A Bantaba is a phrase used by Gambians to refer to a gathering under a tree to deliberate with others. This Bantaba will introduce the programme Rethinking Biodiversity-Based Economies for Conservation and Equity to policymakers, industry, scientists and researchers, Indigenous Peoples and Local Communities (IPLCs), youth groups, NGOs and other interested parties. The event will introduce the concepts and approaches of the programme and will include a discussion of the core themes it addresses. It will also provide an opportunity to develop collaborations and partnerships. One focus of the programme is on the role of access and benefit sharing (ABS) in biodiversity-based economies. The programme is co-led by Professor Rachel Wynberg from the University of Cape Town and Dr Sarah Laird from People and Plants International and involves a range of partners from around the world. The programme builds on a substantial body of work already developed by partners in areas of ABS, science policy, conservation, commercialisation and the equitable use of biodiversity.

Event rationale:

ABS emerged through the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) in the 1990s as a policy approach that sought to address a wide range of challenges, including the loss of biodiversity, unsustainable development, threatened traditional knowledge and practices, and prior informed consent and benefit sharing. In the past three decades the ABS policy approach has made great strides in terms of increasing the role of equity, conservation, benefit sharing, and recognition of IPLC rights in biodiversity-based economies. However, implementation has often failed to achieve its objectives in a manner that benefits IPLCs, conservation, and equity in science and the commercial use of biodiversity.

Failure of ABS to achieve its objectives can be attributed to many factors. First, the CBD’s ABS elements initially aimed to transfer technology, build scientific capacity, and generate revenues in high-biodiversity countries for conservation from the commercial use of genetic and biological resources in the pharmaceutical, agriculture, industrial biotechnology, food, cosmetic and other sectors. However, the CBD did not – and could not – anticipate the scientific and technological changes that were to follow, and the ABS policy process, once conceived, struggled to adapt to scientific and technological advances. As ABS policy developed, it increasingly emphasised bi-lateral negotiations between two parties, ‘users’ and ‘providers,' while moving away from higher tech research and towards the biotrade sector, which relies on the trade of raw biological material. Bilateral approaches were central to the CBD’s Nagoya Protocol, which came into force in 2014, aiming to bring greater specificity to the way in which ABS should be regulated, managed and enforced. The bilateral approach has created significant challenges, however, which were heightened when, in 2016, the ABS policy process once again turned its attention towards high tech research and genetic sequence data, or “digital sequence information” (DSI). DSI and scientific practice today do not lend themselves easily to bi-lateral approaches. The policy process for DSI is now moving quickly forward within multiple United Nations agreements, with multilateral ABS approaches adopted as central mechanisms to manage and allocate benefits arising from the use of DSI.

Second, the decades since the CBD entered into force have been a time of dramatic environmental change. Climate change and the staggering loss of biodiversity – genetic, species, and ecosystem diversity – are so severe they are referred to as “the existential crises of our time.” Much of the world’s remaining biodiversity is found on lands held or managed by rural and Indigenous communities, but these lands are under pressure, and marginalised communities are often victims of land grabs and inequitable commercial use of their resources.

Third, while the widespread adoption of legislative, administrative and policy frameworks for ABS in countries across the world might signal progress, ABS agreements have come to typically serve as legal compliance mechanisms that justify a ‘business as usual’ approach without fundamentally changing power relations or economic disparities or achieving conservation. Furthermore, ABS approaches have narrowed over the years to a transactional effort to channel financial benefits, and few focus on the relationship between benefit sharing, social justice, poverty alleviation, and biodiversity conservation. Moreover, rather than enhance scientific collaboration and capacity building, such policy efforts have often had a restrictive effect on scientific research and development.

Because ABS policy brings together conservation, development and equity concerns, its origin, evolution and future, is an excellent starting point for a multi-disciplinary “rethinking” process about biodiversity-based economies. The University of Cape Town, People and Plants International and other partners involved in this initiative are inviting COP 16 delegates to a side event to introduce the new programme Rethinking Biodiversity-Based Economies for Conservation and Equity, to provide input into programme design and approaches, and to more broadly explore the implications of ABS policy and practice since the CBD launch in 1992.

Information on the Rethinking Programme can be found on our website: www.rethinking-abs.org.