The growing importance of equity and fairness in using agrobiodiversity to meet Sustainable Development Goals
•
3 likes•1,142 views
Presentation given by M. Ann Tutwiler, Director General, Bioversity International during Tropentag 2016: Solidarity in a competing world — fair use of resources The new Sustainable Development Goals take a holistic approach, recognizing that human and environmental wellbeing are inextricably linked. SDG 1— No poverty—expands the vision of poverty reduction to go beyond economic resources and include also the natural resources on which the poor depend. Agricultural biodiversity is one natural resource pool that poor farmers have always relied on—in fact farmers are the people who developed the thousands of crop varieties we know today, which provide nutritious diets and support low-input farming systems. Even though they developed these genetic resources, and depend upon them, their rights over them and the traditional knowledge associated with them are not always recognized and ensuing benefits shared fairly and equitably. Two SDG targets address fair and equitable sharing of benefits from genetic resources and traditional knowledge directly: 2.5 under Zero hunger, and 15.6 Life on land. Additionally, several international treaties govern the use of agricultural genetic resources: The International Treaty on Plant Genetic Resources for Food and Agriculture, the Nagoya Protocol of the Convention on Biological Diversity, and the UPOV Convention. National governments too have their own laws. Into this mix, farmers and private sector companies bring their own perspectives and interests of what is fair, what is equitable and what is necessary to spur agricultural innovation. In some cases, contested claims about what constitutes fair and equitable treatment are dividing actors who should be working together in important ways. But there are examples of where heightened emphasis on promoting equity and fairness has contributed to successful outcomes. How can we bring successful local practices to national and international levels? How can we bring international legal commitments on access and benefit sharing to local levels? And, finally what role should the private sector play across the board?
Recommended
Recommended
More Related Content
Viewers also liked
Viewers also liked (8)
More from Bioversity International
More from Bioversity International (15)
Recently uploaded
Recently uploaded (20)
The growing importance of equity and fairness in using agrobiodiversity to meet Sustainable Development Goals
- 1. The growing importance of equity and fairness in using agrobiodiversity to meet Sustainable Development Goals Ann Tutwiler, Director General, Bioversity International 19 September 2016
- 2. Genetic diversity contributes to many SDGs
- 3. SDG 2: Genetic diversity contributes to improved nutrition Bioversity InternationalA. Camacho Bioversity InternationalJ. Raneri
- 4. SDG 13: Genetic diversity helps farmers adapt to climate change • Bioversity InternationalJ. van de Gevel
- 5. Since 10,000 BC people have used genetic diversity to improve productivity and diversify diets
- 6. Since 1980s, international frameworks for sharing diversity began to evolve • 1983 | Commission on Plant Genetic Resources created • 1983 | International Undertaking adopted Plant Genetic Resources as the ‘universal heritage of mankind’ Basic vision • 1989 | Primacy of breeders’ and farmers’ rights • 1991 | Primacy of national sovereignty; • 1991 | Union for the Protection of New Varieties of Plants • 1992 | Convention on Biological Diversity adopted • 2001 | International Treaty text adopted (into force 2004) Conceptual revolution • 2006 | Standard Material Transfer Agreement adopted • 2011 | Nagoya Protocol adopted (into force 2014) The Plant Treaty era
- 7. Plant Treaty Nagoya Protocol Multilateral approach: • Facilitated access • Pre-negotiated terms • Minimum administration costs • Multilateral benefit sharing through international fund. Not directly back to providers • Bilateral negotiations • Blank slate negotiations • High transactions costs • Benefits shared directly with providers 64 crops and forages – if in the Multilateral System All the other edible species and genera (more than 5000*) 2016: Different approaches with different paradigms: the Plant Treaty and the Nagoya Protocol * Kew State of Plants 2016
- 8. Challenges: Implementation of the Plant Treaty Companies reluctant to take materials 1.1% royalty not paid Countries reluctant to put materials in
- 9. • One agriculture ministry, one environment ministry • One multilateral, one bilateral • One food security, one national patrimony, etc. Challenges: Joint implementation of the Nagoya Protocol and the Treaty
- 10. Challenge: from seeds to genomics Bioversity InternationalD. Hunter Wikipedia Images: Bioversity InternationalA. Camacho and Wikipedia
- 11. Cacao: Illustrating perspectives on fairness Photos: IITA and Creative Commons content
- 12. • New modalities, new partnerships, new forms of engagement are needed: • Case by case developing solutions within existing framework fair for all • Participatory and respectful of the agency of farmers • More than technical solutions – trust is key • Increasing relevance and impact • Increasing scrutiny from civil society organizations, media on research What does this mean for research? Bioversity InternationalN. Capozio
- 13. • Global interdependence on plant genetic resources to achieve the Sustainable Development Goals • Plant Genetic Resources for Food and Agriculture are, in many ways, a classic global public good. • But, efforts to create rights to appropriate and exploit private benefits associated are understandable, but give rise to challenges • United Nations are attempting to address this. Laudable efforts, reason to be optimistic that useful agreements will be implemented • Scientists need to understand the written and unwritten rules of the game. Conclusions
Editor's Notes
- NOTES: Today I want to talk about why and how concepts of fairness and equity are playing an increasingly important role in efforts to promote the use of agrobiodiversity in pursuit of sustainable development goals. Is this context, I will provide a short summary of the ways in which agrobiodiversity can be used to contribute to a number of the newly minted SDGs. I will also provide an overview of how contested claims over equity and fairness have come to the surface in – and currently dominate – international fora focusing on how to conserve and use biological diversity for development. The solidarity we need is among all the actors who need to cooperate with each other in order to conserve and use biological diversity for development. At the moment contested understandings of fairness are dividing actors that need to be cooperating with one another, thereby seriously threatening to undermine important initiatives. By way of contrast, I will also provide examples of where heightened emphasis on promoting equity and fairness has contributed positively to solidarity among stakeholders/partners with important results. Agricultural biodiversity is the diversity of crops and their wild relatives, trees, animals, microbes and other species that contribute to agricultural production. This diversity exists at the ecosystem, species, and genetic level and is the result of interactions among people and the environment over thousands of years. The use of agricultural biodiversity can help make agricultural ecosystems more resilient and productive; and can contribute to better nutrition, productivity and livelihoods. I don’t purport to have all of the answers for how to overcome outstanding debate about what constitutes fair and equitable treatment of all the stakeholders involved. But I do hope that by providing a conceptual framework for considering the importance of equity and fairness in the use of a particularly important resource for agricultural development, I will be setting the stage for subsequent presentations and discussions on the key themes of this conference. Similar issues emerge in relation to the management of many common pool natural resources, e.g. water, land, forests and so on
- NOTES: Agricultural biodiversity has a role to play in achieving many of the SDGs – No Poverty, Zero Hunger, Good Health and Wellbeing, Gender Equality, Responsible Consumption and Production, Climate Action and Life on Land – just to mention the most obvious ones. One example Target 2.2: By 2030, end all forms of malnutrition, including achieving, by 2025, the internationally agreed targets on stunting and wasting in children under 5 years of age, and address the nutritional needs of adolescent girls, pregnant and lactating women and older persons. Reducing malnutrition with food system diversity Recent research conducted by Bioversity International in collaboration with the Earth Institute has found that increasing food supply diversity is associated with lower levels of acute and chronic child malnutrition (stunting, wasting and underweight) at a national level. It also found that the diversity of national food supply is dependent on the diversity of agricultural production, particularly in low income countries.
- As the climate changes, our dependence on each other will increase. This slide shows is the predicted impact of changes in climate on the potential to practice agriculture, with in yellow and red, severe reductions (due to increased temperatures and reduced rainfall), and in green, expansion (becoming more favorable; largely due to more precipitation, also to increased temperatures). Whatever direction, the predicted changes are so substantive that current varieties grown might not be the most suitable ones any longer. All areas undergoing change are going to rely on germplasm from areas where such conditions have been prevalent already for some time. Except for countries that span very diverse climate zones (e.g. China, India, Nepal), for all other countries it means having to rely heavily on other countries. Local stakeholders (extension officers), trial farmers inspecting sorghum varieties in Hombolo, Tanzania.
- Primary regions of diversity of major agricultural crops worldwide. From the early explorations and exchanges, crops were carried from one country to another, potatoes and tomatoes from the Americas , wheat, barley and some vegetables and fruits like peas, lettuce and grapes from the Mediterranean Until the 1970s and 1980s the global discourse on equity and fairness was not centre stage. Which is not to say that those issues didn’t exist – wherever you had different conservers, improvers and users of biological resources there have been people who have felt that they were being treated unfairly and there voices were not heard. What is different now is that these discussions about equity and fairness between conservers and users are now on the agendas of international meetings. The initial efforts of the international community to collect and save plant genetic resources were seen as purely technical, scientific forays to save materials – for example my own organization Bioversity was set up originally in 1973 as the International Board on Plant Genetic Resources to coordinate the collection and conservation of threatened farmer varieties .
