UN biodiversity negotiations must consider countries’ innovation systems
UnsplashUnsplashUnsplash
· 12 min read
When frequenting your local supermarket, do you ever reflect upon the anomalies in the bell peppers or the origin of certain medicines? I bet most people won’t. However, much of life as we know it is built upon genetic diversity. It explains why people look different, and it has shaped civilization since humans first tamed wild flora and fauna and exchanged new crop varieties and animal breeds. Premodern medicine almost exclusively relied on the use of herbal plants sourced from people’s direct surroundings.
This locally bound mosaic was upended by the conquest of the Americas, when the colonial powers transferred crops, animals, and diseases between the Old and New Worlds. Wheat, cattle, and horses went West; tomatoes, potatoes, and maize went East. The Scientific Revolution opened up even more opportunities to study genetic diversity and use it for economic applications.
However, because access to and the use of the newly discovered genetic diversity primarily benefited the dominant powers of the time, a stark innovation divide remains today between technology-rich, high-income countries and biodiversity-rich, low- and middle-income countries, which roughly corresponds to the Global North and South. With the latter group of countries being more vulnerable to nutritional deficits, and the effects of climate change and pathogens, it is urgent that this divide be addressed.
In this context, the United Nations have developed access and benefit-sharing, ABS in short, policies since the 90s, most prominently under the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD), which is the lesser-known sister of the Climate Convention (UNFCCC). These ABS policies aim for fair and equitable exchanges of genetic resources between countries by requesting companies and scientists to transfer benefits, such as money, technologies, and scientific training, to governments and Indigenous peoples to boost scientific development and biodiversity conservation.
Nowadays, users of genetic resources such as seed companies and university biologists must navigate a complex web of international, national, and sometimes even local ABS regulations. Ask any lab scientist, and they will tell you how burdensome it can be to obtain samples from abroad. A large portion of the policy process and associated research is dedicated to improving these regulations, leaving the larger picture often missing.
While ABS has made scientific and business practices more equitable, the anticipated financial returns largely failed to materialize on paper. The primary ABS mechanism, known as the Nagoya Protocol, overestimated the economic value of one-on-one exchanges of genetic resources and failed to anticipate the exponential growth in the use of digital sequence information, like DNA data, which draws on multiple sources simultaneously, and is also being used in artificial intelligence-driven research.
In November 2024, after eight years of negotiations, the Convention on Biological Diversity established the Cali Fund to receive voluntary contributions from medium- and large-sized companies that profit from digital sequence information or DSI. The Cali Fund is dedicated to supporting countries and Indigenous peoples financially, an urgent endeavor in the context of a $700 billion annual biodiversity finance gap.
Unfortunately, the initial enthusiasm for the Cali Fund is waning as expected contributions from the private sector are underwhelming. Aside from seeking legal clarity in the ABS regulatory landscape, companies are also looking at which big biotech company will step in first. Meanwhile, official development assistance is declining globally, mostly due to increased defense spending and shifting political winds, suggesting a decreasing willingness to support the world’s disadvantaged. So can the Cali Fund still be a meaningful tool for addressing the biotechnological divide?
Apart from working to pry loose the fair and equitable financial contributions (crumbs) from the world’s largest biotech companies, countries that are Party to the CBD also need to take a hard look at why certain countries add more scientific and financial value to biodiversity (the pie). Why, for instance, do countries with overlapping biodiversity and similar years of independence from colonial powers achieve different biotechnological development? Countries with endogenous innovation capacities (with limited outside help) ultimately benefit from the products, jobs, and innovations, such as the ability to develop climate-resilient and nutritious crops and vaccines.
To investigate this, I travelled to Cali, Colombia, for the 16th Conference of the Parties of the Convention on Biological Diversity. Under the banner of ‘Making Peace with Nature’, Colombia has used the global stage to highlight nature as an identity and bioeconomic opportunity, particularly for the reintegration of people in previous conflict zones. As the second most biodiverse country on the planet, it is likely to be a recipient of funds from the Cali Fund. And despite advanced science, it has a surprisingly small biotech sector.
