Rethink the expansion of access and benefit sharing

Abstract

Several UN policy processes are embracing a calcified approach to conservation and equity in science

Policy opportunities to enhance sharing for pandemic research

“…With the rapid improvement and decreasing costs of DNA synthesis, the international scientific and ABS communities must find solutions to governing GSD, recognizing that extant ABS policies focus on physical genetic materials (8). This is especially pertinent for viruses that are relatively easy to synthesize from GSD.…”

“…One option is for Parties to the CBD and NP to adopt a decision expanding the scope of these agreements to include GSD, thereby recognizing the potential to extract tangible benefits from GSD alone, and ensuring that some of those benefits flow back to the country of origin. However, applying the same inefficient ABS regime that is currently applicable to physical genetic resources (8) could simply slow the rapid sharing of GSD during a public health emergency, and would therefore require Parties to commit to adopting domestic legislation that expressly considers the NP's special provision on the need for "expeditious" ABS during health emergencies. Given that this provision is couched in the same vague language as the rest of the NP, and that countries have been slow to implement such measures, we remain skeptical about its effectiveness during a health emergency.…”

“…The ABS transactional mechanism that reinforces state sovereignty over these resources and calls for prior informed consent and mutually agreed terms is not conducive to dealing with a PHEIC. We acknowledge that ABS, as a policy option for dealing with issues of equity and fairness in science and technology, has become entrenched in the United Nations' policy space (8), so any reformed governance systems for ABS would therefore need to advance data sharing and global health equity while promoting badly needed consistency in the ABS regimes of the CBD, NP, and PIP Framework. The COVID-19 situation has demonstrated positive examples of rapid sharing, but it has also highlighted the reality that countries may not readily relinquish their sovereignty over pathogenic genetic resources and associated GSD.…”

Access to crop digital information and the sharing of benefits derived from its use: Background and perspectives

“…International debates around including genetic sequence and phenotypic information in the ABS mechanisms of the Nagoya Protocol and the ITPGRFA could have significant impacts on the international flow of information relevant to plant breeding and the conservation of crop genetic resources. Many of these data are currently held in open access formats (Laird et al, 2020). International negotiations on access and benefit sharing of such data have the potential to create increased benefit sharing deriving from their use, but also may hinder important research and dissemination of results.…”

Bringing access and benefit sharing into the digital age

“…While the ongoing discussions on DSI governance in ABS instruments have shown considerable tensions (1), credible solutions have not yet emerged to fill the gap between the exponential digitization of genetic data and their potential commercial utilization, and an adequate governance scheme that would allow the "conservation of biological diversity, the sustainable use of its components and the equitable sharing of benefits arising from the utilization of genetic resources" (Article 2 of the CBD). An elusive promise of some indirect economic incentive as a compensation for free access to DSI is unlikely to persuade most stakeholders at play, especially conservationists, farmers and indigenous communities (1). It could also be argued that an emphasis on economic incentives has derailed much of the debates on genetic resources away from conservation and towards an excessive focus on (unlikely) commercialization.…”