads to a meaning of term “sectoral structure” different from the

one used in industrial economic. In industrial economic, structure is related mainly to the

concept of market structure and virtual integration and diversification. In sectoral system

perspective, on the contrary, structure refers to link among artifacts (technology) and to

relationships among agents (public, private, R&D centre) and market: it is therefore it far

boarder than the one based on exchange-competition-command. Thus, it could argue that

sectoral system is composed by webs of relationship among heterogeneous agents with

different competences and behavior, and that these relationships affect agents’ actions. These

are rather stable over time in seed sector. The advantage of the sectoral system can be

identified in a better understanding of the structure and the boundaries, agents, interactions,

learning, innovation and processes, which led transformation of the sectors and the factors at

the base of the differential performances of firms and countries in sector, Malerba, (2002),

the Edquist, (2004) argued that boundaries should be chosen explicitly for the sake of the

research purpose.

The approach of Sectoral system may prove useful tools in various respects. For a

descriptive analysis of the structure and organization of sector, for a full understating of their

working, dynamic and transformation, for the identification of the factor affecting innovation,

commercial performances and international competitiveness of firms and for the development

of new public policy indications.

3.5 Knowledge Learning by Different Agents

The learning processes play a central role in innovation and production system (Dosi, 1997;

Metcalfe, 1998 and Crown-David-Foray, 2000). The basic characteristics of agriculture

system which are under the above literature framework exhibit specific feature for an

economic dynamic analysis; mainly; technical basis of production strongly depends on agro-

climatic conditions which tend to learning of technological change13. This innovation

approach may compensate or enhance natural, technological and market differences but

cannot eliminate them since these advantage can also enhanced by technical learning by

improvement.

In these contributions, knowledge becomes highly idiosyncratic at firm level, does not

diffuse automatically and freely among firms and it has to absorb by firm through their

differential abilities accumulated over time. The public–domain knowledge and the public

13 Both space and time dimension are involved here former natural advantage that benefit firms or produces well located as to specific cultivation under a given technology. Later is related to biological cycle that prevails in agriculture and within some limits are responsible for a usually long production period.

26

funding of research (Stephan, 1996; Pavitt, 2000). The knowledge need attention that does

the knowledge learning has positive productivity influence of change in the stock of

knowledge flowing from publicly funded research though collaboration, training, personnel

movement and others. Some studies argued that changes in the stock of knowledge generate

new techno-economic opportunities that stimulate and encourage the private sector to

undertake developmental research. Other similar studies found that the private sector

activities in from of a geographical clustering of private laboratories around key

universities/centre and key star scientist moved in private seed sector (Macmillan et.al, 2000).

Similar dynamic are exits in term of the use of publicly-bred lines and varieties in the

breeding of new cultivar by the private sector. The technology incubator centre in ICARIST

Hyderabad and number of companies concentrations around national crop research centre

show the way of learning in the sector.

The intricacies and dynamic of knowledge transfer from one firm to other firm are

essential. Thus, the studies suggest that the leading R&D firms in US and Europe making

their R&D activity more market driven over last few decades or so. The insight they found

form the interaction with universities scientist/seminars/conferences and farmers meeting

would provide more market centre approach.

Monsanto – a USA based company and leader in agriculture biotechnology and seed

business-case can provide insights on how to get competitive in the market by adopting the

technology management task and innovation strategy. In mid 1990’s Monsanto was a

relatively weak player in the pesticide business and non-existent in the seed business. But

this weakness was compensated for by its key position in the newly emerging agro-biotech

industry. Until the commercialization of GM crops, Monsanto defined its strategy as a

technology provider (Joly and Ducos, 1993) appropriating value from its technology through

non-exclusive licensing agreements with seed companies. Monsanto quickly realized the

interdependencies between biotechnology and seeds (the value of genetic traits could only be

capturing in the seeds themselves) found its weaker position with respect to seed companies

like Pioneer. It went into a series of expensive take over of seed business. Pioneer, which was

the leader in seed market, was forced to make substantial investment in biotech research due

to the threat posed by biotech to the conventional seed business.

