Read the passage depicting a systemic problem below. Assuming everything in the statement to be true, decide which of the suggested courses of action logically follow(s) for implementation. Passage: An elite agricultural technology corporation has engineered a highly advanced, climate-resilient crop seed variety capable of surviving severe droughts and safeguarding food security in high-risk regions. However, the company has set the commercial licensing fees so high that only a minute fraction of wealthy industrial farming syndicates can afford to purchase it. The corporation defends its pricing strategy by asserting it must recover massive decadal research and development overheads, while international smallholder farming unions and human rights NGOs demand urgent, affordable access to prevent localized famines. Governments in vulnerable developing regions are under immense pressure to intervene. Suggested Courses of Action: 1. Impoverished independent farmers should organize local grassroots community charity fundraisers to purchase the proprietary seeds at full retail value rather than expecting corporate or state intervention. 2. The agricultural corporation should implement structured, tiered licensing models that dynamically scale pricing based on the purchasing power parity and income levels of different agricultural regions. 3. Vulnerable governments should enforce emergency compulsory patent waivers, legally permitting regional public cooperatives to reproduce and distribute the climate-resilient seeds at a baseline, cost-effective price point.

Analysis: The core situation centers on the tension between a private company's right to recover high R&D costs for a critical, crisis-averting innovation and the public's urgent need for affordable access to it. An effective course of action must offer a viable, systemic pathway to bridge this affordability gap. Course of Action 1 does NOT follow. Relying on local, impoverished smallholders to run grassroots fundraisers or charities to pay premium, inflated commercial prices shifts the entire operational burden onto the victims of the crisis. It is a highly unreliable, fragmented, and non-systemic response that completely avoids addressing the underlying pricing and regulatory deadlock highlighted in the text. Thus, 1 is incorrect. Course of Action 2 follows logically. Introducing a tiered or scaled pricing framework directly addresses the corporate hurdle while respecting human welfare. By dropping prices for low-income territories and maintaining market rates for wealthy syndicates, the company can still protect its revenue goals globally without locking out the very agrarian communities that are facing systemic food insecurity. Thus, 2 is an apt response. Course of Action 3 follows logically. When a private asset is desperately required to avoid a major public disaster (like the "localized famines" mentioned in the text), direct regulatory intervention via compulsory licensing or waivers is a highly recognized, logical course of action. It permits local public entities to bypass the price barrier and produce the seed at a cost-effective scale, instantly addressing the root issue of mass affordability and access. Thus, 3 is an apt response.