Systemic versus technofix innovation
We would not be here if our ancestors had not applied the precautionary approach. At the Earth Summit in Rio in 1992 „Principle 15: Precautionary Principle“ was agreed. It widens the possibilities of governance in cases of scientific uncertainty. This Principle is addressed in the preamble and underlies the CBD, and very specifically its Cartagena Protocol.
Innovation is only mentioned once in the Text of the CBD in Article 8(j), regarding knowledge practices and innovations of IPLCs. Now, „innovation“ is creeping into the proposed draft decisions in many places and obviously not as a pointer to Article 8(j).
Innovation - as a principle - has been pushed by European business actors in recent years. The relationship between precaution and innovation is still under discussion, e.g. in the European RECIPES project.
What does innovation mean at a time of multiple crises?
It either means addressing this conundrum of interlinked crises in a systemic, multidimensional, transdisciplinary and participatory way, and identifying and addressing the direct and indirect drivers as the IPBES Global Assessment and the new Assessment Report of IPCC suggest. It means seeking sustainable solutions at all levels. It also means that the capacity for horizon scanning and assessment of proposed solutions, projects, programmes, strategies and technologies has to be built. It means that the focus of research and its funding has to be shifted in both industrialized and developing countries.
Will innovation mean more equity and respect for bottom-up insights, inclusion of the many knowledge systems, and mutual capacity-building between all countries? Will it mean not only the narrow capacity to produce but also the broader capacity to assess? Will this approach be drafted, decided, structured and funded appropriately?
Or does innovation mean end-of-the-pipe technofixes with the promise that business-as-usual conditions can be maintained? This means that inflexible harmful production and consumption patterns can be legitimized, perpetuating imbalances of power, including the potential to blackmail deeply indebted countries, plus extraction of resources, land-grabbing, patent acquisition, shareholder defense against sunken assets. It also means the privilege to govern promised - but as yet unassessed or unassessable - technofixes like synbio, gene-drives, geoengineering, potentially affecting many countries.
Will „innovation“ mean that a few developing countries will have the capacity to join the technofix-game of many industrialized countries?
By Christine von Weizsaecker, Ecoropa