During the early 1990s, critical attention rapidly developed on bioprospecting and the potential importance of traditional knowledge (TK) to the pharmaceutical industry in providing ‘quick results’ to identify useful compounds for drug development. Operating under this assumption, a number of large companies invested significant amounts of capital in exercises to research, document and synthesize knowledge held by rural natural resource users, including many indigenous peoples.
Scaling up However, some fifteen onwards, it appears that many start-ups such as Shaman Pharmaceuticals working on traditional knowledge have scaled back their operations, and other mainstream pharmaceutical companies have abandoned their TK research budgets in favour of targeted bioprospecting towards so-called ‘extremo-philes’. The search for marginal organisms which inhabit harsh environments, such as deep sea ocean vents and volcanic mud, have thus been treated by the private sector as akin to a new ‘gold-rush’ for commercial exploitation. Bioprospecting by business collecting genetic resources in the ‘high seas’ outside of territorial waters has in turn provoked a growing debate amongst nation states regarding the sovereignty of the genetic resources, as well as the extent of CBD jurisdiction in terms of reciprocal obligations and benefit-sharing.
Over the same period, some journalists who perceived a waning interest in TK and participatory research by the private and academic research establishment further predicted an ‘end of ethnobotany’ owing to shifting investments patterns in bio-informatics and laboratory R&D. However, such predictions have been largely premature given the growing calls by many megadiverse countries in the CBD to regulate the continuing search by business for useful plant varieties and organisms, often used by local communities, in third party countries (in particular relating to the need to adapt agriculture and natural systems in response to climate change).
Good practice In this regard, a recent UNDP practice note on Traditional Knowledge, Access to Genetic Resources and Benefit-Sharing provides practical guidance on issues of traditional knowledge protection, access to genetic resources, and benefit-sharing arrangements in UNDP programmes and projects Rather than prescribe a fixed approach to capacity-building and advocacy work in these areas, the note highlights a wide variety of legal and non-legal ‘options’, and the need to cater these to the local context. In particular, UNDP seeks to disseminate good practices concerning free prior and informed consent of local communities and indigenous peoples where genetic resources in their custody are accessed by external researchers and institutions. The note also introduces UNDP staff to considerations of customary rules and property claims, including intellectual property rights (IPRs) in UNDP and donor partner-supported projects. The note argues that research by companies on the use of medicinal plants for treating diseases can indeed result in significant improvements and innovations of long-term benefit to humanity. Legislative reforms as well as codes of conduct for researchers therefore play an important role in ensuring that communal and customary rights over traditional knowledge are respected in the research process. The note discusses a range of existing and potential arrangements for benefits to be shared among stakeholders in appropriate forms. It explores how benefits derived from UNDP-funded projects can be fruitfully linked to the long-term goals of sustainable development. In particular, it emphasizes the need for IPRs, potentially acquired through UNDP or donor partner funding, to be balanced with development priorities to ensure equity in the diffusion of innovations to other beneficiaries, especially for the marginalized and poor. As part of a broader ‘conservation commons’, the provision of IPRs should not stifle widespread information sharing, innovation and research towards the achievement of the MDGs.
Dr. Terence Hay-Edie is Programme Specialist,
UNDP/GEF Small Grants Programme.
(1) The practice note was the product of an inter-divisional taskforce working within UNDP in consultation with field staff, external experts, as well as representatives from civil society organizations and indigenous peoples. See the Publications section, page 39.
