Assessing Biological Diversity and Associative Knowledge System:  Can Ethics Influence Equity?

Anil K Gupta

The bio-diverse regions have been known to be inhabited by the   poorest people all around the tropical world (Gupta 1981).  It is   obvious that we cannot conserve diversity by keeping people poor.    Studies have also shown that many of the indigenous innovators   whether individual or communities, do not consider their diversity or knowledge about it as a tradable commodity.   Their ethical   values often motivate them to share their knowledge uninhibitedly    with the outsiders without expectation of material reward.  In   the process while they remain poor, the extractors of their   knowledge accumulate wealth.  We cannot therefore imply that   their superior ethics should legitimize a morality in market place which justifies the extraction.   

In a recent paper, I had identified seven dimensions of ethical  responsibility such as : accountability of (1) researchers and  biodiversity prospectors, engaged by Public / Private Sectors in  National/International Organisations towards providers or biodi- versity resource from wild, domesticated and public access do- mains; (2) Researchers and prospectors towards the country of  origin; (3) Professionals towards academic communities and pro- fessional bodies guiding the process of exploring or extracting  biodiversity; (4) International UN or other organisations  possessing globally pooled germ plasm collections deposited in  good faith but accessible to public or private institutions  without reciprocal responsibilities; (5) Institutions of  governance legitimizing various kinds of property right regimes  and consequent ethical and moral dilemmas; (6) Civil society and  consumers of products derived from prospected biodiversity or  competing alternatives; (7) Present generation towards future  generations and other living non-human sentient beings.  

Part one of the paper summarises the key elements of ethical guidelines developed by Pew Conservation Scholars.  In part two, I discuss the operational aspects of ethical guidelines in the context of CBD and WTO.  The models of rewarding creativity developed by SRISTI are briefly reviewed.  In part three, issues of further research and action are identified.

Apart from the dilemma that arise through mismatch between the  ethical values of conservators of biodiversity and the dominant  institutions of extractions, there arise questions about the  continued validity of values underline discourse in the main- stream.  For instance it is a an accepted professional value in  academics that any communication oral, visual or written having a  substantive implications for one’s ideas should be acknowledged.   Accordingly, personal communications find place in the academic  discourse.  However, this accountability is generally observed  only towards one’s professional colleagues.  The farmers, indigenous people, artisans etc. are almost never acknowledged in any  discourse on their knowledge in a manner that they can be identi- fied.  Why should people remain nameless and faceless in discourse on their knowledge and institutions  has never been explained adequately ?  So much so that the whole discipline of  ethno-botany/biology has gained legitimacy through extraction  without acknowledgement.  The wealth accumulated out of value  addition in this knowledge is seldom shared with the providers.  

In pursuant of Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) and   International Convention on Combating Desertification (ICCD),   various ethical guidelines followed by private/public obligations   were reviewed (Gupta 1994, Nietschman and Churchur, 1994) for   discussion in a workshop organised by Pew Conservation Scholars   last year.  Several other scholars were also invited in the   discussion to develop Ethical Guidelines for Accessing/Exploring   Biological Diversity  (See Annexure 1).  These guidelines were   endorsed in principle by all the Pew Conservation Scholars and   are now being circulated for wider debate.  Only three out of   seven issues were covered comprehensively in these guidelines.    In this paper I summarize some of the important issues not covered by the guidelines and offer suggestions for the remaining   issues.   It is hoped that Conference of Parties (COP) will   reflect on these suggestions so that a global accord can be   reached on general ethical principles.    It is recognized that   there may be culture specific differences in the perfection of   moral issues.  However, I submit that it should be possible to   have an universal consensus on at least some basic ethical principles governing access to biodiversity.   

Part I : Ethical Guidelines 

The Suggested Ethical Guidelines (Annexure 1) recognize the fact   that local communities as well as researchers and corporations   have prospected biodiversity for a long time.   If the current   systems of extractions continued keeping the people poor, how   much of the biodiversity may disappear.  The CBD provides a   framework to correct the current imbalance in the responsibility   of different activities.  The conservation of cultural and bio-  logical diversity is considered closely intertwined.  The guiding   principles recognised that research was an educational process   for  all concerned (even if opportunities of mutual learning may   not always be reciprocal or balanced); the norms of proprietary   rights  for scientific knowledge could not be fundamentally   different from the rights of producers and providers of traditional knowledge as well as contemporary innovations by the   communities or individuals;  need for respect for local cultural   values and norms and, fair and equitable sharing of benefits among various stake holders.  

