CEFISES Seminar: Pierre Walckiers, “Science, narrative and argumentation in negotiations on the dematerialization of genetic resources: feedback from the last session of the Plant Treaty Governing body (ITPGRFA, FAO)”

Livestream https://youtube.com/live/hoktLPazEaA

Series: Work-In-Progress

Speaker: Pierre Walckiers (UCLouvain)

Title: “Science, narrative and argumentation in negotiations on the dematerialization of genetic resources: feedback from the last session of the Plant Treaty Governing body (ITPGRFA, FAO)”

Abstract:

This presentation examines the use of scientific arguments in the context of negotiations on international instruments that handle the digitization of genetic resources and the status of digital sequence information (DSI). We will focus on negotiations on the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD), the International Treaty on Plant Genetic Resources for Food (ITPGRFA) and Agriculture and the Pandemic Influenza Preparedness Framework (PIP). The digitization of genetic resources involves the sequencing of physical substances and the processing of data, which radically changes research practices. In this context, different legal interpretations and political narratives are conflicting over the integration of DSI into these legal frameworks. Although a constructive and still-to-be-negotiated instrument was adopted at the last CBD Conference of the Parties, the latest meeting of the governing bodies once again revealed contradictory (scientific) narratives. With an interdisciplinary approach (legal techniques and legal philosophy, and philosophy of science), this presentation will analyze the (strategic and epistocratic) use of science in the DSI negotiations, with comparative discourse analyses on the use of terms (that influence the scope of DSI), relation with the definition of “genetic material” and on Access and Benefit-sharing mechanism. While scientific arguments play a crucial role in this technical issue, we are witnessing the emergence of a “scientific narrative” that uses the argument of science to defend political positions and specific interests. And yet, when we compare the positions of states and stakeholders on several issues, we see that this scientific narrative is not constant, and is even contradictory (between PIP and CBD/ITPGRFA).