COPs nowadays are mega events. So attending one feels like spending weeks in a big shopping mall, where instead of clothing brands, you stumble into negotiation rooms, subject-matter experts, and all types of people from across the world, including diplomats, biologists, consultants, and Indigenous representatives. Because of this, most attendees never leave the building during these two weeks, let alone visit a natural area, despite being there for biodiversity. However, once you do visit the country, you discover how the challenges addressed at the CBD COP are reflected at the national level and gain a much better understanding of what issues the UN should address.
So that is what I did as a researcher. I interviewed dozens of Colombian experts in university laboratories, hotel lobbies, national parks, and botanic gardens, and I visited national parks, business conferences, and the world-famous Future Seeds gene bank. I asked them about the major challenges they faced in their part of the value-chain – from a wild species in the forest - to a sample frozen in a gene bank - to a DNA sequence - to a scientific publication - and finally to a commercial innovation. This investigation uncovered many issues unbeknownst to the ABS discussions, and if unaddressed, risk making money and technology transfers to the Global South inefficient and ineffective.
Typical digital sequence information (DSI) on species is generated in a series of steps. Researchers first extract DNA from a species’ tissue, such as blood, hair, or leaves, and then place it in a sequencing machine that reads the order of nucleotides, represented by those colorful A, C, T, and G letters some may remember from high school biology lessons. This data is then analyzed and processed by bioinformaticians.
One of the equity issues reflected in the ABS negotiations is that biodiversity-rich countries have less digital sequence information (DSI) on wild species available, which makes studying threats to their biodiversity more challenging. At first thought, one would think that a lack of sequencing machines to read DNA is the reason, and that the Cali Fund should finance the purchase of sequencing machines. However, this quick assumption disregards the economy around a set technology.
For extracting DNA from tissue and for operating a sequencer, you need reagent chemicals. Interviewees reveal that they cost a ton (up to four to five times as expensive as in the export country) because there are only a handful of intermediaries that import reagent chemicals into Colombia. Also, due to poor customs facilities in some Colombian airports to store biological samples and reagent chemicals in the right conditions, damage and loss are not out of the question. Most Colombian species are therefore sequenced abroad.
Professor and vertebrate biologist Andrew Crawford, at Universidad de Los Andes in Bogotá, made an inventory of the existing sequencers in the country by surveying colleagues. While Colombia has few sequencers in relation to other countries, the survey showed that there were surprisingly many sequencers whose existence was not publicly known to researchers. Yet, most sequencers are not optimally used while there is a high demand for sequencing services in Colombia. Because the sequencing machines that are required to produce DSI can cost hundreds of thousands of dollars to purchase and operate, you need ample input of samples to make obtaining one worthwhile. Researchers in Colombia struggle to meet this input alone due to financial constraints. Therefore, making sequencing services available to other researchers and companies could both be profitable to the machines’ owners and contribute to the country’s biodiversity sequencing efforts.
This entire sequence highlights that countries must first optimize existing technological resources and strengthen institutional conditions for sequencing. Then, if sequencers are purchased for or transferred to Colombia, their use can be optimized.
On the outskirts of Cali sit various very green university campuses as big as New York city blocks, with all types of chirping birds. The city has the highest bird diversity in the world! On the Cali campus of Universidad del Valle, which halls are adorned with graffiti figures of the political left, I am intrigued by posters critical of the COP.
Image: Bob Kreiken, poster critical of COP16 at Universidad del Valle campus in Cali.
I am welcomed in the small laboratory of Professor Enrique Peña, a marine botanist. With his research team, Peña discovered that two species of red seaweed that clog the tourist beaches of San Andrés Island in the Caribbean can be biotechnologically converted into fertilizer. With growing interest from agricultural companies on the Colombian mainland, he plans to attract an investment of $1 million for a pilot plant on campus. The plans so far have to remain in the fridge due to a lack of investment.
Opposite Universidad del Valle sits the campus of the private university Icesi, which was once founded by entrepreneurs. Researcher Juliana Castro Londoño shows me around the newest biochemical lab, one of the most advanced in Latin America. Here, paid laboratory services are conducted for companies, while biochemistry students can utilize the lab. Because government funding for higher education in Colombia is sparse, public-private collaborations are particularly welcome for universities.
