Michael Heinrich1, Alan Hesketh2. 1. Research Group Pharmacognosy and Phytotherapy, UCL School of Pharmacy, 29-39 Brunswick Square, London WC1N 1AX, UK. Electronic address: m.heinrich@ucl.ac.uk. 2. Indigena Biodiversity Ltd., 8 South Park Court, South Park, Gerrards Cross, SL9 8HG, UK. Electronic address: http://www.indigena.ltd.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: When in 1992 the Convention on Biological Diversity was adopted, it was a response to centuries of exploitative use of biodiversity and to a lack of recognition of the rights of the countries and regions of origin. At the same time, it was an outcome of the increasing drive, especially in many European and American countries, to ascertain more equitable sharing of wealth between the global North and South. It is a result of negotiations between states and driven by political consensus. AIM: With this review we aim to assess the situation 25 years after the adoption of the CBD, provide an overview on how we got to the current framework and offer a perspective on how such access rights and equitable benefit sharing can be ascertained. OUTCOMES AND DISCUSSION: Without doubt the CBD has resulted in a new framework for providing and securing access to biodiversity and for equitable benefit sharing. It has since been developed and amended in numerous treaties and protocols, most recently the Nagoya Protocol. This development is both driven by the historical experience of many countries in the exploitative extractions of biodiversity, and indigenous peoples' drive for the recognition of their rights. Examples of exploitative use of biodiversity include the species yielding quinine and rubber. Using Lepidium meyenii Walp. as an example, we assess the current patent basis and highlight why in this case equitable benefit sharing proved to be impossible. Today, there are well-established principles in place to establish intellectual property rights, both with respect to a country's ownership of genetic resources, and a research entity's invention based on them. There remains, however, a lack of investment as well as research and development opportunities based on these internationally binding agreements. In line with the aims of our review, this paper includes an overview on how the current patenting system can be used to ensure that the goals of the CBD can be achieved. CONCLUSION: In the context of the centuries of exploitative use of biodiversity, 25 years is a short time span and this review reiterates Posey and Dutfields' call (1996) to companies or other outside organization for developing 'a relationship in which the community is an equal partner'.
BACKGROUND: When in 1992 the Convention on Biological Diversity was adopted, it was a response to centuries of exploitative use of biodiversity and to a lack of recognition of the rights of the countries and regions of origin. At the same time, it was an outcome of the increasing drive, especially in many European and American countries, to ascertain more equitable sharing of wealth between the global North and South. It is a result of negotiations between states and driven by political consensus. AIM: With this review we aim to assess the situation 25 years after the adoption of the CBD, provide an overview on how we got to the current framework and offer a perspective on how such access rights and equitable benefit sharing can be ascertained. OUTCOMES AND DISCUSSION: Without doubt the CBD has resulted in a new framework for providing and securing access to biodiversity and for equitable benefit sharing. It has since been developed and amended in numerous treaties and protocols, most recently the Nagoya Protocol. This development is both driven by the historical experience of many countries in the exploitative extractions of biodiversity, and indigenous peoples' drive for the recognition of their rights. Examples of exploitative use of biodiversity include the species yielding quinine and rubber. Using Lepidium meyenii Walp. as an example, we assess the current patent basis and highlight why in this case equitable benefit sharing proved to be impossible. Today, there are well-established principles in place to establish intellectual property rights, both with respect to a country's ownership of genetic resources, and a research entity's invention based on them. There remains, however, a lack of investment as well as research and development opportunities based on these internationally binding agreements. In line with the aims of our review, this paper includes an overview on how the current patenting system can be used to ensure that the goals of the CBD can be achieved. CONCLUSION: In the context of the centuries of exploitative use of biodiversity, 25 years is a short time span and this review reiterates Posey and Dutfields' call (1996) to companies or other outside organization for developing 'a relationship in which the community is an equal partner'.
Keywords:
Convention on biological diversity; Ethnopharmacology; Intellectual property; Lepidium meyenii Walp. (maca); Nagoya protocol; Traditional medicine
Authors: Michael Heinrich; Francesca Scotti; Anthony Booker; Martin Fitzgerald; Ka Yui Kum; Katja Löbel Journal: Front Pharmacol Date: 2019-04-24 Impact factor: 5.810