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]

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]

The article profiles government policies concerning so-called bioprospecting, where plants and natural resources are invested in for their perceived social benefits. The article discusses a range of issues, including the historical context, regulatory frameworks, the commercial use of biodiversity, access to biodiversity and the sharing of benefits, key policy issues, and a case study concerning the African plant Hoodia. The author also comments on the economic impact of bioprospecting on developing countries.

Focuses on a study which analyzed key achievements, gaps, constraints and opportunities within South Africa's biodiversity sector since the Rio Earth Summit in 1992, and some of the difficult trade-offs faced in attempting to marry the country's pressing development needs with those of conservation. Legislative, policy and institutional framework for biodiversity management in the country; Habitat transformation and biodiversity planning; Overview of alien invasive species.

Social Impact Statement: Patents can be used as a measure of innovation and to illustrate the commercial potential of plant and fungal biodiversity. The proportion of plant species named in patents represents only 6.2% of plant species, whereas the proportion of fungi is likely less than 0.4%. Fungi clearly justify further research. Innovation on a species usually drives more innovation on that species. We suggest that we should ensure that commercialization frameworks encourage studies on a greater diversity of plants and fungi. This could not only increase the range of biodiversity‐based products and associated income but also incentivize their conservation and encourage more fundamental research. Summary: In this review, patents are used as a measure of innovation, and data show that a low proportion of plant and fungal biodiversity is mentioned in patents. The proportion of plant species named in patents represents only 6.2% of plant species, whereas the proportion of fungi is most likely less than 0.4%. The number of species within a plant family mentioned in patents varies greatly. The following families having the greatest numbers: Asteraceae with 1,445 species (4.5% of species), Fabaceae with 1,299 species (5.8%), Poaceae with 1,008 species (8.5%), and Rosaceae with 718 species (12.7%). Case studies from Brazil, Ethiopia, and South Africa explore some of the controversies associated with patenting, especially when patents have not taken prior art into account. In contrast, a case study on plants and fungi used in traditional Chinese medicine illustrates their economic value and their potential to support new innovations. Innovative ways to use plant and fungal biodiversity has the potential to generate wealth, reduce poverty, improve human well‐being and in theory incentivize biodiversity conservation. International and national policies and laws that aim to facilitate equitable benefit‐sharing associated with access to and use of genetic diversity need to be reviewed to help facilitate innovation, as well as ensure that the rights of communities to use these resources are recognized and supported. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]