Comparing to their direct competitor, Monsanto and Pioneer adopted a technology

management and innovation strategy by focusing on narrow range of products. Monsanto

success in agriculture internationally depends on Round-up and related technologies, and

more recently, on the Round-up Ready and Bt technologies. The success of these products

27

has not only resulted from their technological characteristics but also from strategic

investment in the seed component. The combination of technology and seed has been crucial

for the market penetration of GM varieties.

3.6 Technology Transfer Management Strategies

Technology in agriculture is, by definition, multidisciplinary, since it involves

at the same time the management of physical, chemical and biological condition and also

effect of their interactions with one another and with local environment, which are primarily

demand base (Possas, 1996). Whereas the technology transfer refer to the process by which

science and technology are transferred from one individual or group to another that in

cooperate this new technology into a new or improved process, product, system or way doing

something( Marthniuk, Jain and Stone, 2003). Theories on international technology transfer

are often focused on the transfer of production activities (Tsang, E.W.K., 1997) but other

types of technology can also be transferred by unclassified mean. The general model of

technology transfer by Al-Hailani and Moor composed of six main activities viz., form of

technology transfer, field of application, types of technology that is transferred (related to

technology transfer cycle), channel of technology transfer, and factor affecting transfer

process and impact of technology on the user, environment (Fgure-2). Before technology

transfer, the technology forecasting and assessment must be made out.

The diffusion of technology occurs through different channels and involves various

markets actors i.e. (private companies, customer’s agents and other firms), as well as public

technology centre, government research lab and universities. Technology can be diffused

through technology transfer strategies, like catch up effort of firms, transfer of personnel

activities of professional societies, varied form of formal, informal knowledge trading and

practices such as reverse engineering as well as through standards commercial transactions

such as purchase and licensing agreement (Lile and Toman, 1997).

Because the processes of technology transfer as earlier mentioned, is somehow

complex than industrial processes it has sometime serious impact on the farmers and

environment. In the Indian seed sector multinational seed firms are involved in transfer of

technology through various strategies for technical competences in their core business. The

finding suggested that there are several barrier of innovation and technology transfer which

includes those difficulties encountered by innovation, including those arising itself in industry

(endogenous) or outside it (exogenous) and may come from any agent of economic activity -

society, environment and government policy. Qualitative and quantitative analysis revealed

by some study, which are important barrier to innovation and technology transfer and its

28

management in agriculture, are summarized in Table-11. The domestic and multinational

companies are involved in technology transfer processes but, there are few studies found in

literatures on strategies of technology transfer by firms in seed sector (Gisselquist, and Pray;

1980, Robert, and Westphal, 1995). Therefore, it presents a good case for carry out onward

research studies on technology transfer strategies in the Indian seed sector at firm level.

Figure : 2- Technology Transfer Model in Seed Sector

s

Table-11 Factors affecting technology transfer and seed innovation management in

seed sectors

Technology Transfer in Seed Sector

Form of Technology Transfer -Embodied -Disembodied

Application of technology -Field level -Adaptation (varieties and package practices

Types of technology transfer -Technology processes (life cycle) -Need (seller and buyer) parental line, gene transfer and techniques -Appropriate Technology

Channel of technology transfer -FDI - Venture -R&D Collaboration -Merger and acquisition (MNC) -State owned modes

Factor affecting technology transfer -Stake holder -Technology market -Contract -HR capabilities -Regulation -Culture -IPR PPV&FR and --Biodiversity -National Polices (agro- economic polices)

Selection of technology -Local requirement -Social acceptance -Businesses goal -Environment

Impact of technology -Economic -Social -Environmental -Political

29

S.No. Barriers to innovation

and Technology transfer

Reason

1 Technology knowledge

Development and

Transfer

Inadequate Infrastructure (in-house development, seed

storage ,processing)

Dearth of techno-legal information (agreements)

Dearth of specialist HR(emerging technologies)

Absences of Interaction of interdisciplinary

approach(market integration)

Adequate Technology Transfer

facilities/(Facilitator/consultancy)

Understanding of technological change and package and

practices at farm level.

Center for industry, farmers etc.

