Two different ethical notions of benefit sharing of genetic resources and their implications for global development

Abstract

Can genomics working with crop genetic resources, which can be relevant for developing countries, contribute in reducing the gap between rich and poor countries in using modern biotechnologies? In this paper we concentrate on the extent to which benefit sharing of genetic resources can be a mechanism to harness genomics for development and to reduce the “biotechnology divide” or “genomics divide”. First we analyze the existing arrangements (Convention on Biological Biodiversity, the International Treaty on Plant Genetic Resources for Food and Agriculture, FAO 2001) and we conclude that these presuppose predominantly a concept of commutative justice, which is at the basis of considerable drawbacks. Secondly we propose arrangements founded on another concept of justice, distributive justice, which forbids enhancing (existing) inequalities. Upstream benefit sharing of genetic resources is proposed as an interesting alternative, which connects with several coalitions of scientists and poor farmers in the third world. These alternatives offer good prospects to contribute to the reduction of the “genomics divide”.

Keywords:

• benefit sharing
• genetic resources
• commutative justice
• distributive justice

Introduction: benefit sharing and the biotechnology divide

How can genomic biotechnologists and other professionals working with crop genetic resources, which can be relevant for developing countries, contribute in reducing the gap between rich and poor countries in using modern biotechnologies? The answer depends on the extent to which benefit sharing of genetic resources can be a mechanism to harness genomics for development and to reduce the “biotechnology divide” or “genomics divide”.

World food supply is a fundamental concern of international organizations and many countries (FAO 2005a). Food security stands high on the international agenda. Not only chronic hunger but also the so-called “hidden hunger” of micronutrient deficiencies causes many problems within developing countries. Billions suffer from this insidious form of malnutrition caused by the poor quality and lack of diversity in their daily diets, as the Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) annually documents in its reports (FAO 2005b). New technologies such as genomics can, under certain conditions, provide opportunities for developing countries to improve food production by taking into account both food quality and environmental degradation (Mermelstein 2002). Marker or genomics-assisted breeding can greatly improve existing breeding technologies, without using genetic interventions like genetic modification.

However, many professionals in the field of genomics (and wider, biotechnology) are signaling an emerging “biotechnology/genomics divide” between developed and developing countries, between rich and poor farmers and between research priorities and needs (Dowdeswell et al. 2003, Fresco 2003). It is in this context that the concept of benefit sharing of genetic resources plays a crucial role. Originally, benefit sharing was linked to the common heritage idea and referred to equitable distribution of public goods (De Jonge and Korthals 2006, Castle and Gold 2007). Currently, however, benefit sharing is mainly based on a model of compensation or exchange, as set out in the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) (UN 1992; and see FAO 1983, 2001) and the Bonn guidelines (UN 2002). Ethically seen, the model assumes the notion of commutative justice, i.e. the exchange of things or activities made equal on the basis of some exchange rate. In the case of genetic resources, commutative justice means that some countries provide genetic resources while others improve them with biotechnology. In the end, the users compensate the providers with royalties or community development assistance. The model is based on the exchange of genetic material for the outcome benefits of the biotechnological research on that material. The Greek philosopher Aristotle (384–322 BC) in his Nicomachean ethics (Aristotle 1908) developed this model of commutative justice together with an alternative model of justice, namely distributive justice, in which fair and equal distribution of certain goods, diminishing power differences as much as possible, are emphasized. In the following we will discuss the issue of benefit sharing of genetic resources on the basis of both models and introduce the concept of upstream deliberation on research priorities as a form of distributive justice that can contribute to reducing the biotech gap. We will exclusively focus on genomics technologies that can be used in different forms of breeding, like conventional or organic breeding or genetic modification (Varshney et al. 2005). We will not discuss the ethics of genetic modification.

