3 issues polarize international biodiversity confab

NAGOYA, Japan — The delegates to the 10th meeting of the Conference of the Parties (COP 10) to the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) appear to have been polarized, with developed countries occupying one end and developing countries occupying the other.

Developing countries have noticed that developed countries are preparing to lay the blame on their less developed neighbors should the ongoing COP 10 meeting fail to reach a consensus on three key goals, namely strategic targets for 2020, resource mobilization and financing, and adoption of an important access and benefit-sharing (ABS) protocol.

Developed countries appear critical of the developing countries’ calls for “new, additional, timely and predictable” funding. The former are likewise not too keen on the insistence by the latter for the inclusion of safeguards to benefit-sharing provisions of the ABS protocols.

Philippine delegates to the COP 10, led by Environment and Natural Resources Undersecretary Manuel Gerochi and Protected Areas and Wildlife Bureau (PAWB) director Mundita Lim, said the Philippines and “like-minded” countries have noticed what appears to be a lobby against these demands being pushed by developing countries.

The Philippines and “like-minded” countries — which include members of the ASEAN bloc and others — have been very insistent on the inclusion of text covering the temporal scope of any ABS protocol, issues such as derivatives and biotechnology, and compliance and legal safeguards on benefit-sharing.

Lim explained that biotechnology or other technologies involving synthetic DNA development — whereby biotech firms map the original species or genetic materials and then produce their own synthetic gene — could effectively bypass benefit-sharing provisions.

Similarly, derivatives involves further utilization of the original genetic resource from its original intent.

The issue of temporal scope, on the other hand involves the question of retroactivity of benefit-sharing which would allow countries and even indigenous peoples (IPs) to benefit from genetic material or traditional knowledged practiced or used by the IPs that were harvested, used or developed by foreign firms or pharmaceutical companies before the ABS protocols were put in place.

One ABS case involves the development of a diet supplement that has a market potential with $6 billion. This involves an appetite suppressant derived from a bitter plant called Hoodia Gordomill which was used by members of the San Tribe of sub-Saharan Africa when they embark on long hunting journeys.

A study of the San Tribe’s traditional knowledge by South Africa’s Council for Scientific and Industrial Research (CSIR) eventually led to the development of P57, which CSIR patented in 1997, then subsequently licensed the UK-firm Phytopharm to further develop and commercialize P57.

Phytopharm eventually collaborated with Pfizer, but that collaboration ended in 2003.

Efforts are now being exerted to provide some compensation for the San Tribe.

Another case involves the development of an herbicide-resistant “sorghum”. The case involved a genetic material from Bolivia which the Kansas State University developed and eventually licensed to agrochemical firm DuPont.

DuPont has commercialized the herbicide-resistant sorghum and is set to market it under its Pioneer Hi-bred brand.

The Philippines, which has also experienced similar research extractions, is pushing that favorable benefit-sharing provisions are included in existing ABS protocols.

According to Lim existing access provisions allow for facilitated access especially those involving biological pathogens for which timely research and development are crucial.

Thus, in the current negotiations provisions are needed on benefit-sharing.