2 Economic and Political High transaction cost of technology(small and medium

farmers)

credit and price

Unequal distribution of resources

Lack of sufficient administrative management

3 Business Risk aversion (Financial Support)

Excessive and costly regulation

Inadequate environment code and standards

4 Trade and policy related Institutional and structural barriers

Lack of understanding of issue (globally as well as locally)

Licensing and IPR etc.

4. ANALYSIS  To meet the seed industrial competiveness, the adoption of new technologies by both

private and public seed sector, international quality standards have reacted quite differently.

Companies had to redesign their complementarities. In particular, the new logic of

internationalization of R&D and marketing which induced processes of merger and

acquisition (M&A), increasing concentration has led to the globalization of the seed industry

in India. At the same time new pattern of division of labour, collaboration among firms and

other institutional actors like universities and public research centre, testing laboratories and

30

extension centre are emerging. The key competitive assets for individual seed firms and

country are increasingly related to knowledge structures as well as the degree of

competitiveness.

These competitive assets include, but are not limited to the availability of first rate

scientific research within universities and other public research centers. It has also changed

the structure of the seed science technology research in the private seed sector.

All changes show that the modern seed industry overlaps the lens of a sectoral system

of innovation. Intuitively, the seed industry quite naturally lends itself to be analyzed as a

sectoral system of innovation or as it appeared in pharmaceutical and food processing (see in

case of pharmaceutical, Galambos and Sewell14., 1996; Chandler 199915. and in case of food

processing, Essletzbichler and Winter16, 1999). However, earlier the seed industry in India

was quite differently analyzed as a sector or as network (Ramaswami, 2002; Pal and Robert,

(2002). Thus, precisely, it gives intuitive appeals of the notion of the “system” and system of

network for the seed industry in India. It is pertinent to make this notion more precise and

compelling in the seed sector innovation approach. The concept would need to be advanced

in the multi-dimensional integrated and dynamic view of the sector.

The above analytical and theoretical foundation of Indian seed industry can be easily

considered as a system or a network because innovative activities involve directly or

indirectly a large variety of actors, including: different types of seed firms(small, medium

large domestic and multinational), other research organizations (universities and public and

private research centers), regulatory authorities related to (biodiversity authority, Protection

of Plant Variety and Farmers’ Right Authority, Seed acts, New Seed Policy, 2002, Seed

Industry Associations), financial institutions( Banks), and consumers (farmers and farmer

association) and national socio-political environment.

All these actors are coupled together through a web of different relationships. Starting

from a standard economic approach, such relations are quite varied, as they include almost

market transactions, command and control, competition, collaboration and all sorts of the so-

called “intermediate forms”. At this simplistic level of discussion, the Indian seed industry

looks quite interesting because some of it, if not most of these relationships: quality of a seed;

farmers who select a particular seed for specific geographical condition do not coincide with

those who pay for the particular seed, etc. Another obvious example is given by the

14Study on pharmaceutical industry. 15 Agriculture allied sector biotechnology food processing. 16 Danish Food Processing Industry

31

relationships between agricultural research centre, universities and other research institutions

on the one hand and the private seed firms on the other. These agents follow different logics,

incentives and goals, which may often conflict. The interaction may affected by the actions of

regulatory authorities, e.g. Plant Variety Protection and Farmer’s Right Act, New Seed Acts,

Biodiversity, incentives to scientists to engage in commercial activities etc. In particular, in

the Indian seed industry, one observes the mix and partial overlapping of different selection

principles. One may argue the emergence of hybrid forms of selection and learning as one of

the most interesting features of seed industry study in recent years (Vom Brocke et al., 2003;

Mc Kelvey, 1997). Thus, the seed firms and public research institutions look land races in

farmers’ field and then modify them through use of innovative technologies according to

market demands, while the long run demand base research in seed sector does not seem to be

straightforwardly apparent.

Analytical arguments of the study are including institutions and incentives influencing

demand, supply and knowledge development together form the specific innovation

opportunities for seed sector. Moreover, the specific innovation opportunities for seed are

also shaped by the actions of groups of firms and institutions. Thus, firms also shape these

innovative opportunities through their forward looking decisions, strategies, actions as well

as past competencies. The combined approach with other system provides the understating on

various issues pertaining to competiveness.