Convention on Biological Diversity and Bonn guidelines

The CBD and the Bonn guidelines assume that genetic resources can be best put under national sovereignty and that bilateral negotiations between providers, on the one hand, and users, on the other hand, can establish a fair and just exchange of genetic resources. However, this ethical model of commutative justice seriously disregards and even undermines much of the content and potency of benefit sharing of crop genetic resources for scientific research that aims at reducing under-nutrition and malnutrition. One main problem of these treaties is that most countries within this framework consider themselves providers and thus sellers of genetic resources; they are much less concerned with their own use and demand for these resources (Petit et al. 2001, pp. 3–20). As a consequence, nation states have focused primarily on the protection of their plant genetic resources instead of facilitating access and developing creative benefit-sharing mechanisms. Because of this, the international transfer of plant genetic resources has dramatically declined since the ratification of the CBD, as Falcon and Fowler (2002) indicate with reference to statistics of the Consultative Group on International Agricultural Research (CGIAR): “The CGIAR 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” (Falcon and Fowler 2002, p. 210). This decline has had major consequences for the agricultural sector since this sector has historically depended on extensive flows of genetic material around the world.

Another problem concerns the practical difficulty that no substantial market for plant genetic resources has ever existed, which makes it very difficult to estimate the value of specific contributions and thus to estimate the desired “exchange rate” within an access and benefit-sharing agreement (ten Kate and Laird 1999). A third point of criticism is that the existing access and benefit-sharing framework forces countries to arrange bilateral contracts that regulate the transfer of plant genetic resources as if these resources were some kind of private good. However, plant genetic resources are most often abundant and non-exclusive goods that do not respect national borders; their value lies primarily in the genetic information they carry which is non-rivalrous. These traits are all characteristics of a public good (Kaul et al. 1999, pp. 2–19).

Instead, the whole idea of user and provider countries is highly criticized as it has obstructed international gene flows on which the agricultural sector historically depends. Brush (2005) argues that the exchange model of benefit sharing is “largely metaphorical” and “inappropriate” where crop genetic resources are concerned. The idea that developing countries are the providers and developed countries the users of plant genetic resources is highly overestimated in the treaties. Nowadays, developing countries depend more on international flows of germplasm than developed countries (Fowler et al. 2001). As a consequence, the countries that can be considered “hotspots” of genetic resources do not profit at all from the existing regulations of benefit sharing. Paradoxically, these countries also belong to the world's poorest areas, such as Peru (hotspot for potatoes) and Burma and Cambodia (hotspot for rice) (Millstone and Lang 2003). This paradox clearly exemplifies that genetic resources are by nature very unequally distributed (what is not?) and that this unequal distribution is restructured by societal interventions.

In summary, the existing framework of commutative justice is not likely to generate any significant benefits because it obstructs the free flow of germplasm on which the agricultural sector has historically depended. Moreover, the framework is especially harmful for the poorest countries as it takes considerable resources to negotiate an access and benefit-sharing agreement home and abroad. Probably, developed countries and the private sector will be able to secure all the genetic resources they need under the current framework, but it is unlikely that poor countries will be able to do the same. To better suit the agricultural sector, the FAO adopted the International Treaty on Plant Genetic Resources for Food and Agriculture (ITPGRFA) in 2001, which establishes a list of 64 major crops and forages that are freely accessible to member countries in a multilateral system of access and benefit sharing. However, the FAO has met with several problems in the development process of this system, which continue to be items on its agenda. For example, some countries, especially from the South, are excluding crop genetic resources from the multilateral system in the hope of selling them bilaterally under the CBD. On the other hand, some countries, especially from the North, have not been eager to accept substantive benefit-sharing arrangements.

Two different ethical notions of justice

Ethics can help somewhat in defining the concept of justice because it provides not only the concept of commutative justice but also that of distributive justice, i.e. the fair distribution of a certain good among at least two parties according to certain equitable criteria (Miller 1976). In line with this last principle of justice, benefit sharing should be based not merely on a model of compensation but rather on a broader model of distribution of common goods according to needs and mutual advantage. A broader notion of benefit sharing that refers to the justice principle of needs and mutual advantage may well be a tool to contribute to the fair distribution of basic goods such as food supply and healthcare. To realize this potency, benefit sharing has to move upstream in the research and development process and be subject to thorough structures of consultation and deliberation by stakeholders on local, national and international levels.