I spent an afternoon talking with Londoño’s bachelor students. The whole group agrees that Colombia has enormous bioeconomic potential, which it fails to capitalize on:
‘‘Colombia is currently perceived by other countries as a supplier of raw materials, but we have to create the value chains here.’’
While some consider emigrating for better opportunities, most students have a strong sense of commitment to improving their country. Part of the issue, the students tell me, is that there is little pride in home-grown companies and innovations. The Colombian consumer culture looks for proven success abroad before trusting in these companies.
After traffic in the torrential rains of Bogotá, I arrive at the makeshift office in an apartment of Camilo Jaramillo, co-founder of Kahai S.A. Camilo started the company with his brother after learning about the cosmetic qualities of the oil from the nut of the cacay tree, which grows in the jungles of the Amazon and Orinoco river sheds. Kahai S.A. is the first company to grow the cacay tree on plantations. It collaborates with Indigenous peoples on environmental projects such as reforestation. The company’s products even outperform the famous Moroccan argan oil in certain aspects.
Image taken from the Colombian company Kahai S.A.
Later that week, I spoke with Viviana Clavijo, CEO of Sciphage. Sciphage is a scale-up born out of a group of talented researchers from Universidad de Los Andes who secured patents. It develops phage therapy for livestock diseases. Because phage therapy specifically targets harmful bacteria, it is less harmful than antibiotics that kill all kinds of bacteria, including beneficial ones. Additionally, the use of antibiotics can lead to the development of antibiotic resistance in bacteria and is detrimental to the environment. Sciphage seeks investors for scaling up its production plant outside Bogotá.
Both Kahai S.A. and Sciphage face many hurdles in growing their business. Banks and venture capital in Colombia are unfamiliar with biotrade and biotech, and are over-demanding when dealing with young companies. Companies also face relatively high tax burdens in Colombia. On top of that, the approval process at the government agency that is responsible for approving their products is long and burdensome. Camilo and Viviana are both very active in Colombian business networks where they gain access to mentorship, training, and capital. While the entrepreneurial climate in Colombia is rapidly improving, many biotech CEOs I speak to are considering expanding their business in the United States, which, ironically, is not Party to the CBD.
The results (a full research article is available here) suggest that the long-term ambition to narrow the global biotechnological divide will be largely achieved through policy reforms at the national level, rather than through ABS policy, as some narratives in the UN biodiversity negotiations suggest. So what does this mean for policymakers?
First of all, it is often overlooked that countries need the right conditions to efficiently and effectively utilize absorbed technologies. Where possible, the UN biodiversity negotiations should be broadened to debates about the economic and institutional conditions for science and innovation, while ABS policies continue to supplement countries’ innovation capacity with finance, technologies, and training.
Secondly, not all parts of the value chain need to be present in a single country. To boost its sequencing capacity and investor base, Colombia could, for instance, collaborate with its neighbors to organize regional sequencing and biotech investment hubs.
And finally, the conversation about companies having to pay their fair share to the Cali Fund for using DSI must consider their potential role in directly investing in universities and environmentally responsible companies in beneficiary countries of the Fund to enhance public-private research and scalability of sustainable innovations.
As the 21st century unfolds, revealing new wonders of biotechnology, it is paramount that those who reap the benefits share them fairly and equitably through the ABS mechanisms the United Nations provides. Domestic policy reforms by recipient governments are urgent so that the United Nations gets more bang for its buck.
illuminem Voices is a democratic space presenting the thoughts and opinions of leading Sustainability & Energy writers, their opinions do not necessarily represent those of illuminem.
Track the real‑world impact behind the sustainability headlines. illuminem’s Data Hub™ offers transparent performance data and climate targets of companies driving the transition.
illuminem briefings
Carbon Capture & Storage · Biodiversity
illuminem briefings
Carbon Capture & Storage · Biodiversity
illuminem briefings
Biodiversity · Nature
Mongabay
Biodiversity · Nature
earth.com
Carbon Capture & Storage · Biodiversity
Grist
Carbon Capture & Storage · Biodiversity