All these require new approaches to respond adequately to the opportunities and

challenges which offer by transformation processes, a new set of tools requisite which may

not only strengthen knowledge production, transfer system and ensure linkages in various

actors also offer competitiveness to the Indian seed sector in the global world seed market.

The Sectoral system may prove useful tools in various respects. For a descriptive analysis of

the structure and organization of sector, for a full understanding of their working, dynamics

and transformation, for the identification of the factors affecting innovation, commercial

performances and international competitiveness of firms and for the development of new

public policy indications.

5. CONCLUSION  The analysis of seed innovation system and the technology transfer strategies in

agricultural seed is relevant if, technology partnership in agriculture is to be encouraged as a

core methodology. In this regard the analytical principle of Seed System of Innovation (SSI)

32

has lot to offer. Not only can it provide an useful approach to analyze the barriers but also

more importantly, it can be used in the context of policy formulation to identify leverage

points where innovative performance can be improved and the way in which this would

benefit all stakeholders involved (institutions-industry-farmers). The suggestion here is not

that it should replace existing approaches, but rather that it supplements them. The innovation

and technology, which is more socially-economically embedded, involves interplay of

various factors and institutions as in case of food processing industry and agricultural

biotechnology. The participatory approach in, an appropriate technology knowledge transfer

and management context, will be key tool for increasing flow of technology knowledge

among farmers and other parts of the innovation system.

While, the SSI approach is now in mainstream, further research work is required to

develop its application context in agriculture taking seed system of innovation and production

as a node in the system.

33

6. BIBLIOGRAPHY  Acharya, S.S., 2002: Indian Agricultural Policy at the Crossroad Direction for the Tenth Plan, Agricultural

Situation in India, MOA, GOI Delhi Vol. LIX. No. 5, 207-215.

Agraawal R.S., 1980: Seed Technology, Oxford & IBH Publishing Co. Pvt. Ltd. New Delhi

Agarwal and Bajrang Lal, 2008. National Innovation System and Export Competitiveness: Indian Experience

Paper Accepted in International Conference in “Confronting the Challenges of Technology for

Development: Experience from BRICS, Department of International Development (QEH), University

of Oxford, 29-30 May.

Ali. M., and Kumar, S., 2005: Pulses production in India, Hindu Survey of Indian Agriculture, The Hindu.

Anononumous, 2004: Agriculture Today, Industry source, AP.

Arthur, W.B.1988. Self-reinforcing in economics. In economy as an evolving complex system, P.W.

Anderson, K.J. Arrow, and D.Pines, eds. Redwood city, calif.,U.S.A.:Addison –Wesely.

Asokan, S.R. and Chokshi, S.N. 1998. Challenges of Marketing Seeds in India, Indian Journal of Agricultural

Economy, Vol. 53, No.3, p. 376.

Batelt, H. and Depner, H., 2003: Innovation, institution and region. Zur Diskussion uber nationale und

regionale innovationssyteme, Erduknde 57 (20 126-43, (Ed): Martina F.E. Effective linking

international national and regional innovation Systems; insights from India and Indonesia, Asian

innovation System in transition pp-75-99 (2004).

Bhalla, G.S., 2002: Toward Hunger Free India, Oxford IBH Publishing Co Pvt. Ltd. Delhi.

Bunnell, T. G. and Coe, N.M., 2001: ‘Space and scale of innovation’ Progress in Human Geography, 25, pp.,

569-89.

Callon, M., 1992: The dynamics of techno-economic networks. (Ed): Loombs, R., Saviotti, P., Walsh, V.

(Eds.), Technical Change and Company Strategies. Academy Press, London.

Cantwell, J. (1989) Technological Innovation and Multinational Corporations, Oxford: Blackwell.

Cantwell, J.1989. Technological innovation and multinational corporations, Blackwell Cambridge, Mass.,

USA

Cantwell, J.1993. The globalization of technology: what remains of the product cycle model? Cambridge

Journal of Economics, Vol.19. Pp. 155-174

Carlsson, B., 1995: Technological Systems and Economic Performance: The Case of Factory Automation.

Kluwer Academic Publishers, Dordrecht.

Carlsson, B., Stankiewitz, R., 1995: On the nature, function and composition of technological systems. In:

Carlsson B. (Ed.), Technological Systems and Economic Performance. Kluwer Academic Publishers,

Dordrecht.

