In recent decades, national policies and economic strategies in southern Africa have increasingly focused on the biodiversity-based economy to stimulate income opportunities for rural communities within lucrative global value chains. Often targeted towards those marginalised by colonialism and apartheid, this neoliberal approach favours sophisticated export markets and trickle-down economics to alleviate social inequalities and address environmental concerns. With the goal of rapid expansion of the biodiversity-based economy, multiple mechanisms have been adopted by policymakers and industry including strategies for cultivation, breeding, formalisation of wild plant harvesting and trade, and access and benefit sharing amongst others. While these strategies may generate income opportunities and give recognition to local communities and traditional knowledge, they may also perpetuate colonial North-South trade relations, intensify local structural inequalities around land ownership and access to natural resources, markets and capital, exacerbate environmental degradation through land clearing, the use of agrichemicals and overstocking, and further disenfranchise resource custodians, erase traditional knowledge and weaken customary law. This session draws on multiple case studies to explore the limitations of the biodiversity-based economy as currently envisaged by governments and illuminate opportunities and local perspectives for transformative change.

BIODIVERSITY-BASED ECONOMIES, CONSERVATION AND EQUITY: PIPE DREAM OR AN OPPORTUNITY FOR TRANSFORMATION?

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, traditional knowledge