The Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD), coined in Rio de Janeiro in 1992, declared that genetic resources fall under the sovereignty of nations and therefore that nations have the task to conserve and promote sustainable use of biological diversity and have the right to equitable sharing of benefits.
It is conceptually justifiable that you can ask for a share of the benefits when you have something valuable to share. That is true for leasing a house, some hectares of agricultural land, or a car. Benefits arising out of the use of the car flow to the owner through the lease agreement. However, when there is something wrong with the car, it is obvious that the owner is liable to take the burden of repairing it.
Even though genetic resources have developed in situ long before national borders were drawn, one could argue that governments may claim benefits for plant genetic resources when they appear to have a value in breeding. We all know that even though morally justifiable, the implementation of this concept has some significant challenges, largely because the value of the genetic resource is rather intangible since it appears only when combined with other genetic materials. The international treaty provides leeway for a certain section of plant genetic resources for food and agriculture, but further debates show that the decision of 1992 is more complex than the lease of a car.
The CBD relates to all biological diversity, also to (plant-) pathogens. They fall under the same convention of the obligation of countries to conserve diversity and promote sustainable use and equitable benefit sharing. Some problems arise here, starting with quarantine measures that aim at exterminating certain pests and diseases – no speak of conservation here! If not exterminated, we have to live with them and design all kinds of crop protection measures. Both these options are complex and very costly. So, let’s agree that such pathogens, that part of biodiversity, have a negative value. When breeders try to provide for a sustainable way to mitigate such negative value, and they want to perform bioassays to identify resistances in crops, they need access to the diversity of pathogens. They have to contact the national focal point and negotiate access to such pathogens with the national authorities, conclude Prior Informed Consent and Mutually Agreed Terms for their use. This time-consuming exercise should end with a Material Transfer Agreement which commonly includes some form of payment. How logical is this??? The disease agent has a negative benefit, so the owner, the country where the disease obtained its specific traits that contribute to the country’s biological diversity, could well be held liable for allowing this pathogen to develop and spread. It should ideally be made responsible for exterminating the disease in all affected countries or at least be liable for damages. National sovereign rights should, when you want to trade some of it, come with national sovereign liabilities, just like those of the company leasing a car.
So, I propose to introduce a bonus/malus system for genetic resources. Resources that contribute positively to humanity can be shared using a benefit sharing system – i.e. a bonus; those that have a negative impact should fall under a burden-sharing agreement – i.e. a malus. Such “bonus/malus” arrangement would thus be justifiable.
Of course, there is the Pandemic Influenza Preparedness (PIP) Framework on the exchange and use of influenza viruses and Covid showed that there is an urgent need to discuss a wider arrangement. These discussions suffer from a very restrictive viewpoint – only for other viruses with pandemic potential – and they don’t take into account the damages that the countries of origin are liable to.
Biodiversity is not only a positive thing. Countries that harbor such negative biodiversity should negotiate burden sharing! And those who contribute to reducing the malus, should get a bonus.