Chandler, A. D., 1990: Scale and Scope: The Dynamics of Modern Capitalism, The Belknap Press of Harvard

University Press, Cambridge, Mass.

Chataway ,J. J. Taits. 2000. Policy influence on technology for agriculture: Chemical, Biotechnology and

seeds ( Monogragp Annex c11) available on world wide web at

Http://technlogy.open.ac.uk/cts/pita/annc11-mono-monsanto.pdf.

34

Cohen, W., Levinthal, D., 1989: Innovation and learning: the two faces of R&D. Economic Journal 99, 569–

596.

Cooke, P., Urange, M.G., Extebarria, E., 1997: Regional innovation systems: institutional and organizational

dimensions. Research Policy 4/5, 475–493.

Daft, R.L., 1978: A dual –core Model of Organizational innovation, Academy of management J., Vol -21,

193-210.

Damanpour, F., 1996: Organizational Complexity and Innovation: Developing and testing Multiple

Contingency Models, Management Science, Vol 42 NO. 5. May, 693-716.

Delouche, C., James. 1999: The changing Seed Industry: Implication for Asia Pacific, Presentation to Asia

seed, Bangkok, AS&PM magazine ,9: 6-9

Dosi, G.1988. Institutions and markets in dynamic world. The Manchester School LVI (2): 119-146.

Dosi. G., 1984: technical Change and industrial transformation: The theory and Application to the

semiconductor industry (Macmillion, London) (Ed), Possas, M. L., FIlho S.S. and Silveria J.M., 1996:

An Evolutionary Approach to technological innovation in Agriculture: Some preliminary remarks,

Research Policy, 25 933-945.

Edquist, C., Johnson, B., 1997: Institutions and organizations in systems of innovation. In: Edquist, C. (Ed.),

Systems of Innovation. Frances Pinter, London. Edquist, C. (Ed.), 1997. Systems of Innovation. Frances

Pinter, London.

Evenson, R.E. and Westphal, E.L., 1995: “Technological Change and Technology Strategy” Handbook of

Development Economic, Volume II.J. Behram and T.N. Srinivasan (Eds). Elsevier Science, pp. 2,209-

2299.

FAO (Food and Agriculture Organization) and World Bank., 2000: Agricultural Knowledge and Information

System for Rural Development: Strategic Vision and Guiding Principle, Rome and Washington DC:

FAO and World Bank.

Fisher R A., 1950: Statistical Methods for Research Workers, University of Michigan.

Freeman, C., 1982: The Economics of Industrial Innovation. Frances Pinter, London. Freeman, C., 1987:

Technology Policy and Economic Performance: Lessons from Japan, Frances Pinter, London.

Gadwall, V.R., 2003: The Indian seed industry: Its history, current status and future, Current Science, Vol. 84,

No. 3, 10 February.

Galambos, and Sewell, J.E., 1995: Networks of Innovation: Vaccine Development at Merck, Sharp & Dohme,

and Mulford, 1895-1995, Cambridge University Press, New York.

Gambardella, A., Orsenigo, L. and Pammolli, F., 2000: Global Competitiveness in Pharmaceuticals. A

European Perspective, Report prepared for the Directorate General Enterprise of the European

Commission.

Gingh, G.et al 1990. Seed Industry in India: A Management Perspective, Oxford and IBH Publishing Co. Pvt.

Ltd, New Delhi.

Girdhar, M., 2006: “Public Private Partnership in Seed Development” Head of BioScience India (Proagro),

Presentation National Seminar on Public-private partnership in Agriculture. Delhi, October 19.

Gisselquist, D. and Pray, C. E., 1999: Deregulating Technology transfer in Agriculture: Reform’s Impact on

Turkey in the 1980s. Policy Research working paper 2086. World Bank: Washington, Dc., March

35

Glenn Davis Stone, 2002: Biotechnology and Suicide in India, Anthropology News, Vol 43 No. 5, May

Gupta, Anil K., Chandak, V.S. and Anand, Manish, 2006, Do Patents Matter: Review of Indian filings in US

and in India and linking macro with micro level understanding of innovation system in India. Paper

prepared for presentation at the Management Development Programme for “Harnessing Intellectual

Property for Strategic Competitive Advantage” 26 – 28 September, 2006 at KLMDC, IIM-Ahmedabad.

