Precious Adebanjo
Introduction: Soil Health and Food Security
Each year, the Norman E. Borlaug International Dialogue brings together diverse stakeholders to exchange ideas on food security and nutrition, and foster partnerships against global hunger. The Dialogue also features the annual presentation of the World Food Prize, which recognises outstanding contributions in any field that impacts the world’s food supply.
The theme of the 2025 Borlaug Dialogue, SOILutions for Security, spotlights the role of soil health in global food security. Dr. Mariangela Hungria was named the 2025 World Food Prize Laureate for her pioneering work on biological nitrogen fixation, which has enhanced soil health and crop nutrition in tropical agriculture.
As soil health regains global attention, the issues extend beyond agronomy to include the legal and governance frameworks that shape how soil-related innovations are accessed, shared, and commercialised. This article explores one such intersection—how Access and Benefit-Sharing (ABS) and Intellectual Property (IP) regimes can be balanced to promote innovation in biofertilizer development while ensuring equitable access and sustainability.
Soil Health Challenges
Healthy soils sustain agricultural productivity, food and nutrition security, and economic wellbeing. They also play a vital role in climate change mitigation through carbon sequestration. The Coalition of Action for Soil Health (CA4SH) reports that the loss of topsoil and cropland erosion is causing an estimated US$300 billion in lost agricultural production annually. Soil degradation therefore poses a serious threat to food and nutrition security and to the livelihoods of farming communities. In Africa, for example, an estimated 75–80 percent of cultivated land is degraded, resulting in the loss of 30–60 kilograms of nutrients per hectare each year, according to a briefing note from the African Union Development Agency–New Partnership for Africa’s Development (AUDA-NEPAD), the Accelerating Impacts of CGIAR Climate Research for Africa (AICCRA) and CA4SH.
The Role and Limits of Chemical Fertilizers
Chemical fertilizers have long been central to modern agriculture. They were instrumental in the GreenRevolution, which dramatically increased global crop yields through improved seed varieties, irrigation, and nutrient inputs. Fertilizers, particularly those providing nitrogen, phosphorus, and potassium (NPK), remain indispensable because they supply nutrients in forms readily absorbed by plants, enabling higher productivity and contributing directly to global food security.
In Africa, where nutrient depletion remains a major constraint, fertilizers have been promoted as a key pathway to productivity. The Abuja Declaration on Fertilizer for the African Green Revolution (2006) called for increasing fertilizer use to 50 kg/ha, a target reaffirmed in the Africa Fertilizer and Soil Health Action Plan (2024–2034), which aims to triple average fertilizer application from 18 kg/ha in 2020 to 54 kg/ha by 2034.
However, the benefits of fertilizers come with environmental and economic costs. Overuse and mismanagement contribute to greenhouse gas emissions, water pollution, and soil degradation. These limitations have driven renewed scientific interest in biological approaches to soil fertility management.
Biofertilizers as Part of the Solution
Biofertilizers, also known as microbial inoculants or bioinputs contain living microorganisms that enhance nutrient availability through natural processes such as biological nitrogen fixation (i.e. fixing atmospheric nitrogen) and phosphate solubilization (i.e. converting phosphorus in the soil into forms plants can absorb).
A prominent example is Dr. Mariangela Hungria’s research at Embrapa, Brazil, which demonstrated that microbial inoculants could replace large quantities of nitrogen fertilizer in soybean cultivation. Her work has saved farmers an estimated US$25 billion annually, avoided 230 million metric tons of CO₂-equivalent emissions, and maintained high yields—boosting Brazil’s position as a leading soybean exporter (World Food Prize Foundation, 2025).
Similarly, the N₂Africa project, led by Wageningen University and funded by the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, demonstrated the potential of microbial inoculants to improve legume productivity across Africa through partnerships with local research systems and manufacturers.
While biofertilizers show great promise, their performance can vary by soil type, climate, and product quality. Stronger support is needed for biofertilizer research, fair licensing, and equitable public–private partnerships (PPPs) to scale production and improve access for smallholder farmers. Such measures would allow biofertilizers to complement the role of chemical fertilizers in achieving long-term soil health and food security.
The relevance of Access and Benefit-Sharing (ABS)
The Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD, 1992) recognises states’ sovereign rights over their biological resources. The Nagoya Protocol on Access and Benefit Sharing (2010) provides a framework for the rights under the CBD by requiring that access to genetic resources be based on Prior Informed Consent (PIC) and Mutually Agreed Terms (MAT) between provider and user.
Biofertilizers are developed by isolating and multiplying beneficial soil microorganisms such as Rhizobium, Azospirillum, Azotobacter, or mycorrhizal fungi, that enhance soil fertility and nutrient uptake. Because these microorganisms are genetic resources, their access and use fall under ABS frameworks.
Developing such products involves isolating, testing, and sometimes modifying microbial strains. These activities constitute the “utilization of genetic resources” under Article 2(c) of the Nagoya Protocol.
When is ABS Triggered?
ABS obligations arise when microorganisms are accessed for research or development, even before commercialization. However, the trigger points differ by country. ABS is typically triggered when:
- Microbial strains are isolated for research or product development;
- Strains or genetic material are transferred across borders; or
- A derived product enters commercialization.
The type of benefit-sharing; monetary (royalties, joint ventures) or non-monetary (capacity building, technology transfer, affordable access) would usually be stated in the MATs. Some measures like the Brazilian ABS regulations do not require benefit sharing for non-commercial use.
