Vicissitudes of benefit sharing of crop genetic resources: Downstream and upstream

Developing World Bioethics

Volumn 6, Issue 3, 2006, Pages 144-157

  De Jonge, Bram ^a   Korthals, Michiel ^a  

^a WAGENINGEN UNIVERSITY   (Netherlands)

Author keywords

Benefit sharing; Commutative justice; Consultation; Distributive justice; Plant genetic resources

Indexed keywords

AGRICULTURE; ARTICLE; COMPENSATION; CROP PRODUCTION; DECISION MAKING; FOOD SECURITY; MODEL; NONHUMAN; PLANT GENETICS; PRIORITY JOURNAL; RESEARCH; SOCIAL JUSTICE; WELFARE;

BIOMEDICAL AND BEHAVIORAL RESEARCH; GENETICS AND REPRODUCTION; UNITED NATIONS CONVENTION ON BIOLOGICAL DIVERSITY;

BIODIVERSITY; CROPS, AGRICULTURAL; DEVELOPED COUNTRIES; DEVELOPING COUNTRIES; FOOD SUPPLY; GENETIC RESEARCH; INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY; INTERNATIONAL COOPERATION; SOCIAL JUSTICE; UNITED NATIONS;

EID: 33750080158     PISSN: 14718731     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1111/j.1471-8847.2006.00167.x     Document Type: Article

References (88)