These guidelines dealt with four kinds of relationship between    the external prospectors and researchers and the local communities : a) non-extractive, non-commercial research or interaction,    b) extractive but primarily non-commercial,  c) non-extractive    but with possible commercial potential, and d)  extractive for    commercial developments.   It is obvious that ethical obligations    cannot be standardized in each role in the same manner.  The    purpose of any guideline is to promote good, ethical and responsible research and equitable exchanges among communities and    outsiders.   In different political circumstances, these guide-   lines will have to be operated in different manners.   At the    same time certain aspects of the guidelines imply ‘must’,    ‘should’ or  ‘may’ in various ethical obligations.   We realize    that different professionals and political communities may have a   genuine difference of opinion on these emphasis.  The scholars    hoped that these guidelines should provide ground  for further    progress.   In the next part, I discuss implications of the guidelines already developed for future discourse on the subject.

Part II - Operationalizing Ethical Discourse on Diversity 

The guidelines developed by various professional associations     require prior approval from the appropriate authorities in different countries including the institutions of indigenous people     or local communities.   It is obvious that the present provision     of Article 15.5 of CBD requires informed consent of only the     parties to the convention i.e. the governments.   The consent of     communities or innovative individuals can be invoked only through     Article 8J of CBD.  To operationalise these articles in conjunc-    tion with Article 16(d)1 of ICCD will require clarification of     several expectations.  

The process of ensuring, “approval and involvement” of local     communities and innovators to get equitable share in the benefits     (Article 8j of CBD) at “mutually agreed terms to the local population concerned” (Article 16g of ICCD) will require defining     each of the important provisions.  What should be the process     which gives effective opportunity to articulate and assert one’s     rights adequately ?  In the wake of Merck-In Bio deal, the expectations of nations as well as knowledgeable communities have     increased a great deal.   Moderating these expectations in some     cases may become imperative.   However, the other side is that     large number of communities do not even know what worth they     should assign to their knowledge or their resources.  Situation     becomes complex when resource is under government control and the     knowledge is in private hands.   As mentioned earlier, many     communities do not prefer to assign material values to their     ethereal relationships with nature.   But in some cases, the     choices are very clear.   People use often the least valuable     part of forest or a grazing land.   Given the choice of drawing     more income from less extraction, they may change their preferences.  The time frame in which additional incomes may accrue,     may vary from case to case.  And yet, in order to survive in the     short run, assurances are needed from external institutions.  

In the absence of administrative boundaries overlapping with     ecological boundaries of a resource, the determination of representative structures of people also poses a challenge.    How much information is sufficient and when should negotiations     among people and outsiders be considered satisfactorily concluded     are issues which will become clear only through experimentation.      It is definite that one cannot take advantage of historically     evolved ethical values and consequent generosity of local communities and individuals.  It is in this context, that the Ethical      Guidelines clearly distinguish four stages for determining the     terms and which access to local biological resources be determined : a) when accessing is done, b) when a new use is discovered c) when a product is developed and d) when commercialization is done.   

Obviously each party would need assurances backed up by certain  guarantees to move in a stage-by-stage process of negotiations.   Several safeguards have been suggested which can help in moderating mutual expectations and generating reasonable rewards.

a)   A system for an international registry of innovations has   been suggested (Gupta 1994) both in the name of  individuals as   well as communities as the case may be.  This registration should   assign a right of precedence as well as protection for limited   period.   During this period, either other communities or institutions would claim to have already developed the innovation or   would agree to add value and seek higher degree of protection.    An International Fund under CBD as well as CPGR (Commission on   Plant Genetic Resources, FAO) could help in maintaining the   registry in collaboration with WIPO (World Intellectual Property   Organisation).  It has to be understood that many communities   would prefer collective funds to be set up for local conservation   and economic well being.  At the same time, SRISTI has been   arguing that the rights of individual innovators or conservators   of resources should be specifically protected even if they    themselves do not pursue the same in the short run.  Whenever a   reward becomes due, the innovator or conservator concerned should   have the option of deciding what to do with the material resources becoming available.   It is possible that choices and preferences may change once concrete alternatives are available.  