Intellectual Property in Biofertilizer Development
Developing biofertilizers goes beyond generating research outputs; it requires effective technology transfer, local production capacity, and mechanisms for commercialization and distribution. Even when research is conducted by public institutions, partnerships with the private sector are often essential to ensure manufacturing scale and market reach.
For example, Embrapa in Brazil collaborated with private companies to bring its multifunctional inoculant technology to market, illustrating how public–private partnerships can translate research into accessible agricultural products. In such cases, intellectual property protection is typically used to attract investment and sustain innovation. Various forms of IP may apply, including:
- Patents: While naturally occurring strains are generally not patentable, isolated or genetically modified microorganisms, as well as novel formulations or delivery mechanisms, may qualify for patent protection.
- Trademarks: Companies often use distinctive brand names or logos to differentiate their biofertilizer products in the market.
- Trade secrets: Proprietary information about microbial combinations, carrier materials, or processing techniques may be protected through confidentiality rather than formal registration.
| Patent No. / Application | Country | Title / Focus | Applicant / Assignee | Year |
| WO 2023164507 A3 | PCT / International | Biofertilizer compositions and methods (nitrogen-fixing microorganism media; scale-up/fermentation-related claims) | Kula Bio, Inc. | 2023 |
| BR 10 2020 018855 A2 | Brazil | Process of obtaining biofertilizer and biofertilizer thus obtained (composition from organic matter + carrier) | Universidade de São Paulo (USP) | 2020 |
| US 10807919 B2 | United States | Biofertilizer to increase agricultural yield | Centro de Investigación y Asistencia en Tecnología y Diseño del Estado de Jalisco A.C. (CIATEJ) and Organik Bolluk S.P.R. de R.L. de C.V. (Mexico) | 2020 |
| WO 2015093428 A1 | PCT / Japan priority | Bio-fertilizer (microbial inoculation for plant roots) | Kyoto Prefecture / Tokyo Noko University (priority applicants) | 2015 |
Table: Selected examples of Biofertilizer related patents (patent data retrieved from Google Patents).
Tensions Between ABS and IP Frameworks
Although both frameworks aim to foster innovation and the sustainable use of biodiversity, conflicts can emerge when applying ABS and IP rules to the development of biofertilizers:
- Misappropriation: When strains collected from one country are patented elsewhere without appropriate benefit-sharing.
- Legal uncertainty: Companies may fear retroactive ABS claims for research conducted before national regulations were enacted, discouraging collaboration.
- Implementation challenges: Some countries face administrative delays or unclear procedures, complex permit processes, creating obstacles for researchers and investors.
- Equity gaps: Provider countries often have limited capacity to negotiate equitable MATs, leading to unbalanced benefit-sharing terms.
- Affordability concerns: Patents or restrictive licenses can increase product prices, limiting access for smallholder farmers.
Reconciling ABS and IP for Sustainable Innovation
To align ABS frameworks with IP systems in support of sustainable agricultural innovation, countries and institutions can adopt several complementary legal and policy strategies:
1. Establish transparent and efficient national ABS procedures. Unclear or lengthy ABS processes often discourage research and innovation. Simplifying administrative steps, publishing clear guidelines, and ensuring timely decision-making can provide legal certainty and predictability for researchers, breeders, and innovators who need to access genetic resources or associated traditional knowledge.
2. Embed equity and access principles within IP and commercialization strategies. ABS aims to ensure fairness in the use of genetic resources, while IP often rewards exclusivity. These can be reconciled by incorporating explicit equity measures in IP-based transactions. For example, through differential pricing or tiered licensing models that allow lower or open-access pricing for smallholders or public-good uses, and higher pricing for purely commercial markets. IP frameworks can thus serve both innovation and accessibility goals.
3. Promote Public–Private Partnerships (PPPs) that integrate ABS obligations. Collaborations between research institutions, private companies, and funders should include ABS and affordability commitments within their contracts. For instance, PPPs can require that products derived from shared genetic resources remain accessible to smallholder farmers or that a portion of benefits be reinvested locally in research and community development.
4. Integrate ABS and IP policy dialogues. Environmental, agricultural, and IP authorities often operate in isolation, leading to conflicting regulations. Establishing inter-agency coordination mechanisms or joint policy platforms can help harmonize implementation, avoid duplication, and ensure that national strategies support both biodiversity conservation and innovation objectives.
By combining these measures, stakeholders across the innovation system can bridge the gap between ABS and IP. Harmonization is essential to promote the responsible use of genetic resources, stimulate innovation, and ensure that technological advances contribute to long-term agricultural sustainability.
Conclusion
Biofertilizers sit at the intersection of science, biodiversity governance, and intellectual property law. Their development depends on access to microbial genetic resources through ABS, while their delivery to farmers often relies on IP-based partnerships and technology transfer.
The goal is not to choose between ABS and IP but to reconcile them so that both frameworks enable, rather than restrict, sustainable innovation. Excessive ABS procedures can slow research, while overly restrictive IP practices can limit access, both counterproductive to sustainability.
An approach that protects biodiversity while enabling innovation and equitable access offers the best path forward. Strengthening coordination between ABS and IP frameworks can create a more balanced system that supports innovation, sustainability, and fair sharing of benefits.
