Article by Lee Harris: “Before the current generation of weight-loss drugs, there was hoodia, a cactus that grows in southern Africa’s Kalahari Desert, and which members of the region’s San tribe have long used to stave off hunger. UK-based Phytopharm licensed the active ingredient in the cactus in 1996, and made numerous attempts to commercialise weight-loss products derived from it.
The company won licensing deals with Pfizer and Unilever, but drew outrage from campaigners who argued that the country was ripping off indigenous groups that had made the discovery. Indignation grew after the chief executive said it could not compensate local tribes because “the people who discovered the plant have disappeared”. (They had not).
This is just one example of companies using biological resources discovered in other countries for financial gain. The UN has attempted to set fairer terms with treaties such as the 1992 Convention on Biological Diversity, which deals with the sharing of genetic resources. But this approach has been seen by many developing countries as unsatisfactory. And earlier tools governing trade in plants and microbes may become less useful as biological data is now frequently transmitted in the form of so-called digital sequence information — the genetic code derived from those physical resources.
Now, the UN is working on a fund to pay stewards of biodiversity — notably communities in lower-income countries — for discoveries made with genetic data from their ecosystems. The mechanism was established in 2022 as part of the Conference of Parties to the UN Convention on Biological Diversity, a sister process to the climate “COP” initiative. But the question of how it will be governed and funded will be on the table at the October COP16 summit in Cali, Colombia.
If such a fund comes to fruition — a big “if” — it could raise billions for biodiversity goals. The sectors that depend on this genetic data — notably, pharmaceuticals, biotech and agribusiness — generate revenues exceeding $1tn annually, and African countries plan to push for these sectors to contribute 1 per cent of all global retail sales to the fund, according to Bloomberg.
There’s reason to temper expectations, however. Such a fund would lack the power to compel national governments or industries to pay up. Instead, the strategy is focused around raising ambition — and public pressure — for key industries to make voluntary contributions…(More)”.