Aside from the really lame joke — and she really should know better — Kathryn Garforth Mitchell has a good post on a marine genetic resources meeting.
Namibia examines Access and Benefit Sharing
A meeting in Windhoek, Namibia, is bringing together private sector and government in an effort to develop legislation and practices governing biotrade and bioprospecting, according to an article in allAfrica.com. Namibia is currently drafting a bill on Access to Genetic Resources and Traditional Knowledge.
According to the report, the private sector is unwilling to stand up and announce a clear approach to ABS.
“They are averse to any negative publicity and believe that prior to any such event it is essential for them to have a clear position and approach to benefit sharing, and for many this is still work in progress,” said Jonathan Laundrey, New Business Manager of Phyto Trade Africa.
The focus on medicinal products, where “benefits” can indeed be very large, is not surprising as Namibia is the primary source of Devil’s Claw, Harpagophytum procumbens, a therapy for inflammation — notably arthritis — and other ailments. The value of exports is estimated at N$10 million a year. That’s “only” US $140,000, but in a country where more than a third of the people live on less than a dollar a day, a bigger share would probably help. An old press release from WHO suggests that organic, sustainable Devil’s Claw is the way forward, but enforcing that requires more than a bill on ABS.
Later … I’ve done a little more digging, and discovered a study published at the end of 2006 that has this to say on the value of Devil’s Claw:
In answer to the question of whether Devil’s Claw is fairly traded analysis of the value chain indicated that harvesters receive only 1.1% of the final consumer price of the active ingredient of Devil’s Claw. Of the final shelfÂvalue, only 7% is retained within the range states, a disappointingly low figure.
Indonesia disrupts WHO system
IPR concerns threaten ‘flu vaccine system as
One reason to blog this is that I am intrigued by the headline. The subject is an interim report published by IIED, the International Institute for Environment and Development, an organisation I have long admired. The report is called Protecting Community Rights over Traditional Knowledge: Implications of Customary Laws and Practices, and was issued last November in time for the WIPO meetings in December 2006. I’ve picked it up now because it popped up at Eldis, which, I think, added the title I’ve stolen for the headline above. What I really want to know, of course, is the answer to that (perhaps rhetorical) question. It’s wonderful what happens when a real expert gets stuck into a question. Back in November, Luigi briefly blogged a story about pharmaceutical researchers who derived some inspiration from gorillas and their liking for a particular plant. In the comments, Kathryn Garforth Mitchell wondered about the access and benefit sharing aspects of the story. Luigi, characteristically, had no idea, feared for the worst, and hoped he was wrong. Well, maybe his hopes were not in vain, because Kathryn has spent the past four months ferreting out the details and piecing most of the story together. The result is an illuminating series of posts that shows just how complex arrangements can be. I’m not going to link to all four of them; you should start at number one — Gorilla medicine: a complex web — and work your way through them. One interesting point of direct relevance. Scientists in the US say that they may source the active compounds from plants grown locally in Nigeria or Ghana. This is very atypical of pharmaceutical arrangements, which usually involve discovering the active ingredient in a plant and then synthesizing it chemically. It is also, perhaps, the biggest source of confusion for those interested in access and benefit sharing of specifically agricultural products. While genes may be discovered in farmer varieties and wild relatives, the value of those genes never derives from the manufacture of the gene’s products.Do intellectual property rights threaten traditional knowledge and livelihoods?
More on gorilla medicine