Hall, A. J. Sulaiman, R. Clark, V., N.G., Tayler, S., and Bockett, G., 1998: “Institutional Development in

Indian Agricultural R&D Systems: Emerging Patterns of Public and Private Sector Activities”. Science,

Technology & Development, Vol. 16 No.3 pp.51-76.

Hall, A. J. Sulaiman, R. V., Clark, Sviamohan, M.V.S., and Yaganand, B.,2000: “Public and Private Sector

Partnership in India Agricultural Research: Emerging Challenges to Creating an Agricultural

innovation System. Paper Presented at XXIV international Conference of Agricultural Economists

Aug, 13-18 Berlin, Germany.

Hayami, Y. and V.W. Rutton., 1988: Desenolovimento Agricola teoria e Experincions Internacionais (Depto

de Publicoes De) EMBRAPA, Brasilia), 583 (Ed0 in Possas, M. L., FIlho S.S. and Silveria J.M., 1996:

An Evolutionary Approach to technological innovation in Agriculture: Some preliminary remarks,

Research Policy, 25 933-945.

Hotz-Harz, B., 2000: Innovation networks regions and globalization’ in G.L. Clark etal (eds0, the oxford

handbook of Economic Geography, oxford: Oxford university Press, pp. 432-50.

Hughes, T.P., 1984: The evolution of large technological systems. In: Bijker, W., ughes, T., Pinch, T. (Eds.),

The Social Construction of Technological Systems. MIT Press, Cambridge.

Joly, P.B. and C. Ducos. 1993. Les artifices Du vivant: Strategies d’ innovation dans L. I’ndusrie des

semences. Economica, Paris, INRA Editions.

Kapoor, A., 1999: Private Sector role vital, The Hindu Survey of Agriculture (1999).

Kimbely , J. R., 1976: Organizational Size and Structuralist Perspective: A review, Cririque, and Proposal ,

Amin. Sci. Quarterly, 21 571-579.

Klepper, S., 1996: Entry, exit, growth and innovation over the product life cycle. American Economic Review

86, 562–583.

Lile, R. and Tomen, M., 1997: ‘Promoting international transfer of clean technology’ mutually beneficial

opportunities for technology transfer to promote international greenhouse gas reductions workshop,

Bejing, Chnia, Nov, 14-17.

Lindner, Bob. 2004. Privatized provision of essential plant breeding infrastructure. Australian Journal of

Agricultural & resources Economic 48. (2), 301-321.

Lundvall, B.A., 1993: National Systems of Innovation. Frances Pinter, London.

Lundvall, B.A., Johnson, B., 1994: The learning economy. Journal of Industry Studies 1 (2), 23–42.

Mahadevappa, M., 2005: Meeting the increased demand, The Hindu Survey of Indian Agriculture, The Hindu,

183-186.

Malerba, F., 1992: Learning by firms and incremental technical change. Economic Journal 102, 845–859.

Malerba, F., 1993: Italy. In: Nelson, R. (Ed.), National Innovation Systems. Oxford University Press, Oxford.

Malerba, F., 2002: Sectoral systems of innovation and production, Research Policy 31 (2002) 247–264.

36

Malerba, F., Orsenigo, L., 2000: Knowledge, innovative activities and industry evolution. Industrial and

Corporate Change 9, 289–314.

Martyniuk, A.O., Jain R.K. and Stone, H.J., 2003: Critical success factor and barrier to technology transfer:

Case Studies and Implications, International Journal of Technology Transfer and Commercialization,

Vol, 2, No. 3, pp 306-337.

Mc Kelvey, M., 1995: Evolutionary Innovation: The Business of Biotechnology, Oxford University Press,

Oxford.

Metcafe,S., 1998: Evolutionary Economics and Creative Destruction, Rutledge, London.

Mokyr, Joel.1999. Science technology and knowledge: What historian can learn from an evolutionary

approach. Working paper. Department of Economics.: Northwestern University, Evanston, IL, eds.

