Search

Benefit-sharing agreements are a new, prescriptive way of treating trade, biodiversity and the commercial use of traditional knowledge. However, these agreements have met with surprisingly little critique as a development paradigm. Through the lens of the industry around rooibos, a plant native to South Africa, we offer new, critical perspectives on the potential pitfalls of so-called access and benefit sharing (ABS) agreements. Rooibos underpins a well-established tea industry and was central to a much-lauded benefit-sharing agreement with Indigenous San and Khoi communities. We argue, however, that ABS as a model not only fails to challenge the engrained powers of state, capital, race and patriarchy, but even appears to legitimise (falsely) these powers because of its inability to grapple with local contexts and struggles over identity, representation and land. Despite its guise as an apolitical regulatory instrument, ABS entrenches existing marginalities, exclusions and structural inequities. Using a mixed methods approach that focuses on deep listening and draws from decades of research in the region, we demonstrate what happens when the depoliticising ABS framework collides with the complex and contentious politics of communities fractured by colonialism and apartheid. We conclude that ABS remains disconnected from, and structurally ignorant of, the wider political and economic struggles faced by marginalised communities. Aided by an intervening and complicit state, the agreements instead serve as legal compliance mechanisms that perpetuate epistemic injustices by maintaining a 'business as usual' approach without fundamentally shifting power relations or economic disparities. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This paper reviews the location of Responsible Research and Innovation (RRI) approaches within the access and benefit sharing (ABS) policy spaces of the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) and Nagoya Protocol. We describe how a range of dialogues on ethical research practices found a home, almost inadvertently, within the ABS policy process. However, more recent RRI dialogues around emerging technologies have not been similarly absorbed into ABS policy, due in part to the original framing of ABS and associated definitional and scope issues. Consideration is given to the challenges posed to these policy processes by the transformative and rapid nature of scientific and technological change today, including the emerging field of synthetic biology. Drawing on experiences from regulating ABS, we emphasize that the integration of RRI into policies for new, emerging, or poorly understood activities such as synthetic biology faces deficiencies such as limits to government capacity, jurisdictional confusion, shortages in funds, and an absence of strategic approaches. We conclude that a coordinated combination of diverse policy processes within the CBD might provide an invaluable space for RRI dialogues on social justice, sustainability, biosafety, and other issues raised by emerging technologies. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

New rules for access and benefit sharing (ABS) of genetic resources and associated traditional knowledge have been established by the Nagoya Protocol but have not kept up with rapid scientific and technological advances in biodiscovery. This suggests the need for innovative, transdisciplinary approaches to regulate ABS and emerging technologies. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Concerns about ecological sustainability and inequality are driving increased formalization of the natural product trade, including both biotrade of bulk, raw materials (or nontimber forest products [NTFPs]) and bioprospecting for genetic resources. However, there has been little interrogation as to whether the policy tools used to achieve sustainability and equity goals are appropriate and effective. This article addresses this gap by examining efforts to formalize biotrade, including the blurred regulatory lines that increasingly exist between biotrade and bioprospecting. Two case studies are explored from southern Africa—baobab andPelargonium. Findings emphasize the unintended consequences that can arise from overregulation and poorly formulated laws, including the further marginalization of women and/or poor communities; elite capture; weakening small businesses; and leakage across political boundaries. Conclusions underpin the need to pursue solutions that are better informed and more respectful of local knowledge and needs, and that draw upon both customary and statutory laws and institutions. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Historically, the trade benefits of medicinal plants have been skewed towards technologically advanced Northern countries, despite originating from the biologically rich South. Since the 1990s, attempts at rectifying this situation have been stepped up globally. In southern Africa, a substantial industry has developed around the use of the endemic plant Pelargonium sidoides as a cure for respiratory tract infections. Rural communities harvest the plant for trade and also hold traditional knowledge about it. However, the industry has been plagued by concerns about the sustainability of the resource and equitable sharing of benefits, and accusations of ‘biopiracy’. This study examines the value chain to identify blockages preventing better benefit capture by the rural poor. We conclude that the Biodiversity Convention offers opportunities for redress but that monopolistic control, complex and uncoordinated laws, elite capture of benefits and increased cultivation undermine benefit sharing. These problems need to be overcome if rural communities are not to lose their benefits to large corporations exploiting Pelargonium sidoides. [ABSTRACT FROM PUBLISHER]