london

A meeting of signatory states to the United Nations biodiversity convention ended in Bratislava, Slovakia, last week with agreement on a compromise over whether the convention should be provided with independent scientific advice.

The meeting agreed to set up expert panels by 2000 on marine biodiversity, and inland water biodiversity. A working group to establish guidelines on bioprospecting will be set up immediately (see Nature 392, 535–540; 1998).

But the panels will not be totally independent. The bioprospecting group will be appointed directly by governments. Members of the other expert panels will be picked by the convention's executive secretary from shortlists from each of the convention's five regions: Africa, Asia, Latin America, Eastern Europe and Western Europe.

The convention's ‘parties’ also agreed to strengthen its formal body of government-appointed scientists, which will meet twice before the next biodiversity conference in 2000, instead of just once. And the Australian government agreed to help find ways of increasing the availability of taxonomy expertise, particularly in developing countries.

The convention's budget was increased by a modest 7.5 per cent to US$8.6 million. And a deadline of February 1999 was set to finalize the protocol regulating the safety of genetically modified organisms.

The agreement on expert panels amounts to a compromise between developed and advanced developing country parties on the one hand, and least developing country parties on the other.

The former had proposed setting up panels of scientists from outside the convention to advise it on scientific issues related to biodiversity. These governments favoured such independent expertise on the grounds that the convention's existing advisory body met too infrequently.

They also argued that this body is unable to offer practical advice, given that the views of its member scientists tend to reflect the policies of their governments.

But decisions at UN conventions need a consensus of all the parties. And the least developed countries had signalled their opposition to extra scientific advice in the conference's first week (see Nature 393, 99; 1998). They were concerned that they would not have sufficient control over the new science panels, particularly if they were dominated by scientists from developed countries.

The decision to set up a group to formulate guidelines on bioprospecting stems from continued controversy over access to genetic resources. It will be welcomed, in particular, by pharmaceutical companies, which are increasingly concerned at what they perceive to be a trend in developing countries to pass tough laws regulating such companies, and other research organizations, when prospecting for natural products.

Under a Philippines law, for example, all scientists — whether local or from abroad — must seek permission directly from local communities before prospecting for natural products. At least two companies, Glaxo Wellcome and Novo Nordisk, have said they will cut back on research on natural products if other countries follow suit.

The bioprospecting working group will also look into the issue of intellectual property rights. Some developing countries, led by Ethiopia, had wanted a firm statement on perceived inconsistencies between the trade-related aspects of intellectual property rights under the World Trade Organization (WTO) rules, and under the biodiversity convention.

The convention calls for intellectual property rights regulations to recognize the contributions of, for example, traditional healers in the development of drugs from natural products. But this is not the case under WTO rules.