Moore, B., 2002: The Austrian Concise Oxford Dictionary of Current English. Third Edition, Austrian

National Dictionary Centre, Oxford University Press.

Mumann, J.P.2003. Knowledge Competitive Advantage. Cambridge University Press.

Nagarajan, L. and M.Smale., 2005: Local seed systems and village-level determinants of millet crop diversity

in marginal environments of India. Joint Publication of IFPRI/ICRISAT/FAO, Discussion Paper No.

135 (EPT Division, IFPRI). Washington, D.C.: International Food Policy Research Institute.

National Seed Policy, 2002: Seed Division, Ministry of Agriculture, GOI India

Nelson, R. R. (1988). "Institutions Supporting Technical Change in the United States." In G. Dosi, C.

Freeman, R. Nelson, G. Silverberg, and L. Soete (eds.), Technical Change and Economic Theory.

London: Pinter Publisher.

Nelson, R., 1994: The co-evolution of technology, industrial structure and supporting institutions. Industrial

and Corporate Change. Rutledge.

Nelson, R., 1995: Recent evolutionary theorizing about economic change. Journal of Economic Literature 33,

48–90.

Nelson,R.R., and S.G. Wintwer.1982. An evolutionary theory of economic change. Cambridge, Mass., USA.:

Belknap Press

New Policy on Seed Development, 1989: Draft, Ministry of Agriculture, GOI, India.

Niak, Gopal., 2006: Closing the yield Gap: Maize in India, (Ed)in Vandana Chanda ,2006 Technology

Adoption and Export: how some developing countries got it right, IBRD, World bank, Washington,

DC, 275-300.

Omamo,S.W. and A. Naseem.2005. Agricultural science and technology policy for growth and poverty

reduction. ISNAR Division Discussion Paper No.3. Washington, D.C.: International Food Policy

Research Institute.

Orsenigo, L., Pammolli, F., Riccaboni, M., 2001: Technological change and network dynamics: the case of

the biopharmaceutical industry. Research policy 30, 485–508.

Pal. S., and R.Tripp., 2002: India’s Seed Industry Reforms: Prospects and Issues. Indian Journal of

Agricultural Economics. 57 (3): 443-457

Patel, P., Pavitt, K., 1994: Technological Competencies in the world’s largest firms: complex and path-

dependent, but not too much variety. Research Policy 23, 533–546.

37

Patel., P And Pavitt, K.,1994: National Innovation Systems: Why They Are Important, And How They Might

Be Measured And Compared, Econ. Innov. New Techn., 1994, Vol. 3, pp. 77-95

Pavitt, K., 1984. Sectoral patterns of technical change: towards taxonomy and a theory. Research Policy 13,

343–373.

Pingali, P.L., and Traxer, G., 2002: Changing locus of agricultural research: will the poor benefit from

Biotechnology and Privatization trends? Food Policy (27), 223-238.

Porter R., 1998: Clusters and the new economics of competition. Harvard Business Review, in press, Harvard

Possas, M. L., FIlho S.S. and Silveria J.M., 1996: An Evolutionary Approach to technological innovation in

Agriculture: Some preliminary remarks, Research Policy, 25 933-945.

Pradey, P., Alston, J., and Beintema, N., 2006: Agricultural R&D Spending at a Critical Crossroads, Farm

Policy, Journal, vol.,3 , No, 1 Feb-Quarterly.

Pradoa, R.S., 1999: Future of Agro- biotechnology, The Hindu Survey of Indian Agriculture The Hindu

Pray, C. E. 1992: Plant breeders’ rights legislation, enforcement and R&D: Lessons for Developing countries.

In Sustainable agricultural development: The role of international cooperation. Proceedings of the

Twenty-First International Conference of Agricultural Economists, (Ed). G. Peters and B. Stanton.

Tokyo, Japan, August 22-29, 1991. Brookfield, VT: Dartmouth.

Pray, C.E. and R.Basant: 1999: Agricultural research and technology transfer by the private sector in India.

Indian Institute of Management Working Paper No. 99-06-03. June, Ahemedabad, India: Indian

Institute of Management.

Pray, C.E., and B.Ramaswami., 2001: Liberalization’s impact on the Indian seed industry: Competition,

research, and impact on farmers. International Food and Agribusiness Management Review 2 (3):407-

420.