The model of commutative justice can best be seen as a specific aspect of benefit sharing that focuses downstream on the innovation process, specifically on the process's output (products). But how does one know that these products indeed satisfy the food and health needs of present and future generations that CBS and ITPGRFA especially emphasize? In our opinion, this emphasis justifies and calls for a broader model of benefit sharing that is also grounded in the concept of distributive justice. As stated before, distributive justice concerns the fair distribution of certain benefits (or burdens) among several parties. “Fair distribution” is a concept that is intended to prevent the unequal and unfair (=unjustified) distribution of power, of knowledge (Visvanathan 2005), and of market opportunities (Nussbaum 2006, in particular Chs 4 and 5). However, how to define those benefits and how to determine just criteria for allocation are highly debatable issues. As a result, many divergent theories of distributive justice exist. With respect to the subject of distribution, some theories focus on income, wealth, opportunities or entitlements. Regarding the issue of allocation, one can distinguish criteria of merit, rank, needs or equality. However, in the context of crop genetic resources, we believe that it is clear what distributive justice, as a general objective, is or should be about. The central issue at stake is world food supply (and indirectly world health) and the principal criterion for allocation should be based on need. This criterion is somewhat controversial because it is difficult to define “needs”. To be clear, we are not arguing that benefit sharing of genetic resources can, or should, be ruled strictly by the “needs norm”: as if every hungry person can be allocated a precise share of the benefits developed by, for example, a biotechnology company. What we do want to say is that benefit sharing should be seen not merely as an instrument of compensation but more broadly as an instrument of justice that regards the decisions on genomics technological trajectories upstream as part of the innovation process in reducing under-nutrition and malnutrition. Of course, other tools and technologies can be important in securing that aim, but our contention is that also with respect to genomics, satisfying the fundamental need for (adequate) food is a matter of distributive justice (UN Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, the right to adequate food (Art.11): 12/05/99. E/C 12/1999/5 General Comments).

Research priorities of biotechnology and their identification

Under-nutrition and malnutrition have many causes, and biotechnology can only tackle some of these by taking into account both social and natural local processes that shape the contexts of under-nutrition and malnutrition. The exclusive focus in the past on the natural scientific processes of biotechnology has particularly failed in the countries and cultures that differ considerably from Western contexts (Runge et al. 2003, Sagasti 2004, Yee-Cheong and Juma 2005); the contexts of under-nutrition and malnutrition are located in non-Western countries. However, the growing technology divide indicates that biotechnology until now has only accidentally addressed the needs of the very poor farmers in the South. Although the record of biotechnology for the developing world is impressive, detailed overviews make it clear that only the richer countries such as Brazil, South Africa and China profit from innovations processes (Runge et al. 2003, Sagasti 2004, Yee-Cheong and Juma 2005). The moderate intensive smallholdings of the South, which cover more than half of the cropped area in the world, are mostly excluded from biotechnology, although in the near future these areas will cope with more constraints than ever owing to over-cultivation, water shortages and pressure from urbanization. The improvement of moderate intensive smallholdings by biotechnology is confronted with innumerable dilemmas in addition to the ones identified by Morris and Sands (2006). Morris and Sands have identified dilemmas that breeders are confronted with in trying to improve the quality of crops from a Western consumer's standpoint, which is focused on their nutrition preferences.

However, smallholders in struggling to balance ecosystems such as water and soil and agroecosystems are in need of technologies that assist them in developing sustainable and nutritious farming. The sustainable and nutritious farming requires that farmers consult with biotechnologists as they focus on the main priorities of innovation processes. These types of upstream consultations on the problems of breeding, and more generally, soil and water systems in connection with social structures, require not only that scientists speak for farmers but also that actually they speak with them on their interpretation of needs, prospects and interests.1 This is the core idea of benefit sharing upstream in the innovation process: it is all about research priorities and focusing on tackling the dilemmas that are most relevant for the poorest farmers.

