Genetic resources have value. In some cases, that value is clear and recognised. In others, it is only potential. For many industries, access to these resources is important, as it can lead to the development of new products and improvements in existing ones. Consumers benefit by having such products available. Business needs and wants to use genetic resources. It is entirely willing, in principle, to share appropriate benefits on agreed terms in exchange for access — this is a common commercial situation.

Some countries have, however, been slow to set up access regimes and unclear about the rights and duties of those seeking access. Business needs to plan ahead, it needs adequate legal and commercial certainty as to what it may access and under what conditions; as well as confidence that agreements it enters into will be respected. Lack of transparency is an obstacle to progress.

Some proposed schemes, as well as being unclear, seem also to be too expensive, inconvenient or impractical. Business is in fact the main customer for access and use of genetic resources. As such, it should be consulted more: business has a strong interest in making such schemes work. ‘Certificates of compliance’, for example, as a method of certifying conformity with ABS requirements, appear to be potentially extremely complex and time-consuming, yet often providing little or no compensating advantage to those giving access. Also, what will work differs between sectors: what is appropriate for the pharmaceutical industry may be quite unsuitable for agriculture, for example.

Similarly, proposals to regulate patents that use genetic resources seem to business to be unhelpful to all. The patent system is designed to promote innovation and to provide economic development incentives: it is hardly suited to regulating access and benefit-sharing. Patents allow more of the benefit provided by new products to be recovered from consumers: it is then available for sharing with suppliers of genetic resources. Threats to patent rights could be a strong disincentive to developing new products based on genetic resources. This could lead to fewer innovations: hence fewer of the societal benefits that arise from them; and fewer benefits to be shared. This would work against a key objective of the CBD. This means that business has a heavy responsibility. It must engage fully in ABS discussions. It also has a powerful incentive to do so — clear guidelines on accessing genetic resources will offer many opportunities and increase the potential benefits to all. Many industry representatives have been contributing and will continue to share their experience and expertise in the CBD discussions on ABS. Business is also determined to cooperate with colleagues in government and civil society, as well as researchers in academia. ABS arrangements must work in practice — this is important for all stakeholders and necessary if the objectives of the CBD are to be realised.

Tim Roberts is Rapporteur to the International Chamber of Commerce (ICC) Intellectual Property Commission and is joint Chair, ICC Task Force on Access and Benefit-sharing.