1. United Nations (UN). 2000. Millennium Development Goals. New York, NY: UN. Available at: http://www.un.org/millenniumgoals/ [Accessed 23 July 2006].
2. Food and Agriculture Organisation (FAO). 2005. The State of Food Insecurity in the World 2005: Eradicating World Hunger - Key to Achieving the Millennium Development Goals. Rome: FAO: 4. Available at: ftp://ftp.fao.org/ docrep/fao/008/a0200e/a0200e.pdf [Accessed 23 July 2006].
3. Food and Agriculture Organisation (FAO). 2005. The State of Food and Agriculture 2005: Agricultural Trade and Poverty: Can Trade Work for the Poor? Rome: FAO. Available at: ftp://ftp.fao.org/docrep/fao/008/a0050e/a0050e_full.pdf [Accessed 23 July 2006].
4. Food and Agriculture Organisation (FAO). 2004. The State of Food and Agriculture 2003-04: Agricultural Biotechnology Meeting the Needs of the Poor? Rome: FAO. Available at: http://www.fao.org/docrep/006/y5160e/y5160e00.htm [Accessed 23 July 2006].
5. Compare with Louise Fresco, adjunct director general FAO: 'What we are witnessing is a molecular divide between developed and developing countries, between rich and poor farmers, between research priorities and needs, between technology development and technology transfer - in short, between the promise of biotechnology and its real impact', in L.O. Fresco. A New Social Contract on Biotechnology. Agriculture 21 2003: Online. Available at: http://www.fao.org/ag/ magazine/0305sp1.htm [Accessed 23 July 2006].
6. We will focus primarily on the agricultural sector and thus on plant genetic resources for food and agriculture, or crop genetic resources for short. However, as crop genetic resources are part of the general category of plant genetic resources the latter will also be discussed.
7. For example, The Ad Hoc Open-ended Working Group on Access and Benefit-Sharing of the Convention on Biological Diversity is at present negotiating an International Regime on Access and Benefit-Sharing.
8. K. Simm. Benefit-sharing: An Inquiry Regarding the Meaning and Limits of the Concept in Human Genetic Research. Genomics, Society and Policy 2005; 1(2): 29-40: 37.
9. Genomics, Society and Policy Ibid: 37.
10. United Nations (UN). 1979. Agreement Governing the Activities of States on the Moon and Other Celestial Bodies. New York, NY: UN. Available at: http://www.unoosa.org/pdf/publications/STSPACE11E.pdf [Accessed 13 March 2006].
11. United Nations (UN). 1982. United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea. Montego Bay: UN. Available at: http://www.un.org/Depts/los/ convention_agreements/texts/unclos/unclos_e.pdf [Accessed 28 July 2006];
12. United Nations (UN). 1998. The United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (A Historical Perspective). New York, NY: UN. Available at: http://www.un.org/Depts/los/convention_agreements/ convention_historical_perspective.htm [Accessed 28 July 2006]: In this text it is stated that 'In 1970 the United Nations General Assembly declared the resources of the seabed beyond the limits of national jurisdiction to be "the common heritage of mankind".'
13. United Nations, The United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (A Historical Perspective). op. cit. note 9: Article 11.1 & 11.7(d).
14. United Nations, The United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (A Historical Perspective). op. cit. note 10: Preamble; with explicit references to 'Common Heritage' in article 136, and to 'Benefit Sharing' in article 140.
15. B. Knoppers. 2003. Perspective(s): International Law & Ethics, HUGO Experience. Philadelphia, PA: Conference Paper: 2. Available at: http://www.bioethics.upenn.edu/prog/benefit/pdf/Knoppers_Barbara.pdf [Accessed 13 March 2006].
16. Food and Agriculture Organisation (FAO). 1983. International Undertaking on Plant Genetic Resources. Rome, Italy: FAO. Available at: http://www.fao.org/ ag/cgrfa/IU.htm [Accessed 28 July 2006].
17. International Undertaking on Plant Genetic Resources. Ibid: Article 1.
18. International Undertaking on Plant Genetic Resources. Ibid: Resolution 4/89 & Resolution 5/89.
19. International Undertaking on Plant Genetic Resources. Ibid: Resolution 5/89, final article.
20. See Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD). 1992. Convention on Biological Diversity, 5 June 1992. Montreal: UNEP/CBD. Available at: http://www.biodiv.org/doc/legal/cbd-en.pdf [Accessed 23 July 2006].
21. Convention on Biological Diversity, 5 June 1992. Ibid: Article 1.
22. Resolution 3/91 of the IUPGR already states that 'the concept of mankind's heritage . . . is subject to the sovereignty of the states over their plant genetic resources.' The CBD takes the final step and abandons the notion of common heritage.
23. Convention on Biological Diversity, op. cit. note 18: Preamble.
24. In the CBD, genetic resources are actually defined as 'genetic material of actual or potential value': Article 2.
25. Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD). 2002. Bonn Guidelines on Access to Genetic Resources and the Fair and Equitable Sharing of the Benefits Arising out of their Utilization. Montreal: UNEP/CBD. Available at: http://www.biodiv.org/doc/publications/cbd-bonn-gdls-en.pdf [Accessed 22 July 2006].
26. For example, '[The CGIAR (see footnote 29)] averaged 9782 acquisitions annually for the five calendar years before the CBD. In 1997 . . . the number of new accessions was only 563. The decline in the number of collection missions was even steeper', see W.P. Falcon & C. Fowler. Carving up the Commons - Emergence of a New International Regime for Germplasm Development and Transfer. Food Policy 2002; 27: 197-222: 210.
27. For more information on the complex negotiation history of the ITPGRFA and its relation to the CBD and other relevant Treaties see, for example, C. Stannard et al. Agricultural Biological Diversity for Food Security: Shaping International Initiatives to Help Agriculture and the Environment. Howard Law J 2004; 48: 397-430;
28. and Global Forum on Agricultural Research (GFAR) & International Plant Genetic Resources Institute (IPGRI). 2003. Strengthening Partnerships in Agricultural Research for Development in the Context of Globalisation. Rome: GFAR/IPGRI.
29. Food and Agriculture Organisation (FAO). 2001. The International Treaty on Plant Genetic Resources for Food and Agriculture. Rome: FAO. Available at: http://www.fao.org/ag/cgrfa/itpgr.htm [Accessed 28 July 2006].
30. The International Treaty on Plant Genetic Resources for Food and Agriculture. Ibid: Preamble.
31. Payment is voluntary if others can use the commercialized product, without restriction, for further research and breeding, it is compulsory if not.
32. The CGIAR centres hold a substantial percentage (over 500.000 items) of the germplasm in ex-situ storage. For more information see: http://www.cgiar. org.
33. Food and Agriculture Organisation, The International Treaty on Plant Genetic Resources for Food and Agriculture. op. cit. note 26: Article 11.5.
34. The International Treaty on Plant Genetic Resources for Food and Agriculture. Ibid: Article 9.
35. The International Treaty on Plant Genetic Resources for Food and Agriculture. Ibid: Article 9.1.
36. World Trade Organisation (WTO). 1994. Agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights. Geneva: WTO. Available at: http://www.wto.org/ English/tratop_e/trips_e/t_agm0_e.htm [Accessed 23 July 2006]. The WTO agreements took effect on 1 January 1995 and count 149 member countries (on 11 Dec 2005). However, member states have differing deadlines to ensure that their laws conform to the TRIPS Agreement, ranging from one to 21 years depending on their development status and the patent area involved.
37. World Trade Organization (WTO). 2005. TRIPS: Part II - Standards Concerning the Availability, Scope and Use of Intellectual Property Rights. Geneva: WTO: Article 27.3(b): Patentable Subject Matter. Available at: http://www.wto.org/English/docs_e/legal_e/27-trips_04c_e.htm [Accessed 8 May 2006].
38. TRIPS: Part II - Standards Concerning the Availability, Scope and Use of Intellectual Property Rights. Ibid: Article 27.3(b).
39. It is not in the scope of this article to go into depth with these debates. For more information see, for example, G. Van Overwalle. Protecting and Sharing Biodiversity and Traditional Knowledge: Holder and User Tools. Ecol Econ 2005; 53: 585-607.
40. Falcon & Fowler. Ecol Econ op. cit. note 24.
41. Compare with, for example, K. Ten Kate & S.A. Laird, eds. 1999. The Commercial Use of Biodiversity: Access to Genetic Resources and Benefit-sharing. London: Earthscan.
42. Falcon & Fowler. The Commercial Use of Biodiversity: Access to Genetic Resources and Benefit-sharing. op. cit. note 24.
43. S.B. Brush. Protecting Traditional Agricultural Knowledge. J Law Policy 2005; 17: 59-109.
44. J Law Policy Ibid: 72.
45. Falcon & Fowler, J Law Policy op. cit. note 24: 213.
46. S. Safrin. Hyperownership in a Time of Biotechnological Promise: The International Conflict to Control the Building Blocks of Life. Am J Int Law 2004; 98: 641-685: 665.
47. Public goods are often described in contrast to private goods. Private goods are classified as rivalrous and excludable. Goods are rivalrous in the way that the consumption by one prevents others from enjoying the same good. They are excludable when non-owners can be excluded from consumption. Pure public goods instead are non-rivalrous and nonexcludable. This means that the consumption by one does not affect the consumption of the same good by others. Furthermore, it is either technically impossible, or too costly, to exclude non-owners from consuming the good. There are also many goods that qualify as impure public goods. These goods are either non-rivalrous but excludable or non-excludable but rivalrous. The former are also named 'club-goods' as they are often non-rivalrous inside a group. The latter are called 'common pool resources' as they are accessible to all but subject to depletion or congestion. See I. Kaul et al., eds. 1999. Global Public Goods: International Cooperation in the 21st Century. New York, NY: Oxford University Press: 2-19.
48. Once a country tries to claim that it is, as the CBD states, the 'country of origin', it has to prove so in the face of millennia of evolutionary history. See M. Petit et al. 2001. Why Governments Can't Make Policy: The Case of Plant Genetic Resources in the International Arena. Lima: International Potato Centre: 3-20.
49. Falcon & Fowler, Why Governments Can't Make Policy: The Case of Plant Genetic Resources in the International Arena. op. cit. note 24: 212.
50. Simm, Why Governments Can't Make Policy: The Case of Plant Genetic Resources in the International Arena. op. cit. note 7: 38.
51. Convention on Biological Diversity, Why Governments Can't Make Policy: The Case of Plant Genetic Resources in the International Arena. op. cit. note 18, Preamble;
52. Food and Agriculture Organisation, Why Governments Can't Make Policy: The Case of Plant Genetic Resources in the International Arena. op. cit. note 26, Preamble.
53. Convention on Biological Diversity, Why Governments Can't Make Policy: The Case of Plant Genetic Resources in the International Arena. op. cit. note 18, Preamble
54. Food and Agriculture Organisation, Why Governments Can't Make Policy: The Case of Plant Genetic Resources in the International Arena. op. cit. note 26, Preamble.
55. Convention on Biological Diversity, Why Governments Can't Make Policy: The Case of Plant Genetic Resources in the International Arena. op. cit. note 18, Preamble.
56. Why Governments Can't Make Policy: The Case of Plant Genetic Resources in the International Arena. Ibid: Preamble.
57. Why Governments Can't Make Policy: The Case of Plant Genetic Resources in the International Arena. Ibid: Preamble.
58. Why Governments Can't Make Policy: The Case of Plant Genetic Resources in the International Arena. Ibid: Preamble.
59. Food and Agriculture Organisation, Why Governments Can't Make Policy: The Case of Plant Genetic Resources in the International Arena. op. cit. note 26: Preamble.
60. Why Governments Can't Make Policy: The Case of Plant Genetic Resources in the International Arena. Ibid: Preamble.
61. Food and Agriculture Organisation, Why Governments Can't Make Policy: The Case of Plant Genetic Resources in the International Arena. op. cit. note 26: Article 13: Benefit-sharing in the Multilateral System.
62. D. Miller. 1976. Social Justice. Oxford: Clarendon Press.
63. Social Justice. Ibid.
64. United Nations (UN). 1948. Social Justice. Universal Declaration of Human Rights. New York, NY. UN: Article 27. Available at: http://www.un.org/Overview/ rights.html [Accessed 28 July 2006].
65. United Nations (UN). 1966-1976. International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights. New York, NY. UN: Article 15. Available at: http://www.unhchr.ch/html/menu3/b/a_cescr.htm [Accessed 15 March 2006].
66. International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights. Ibid: Article 1.
67. International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights. Ibid: Article 1.
68. D. Castle & E.R. Gold. 2006. Traditional Knowledge and Benefit Sharing: From Compensation to Transaction. In Accessing and Sharing the Benefits of the Genomics Revolution. P.W.B. Phillips & C.B. Onwuekwe, eds. Dordrecht: Springer.
69. Convention on Biological Diversity, Accessing and Sharing the Benefits of the Genomics Revolution. op. cit. note 18, Preamble.
70. Food and Agriculture Organisation, Accessing and Sharing the Benefits of the Genomics Revolution. op. cit. note 26, Preamble.
71. Convention on Biological Diversity, Accessing and Sharing the Benefits of the Genomics Revolution. op. cit. note 18, Preamble.
72. This includes milestone payments that can be paid well before any final products are developed as these payments are also downstream focused, anticipating the hoped for benefits developed later on.
73. See footnote 4.
74. S. Jasanoff. 2005. Designs on Nature: Science and Democracy in Europe and the United States. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
75. L. Fresco. 2001. Genetically Modified Organisms in Food and Agriculture: Where are we? Where are we Going? Falkenberg: Conference paper: 6-7 Available at: http://www.fao.org/ag/magazine/GMOs.pdf [Accessed 10 March 2006].
76. T.W. Pogge. 2002. World Poverty and Human Rights: Cosmopolitan Responsibilities and Reforms. Cambridge: Polity: 113 & 142.
77. M. Korthals. 2004. Before Dinner: Philosophy and Ethics of Food. Dordrecht: Springer: 145-149.
78. One remarkable barrier to the implementation of consultations in existing ABS agreements is the multiple consent requirements. See the discussion in Safrin, Before Dinner: Philosophy and Ethics of Food. op. cit. note 43: 652-658.
79. Here we use distinctions developed by Scharpf in his analysis of legitimacy. F.W. Scharpf. 1998. Interdependence and Democratic Legitimation. Köln: MPIfG Working Paper. Available at: http://www.mpi-fg-koeln. mpg.de/pu/workpap/wp98-2/wp98-2.html [Accessed 10 March 2006].
80. J. Grin et al. 1996. Technology Assessment through Interaction: A Guide. The Hague: Rathenau Institute.
81. B. Arts. 1998. The Political Influence of Global NGOs: Case Studies on the Climate and Biodiversity Conventions. Utrecht: International Books.
82. P. Kenmore. Integrated Pest Management. Int J Occup Med Environ Health 2002; 8: 173-174.
83. Int J Occup Med Environ Health Ibid: 173-174.
84. E.M. Godtland et al. 2004. The Impact of Farmer-Field-Schools on Knowledge and Productivity: A Study of Potato Farmers in the Peruvian Andes. Working Paper 963. Berkley, CA: Department of Agricultural & Resource Economics, University of California, Berkeley. Available at: http://www-gremaq.univ-tlse1.fr/files/murgai.pdf [Accessed 10 March 2006].
85. J. Pretty. 2002. Agri-Culture: Reconnecting People, Land and Nature. London: Earthscan;
86. J. Pretty. 2003. Social Capital and Connectedness: Issues and Implications for Agriculture, Rural Development and Natural Resource Management in ACP countries. Wageningen: CTA.
87. T. Acharya et al. 2004. Better Global Governance to Promote Genomics for Development. Toronto, ON: CGI-paper. Available at: http://www.utoronto.ca/jcb/ genomics/documents/CGI-paper.pdf [Accessed 10 March 2006].
88. E. Dowdeswell et al. Bridging the Genomics Divide. Global Governance 2003; 9: 1-6: 4.