A recent study on GM crop research, which was conducted at 61 public research institutes in 15 developing countries, found that “GM crops developed by public research institutes should be most relevant to local needs in poor countries” (Cohen 2005, p. 33). The record of scientists speaking for poor farmers is not always good (Easterly 2006); the research priorities that have been chosen until now give ample evidence of this because one can assume that herbicide resistant crops are notoriously not relevant for the poorest because they simply have no money for herbicides. Research priorities such as developing crops that are drought or wet resistant seem more important. However, one should also consider researching enriching crops with micronutrients that are particularly interesting for the poor. In 2004, the Micronutrient Initiative, a Canadian research organization, reported that well over half of sub-Saharan children under five lack iron, a nutrient vital to developing a strong nervous system (Micronutrient Initiative 2004). Children who have an underdeveloped nervous system often have trouble concentrating and coordinating brain signals with movements, such as holding a pencil. These actions are crucial to education. Three and a half million children lack sufficient iodine, which can lower a child's IQ by 10 or more points. More than a half million youngsters suffer from a vitamin A deficiency, which cripples young immune systems. Ensuring that children receive adequate vitamin A can lower child mortality by more than one-fifth. Children lacking vitamin B12 have impaired cognitive skills and do poorly on tests. In most foods, these vital nutrients exist in traces. However, the importance of vitamin intake starts in the fetal stages of development. A child denied important nutrients such as vitamins A and B12, iron, iodine and folic acid in the womb and later in infancy will suffer irreversible brain and nervous-system damage, even if they appear well fed. Enriching crops with omega 3 fatty acids (healthy fats), for example, as Morris and Sands suggest, is then not the highest priority for poor non-Western farmers as it is for Western consumers. More plausible is then enriching crops with vitamins, iron and folic acid as one of the options to tackle undernourishment.

Prospects for upstream benefit sharing

Above, we suggested possible solutions for upstream benefit sharing because we cannot and should not decide for the poor. Scientists should not only speak for poor farmers, but also speak with farmers, but how? That is not an easy task, but one can at least say that scientists need more and better communication infrastructures to understand what really poor farmers prefer and what they need (Pingali 2007, Reece 2007). Existing systems of innovation are disconnected from farmers' needs and from communication channels. To close the distance between scientists and farmers, new communication structures are needed. The present communication structures for innovations are insufficient; they cannot reach the poorer farmers (Pingali 2007). Moreover, it turns out that communication between southern countries barely exists, and exchange of information and coordination of research scarcely takes place. As such, more research infrastructure between south-to-south countries on what traits to improve with what type of biotechnologies is necessary (Pingali 2007). The concept of distributive justice requires that those communication structures exclude as much as possible the establishment of (new) power structures.

Social research needs to be done on how the interface between science and the social organization of poor farmers can be restructured best and how consultation practices can be established on research priorities, on types of risks and on tests that identify the risks that are necessary for risk regulation in compliance with international standards. Interesting initiatives have already been developed for these issues (Ashby et al. 2000, Wekundah 2005, Puente Rodríguez 2007, Singhs 2007), but other efforts than benefit sharing according to the model of commutative justice should be tried to shorten the distance between the innovations processes and the needs of the poorest farmers and to enhance fair and equal distribution of technological and natural resources. In several papers in the journal Asian Biotechnology and Development Review and by international organizations like the International Food Policy Institute (IFPRI) and the Generation Challenge Program this issue is elaborated upon (Pretty 2003, Acharya et al. 2004, Smale and Tushemereirwe 2007).

Conclusion

Commutative justice is the ethical assumption behind the two most important regulations on the exchange of genetic material that benefits biotechnological research on that material. This assumption implies that benefit sharing takes place on the basis of the innovations process output, which is essentially downstream oriented. We have made a plea for a broader concept of distributive justice, the equal and fair distribution of public goods, as the foundation for benefit-sharing projects. This also implies that more attention is paid to the needs of poor farmers upstream in the innovation process of genomics, which, according to the authors, can only be realized by actually organizing consultation processes with these farmers or their representatives on their needs and preferences for research.

Notes

See Fresco: “in a globalised economy, the voices of small countries and poor producers and consumers often go unheard. I believe that scientists have moral responsibilities to speak for the weaker segments of society, because they sometimes best understand the likely results of not doing so” (Fresco 2007, p. 7).