Cristancho-Pinilla, Edwin Arvey.Pdf
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
A University of Sussex PhD thesis Available online via Sussex Research Online: http://sro.sussex.ac.uk/ This thesis is protected by copyright which belongs to the author. This thesis cannot be reproduced or quoted extensively from without first obtaining permission in writing from the Author The content must not be changed in any way or sold commercially in any format or medium without the formal permission of the Author When referring to this work, full bibliographic details including the author, title, awarding institution and date of the thesis must be given Please visit Sussex Research Online for more information and further details Benefitting from Biodiversity-Based Innovation Edwin Arvey Cristancho-Pinilla Doctor of Philosophy SPRU – Science and Technology Policy Research University of Sussex Submitted November 2017 ii I hereby declare that this thesis has not been and will not be, submitted in whole or in part to another University for the award of any other degree. [ORIGINAL SIGNED] Signature: ……………………………………… iii UNIVERSITY OF SUSSEX Edwin Arvey Cristancho-Pinilla Doctor of Philosophy in Science and Technology Policy Benefitting from Biodiversity-Based Innovation: ABSTRACT This thesis argues for the need for a more comprehensive discussion of biodiversity use in relation to enhancing benefits of this use for biodiverse countries and promoting more equitable sharing of these benefits. The findings from this doctoral research reveal that biodiversity-based innovation is a social shaping process that has resulted in large benefits. The cumulative capability to use species from biodiversity gives meanings that contribute to the species shaping process, with organisations and institutional changes providing direction and increasing the rate of the shaping process. In showing how innovation takes place and how the appropriation of benefits occurs, this research contributes to studies on science policy and innovation in relation, especially, to biodiversity-based innovation. The thesis introduces the Convention of Biological Diversity (CBD) and the Nagoya Protocol as representing change to the governance of biodiversity. The theoretical approach draws on evolutionary and institutional economics, both of which inform and extend a question that is central in the sociology of technology: That is how are technology (innovation understood as an output) and social practices shaped collectively? Three cases are used to trace what occurs in the shaping process of species from biodiversity: (i) The Jersey cow is a breed within the species Bos Taurus or modern taurine cattle. The isolated character of Jersey delimited the scope of the breed at a point in time when it was being bred locally and allow us to identify its shaping as a ‘technology’, and the broader diffusion of its use. The Jersey cow is used to introduce the theoretical framework and the analysis. (ii) Maca, originally from Peru, is a root crop with nutritional and, allegedly, fertility enhancing properties. It was domesticated in Peru and only a few world regions have conditions favouring its production. Maca is commercialised as flour and used as a raw material. (iii) Quinua has great potential as a staple food crop. The Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) declared 2013 to be the International Year of Quinoa on the basis of its unique and nutritious character. Three Andean countries (Bolivia, Ecuador and Peru) report exports of quinua grain, although dozens of countries around the world are engaged in performing agronomic testing for its commercial production. A comparative analysis of the three cases helps to identify the science and technology policy issues related to implementation of the CBD and the Nagoya Protocol. The case studies demonstrate the innovation process of species from biodiversity. Benefits arise from the diffusion of the use of the species (via commercialisation), which accrued to individuals or groups. The characterisation of the innovation process highlights how the voices and agency of actors and organisations affected the shaping process. The governance over the goods that emerged from the use of the species defined the appropriation of benefits. iv Acknowledgements The completion of this thesis would not have been possible without the support and help of many people, only some of whom it is possible to mention here. I am sincerely grateful to my supervisors Ed (Edward W.) Steinmueller and Adrian Ely, who offered invaluable support and advice throughout my doctoral study. They provided me with irreplaceable and generous feedback, patience in guiding me through the DPhil process, and friendship. I am endlessly grateful for their consistently and meticulously reading and re- reading each chapter, for their encouragement, and for keeping me on track while I muddled through of theories and methods. I thank my wife Ana Paola, who has been my anchor to Colombia during this five-year journey. Her love, strength and patience inspire me every day. I would not be where I am without my family’s support, my parents, brother, sister, nieces and nephew have make the difference. Also, I would like to thank all the interviewees who generously gave me their time and insight, which made the research possible. Also, I thanks to the Genetic Resources group from the Centro Internacional de la Papa (International Centre of Potato) in Lima, Peru, and the Vidarium Research Centre from the Nutresa Business Group, in Medellin, Colombia, for hosting me during my fieldwork. It has been a privilege to do my doctoral degree in SPRU, which offered an intellectually stimulating home for its PhD students. I have been surrounded by a group of SPRU friends, from whom I learnt, and who made my time at Sussex a very enjoyable experience. Thanks to all of them for the many wonderful shared meals, laughs, and long conversations. Developing life-long friendships were one of the best experiences in this whole process. I am also very thankfull to the DPhil examiners, Patrick van Zwanenberg and Michael M. Hopkins, for their many insightful comments that helped to improve my thesis. I owe special thanks to Cynthia Little for editing my final draft, and to Janet French for her revision of the first draft of some of the chapters. Finally, I am thankful for the funding that made my PhD study possible. I received funding from Colciencias. v ‘Just that,’ said the fox. ‘To me, you are still nothing more than a little boy who is just like a hundred thousand other little boys. And I have no need of you. And you, on your part, have no need of me. To you, I am nothing more than a fox like a hundred thousand other foxes. But if you tame me, then we shall need each other. To me, you will be unique in all the world. To you, I shall be unique in all the world . .’ ‘I am beginning to understand,’ said the little prince. ‘There is a flower . I think that she has tamed me . .’ The little prince, by Antoine de Saint-Exupéry vi Table of Contents 1 Introduction: Evidence for biodiversity-based innovation ............................................... 1 1.1 Need for evidence-based policy-making .................................................................... 1 1.2 Motivation (I) Policy-making, individual decision and collective choice ................... 9 1.3 Motivation (II) Food and benefits arising from biodiversity .................................... 14 1.4 Biodiversity use and appropriation of its benefits – A historical view .................... 20 1.5 Structure of the thesis ............................................................................................... 26 2 Innovation process and appropriation of benefits ......................................................... 28 2.1 The scope of the theoretical approach .................................................................... 29 2.2 Elements of the theoretical approach ...................................................................... 35 2.3 Toward a synthesis of the theoretical approach: Innovation, (re)design and learning ............................................................................................................................. 36 3 Research design for the heuristic example ..................................................................... 43 3.1 Exploring and applying the unit of analysis .............................................................. 44 3.2 The methodology ....................................................................................................... 50 3.3 The theoretical approach adopted ........................................................................... 53 3.3.1 The innovation process ...................................................................................... 54 3.3.2 Institutions and organisations involved in the innovation process .................. 56 3.3.3 Forms of governance and appropriation of benefits from goods from biodiversity ................................................................................................................... 58 3.4 The research design ................................................................................................... 60 4 The Jersey dairy cow: A heuristic example from which the framework of analysis is devised ................................................................................................................................. 62 4.1 The Jersey cow innovation process .......................................................................... 65 4.1.1 The shaping of the Jersey