Pray, C.E., B.Ramaswami, and T.Kelley., 2001: The impact of economic reforms on R&D by the Indian seed

industry. Food Policy 26: 587-598.

Ramanna, A., 2006: India’s Policy on Genetically modified Crops, Asian Research Centre Working Paper,15,

London School of Economic and Political Science,

Ramanna, A., and M.Smale: 2004: Rights and access to plant genetic resources under India’s new law.

Development Policy Review 22 (4): 423-442.

Ramaswami, M., 2005: A big gap to bridge, The Hindu Survey of Indian Agriculture, The Hindu, 180-182.

Rangnekar, D., 2004: Can TRIPs deter innovation? The anticommons and public goods in agricultural

research, Paper for the Second International Workshop on Governance, of biodiversity as a global

public good: bioprospection, intellectual property rights and traditional knowledge’, Centre de

philosophie du droit at the Universitécatholiquede,Louvain,5-6,Feb

http://biogov.cpdr.ucl.ac.be/ipr/papers/rangnekar.pdf

Rodrigues, et, al, 1967: Report on wheat Quality Confers, UDDA, (Ed) in M.Ray, 1983.Heterosis Breeding

Kaylani Pub. Delhi.

Rosenberg, N., 1976: Perspectives on Technology. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.

Rosenberg, N., 1982: Inside the Black Box. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.

Rosenberg, N.,1976, On Technological expectation, Economic Journal, 86, 523-535.

Seed Association of India, 2005: Syndrome of Farmers’ Seed, India.

38

Seed Industry in Andhra Pradesh- A profile. 2002: Seedsman Association, Hyderabad.

Sen, S., 1974: The Reach Harvest, Tata Mc Graw – Hill Publishing Co. New Delhi.

Shiva, V. and T.,Crompton., 1998: Monopoly and monoculture: Trends in Indian seed industry. Economic

and Political Weekly. 33 (39): A-137- A151.

Simon, H.A. (1969) The Sciences of the Artificial (Cambridge MA. & London: MIT Press, 3rd edition,

Singh, P., 2006: Seed Industry in India: Poised for a leap, New Agriculturist more detail see online

athttp://www.new-agri.co.uk/01-2/focuson/focuson6.html

Stephan P.E., 1996: The Economics of Science, Journal of Economic Literature, Vol, XXXIV, 1199-1235.

Swaminathan, M.S. 2004. ‘Technological change and food production: implications for vulnerable sections’,

Working Paper 20, CPRC-IIPA, New Delhi.

Swaminathan, M.S., 2007: The crisis of Indian agriculture, Independence at 60, The Hindu, August, 15

The Protection of Plant Varieties and Farmers’ Rights Act. 2001: Ministry of Law, Justice And Company

Affairs (Legislative Department), PPV&FR Authority, India.

The Protection of Plant Varieties and Farmers’ Rights Reulation. 2003: Ministry of Law, Justice And

Company Affairs (Legislative Department), PPV&FR Authority, India. Tripp, R., and S.Pal., 1998: Information exchange in commercial seed markets in Rajasthan. AgREN Network

Paper No.83. London: ODI.

Utterback, J., 1994: Mastering the Dynamics of Innovation, Harvard Business School Press, Boston, MA.

Vom brocke,K. A.Christinck, E.Weltzien R., T.Presterl, and H.H.Geiger., 2003: Farmers’ seed systems and

management practices determine pearl millet genetic diversity patterns in semiarid regions of India.

Crop Science. 43:1680-1689.

World Bank., 2006: Enhancing Agricultural Innovation how to go Beyond the Strengthening of Research

Systems, Agriculture and Rural Development Washington, DC.

WorldBank., 2001: Enhancing Agricultural public-private partnership in agriculture,washington, DC. (Report)

Websites

http://www.wipo.org\publication/ipr

http://www.agricoop.nic.in

http://www.icar.org

http://www.indiastat.org

http://www.narm.org

http://www.nsc.org

http://www.cigar.org

http://www.sai.com

http://www.worldbank.org

http://www.plantauthority.in

Http://www.seedgov.nic.in