b)   The contemporary innovations should not be subsumed under   traditional knowledge as is often attempted by many NGOs and   international organisations.  Honey Bee Network supported by   SRISTI has thousands of innovations in its database which can be   sourced to specific innovators and/or communities.  It is true   that many of these individuals innovators did not develop innovations to seek any material reward.   And yet, that cannot be the   reason for denying them their due.  Another reason for distin-  guishing individual contributions from the collective is that in   case of agricultural biodiversity, only a small disadvantaged   section of a village in many cases may be growing land races.  To   make entire community custodian of any reward that may become due   because of the contribution of a few may be unfair.  At the same               time if the large majority of the people (more than 75 per cent) grow land races, the community level reward may make sense.  

c)   No scheme of incentives for conservation should lead to the    erosion of the very natural base for which the incentives were    put in the first place.   Some people have argued that providing    material incentives may distort the values of the local communi-   ties supposed to be living in harmony and peace with nature.  There may be a substance in this suggestion but it should not be    stretched too far.  Material rewards in the absence of local    institution building can lead to the condition as apparent in    some of the North American Indian Reservations.  These communities have very high proportion of alcoholism, drop-out, single    parent families, adolescent mothers etc.  with high economic    deprivation.  The welfare system unsupported by any investment in    local institution building killed the spirit of local enterprise    in many communities.  There are examples where excellent farm    lands were converted into almost wasteland due to lack of proper    use or no use at all.   At the same time, there are communities    like Zunis who have fought against the state, won major law suits    and got large amount of monetary compensation to undo the damage    to their natural resources because of unauthorized dumping by the    state.  These communities are using latest technology such as GPS    to manage natural resources optimally and revive some of the old    technologies and land use systems to rejuvenate the irrigated    lands.  

Therefore, one must recognize that absence of monetary rewards     and other opportunities is unlikely to either preserve the re-    source, or the ethics which conserved the resource so far.  The     extent of illiteracy is very high in biodiversity rich regions,     consequent emigration of young people particularly males is also     very high.   The public systems as well as market forces are very     weak.  Given preponderance of women headed or managed households     in these regions, and historical bias against women in the exist-    ing institutions, the pressure for reform from below is also weak     in many such regions.  It is in these conditions that absence of     economic incentives for conservation may give a signal to young     people not to either acquire the traditional knowledge nor to     continue investing the restraint in conserving the diversity.      The erosion of knowledge was never so high as in the current generation.  

We have suggested following matrix for combining material as well     as non-material incentives to conserve the diversity, reward     creativity and innovation, generate respect for local institutions and ethical behaviour and influence the values of the future leaders of the society.  

Figure 1 

Forms of Rewards 

Material       Non-material

Individual     1              2

Target of 
Rewards
Collective     3              4

The first category of material - individual rewards includes the conventional incentives such as patents, license fee, contract fee, monetary rewards for innovations and conservation efforts etc.  The individuals who have developed sustainable technological innovations such as herbal pesticides, veterinary medicines, natural dyes, or improved upon the existing ones may deserve to be rewarded for their  creativity.  It is upto them as to what do they do with their reward.  I am avoiding the use of word compensation instead of reward because the former often implies something of lesser value.  

We have come across cases in which individual inventors or innovators have refused any private reward.  In such cases, we have tried to experiment with setting up of trust funds for the collective use but under the leadership of individuals whose contributions made this possible.  Such a measure also generates non-material individual reward in the form of honour or esteem.

The second category of non-material individual incentives include honour, recognition and respect for such individuals who have contributed extraordinarily to the goals of conservation or value addition or both.  SRISTI honoured thirteen such individuals last year out of its survey of innovation in one state (Gujarat) in India.   Similar surveys through competition and otherwise are being organised in several other states of the country.  We have also organised biodiversity contest among school children and honoured the most knowledgeable children.  Small material prizes accompanied by honour contributes in building of the spirit of the competitiveness as well as respect for local knowledge.  Conservation through competition has been a very successful experiment being pursued by SRISTI in different parts of the world.  

