Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in
Book cover

Indigenous Peoples, Consent and Benefit Sharing pp 69–86Cite as

Bioprospecting, Access and Benefit Sharing: Revisiting the ‘Grand Bargain’

  • Chapter

Abstract

This chapter sets out the wider international context of bioprospecting, access and benefit sharing, and describes the fraught policy process that has evolved since the adoption of the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) in 1992. Notwithstanding the abundance of new policies and laws to control access to genetic resources and ensure fair benefit sharing, their effectiveness has been questionable. The complexity and diversity of bioprospecting activities and commercial players are often poorly recognized, and policy has lagged behind the practice of biprospecting. Moreover, the vast range of issues involved - from trade to conservation, intellectual property, biotechnology and traditional knowledge - has resulted in the policy process becoming a forum for much wider concerns dealing with globalization, corporate behaviour and the disparities between rich and poor.

Some of the key issues that remain unresolved in the run-up to finalizing an international regime on access and benefit sharing revolve around compliance, and whether or not patent holders should be obliged to disclose the origin of biological resources and knowledge in patent applications, the scope of the agreement, and whether or not it should go beyond the CBD to address biochemicals and derivatives. Expectations of what bioprospecting can deliver are unrealistic and overly optimistic and no ‘grand bargain’ has actually been possible.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution.

Chapter
USD   29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD   44.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD   59.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Learn about institutional subscriptions

Notes

  1. 1.

    1 ‘Biodiversity’ here refers to the number and variety of living organism on earth.

  2. 2.

    2 The group of Like-Minded Megadiverse Countries comprises Bolivia, Brazil, China, Colombia, Costa Rica, Ecuador, the Philippines, India, Indonesia, Kenya, Malaysia, Mexico, Peru, South Africa and Venezuela, representing 70% of the earth's biodiversity. The group was formally constituted through the Cancun Declaration of 18 February 2002 as a ‘consultation and cooperation mechanism’ to promote common interests and priorities related to the conservation and sustainable use of biodiversity. The development of an international regime to promote and safeguard the fair and equitable sharing of benefits arising out of the utilization of genetic resources has been adopted by the group in its action plan as one of five areas of priority and action (see also http://lmmc.nic.in/).

  3. 3.

    3 See, for example, submission to TRIPS Council by Bolivia, Brazil, Colombia, Cuba, Dominican Republic, Eduador, India, Peru and Thailand, document IP/C/W/447 (2005); submission by Peru regarding the relationship between TRIPS and the CBD (2004); and submission to TRIPS Council by Brazil, India, Pakistan, Peru, Thailand and Venezuela supported by Cuba and Ecuador, Document IP/C/W/429 (2004).

  4. 4.

    4 See, for example, International Chamber of Commerce (ICC), ‘Issues for Consideration by the Group of Technical Experts Concerning a Certificate Relating to Genetic Resources’, submission of ICC to the CBD Secretariat pursuant to Decision VIII/4 paragraph 1 Regarding the Form, Intent and Functioning of an Internationally Recognized Certificate, Including its Practicality, Feasibility and Costs, Document No 450/1020, 15 September 2006.

  5. 5.

    5 See, for example, South Africa's National Environmental Management: Biodiversity Act (10 of 2004), the Philippines' Executive Order 247 on Access to Genetic Resources and the Costa Rica Biodiversity Law 7788 (1998).

  6. 6.

    6 Tef, unlike wheat, has a low gluten content and other attributes of interest to the food industry. An agreement that the Ethiopian Institute of Biodiversity Conservation and the Ethiopian Agricultural Research Organization signed with the Dutch-based company Health and Performance Food International sets out a framework for accessing tef varieties and sharing benefits derived from their commercial development. However, although tef products such as bread and sports bars are already being marketed and sold, disagreements between the contracting parties have prevented the distribution of benefits.

References

  • Anuradha, R. V. (1998). Sharing with the Kanis: A Case Study from Kerala, India. Submitted to the Conference of the Parties to the Convention on Biological Diversity, Fourth Meeting, Bratislava, Slovakia, 4–15 May.

    Google Scholar 

  • Arico, S., & Salpin, C. (2005). Bioprospecting of genetic resources in the deep seabed: scientific, legal and policy aspects. Yokohama, Japan: United Nations University Institute of Advanced Studies.

    Google Scholar 

  • Balick, M. J., & Cox, P. A. (1997). Plants, people and culture: the science of ethnobotany. New York: Scientific American Library.

    Google Scholar 

  • CBD (2000). Annex III: Decisions Adopted by the Conference of the Parties to the Convention on Biological Diversity at Its Fifth Meeting, Nairobi, Kenya, 15–26 May. www.cbd.int/doc/ decisions/COP-05-dec-en.pdf. Accessed 31 October 2008.

