William Gibson, in his book Pattern Recognition, describes the scenario pertaining to the impacts of technology on human society in the following way: “We have no future because our present is too volatile. We have only risk management. The spinning of the given moment’s scenarios. Pattern recognition…”. Few descriptions are as appropriate for both the characterization of the speed at which gains in scientific and technological knowledge are taking place and their ensuing effects.
A permanent revolution Since such knowledge and speed are no doubt fundamental for the production of contemporary society’s goods, it seems very opportune that we examine the risks of the establishment of, in extreme cases, detachment between technological development and its environmental and socio-economic context. The array of expressions of Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) certainly indicate the intention to promote a re-signification and a re-contextualization of this scientific and technological development.
Fernando Almeida, Executive President of the Brazilian chapter of the World Business Council for Sustainable Development (CEBDS), proposes — in his book Os Desafios da Sustentabilidade: uma ruptura urgente (The Challenges of Sustainability: An Urgent Rupture) — what can be considered as a ‘permanent revolution’ in CSR practices. It is imperative not to make such practices static, and thus inefficient, but to continually transform them by breaking with outdated assumptions so as to, in fact, create effective instruments of interaction between business and its environmental and socio-economic ecosystems which are an integrated part of and elements indispensable to its functionality — as stated in COP Decision VIII/17 of the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD).
The best model for this insertion, adaptation and adjustment of business is precisely that area of human knowledge that deals with Information Technology, whose software applications that consumers find most attractive are precisely those that most efficiently adopt the ecosystem design approach, combining communication, entertainment, capacity of calculation and spatial-temporal orientation, in a world that is more and more post-geographic.
Therefore, technology transfer should be optimized as a tool for sharing the benefits associated with access to biodiversity. The question is how to ‘enter the matrix’ so that we may combine evolutions, perceptions, rights and developments that manifest and express themselves at different speeds, as William Gibson points out.
It is worth highlighting that Decision VIII/12, which addresses technology transfer and cooperation, notes “the importance of guidance and initiatives to promote private sector engagement in technology transfer and technological and scientific cooperation and to strengthen enabling environments for investment in Convention implementation at the national level”.
Similarly, Article 13 of the International Treaty on Plant Genetic Resources for Food and Agriculture (ITPGRFA) highlights various ways and means by which it is possible to promote technology transfer, including:
Tax and other economic incentives in supplier Parties to encourage exports and, in recipient Parties, to encourage imports; Reforming foreign investment laws; Trade assistance; Expanded intellectual property rights protection; Collaborative research and development arrangements; Establishing national, regional or global technology clearing-houses or other enabling mechanisms; Grants; and The purchase of intellectual property rights on behalf of another Party.
Examples from Brazil Several Brazilian initiatives have focused on how to ‘enter the matrix’ and deserve greater attention from the international community and, more specifically, the business world. These include:
The Biota programme, implemented by the Fundação de Amparo à Pesquisa do Estado de São Paulo (FAPESP) in partnership with the Centre of Reference on Environmental Information (CRIA), develops and transfers technologies for strengthening the knowledge and valuation of the biodiversity of the Atlantic Forest, through the investment of highly significant sums of public funds by São Paulo, one of the most developed states in the nation. The Natura Campus project, which brings together cosmetics manufacturer Natura, FAPESP and public universities, invests in building the capacity of students, researchers and providers of biological resources.
Reservas do Brasil is a small technology-based firm which works, in association with NGOs and through the use of remote sensing technologies, towards the conservation of natural landscapes in rural properties.
In central Brazil (the ‘cerrados’ savannah region), The Nature Conservancy is partnering with local NGOs, the Brazilian Agricultural Research Corporation (Embrapa) and several companies to carry out very significant work on landscape recovery; rational use of agrichemicals; and sustainable management of water and soil through the transfer of technology and training.
In support of beekeepers and the production of honey, Project Elo — a joint effort between the Syngenta Foundation for Sustainable Agriculture and the Brazil Ministry of Agrarian Development’s Project Dom Helder Câmara — finances technology transfer for the recovery and conservation of native vegetation of the semi-arid (‘caatinga’) settlements of small-holder growers in the Rio Grande do Norte state.
Learning to dialogue Still, some additional steps remain to be made for making technology transfer an effective and fair mechanism for entering the matrix. I believe, for instance, that government, research institutes and business need to learn to better dialogue. Such negotiations would allow for the better valuation of biodiversity — a way of encouraging the elaboration of fair and mutually interesting contracts between providers and users of biodiversity, without the excessive intervention of government.
With all those involved, however, lies a responsibility to develop and inform on the rights, duties and values that emanate from the sustainable use of biodiversity. Arguably, in no other area is it more important to discuss synergies between environmental conventions. In this regard, we need to highlight the importance of genetics and pre-breeding sciences and their contribution — which remains to be fully explored — for the improvement of plant species designed to perform better in new climate conditions.
CEBDS wholeheartedly embraces the call, expressed in Decision VIII/17, for business to actively participate in the building of scenarios proposed by the Ad Hoc Technical Expert Group on Technology Transfer and Scientific and Technological Cooperation. These could include new technologies such as in vitro evolution (molecular breeding) whose capacity to innovate and optimize molecules provides greater room for the establishment of new definitions and concepts regarding genetic diversity. It also presents new possible scenarios in Intellectual Property which should surely impact both developed and developing economies if analyzed with the necessary acuity. Certainly, the Convention should be able to include and rely on, whenever possible in the Ad Hoc Technical Expert Group on Technology Transfer and Scientific and Technological Cooperation, specialists in Evolution, Systems Genetics and Systems Ecology.
Joaquim Machado (
joaquim.machado@syngenta.com) is President, Chamber on Biodiversity and Biotechnology, link http://www.cebds.org.br Conselho Empresarial Brasileiro para o Desenvolvimento Sustentável (CEBDS) and is Director, Governmental Affairs on Biodiversity and Biotechnology, Syngenta.
(1)
http://www.cebds.org.br/cebds/noticias.asp?ID=205