- Biologicals don’t have an adoption problem, they have a deployment problem.
- Efficacy alone is not enough; regulation, economics, evidence and distribution matter too.
- Failing to consider the ‘messy middle’ leaves farmers to bear most of the risks.
The co-founder of Agrifood Futures, which is developing the Asia Biologicals Platform, told AgNavigator that in doing so, too much responsibility ends up falling on the farmer.
“I think sometimes we emphasise too much what would make a farmer use a solution. Then the onus ends up on the farmer. But I think there are so many things in the middle that we haven’t really considered.”
While much of the industry’s focus is on efficacy and adoption, Soo believes it overlooks a crucial step between efficacy and adoption: “deployment readiness”.
This would include the consideration of factors such as regulation, economics, evidence and distribution.
More than just efficacy
Soo highlighted three ideas he believes could help to make biologicals ready for deployment in Asia.
Firstly, he believes that the ultimate goal should not be more biological products on the market but to create better-performing agricultural systems.
“It’s not about getting more biologicals into the market. That shouldn’t be the ultimate objective. The objective should be about better performing agricultural systems. When you start with the problem and then backwards, you have that north star to guide you.”
Secondly, he stressed that efficacy alone does not make a product ready for deployment.
For instance, the industry must investigate whether evidence generated in one country is relevant and applicable to another.
They must also ensure that the economics make sense and that the solutions fit within Asian farming systems.
Risky business
Lastly, Soo explained that he sees risk as an overlooked challenge in biologicals deployment.
He argued that risk does not disappear as technology develops but moves through the stages of adoption.
“Between the discovery of a biological and its eventual adoption, there’s a messy middle where someone has to pay for validation, demonstrations, registration, and everything else required to bring it to market. The question is whether that risk is sitting with the actors best positioned to carry it, or whether those actors have sufficient incentive to do so.”
Too often, that burden ultimately falls on the farmer, said Soo.
“The risk for them to change their practices is high, yet we are relying on this one actor to prove that the innovation works in practice.”
Instead, he believes stakeholders need to better understand how risk shifts across the value chain and whether those who stand to benefit are contributing enough to support deployment.
“An investor is focused on capital returns, while a government is focused on food resilience. But when you look at the system as a whole, you realise the risk actually travels. At different points in time, different players may be willing to take on certain risks and fill specific gaps.
“Once that stage is complete, the risk moves to another part of the system, where another actor may be better positioned to step in and finance or manage that gap. That’s what I mean when I say the risk travels. It’s not necessarily just a capital allocation problem, but a movement of risk through the system,” Soo explained.
Finding the answers
These questions are shaping the upcoming Asia Biologicals Summit in Singapore on October 26, hosted by Agrifood Futures and Wharf42.
“We don’t have all the answers, but I think we are finding that this is the connective tissue that could help unlock what we’ve been trying to achieve for years around biologicals,” said Soo.
Soo revealed that the summit will introduce crop deployment programmes designed to test these ideas in practice and encourage broader industry participation.
“Essentially, we’re bringing all these together as the underpinning principles to then put together a platform and a crop deployment program that addresses these things, so that we can get actors working together more.”