    Google Scholar 

  • CBD (2002). Bonn Guidelines on Access to Genetic Resources and Fair and Equitable Sharing of the Benefits Arising out of Their Utilization, Secretariat of the Convention on Biological Diversity, Montreal, QC. www.cbd.int/doc/publications/cbd-bonn-gdls-en.pdf. Accessed 31 October 2008.

    Google Scholar 

  • CBD (2007a). Analysis of Gaps in Existing National, Regional, and International Legal and Other Instruments Relating to Access and Benefit Sharing. Secretariat of the Convention on Biological Diversity, draft for peer review prepared for the Ad-Hoc Open-Ended Working Group on Access and Benefit Sharing, Fifth Meeting, Montreal, QC, 8–12 October.

    Google Scholar 

  • CBD (2007b). Report of the Meeting of the Group of Technical Experts on an Internationally Recognized Certificate of Origin/Source/Legal Provenance. Ad-Hoc Open-Ended Working Group on Access and Benefit Sharing of the Convention on Biological Diversity, 20 February. www.cbd. int/doc/meetings/abs/abswg-05/official/abswg-05-07-en.pdf.

    Google Scholar 

  • Chishakwe, N., & Young, T. R. (2003). Access to genetic resources, and sharing the benefits of their use: international and sub-regional issues, IUCN–The World Conservation Union. Switzerland: Gland.

    Google Scholar 

  • Chouchena-Rojas, M., Ruiz Muller, M., Vivas, D., & Winkler, S. (Eds.) (2005). Disclosure requirements: ensuring mutual supportiveness between the WTO TRIPS agreement and the CBD. IUCN, Gland, Switzerland and Cambridge; ICTSD, Geneva; CIEL, Washington, DC and Geneva; IDDRI, Paris; QUNO, Geneva.

    Google Scholar 

  • CIPR (2002). Chapter 4, Traditional knowledge and geographical indications. In Integrating intellectual property rights and development policy: traditional knowledge and geographical indications. Report of the Commission on Intellectual Property Rights, London. www.iprcom-mission.org/papers/pdfs/final_report/Ch4final.pdf. Accessed 30 October 2008.

  • Cragg, G. M., Kingston, D. G. I., & Newman, D. J. (Eds.) (2005). Anticancer agents from natural products. Boca Raton, FL: CRC Press, Taylor & Francis.

    Google Scholar 

  • Crosby, A. W., Jr. (1972). The Columbian exchange: biological and cultural consequences of 1492. Westport, CT: Greenwood Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Crosby, A. W., Jr. (1986). Ecological imperialism: the biological expansion of Europe, 900–1900. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dobkin de Rios, M. (1992). Amazon healer. Bangalore, India: Prism Books.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dutfield, G. (2002). Intellectual property rights, trade and biodiversity: seeds and plant varieties. London: Earthscan.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dutfield, G. (2004) What is biopiracy? Paper presented at the International Expert Workshop on Access to Genetic Resources and Benefit Sharing, Cuernavaca, Mexico, 24–27 October. www.canmexworkshop.com/documents/papers/I.3.pdf. Accessed 31 October 2008.

  • Dutfield, G. (2005). Disclosure of origin: time for a reality check? In M. Chouchena-Rojas, M. Ruiz Muller, D. Vivas, & S. Winkler (Eds.), Disclosure requirements: ensuring mutual supportiveness between the WTO TRIPS agreement and the CBD. IUCN, Gland, Switzerland and Cambridge; ICTSD, Geneva; CIEL, Washington, DC and Geneva; IDDRI, Paris; QUNO, Geneva.

    Google Scholar 

  • Earth Negotiations Bulletin (2007). Fifth meeting of the ad-hoc open-ended working group on access and benefit sharing, 8–12 October, 2007, Montreal, Canada. www.iisd.ca/biodiv/abs5.

  • Ernst & Young (2006). Beyond borders: Global Biotechnology Report 2006. London: Ernst & Young Global Limited.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gollin, M. A. (1993). An intellectual property rights framework for biodiversity prospecting. In W. V. Reid, S. A. Laird, C. A. Meyer, R. Gomez, A. Sittenfeld, D. H Janzen, M. A. Gollin, & C Juma (Eds.), Biodiversity prospecting: using genetic resources for sustainable development. World Resources Institute, Washington, DC; Instituto Nacional de Biodiversidada, Santo Domingo de Heredia, Costa Rica, FL; Rainforest Alliance, New York; African Centre for Technology Studies, Nairobi, Kenya.

    Google Scholar 

  • Grove, R. H. (1996). Green imperialism: colonial expansion Tropical Island Edens and the origins of environmentalism. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Handelsman, J. (2005). How to find new antibiotics. The Scientist, 19(19), 20.