The third category of material and collective incentives is a very interesting because of the enormous scope it offers for experimentation.  Several kinds of trust funds, guarantee, risk or ventured capital funds can be set up to promote conservation, value addition, commercialization etc.  There is no venture capital fund for promoting small innovations though there are many VCFs for large innovators.  Similarly, small communities may be interested in value addition in local biodiversity for which risk as well as guarantee funds may be necessary.  Some of these funds will operate at regional level while others may be required at community levels.  

These funds may provide enough flexibility to different communities to pursue culture-specific norms of conservation as well as reward and/or compensation.  

The fourth category of non-material collective includes policy reform, institution building, incorporation of local ecological knowledge in the curriculum at different levels in the educational system, development of markets for organic and other local products at national and global level etc.  

Many times the critics of this scheme of rewarding ethical behaviour and cemetric local bonds  with nature have ignored the fact that a combination of these incentives will provide sustainable outcomes.  No one incentive may be sufficient to generate the right kind of respect for traditional knowledge as well as contemporary innovations for conservations.  

The ethical guidelines also suggested developing rules of good  conduct and practice the researchers as well as the other outsiders.  In the next part we deal with those issues that these guidelines did not deal with.

Part III - Muddling through Grey Zones : Issues for further research and action   

One of the most important requirement for an ethical society is to let people have the right to information.   Some of the most  fundamental violations of ethical principles take place because these rights have not been respected.  There are several steps that need to be taken in this regard: 

a)   The ethical responsibilities of researchers towards professional associations often is more important than many legislations or sanctions.  These responsibilities should involve a process of consensus building rather than a regimented approach.   For instance national and international associations of Ethnobotanist, biologists, germ plasm collectors, curators of botanical gardens, and pharmaceutical experts should evolve guidelines   and code of conduct on the subject.   It should become impossible for any professional to present a paper in a national or international conference based on peoples knowledge without having shared it in local languages with people themselves.  In addition unless specifically advised by the providers of knowledge, the acknowledgement with name should be obligatory.  

b)   The editors of various journals and other associations will also have to ensure the compliance with the point (a) above.  The funding organisations particularly in the West required declaration about acknowledgement of professional pears.   However, these guidelines seldom insist on prior permission from the providers for using the knowledge.   Similarly, no undertaking is taken that if any income accrues out of the use of their knowledge, it should be shared with the people in a reasonable manner. It is obvious that many NGOs and other groups fighting on behalf may be fond wanting on these grounds.  I suppose that with pressure from various bodies, the professional as well as NGO Networks will become more accountable.                

c)   The national governments in fact are often most indifferent       towards the people who have conserved the natural resources so       long.  If that was not so, the co-relation between biodiversity       and poverty wouldn’t have been so strong.  It is not that this       linkage was not known to policy planners.  Thirty years ago, when       green revolution was just beginning to take shape, research       leaders had acknowledged that many centers of genetic diversity       were inhabited by the poorest people.  Even after thirty years,       their condition has not been improved substantially.  In many  cases it has become worse.  Today, when farmers who benefitted  from green revolution are asked to share a small part of their  wealth in the form of a tax on seeds or outputs, there are world       wide protests.  But there is no farmers movement in North or South which is fighting to protect the rights of the providers  and conservators of biodiversity. There is a considerable opposition to the entry of multi-national corporations, in the seed  sectors in some of the developing countries (perhaps for the right reason) but there is no opposition to the continued neglect    of poor people’s right by the national companies or para statal   corporations.  Undoubtedly, it gives no relief to the poor people  whether they are exploited by the national or international  corporations.                

d)   Given the fact that the governments in many developing countries are slow in enacting legislations in pursuance of CBD      and ICCD, one cannot hope that too much action will take place in      near future.   At the same time, the commercial extraction of      biodiversity will continue to take place by the corporations in      developed countries.  I have suggested that it should be obligatory for any company or individual seeking protection for intellectual property emerging through value addition in biodiversity drawn from a developing countries to declare that the raw   material and the knowledge about it was procured ‘rightfully and        lawfully’.              If there is no law which makes the collection of biodiversity and     its usages illegal without prior informed consent, then it is     legal to take such a resource outside.  But can such a behaviour     be considered rightful ?  It is this appeal to moral values which     is necessary in the developed countries if their concern for     conservation has to be considered seriously.  I am not suggesting     that governments in developing countries should not enact laws     under CBD.  I am merely saying that in the absence of these laws, the business as usual cannot continue.