Nithin Ramakrishnan, Third World Network
As the negotiations for the multilateral mechanism for benefit sharing from the use of digital sequence information (DSI) falter at COP16, it is important to know what the demands of the African Group are and why the world must pay attention to them.
Here are Africa’s demands: 1. Users who make mone-tary gains mandatorily share 1% of their gains to the Global Fund; 2. The establishment of a safe, secure and trustworthy DSI database accountable to Parties; 3. The establishment of sector-specific frameworks for non-monetary benefit sharing such as technology transfer and capacity building by COP17; 4. The promotion of networks of CBD-friendly databases that are interope-rable with each other and accountable to Parties.
These are essential conditions for an effective COP16 outcome that respects their rights under the CBD. However, scientific lobbies funded by European countries, and industries from the developed countries, which hold the world’s biggest DSI databases and have unsavoury legacies of biopiracy, have attempted to spread misconceptions and scepticism about Africa’s demands.
One key point of contention is Africa’s demand for a 1% contribution to the Global Fund, which critics dismiss as a random number. However, according to a study commissioned by the Secretariat, a 1.28% levy on annual revenue of just five key sectors identified in the draft decision could contribute about $20 billion per year, which is 10% of the resource mobilization target of the Kunming-Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework of $200 billion annually. Assuming that about 25% percent of products of these sectors come from biological resources, the multilateral mechanism might achieve an amount of $3.9 to 5.5 billion annually.
The demand for a trustworthy DSI database has also met resistance. Critics argue that it would be costly, duplicative, and ineffective. However, currently, no database is accountable to Parties. On the contrary, they undermine the rights of Parties, indigenous peoples and local communities. This situation leaves the door wide open for digital biopiracy. Using the
figures from the Secretariat-commissioned studies, our estimation is that such a database would cost between 0.26% and 1.54% of the anticipated monetary gains - a minimal amount compared to its potential benefits. It could be even as low as 0.05%, if one accepts the “$20 billion dream” in exchange for surrendering national sovereignty over genetic resources.
A safe and secure database could reduce data fragmentation and promote interoperability. It has enor-mous potential to induce a set of globally respected standards to existing DSI sharing practices, and organically cater to build a network of databases that respects the rights of the Parties and peoples under the Convention. Such a system - the other key demand of the African Group - can effectively counter widespread, yet often invisible, digital biopiracy. Additio-nally, a CBD-led sequence database would help rebuild eroding trust in scientists, serving as a node in the DSI sharing process that infuses accountability in sharing benefits as well as utilization of DSI.
Africa’s fourth demand, for sector-specific frameworks, is also crucial for non-monetary benefit sharing. Africa also advocates for policy space allowing international organizations like the WHO and FAO to develop their own binding access and benefit-sharing (ABS) frameworks for DSI.
Each sector has unique requirements: in pharmaceu-ticals, for example, the focus may be on diversifying health product manufacturing to developing countries, while in agriculture, the emphasis might be on protecting farmers from industrial seed encroachment. A one-size-fits-all approach is insufficient, which is why Africa calls for frameworks that address each sector’s unique needs.