    Google Scholar 

  • Headrick, D. R. (1990). Technological change. In B. L. Turner, W. C. Clark, R. W. Kates, J. F. Richards, J. T. Mathews & W. B. Meyer (Eds.), The earth as transformed by human action. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hodges, T. J., & Daniel, A. (2005). Promises and pitfalls: first steps on the road to the International ABS Regime. Review of European Community and International Environmental Law, 14(2), 148–160.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Institute of Biodiversity Conservation, Ethiopian Agricultural Research Organization, Health and Performance Food International (2004). Agreement on access to, and benefit sharing from, Teff Genetic Resources. Addis Ababa, Ethiopia, December.

    Google Scholar 

  • International Institute for Sustainable Development (2005). Third meeting of the ad-hoc open-ended working group on access and benefit sharing of the convention on biological diversity. Earth Negotiations Bulletin, 9 (310). www.iisd.ca/download/pdf/enb09310e.pdf. Accessed 31 October 2008.

    Google Scholar 

  • Juma, C. (1989). The gene hunters: biotechnology and the scramble for seeds, ACTS Research Series No. 1. Nairobi, Kenya: African Centre for Technology Studies.

    Google Scholar 

  • Koehn, F. E., & Carter, G. E. (2005). The evolving role of natural products in drug discovery. Nature Reviews Drug Discovery, 4 (3). www.nature.com/ nrd/journal/v4/n3/pdf/nrd1657.pdf. Accessed 31 October 2008.

    Google Scholar 

  • Laird, S. A. (2002). Biodiversity and traditional knowledge: equitable partnerships in practice. London: Earthscan.

    Google Scholar 

  • Laird, S., Monagle, C., & Johnston, S. (2008). Queensland biodiscovery collaboration: the Griffith University AstraZeneca Partnership for natural product discovery: an access and benefit sharing case study. Yokohama, Japan: United Nations University Institute of Advanced Studies.

    Google Scholar 

  • Laird, S. A., & Wynberg, R. (2006). The commercial use of biodiversity: an update on current trends in demand for access to genetic resources and benefit sharing, and industry perspectives on ABS policy and implementation. Prepared for the Ad-Hoc Open-Ended Working Group on Access and Benefit Sharing, Fourth Meeting, Granada, Spain, 30 January to 3 February.

    Google Scholar 

  • Laird, S. A., & Wynberg, R. (2008). Access and Benefit Sharing in Practice: Trends in Partnerships Across Sectors. CBD Technical Series No. 38, Secretariat of the Convention on Biological Diversity, Montreal, QC. www.cbd.int/doc/publications/cbd-ts-38-en.pdf. Accessed 31 October 2008.

  • Lange, L. (2004). Tropical biodiversity: an industrial perspective. Luna, 2004 (30488) 01.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lohan, D., & Johnston, S. (2003). The international regime for bioprospecting. Existing policies and emerging issues for Antarctica. Yokohama, Japan: United Nations University, Institute of Advanced Studies.

    Google Scholar 

  • Macilwain, C. (1998). When rhetoric hits reality in debate on bioprospecting. Nature, 392(6676), 535–540.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • McAlpine, J. B., Bachmann, B. O., Piraee, M., Tremblay, S., Alarco, A., Zazopoulos, E., et al. (2005). Microbial genomics as a guide to drug discovery and structural elucidation: ECO-02301, a novel antifungal agent, as an example. Journal of Natural Products, 68(4), 493–496.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • McNeil, D.G. Jr (2007). Indonesia may sell, not give, bird flu virus to scientists. New York Times, 7 February.

    Google Scholar 

  • Metzner, R. (Ed.) (1999). Ayahuasca: human consciousness and the spirits of nature. New York: Thunder's Mouth Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mgbeoji, I. (2007). Lost in translation? The rhetoric of protecting indigenous peoples' knowledge in international law and the omnipresent reality of biopiracy. In P. Phillips & C. Onwuekwe (Eds.), Accessing and sharing the benefits of the genomics revolution. Dordrecht/Germany: Springer. Nutrition Business Journal (2003). NBJ's Annual Industry Overview VIII. May/June.

    Google Scholar 

  • Parry, B. (2004). Trading the genome: investigating the commodification of bio-information. New York: Columbia University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • PhRMA (2007). Pharmaceutical Industry Profile 2007. Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America, Washington, DC. www.phrma.org/files/Profile%202007.pdf. Accessed 31 October 2008.

