Biocultural community protocols for livestock keepers
approval and involvement of the holders of such knowledge, innovations and practices and
encourage the equitable sharing of the benefits arising from the utilization of such knowledge
innovations and practices.”
While Article 8j has been termed as a “great bargain for indigenous communities”, the
concept of “equitable sharing of the benefits” has proven to be a very problematic and
contentious issue. It is predicated on the position that biological diversity is under the
sovereignty of nation States, and that these have the responsibility of facilitating access
to genetic resources for other parties. This perspective is not shared by indigenous people
representatives who call attention to the fact that they are the ones who have been stewarding
biological diversity, often in the face of considerable odds and in conflict with governments.
They also point out that international negotiations have placed much emphasis on facilitating access to traditional knowledge and genetic resources, but that there are no satisfactory
mechanisms or approaches for benefit-sharing with communities that are holders of traditional knowledge or own genetic resources. The most frequently cited example is that of
the San Peoples, whose traditional knowledge formed the basis for a drug that generated
billions of profits for a number of pharmaceutical companies, but had hardly any positive
impact on the San (see box below).
It was in realization of these shortcomings that the South African NGO, Natural Justice,
came up with the concept of biocultural community protocols. The aim was to ensure that
communities are enabled and empowered to meaningfully negotiate with outsiders who
have an interest in their genetic resources or knowledge. Biocultural community protocols
are meant to be a tool for empowering a community to reflect on its biocultural knowledge,
The San peoples and the Hoodia cactus
The San hunter gatherers of the Kalahari Desert in southern Africa are estimated to number
about 100,000 people. Traditionally they used the stem of the Hoodia cactus for controlling
hunger on their hunting expeditions. Based on this traditional knowledge of the San peoples,
a UK company (Phytopharm) developed an anti-obesity drug, after obtaining the rights for
this from South Africa’s Council for Scientific and Industrial Research (CSIR). Subsequently
the company sold the rights to licence the drug to the pharmaceutical giant Pfizer. When this
deal was widely criticized, a one-time benefit-sharing agreement was offered to the San which
amounted to less than 0.003% of net sales which they accepted, although it prohibited them
from using their knowledge in any other application. While the San were thus “compensated”
for their traditional knowledge, they had no say in providing access to the genetic resource
itself which was provided by the CSIR.
(www.cbd.int/doc/meetings/abs/abswg-06/other/abswg-06-cs-07-en.pdf)
5