Biopiracy: Crying wolf or a lever for equity and conservation?

Rachel Wynberg

Research Policy, 2023, vol. 52, issue 2

Abstract: Access and benefit sharing (ABS) is a central approach to address biopiracy – the misappropriation of genetic resources and traditional knowledge without consent or compensation, often tied to patenting. Benefit-sharing agreements comprise a core element of ABS and are intended to leverage greater social and economic justice, create incentives for biodiversity conservation, and strengthen the rights of indigenous and local communities. However, emerging evidence suggests otherwise. Through review of four cases of biodiversity commercialization in South Africa – Hoodia gordonii, Aspalathus linearis (rooibos), Sceletium tortuosum (kougoed) and Pelargonium sidoides, each with histories of biopiracy charges and associated benefit-sharing agreements, this paper aims to explain this apparent contradiction. The cases reveal that while ABS has succeeded in recognizing holders of traditional knowledge, the wider political and economic struggles faced by communities remain neglected. Power relations and economic disparities have not changed, and control remains vested in land, with ownership remaining highly skewed towards industry partners who have market dominance; and intellectual property, the benefits of which are disassociated from traditional knowledge holders and biodiversity custodians. ABS processes have also led to a clamor for representation, favoring groups that are politically connected, well organized and resourced, while excluding more marginalized groups who are less capacitated. Moreover, despite significant biodiversity concerns in each case, there are few conservation benefits. Such trends, combined with new forms of “digital biopiracy” and opportunities opening through the post 2020 Global Biodiversity Framework, emphasize the need to reconceptualize ABS to leverage more equitable and sustainable outcomes.

Keywords: Access and benefit sharing; Nagoya Protocol; Indigenous peoples; Traditional knowledge; Intellectual property; Innovation (search for similar items in EconPapers)
Date: 2023
References: View references in EconPapers View complete reference list from CitEc
Citations: View citations in EconPapers (1)

Downloads: (external link)
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0048733322001950
Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only

Related works:
This item may be available elsewhere in EconPapers: Search for items with the same title.

Export reference: BibTeX RIS (EndNote, ProCite, RefMan) HTML/Text

Persistent link: https://EconPapers.repec.org/RePEc:eee:respol:v:52:y:2023:i:2:s0048733322001950

DOI: 10.1016/j.respol.2022.104674

Access Statistics for this article

Research Policy is currently edited by M. Bell, B. Martin, W.E. Steinmueller, A. Arora, M. Callon, M. Kenney, S. Kuhlmann, Keun Lee and F. Murray

More articles in Research Policy from Elsevier
Bibliographic data for series maintained by Catherine Liu ().