- One ongoing element of wealth extraction from the Global South that remains largely unaddressed – biopiracy – requires a human rights-based response, a new op-ed argues.
- Defined as the unauthorized use of genetic resources and traditional knowledge of Indigenous communities and developing nations for profit without their consent, a remedy to biopiracy was recently agreed to at the UN Biodiversity Conference (COP16) in Colombia.
- Can the Cali Fund – which obliges corporations that profit from biodiversity to contribute to its conservation – be a step in the right direction, the authors ask?
- This article is a commentary. The views expressed are those of the authors, not necessarily Mongabay.
See All Key Ideas
When considering the vastly unequal realities of the current global order, it is clear that the ongoing impact of the colonization of the Global South is wide ranging and all-encompassing. From legacies of racial subjugation, to the disproportionate impact of climate change, to the rise of populist authoritarianism, the colonial project is strong. But one ongoing element of extraction from the Global South is largely unknown, under-addressed, and requires a human rights-based response – biopiracy.
It might sound strange to talk about scientists as pirates, but in some cases, they are. Scientists across lucrative industries — pharmaceuticals to biotechnology to cosmetics — utilize digital sequence information (DSI), the genomic sequence data derived from an organism, to develop scientific advancements for profit. These ‘biopirates’ extract DSI from genetic resources on lands long stewarded by local, often Indigenous, communities, without consent — reaping windfall rewards with little or zero benefit trickling back to the resource’s origin. The global DNA sequencing market, which relies heavily on DSI, is projected to reach $21.3 billion by 2031. Billions of dollars in profits are disproportionately concentrated in the Global North, where the largest DSI databases are housed.
For example, a single sequence from a bean grown by an Indigenous group in Colombia could hold the key to resistance against a disease that threatens agricultural crops across the world. Shouldn’t the communities that cared for the beans that led to this important global benefit be compensated for their contributions? DSI has proven invaluable in efforts such as developing vaccines during the COVID-19 pandemic, advancing climate-resilient crop varieties, and safeguarding biodiversity. The benefits from this valuable information, shaped by the traditional knowledge of stewards over centuries, deserve to be shared with the people to whom we all owe a debt of gratitude.
Last month, countries from across the globe came together in Cali, Colombia for the 16th Conference of the Parties to the Convention on Biological Diversity (COP16) and on the agenda was benefit sharing — the leading approach for combating global biopiracy. At COP16, in air-conditioned rooms filled with government officials, countries agreed to the establishment of the Cali Fund.
The Cali Fund is a voluntary fund that enables large companies to pay for the commercial use of DSI extracted from nature. Qualifying businesses are encouraged to contribute a small percentage, just 1% of profits or 0.1% of revenue. How this works in practice, explains Mongabay contributor Justin Catanoso, is that — if the Cali Fund had existed during the COVID-19 pandemic — “Moderna would have paid $30 million out of the total $30 billion it made in vaccine sales.”
Half of the money collected is slated to be returned to Indigenous peoples and local communities, who play a vital role in the conservation and sustainable use of genetic resources. The Fund would require participating countries to establish strong domestic legal frameworks to ensure their companies pay into the fund and that funds actually make it back to the communities. If fully implemented, the Cali Fund could generate between $1 and $9 billion annually, supporting biodiversity conservation in places that will continue to produce important genetic resources for scientific breakthroughs benefitting the rest of the globe.
Countries have more than a moral obligation to enforce strong rules requiring businesses to comply with the Cali Fund; they might also be legally bound by human rights treaties. For example, most countries that are parties to the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) are also parties to the two main international human rights treaties, the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) and the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (ICECSR).
Both treaties share a common Article 1 that requires states to respect the right of all peoples to self-determination. This includes the right to freely pursue their economic, social and cultural development, and freely dispose of their natural wealth and resources. This article, as applied to the Cali Fund, should require countries to ensure that Indigenous peoples and local communities are involved in decisions about their genetic resources and how the funds collected from the resulting profits are utilized.
The ICECSR also requires nations to ensure everyone enjoys the benefits of scientific progress and the benefits from the protection of “the moral and material interests resulting from any scientific, literary or artistic production.” Arguably, this provision, Article 15 of the Convention, requires states to facilitate peoples’ access to the benefits of their contributions.
Participation in the Cali Fund through national legislation would be a solid step forward to fulfilling the legal obligations of countries party to both conventions. Further, those same nations are required to take steps “to the maximum of their available resources” to fully realize the rights under the ICECSR. This means that simply facilitating voluntary participation in the Cali Fund is insufficient. States should instead create robust regulatory frameworks that require corporations operating in their jurisdictions to participate in benefit-sharing.
Biopirates can and must be stopped. But stopping biopiracy really just means ensuring the free and prior informed consent (FPIC) of communities from which genetic resources are derived and guaranteeing fair and equitable compensation (“benefit sharing”) for their use — turning pirates into ethical scientists and innovators. The path forward requires countries across the globe to uphold their obligations to our shared environment and to the human rights obligations they have long lauded. Committing to the Cali Fund and its benefit-sharing goals that respect the rights of Indigenous and local communities through strict national regulation is a good place to start.
Victoria OsanyinpejuJD ’26, is a student of the International Human Rights & Conflict Resolution Clinic at Stanford Law School. My name is Roffe PiketJD ’26, is a student of the International Human Rights & Conflict Resolution Clinic at Stanford Law School. Jasmine BetancourtJD ’26, is a student of the International Human Rights & Conflict Resolution Clinic at Stanford Law School. Alex Reep is a 2023-2024 U.S. Fulbright scholar in Colombia, researching reciprocity for the use of genetic resources from Indigenous, Afro-descendent, and farming territories.
Banner image: Emergent rainforest tree in the Ecuadorian Amazon. Photo by Rhett Ayers Butler for Mongabay.
Related audio from Mongabay’s podcast: Another conservation funding mechanism that emerged from COP16 in Cali is the Tropical Forest Forever Facility (TFFF) and three guests discuss its potential and pitfalls, listen here:
See related coverage:
Will a billionaire bankroll biodiversity? CBD Decision 15/9 as potential ‘goldmine’ (commentary)
Grassroots efforts sprout up to protect Central America’s Trifinio watershed
COP16 biodiversity meeting recap: Progress made, but finance lags
COP16: ‘A fund unlike any other’ will pay tropical nations to save forests