- After several year of work collecting hundreds and thousands of samples of farmer varieties and crop wild relatives, issues around benefit-sharing began to surface: Developing countries concerned that they were – and always would be – providers of genetic resources, with the global north using the resources to develop commercially valuable products for their own benefit or to sell back to the global south In a post-colonial era, issues of power, ownership and benefits were front of stage The first solution was the International Undertaking adopted by the UN Food and Agricultural Organization which was to characterize plant genetic resources for food and agriculture as the ‘universal heritage of mankind’. But almost immediately it began to unravelling due to: dissatisfaction first from developed countries wanting breeders rights recognized then reaction from developing countries asking for recognition of farmers rights, and then later, national sovereignty These FAO resolutions effectively reversed the concept of universal heritage
- The most recent attempt to resolve this tension has been through the International Treaty on Plant Genetic Resources fully operational since 2007 when the Standard Material Transfer Agreement came into force. Basic approach: in return for putting the genetic resources of 64 crops and forages from your country into a global pool of genetic resources, you get access to: the genetic resources of same crops from all (133) member countries for research, plant breeding and training for food and agriculture the genetic resources or all crops held by international organizations that sign agreements with the Governing Body of the ITPGRFA (CGIAR centers). Access is for free or minimum administrative costs. You can commercialize new crops you develop that incorporate materials you accessed, but you have to pay 1.1% royalty to international benefit sharing fund Main points: From 2014. Protocol to CBD Very different from the Plant Treaty – more laborious to negotiate one at a time and so could negatively impact flow of genetic resources If the current Treaty negotiations are not successful– the Nagoya Protocol will apply by default – this is motivating negotiators to find a solution because the Protocol is much more laborious Out of 391,000 plant species that have been counted, 5,538 are known to be used for human food. (Kew State of Plants 2016)
- Main points: MLS in operation for 7 years and no mandatory payments have been made by commercial users The companies that would trigger the benefit sharing provisions – bigger companies that use patent protection – are deciding not to use the multilateral system – not worth it since they already have access to genetic materials of their own or from other sources. Unwilling to pay for something that they don’t necessarily need Some countries have held back from making materials available through multilateral system – partly because there are limited monetary rewards Since 2013 Negotiations started to make it work better and are still ongoing – involving developed and developing countries, international research organizations, farmer organizations, civil society organizations, seed industry representatives – trying to find a formal that works for everyone
- IMAGE from http://dnasc.byu.edu/ Main points: Technological advances in characterization of genetic resources and in genome-editing methods mean that scientists can now modify crop plants without necessarily accessing the physical samples Holds great promise to speed up plant breeding Neither the Treaty nor the Nagoya Protocol have any provision for governing the information component of genetic resources. [NEW TEXT -- Instead, they turn on regulating access to the physical component of genetic resources.] [REVISED TEXT -- New challenge based on technological developments that exacerbates sense of inequity between the developing and developed world since once again the technological capacity to take advantage of genetic resources are mainly from the south reside in developed countries.
- Let me give you a practical example – we are partners in an effort to develop an international research consortium to discover sources of genetic resistance for disease. – West African cacao farmer -- 95% of cacao production is by smallholder farmers – so it is very important from an economic development perspective. However recently it has been threatened by diseases -- Cacao swollen shoot virus, black pod, witches broom – threatening cacao production mainly in West Africa, We need disease resistant strains. Most are likely to be found in South America as that is the centre of origin and centre of diversity for cacao. So now what? The national agricultural systems and chocolate manufacturers might ask the Latin American providers to share their germplasm so that they can search for disease resistance. The beneficiaries would be the countries’ agricultural systems, the chocolate companies, the smallholder farmers growing the cacao. But what about the providers in South America? If disease resistance is found then surely it is fair that they should benefit from the discovery. Other people argue that not only the provider country should benefit but also the South American cacao growers whose selection and care over the centuries has resulted in today’s diversity. Cacao is not in the 64 crops and forages listed by the treaty so generally ready access to a broad range of materials is not facilitated There are two International collections that are covered by the Treaty (under Article 15 which allows international collections to make their materials available) REVISED TEXT -- However – our consortium [IS INTERESTED IN] screen[ING] the cacao genetic diversity FROM A NUMBER OF COUNTRIES in South America THAT ARE NOT INCLUDED IN THSOSE COLLECTIONs. providers [EXPRESSING RELUCTANCE TO make THOSE RESOURCES available for open, unrestricted access In this kind of situation – solutions are needed now – can’t wait for the next UN resolution – so in this case an interim solution: ---- focus on first stage of screening to see if there are resistant varieties ---- a research consortium framework and transfer agreement whereby providers will share resources for evaluation of disease resistance only --- If any actor wants to use the resource, they have to negotiate directly with the provider This photo is from https://www.ifc.org/wps/wcm/connect/news_ext_content/ifc_external_corporate_site/news+and+events/cocoa_farmers_feature It is a place saver – we probably have something better ourselves http://www.dropdata.org/cocoa/icm_bkp.htm Men doing trials and map are from Bioversity strategy Peruvian farmer is from http://www.chocolatecompromiso.com/blog/
- UN IS WORKING ON SOLUTIONS. UNDER ITPGRFA AND NAGOYA PROTOCOL. BUT LOTS OF WAYS TO GO UNTIL THOSE PROCESSES ARE DONE. IN THE MEANTIME, We can’t wait for the UN to come up with solutions for us. In the meantime we need to develop good practices For example – if your research is to breed for adaptation to climate change – start with a situational analysis with the people you are breeding for – what do they have already, what do they need. Germplasm material might be in the next valley, the next region – without trust, fairness and respect --- underpinned with legal frameworks like Free Prior Informed Consent and Access and Benefit sharing mechanisms – your research will be more difficult and less likely to achieve the impact you seek This morning you heard examples of ……….[Ann – are you going to the Forest side event? Can you pick up key messages from that?] On Wednesday you can see examples of participatory research for resilient seed systems using a Handbook developed by Bioversity scientists with input from researchers, genebank managers, farmers and NGOs
- hope that discussions over the next days will contribute to the discussion and learning that needs to take place to make concerted progress in this area.