Anil K. Gupta
The bio-diverse regions have been known to be inhabited by the poorest people all around the tropical world (Gupta 1981). It is obvious that we cannot conserve diversity by keeping people poor. Studies have also shown that many of the indigenous innovators whether individual or communities. Their ethical values often motivate them to share their knowledge uninhibitedly with the outsiders without expectation of material reward. In the process while they remain poor, the extractors of their knowledge accumulate which justifies the extraction. Apart from the dilemma that arise through mismatch between the ethical values of conservators of biodiversity and the dominant institutions of extractions, there arise questions about the continued validity of values underline discourse in the mainstream. For instance it is an accepted professional value in academics that any communication oral, visual or written having a substantive implications for one's ideas should be acknowledged. Accordingly, personal communications find place in the academic discourse. However, this accountability is generally observed only towards one's professional colleagues. The farmers, indigenous people, artisans etc. are almost never acknowledged in any discourse on their knowledge in a manner that they can be identified. Why should people remain nameless and faceless in discourse on their knowledge and institutions has never been explained adequately? So much so that the whole discipline of ethno-botany/biology has gained legitimacy through extraction without acknowledgment. The wealth accumulated out of value addition in this knowledge is seldom shared with the providers. In a recent paper, I had identified seven dimensions of ethical responsibility such as: accountability of (1) researchers and biodiversity prospectors, engaged by Public/Private Sectors in National/International Organisations towards providers or biodiversity resource from wild, domesticated and public access domains; (2) Researchers and prospectors towards the country or origin; (3) Professionals towards academic communities and professional bodies guiding the process of exploring or extracting biodiversity; (4) International UN or other organizations possessing globally pooled germ plasm collections deposited in good faith but accessible to public or private institutions without reciprocal responsibilities; (5) Institutions of governance legitimizing various kinds of property right regimes and consequent ethical and moral dilemmas; (6) Civil society and consumers of products derived from prospected biodiversity or competing alternatives; (7) Present generation towards future generations and other living non-human sentient beings. In pursuant of Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) and International Convention on Combating Desertification (ICCD), various ethical guidelines followed by private/public obligations were reviewed (Gupta 1994, Nietschman and Churchur, 1994) for discussion in a workshop organised by Pew Conservation Scholars last year. Several other scholars were also invited in the discussion to develop Ethical Guidelines for Accessing/Exploring Biological Diversity (See Annexure 1). These guidelines were endorsed in principle by all the Pew Conservation Scholars and are now being circulated for wider debate. Only three out of seven issues were covered comprehensively in these guidelines. In this paper I summarize some of the important issues not covered by the guidelines and offer suggestion for the remaining issues. It is hoped that Conference of Parties (COP) will reflect on these suggestions so that a global accord can be reached on general ethical principles. It is recognized that there may be culture specific differences in the perfection of moral issues. However, I submit that it should be possible to have an universal consensus on at least some basic ethical principles governing access to biodiversity.
