The richness of nature is not just the tip of the iceberg. It is also found in the hollow cells of animals, plants or fungi in the form of genetic information. Why talk about it? Access to these DNA sequences from nature is being negotiated at COP15 — and finding common ground will be difficult.
The Convention on Biological Diversity, signed in 1992, relates to the conservation of nature, but also to “the fair and equitable sharing of the benefits arising from the use of genetic resources”. Given the exponential progress of genetic science in recent years, an update of the rules of the game is essential.
An example of the issues? Stevia is a plant native to South America, which contains a very sweet, but calorie-free sweetener that the food industry loves. Researchers sequenced his DNA, then deposited it in a database. From this information, a European company developed a yeast that produced the sweetener, much to the chagrin of small South American growers.
“Pharmaceutical and cosmetic companies are very interested in developing products from nature. The question of how different actors can access and use genetic data is a very legitimate one,” says David Castle, a member of Canada’s Chief Science Advisor team, who follows the negotiations on “sequencing information Digital” at COP15.
Already, the Nagoya Protocol, which entered into force in 2014, regulates the sharing and access to genetic resources. However, it does so on a material basis: countries must agree when a sample intended to be sequenced in the laboratory crosses a border. However, technologies have evolved: it is now possible to extract a genetic sequence using a portable device in the field, then upload it to the Internet. The Nagoya Protocol — ratified by 137 parties, but not Canada — does not adapt well to changing times.
In recent days, teams of negotiators have therefore been looking into the specific question of genetic data at the Palais des congrès de Montréal. This must be part of a possible post-2020 global biodiversity framework.
For African countries, an agreement on genetic data is essential. “If there is no solution to share the benefits of [informations de séquençage numérique]we will not accept” an agreement on a global framework for biodiversity, said Pierre Du Plessis, a negotiator for the African team, quoted by the Globe and Mail.
Several proposals developed in recent years are currently being considered by delegates. For example, it is a question of making users pay to access a genetic sequence: the country of origin would then pocket the money. Another idea is to impose a 1% tax on all sales of products derived from a genetic sequence taken from nature.
The question of how different actors can access and use genetic data is very legitimate
Some of these proposals give scientists cold sweats. The latter obviously want all countries to benefit from the genetics rush, but they fear that a “user-pays” type rule will slow the progress of science, underlines Jörg Overmann, a microbiologist dispatched to Montreal on behalf of from the German Research Foundation.
Supporter of a multilateral approach, Mr. Overmann proposes the creation of a fund where would be deposited all the royalties resulting from products derived from natural genetics. Revenues would then be distributed according to the number of genetic sequences deposited by each country. “It would be a strong incentive for countries to do the much-needed sequencing” for scientific reasons, he says.
Will an innovative agreement on genetic data be initialed in Montreal? Countries could also agree on broad principles, but decide to work out the details in two years. “Anything is possible, we won’t know until the very end,” says Mr. Castle.