    Google Scholar 

  • Reid, W. V., Laird, S. A., Meyer, C. A., Gomez, R., Sittenfeld, A., Janzen, D. H., Gollin, M. A., & Juma, C. (Eds.) (1993). Biodiversity prospecting: using genetic resources for sustainable development. World Resources Institute, Washington, DC; Instituto Nacional de Biodiversidad, Santo Domingo de Heredia, Costa Rica; Rainforest Alliance, New York; African Centre for Technology Studies, Nairobi, Kenya.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rohter, L. (2007) As Brazil defends its bounty, rules ensnare scientists. New York Times, 28 August.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rosenberg, D. (2007). Some business perspectives on the international regime. United Kingdom: GlaxoSmithKline.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rosenthal, J. P., & Katz, F. N. (2004). Natural products research partnerships with multiple objectives in global biodiversity hotspots: nine years of the International Cooperative Biodiversity Groups Program. In A. T. Bull (Ed.), Microbial diversity and bioprospecting. Washington, DC: ASM Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rubenstein, K. D., Heisey, P., Shoemaker, R., Sullivan, J., & Frisvold, G. (2005). Crop genetic resources: an economic appraisal. Economic Research Service Economic Information Bulletin Number 2. United States Department of Agriculture.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sanchez, V., & Juma, C. (1994). Biodiplomacy: genetic resources and international relations. Nairobi, Kenya: African Centre for Technology Studies.

    Google Scholar 

  • Shah, T. (2001). Trail of feathers: in search of the Birdmen of Peru. London: Phoenix.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sheridan, C. (2005). EPO neem patent revocation revives biopiracy debate. Nature Biotechnology, 23, 511.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Smolders, W. (2005). Commercial practice in the use of plant genetic resources for food and agriculture. Background Study Paper No. 27, prepared for the Commission on Genetic Resources for Food and Agriculture, Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, Rome.

    Google Scholar 

  • Svarstad, H., & Dhillion, S. (2004). Responding to bioprospecting: from biodiversity in the south to medicines in the north. Oslo, Norway: Spartacus Forlag.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ten Kate, K., & Laird, S. A. (1999). The commercial use of biodiversity: access to genetic resources and benefit sharing. London: Earthscan.

    Google Scholar 

  • Thornstrom, C. G. (2005). The green blindness: microbial sampling in the Galapagos– the case of Craig Venter vs. the Darwin Institute and the lessons for the trip to China by ‘S/V Gotheberg’, unpublished manuscript.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tuxill, J. (1999). Appreciating the benefits of plant biodiversity. In L. R. Brown & C. Flavin (Eds.), State of the World 1999: special millennium. London: Earthscan.

    Google Scholar 

  • UN (2007). United Nations declaration on the rights of indigenous peoples. Adopted by United Nations General Assembly Resolution 61/295 on 13 September. www.un.org/esa/socdev/unpfii/documents/DRIPS_en.pdf. Accessed 29 April 2008.

  • WHO (2007). Pandemic influenza preparedness: sharing of influenza viruses and access to vaccines and other benefits. Sixtieth World Health Assembly, Agenda Item 12.1, WHA60.28, 23 May, World Health Organization.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wiser, G. (2002). The Ayahuasca patent case: indigenous people's stand against misappropriation. In S. A. Laird (Ed.), Biodiversity and traditional knowledge: equitable partnerships in practice. London: Earthscan.

    Google Scholar 

  • WSSD (2002). Johannesburg plan of implementation. World Summit on Sustainable Development, Johannesburg, South Africa. www.un.org/esa/sustdev/documents/WSSD_POI_PD/English/ POIToc.htm. Accessed 30 October 2008.

    Google Scholar 

  • Zedan, H. (2005). Patents and biopiracy: the search for appropriate policy and legal responses, Brown Journal of World Affairs, 12 (1). www.bjwa.org/index.php?issue=12.1. Accessed 1 November 2008.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Environmental Evaluation Unit, University of Cape Town, Private Bag X3, Rondebosch, Cape Town, 7701, South Africa

    Rachel Wynberg

  2. People and Plants International Incorporated, Essex Junction, PO Box 73, VT, 05452, USA

    Sarah Laird

Authors
  1. Rachel Wynberg
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Sarah Laird
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Rachel Wynberg .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Environmental Evaluation Unit, University of Cape Town Environmental & Geographical Science Building, South Lane, Upper Campus, Private Bag X3, Rondebosch, 7701, South Africa

    Rachel Wynberg

  2. Centre for Professional Ethics, University of Central Lancashire, Preston, Lancashire, PR1 2HE, United Kingdom

    Doris Schroeder

  3. Centre for Applied Philosophy and Public Ethics, The University of Melbourne, Victoria, 3010, Australia

    Doris Schroeder

  4. Chennells Albertyn Attorneys, Notaries & Conveyancers, 44 Alexander Street, Stellenbosch, 7600, South Africa

    Roger Chennells

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2009 Springer Science+Business Media B.V.

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Wynberg, R., Laird, S. (2009). Bioprospecting, Access and Benefit Sharing: Revisiting the ‘Grand Bargain’. In: Wynberg, R., Schroeder, D., Chennells, R. (eds) Indigenous Peoples, Consent and Benefit Sharing. Springer, Dordrecht. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-90-481-3123-5_5

Download citation

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation