1
TOWARDS MORE EQUAL FOOTING IN NORTH - SOUTH
2
BIODIVERSITY RESEARCH: EUROPEAN AND SUB-SAHARAN VIEWPOINTS
3
4
Jan Christian Habel1*, Hilde Eggermont2,3, Sven Günter4, Frank E. Zachos5, Ronald K. Mulwa6,
5
Marco Rieckmann7, Lian Pin Koh8, Wolfgang W. Weisser9, Saliou Niassy10, J. Willem H.
6
Ferguson10, Gelaye Gebremichael11, Mwangi Githiru6,12 & Luc Lens13
7
8
1
9
Technische Universität München, D-85350 Freising-Weihenstephan, Germany
Terrestrial Ecology Research Group, Department of Ecology and Ecosystem Management,
Freshwater Biology – Belgian Biodiversity Platform, Royal Belgian Institute of Natural
10
2
11
Sciences, B-1000 Brussels, Belgium
12
3
Limnology Unit, Department of Biology, Ghent University, B-9000 Ghent, Belgium
13
4
Latinamerican Chair for Protected Areas and Biological Corridors “Kenton Miller”, Tropical
14
Agricultural Research and Higher Education Center, CATIE 7170 Turrialba, 30501 Cartago,
15
Costa Rica
16
5
Natural History Museum Vienna, A-1010 Vienna, Austria
17
6
Department of Zoology, National Museums of Kenya, KE-40658 Nairobi, Kenya
18
7
Institute for Social Work, Education and Sport Sciences, University of Vechta, D-49377 Vechta
19
8
ETH Zurich, CH-8092 Zurich, Switzerland
20
9
International Union for Conservation of Nature, CH-1196 Gland, Switzerland
21
10
AfroMont, Centre for Environment Studies, University of Pretoria, South Africa
22
11
Department of Biology, College of Natural Sciences, Jimma University, Jimma, Ethiopia
23
12
Wildlife Works, 210-80300, Voi, Kenya
1
24
13
Terrestrial Ecology Unit, Department of Biology, Ghent University, B-9000 Ghent, Belgium
25
26
*Corresponding author:
27
Jan Christian Habel, Terrestrial Ecology Research Group, Department of Ecology and
28
Ecosystem Management, Technische Universität München, Hans-Carl-von-Carlowitz-Platz 2,
29
85350 Freising-Weihenstephan, Germany
30
E-Mail: Janchristianhabel@gmx.de
31
32
Keywords: Benefit sharing, biodiversity research, biopiracy, knowledge transfer, North-South
33
collaboration
34
2
35
ABSTRACT
36
Biodiversity is unevenly distributed over the globe, with the majority found in the tropics (i.e. in
37
developing countries). Thus, North-South collaboration in biodiversity research are essential for
38
the understanding and protection of biodiversity. In this paper, we caution against unequal
39
academic benefit sharing arising from non-commercial biodiversity research in the South that
40
may ultimately hamper sustainable knowledge transfer and long-term biodiversity conservation.
41
While we fully support the current efforts to stamp out biopiracy through international
42
biodiversity politics and agreements, we illustrate that such legislative frameworks may further
43
constrain biodiversity research in the South. We ask for workable solutions towards more equal
44
footing in North-South biodiversity research. In this contribution we propose a number of steps
45
to transgress the current barriers towards a more fair and equitable sharing of (academic) benefits
46
arising from biodiversity.
47
3
48
Biodiversity protection, access and equal benefit sharing
49
Biodiversity is unevenly distributed across the globe, with the vast majority of biodiversity
50
hotspots scattered across tropical (mountain) regions of Africa, South America and Asia (Myers
51
et al. 2000; Mittermeier et al. 2011) (Fig. 1). However, apart from exceptional biodiversity, many
52
of these regions are also characterized by high demographic growth rates, unstable politics, and
53
armed conflicts which might affect local natural resources (Cincotta et al. 2000). The resulting
54
environmental transformations, coupled with the effects of climate change, have not only caused
55
an unprecedented biodiversity crisis, but also profoundly affected local economies and societies,
56
particularly those depending most on their natural resources (Guo et al. 2010). In addition to
57
biodiversity loss, biopiracy remains a big issue, where foreign prospecting of tropical
58
biodiversity for commercially valuable genetic or biochemical resources often results in proceeds
59
not being fairly shared with the source country (Hamilton 2006).
60
61
Protection, access, and equal benefit sharing are therefore at the centre stage of international
62
biodiversity policies and agreements, consolidated in the Convention of Biological Diversity
63
(CBD) and in newly emerging national policies (Schuklenk and Kleinsmidt 2006), either
64
explicitly (e.g §100 of Namibian Constitution) or implicitly (e.g. §24 of South African
65
Constitution; §42 of Kenyan Constitution). While such regulations are fully justified to ensure
66
fair and equitable sharing of benefits arising from biodiversity in all its aspects, they are often
67
hampered by weakly streamlined and inert bureaucratic procedures that may be subject to
68
unpredictable, short-term modifications (Mahanty and Russell 2002). Moreover, the intrinsically
69
vague definitions used in the CBD, especially with regard to the term ‘genetic resources’ (Schei
70
and Tvedt 2010), and national legislation regarding access, genetic and biological resources, and
4
71
intangible components are so loose that it is hard to imagine what kind of research activity does
72
not qualify as biodiversity prospecting. These and other institutional hurdles for non-commercial
73
biodiversity research are unfortunate as the scientific community in both the South and the North
74
increasingly recognizes the unique value of biodiversity hotspots as natural laboratories for eco-
75
evolutionary research (Plumptre et al. 2003).
76
77
The ghost of academic piracy
78
Somewhat related to the notion of biopiracy, we bring to the limelight the notion of academic
79
piracy to challenge the widespread inequitable sharing of academic benefits arising from non-
80
commercial biological research. While biological research has been deeply rooted in the North
81
for many decades, countries like Brazil, China, Colombia, India, Indonesia, Malaysia, Mexico,
82
the Philippines, Singapore, and South Africa are now emerging as major players in this field.
83
When revising publications on “biodiversity” archived in the Web of Knowledge
84
(N=55.888), the proportion of papers authored by researchers from one of these countries
85
increased more than threefold over 23 years (1990-95: 6%; 1996-2000: 9%; 2001-05: 11%;
86
2006-10: 17%; 2011-13: 20%). This increase in publication records in the South could be
87
indicative of a willingness to change the traditional operational system between the North and
88
the South. However, while scientific knowledge is mostly treated as a common good with equal
89
right of access to all scientists, research activities by Southern partners are still predominantly
90
restricted to raw data collection or, at best, preliminary data analysis. In contrast,
91
conceptualisation of study designs, sophisticated laboratory tests, most statistical data analysis,
92
publishing in peer-reviewed journals and other intellectually-stimulating activities are still
93
primarily carried out in Northern institutions (Harrison 2006; Boshoff 2009), despite the fact that
SM
since 1990
5
94
well-equipped institutions have been established in many developing countries as well.
95
96
Biodiversity research stakeholders in the North and South hence often appear to tacitly support a
97
business trade of raw biodiversity data from South to North rather than true scientific
98
collaboration in terms of intellectual properties among academic partners on par. There may be
99
multiple drivers for this “neo-colonial” state of international biodiversity research. An important
100
one is that use of research funds for local capacity building or engagement is not always
101
acceptable under most research grants. Besides, promotion and tenure decisions in the North are
102
chiefly based on journal citation metrics and successful fundraising, with funding agencies
103
expecting rapid publication return once projects are completed. While academic benefit sharing
104
does not jeopardize high-impact academic output per se, the nominal weights ascribed to training
105
and capacity building in research evaluations generally do not motivate, or even allow, Northern
106
researchers to substantially invest in this. Even for scientists working in biodiversity and
107
conservation, long-term benefits in the regions where research is carried out are irrelevant when
108
it comes to academic evaluations and the allocation of scientific positions. This is further
109
exacerbated by “brain drain”, where highly-qualified Southern scientists frequently shift to
110
Northern institutions, thereby depleting the human resource base that would engage Northern
111
scientists to undertake research in the South.
112
113
Towards more equal footing
114
Despite these problems – the North having funding restrictions, focus on academic research,
115
tenures and careers, and the South having restricted infrastructure, complex procedures, financial
116
constraints, brain drain – solutions do exist that can help a move towards more equal footing in
6
117
non-commercial biodiversity research. This greatly relies on early engagement, preferably at the
118
proposal stage, between researchers and institutions (including funding bodies) to be involved in
119
the research so as to establish mutual goals and a common understanding about project
120
implementation and deliverables. Institutions and funding bodies in the North need to ascribe
121
greater weights to local engagement and capacity building in granting, promotion and tenure.
122
Indeed, funding agencies interested in implementing the CBD should be ready to provide
123
technical assistance and guidance and ensure that evaluations transcend the sole aspiration of
124
yielding high-ranking papers. This would provide a strong basis and the capacity for
125
implementing National Biodiversity Strategies as required by the CBD, while at the same time it
126
would result in an authority to claim for the benefits.
127
128
Various protocols can be used to formalise and actualise this type of engagement, including
129
Mutual Transfer Agreements (MTAs), Memoranda of Understanding (MoUs), and/or Free, Prior
130
and Informed Consents (FPICs). These may contain mutual expectations, rights, procedures and
131
obligations, including logistic support by local authorities and research institutions, technology
132
transfer and capacity building, use and depositing of scientific collections, and joint publications
133
and credits. While such protocols are well-established in many countries, proper implementation
134
has often failed both in terms of the application process and its outcome (Szablowski 2010).
135
Reasons for this failure are varied, and mainly revolve around the timing and level/type of
136
engagement. For instance, case studies in the Philippines showed that FPICs meant to assert the
137
right of indigenous people to influence development activities in their territories failed because
138
consent was manipulated, agreements were culturally inappropriate and weakly operationalized
139
(Minter et al. 2012). To a large extent, this can be attributed to the currently dominant top-down
7
140
engagement, where the researchers from the North arrive at the negotiating table armed with
141
predetermined project goals and funds leaving little latitude for a real exchange of ideas. This
142
should be balanced with bottom-up engagement (probably also including financial input) to
143
allow stakeholders in the South to provide input for the research agenda at an early planning
144
stage. Bottom-up commitments could further benefit from the establishment of research council
145
organizations identifying commonalities in terms of research between the North and the South.
146
Such councils could also endorse research projects from the South and present it to suitable
147
funding entities in the North. Doing so would avoid project overlap and possibly spark more
148
involvement of politicians who often overlook biodiversity issues. Also, more Southern countries
149
could support national observatories that coordinate the local monitoring of long-term ecosystem
150
changes and facilitate local research initiatives.
151
152
To avert “brain drain”, institutions funding scholarships for Southern students to attend Northern
153
universities might also consider investment in biodiversity employment for post-graduates in the
154
South. This has been successfully pioneered by Brazil (fostered by the São Paulo Research
155
Foundation, FAPESP), Ethiopia (implemented by Jimma University), and elsewhere. The
156
combination of transparent and mutually acceptable policies for non-commercial biodiversity
157
research plus retention of a critical mass of well-trained researchers in the South will create
158
opportunities for long-term collaborations and partnerships that are most likely to directly inform
159
biodiversity conservation in areas where it is most urgent.
160
161
Knowledge transfer feeding biodiversity conservation
162
Overcoming the current barriers towards a more fair and equitable sharing of academic benefits
8
163
arising from biodiversity (research) may seem intrinsically complex, yet it is feasible with only
164
minimal change in the way research agendas are set and responsibilities assigned. Conducting
165
research in developing countries is development cooperation and aligns with growing knowledge
166
and involvement of stakeholders of all kinds. Biodiversity-rich countries will not be able to
167
control and defend what is unknown to them. Without knowledge and trained professionals,
168
biodiversity is devalued, with concomitant negative effects for conservation and, also, local
169
economies and poverty alleviation (Secretariat of the Convention on Biological Diversity 2010;
170
Roe et al. 2013). Strengthening capacities for the effective use of biodiversity science in
171
decision-making at all levels is a key priority, as also exemplified by the recent establishment of
172
the Intergovernmental Platform for Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services in Panama, 2012
173
(Turnhout et al. 2012). The identification of mutual benefits and win-win-situations as a basis for
174
fair partnership can certainly lead to sustainable knowledge transfer over decades, and to
175
improved conservation of the planet’s biodiversity, its ecosystems and the services they provide
176
to humankind.
177
9
178
References
179
Boshoff N (2009) Neo-colonialism and research collaboration in Central Africa. Scientometrics
180
181
182
183
184
185
186
187
188
189
190
81: 413-434.
Cincotta RP, Wisnewski J, Engelman R (2000) Human population in the biodiversity hotspots.
Nature 404: 990-992.
Guo Z, Zhang L, Li Y (2010) Increased dependence of humans on ecosystem services and
biodiversity. PLoS ONE 5: e13113.
Hamilton C (2006) Biodiversity, biopiracy and benefits: What allegations of biopiracy tell us
about intellectual property. Developing World Bioeth 6: 158-173.
Harrison A-L (2006) Who´s who in conservation biology – an authorship analysis. Conserv Biol
20: 652–657.
Mahanty S, Russell D (2002) High stakes: lessons from stakeholder groups in the biodiversity
conservation network. Soc Nat Res 15: 179-188.
191
Minter T, van der Ploeg J, Persoon GA, de Brabander V, Sunderland T (2012) Whose consent?
192
Hunter-Gatherers & Extractive Industries in the Northeastern Phillipines. Soc Nat Res 25:
193
1241-1257.
194
Mittermeier RA, Turner WR, Larsen FW, Brooks TM, Gascon C (2011) Global biodiversity
195
conservation: the critical role of hotspots. In: Zachos FE, Habel JC (eds) Biodiversity
196
hotspots – distribution and protection of conservation priority areas. Springer, Heidelberg,
197
pp 2–22.
198
199
200
201
202
203
Myers N, Mittermeier RA, Mittermeier CG, da Fonseca GAB, Kent J (2000) Biodiversity
hotspots for conservation priorities. Nature 403: 853-858.
Plumptre AJ, Davenport TRB, Behangana M et al. (2003) The biodiversity of the Albertine Rift.
Biol Conserv 134: 178-194.
Roe D, Mohammed EY, Porras I, Giuliani A (2013) Linking biodiversity conservation and
poverty reduction: de-polarizing the conservation-poverty debate. Conserv Let 6: 162-171.
204
Schei PJ, Tvedt MW (2010) Genetic resources in the CBD: The wording, the past, the present
205
and the future. Secretariat to the Convention on Biological Diversity, ad hoc open-ended
206
working group on access and benefit sharing, 9th meeting, Cali, Columbia, 22-28 March
207
2010. UNEP/CBD/WG-ABS/9/INF/1.
208
Schuklenk U, Kleinsmidt A (2006) North–south benefit sharing arrangements in bioprospecting
10
209
210
211
212
and genetic research: a critical ethical and legal analysis. Dev World Bioeth 6: 122–134.
Secretariat of the Convention on Biological Diversity (2010) Linking Biodiversity Conservation
and Poverty Alleviation: A State of Knowledge Review. CBD Technical Series No. 55.
Szablowski D (2010) Operationalizing free, prior, and informed consent in the extractive
213
industry sector? Examining the challenges of a negotiated model of justice. Canadian J
214
Dev Stud 30: 1‒2, 111–130.
215
216
Turnhout E, Bloomfield B, Hulme M, Vogel J, Wynne B (2012) Conservation policy: listen to
the voices of experience. Nature 488: 454–455.
11
217
Figure 1: Distribution of the 35 global biodiversity hotspots, adopted from Mittermeier et al.
218
(2011).
219
220
12