Hartmut Meyer is the team leader of the ABS Capacity Development Initiative and works in close cooperation with its sister project BioInnovation Africa on making ABS work. Hartmut's first encounter with ABS was during COP-4 in Bratislava, Slovakia in 1998. As a biologist with a PhD in plant biochemistry and several years of experience in environmental NGO work, he was fascinated by the ABS concept of the CBD and the early discussions on that topic. He managed to win the attention of the German developmental NGO Church Development Service (EED, now Protestant Agency for Diakonie and Development) for the ABS topic and participated as an EED consultant in the international ABS negotiations until the Nagoya Protocol was adopted. He had the honor to be part of a team of dedicated and experienced NGO and IPLC representatives during all these years. When it was time for countries to implement the Nagoya Protocol, he joined the team at the ABS Capacity Development Initiative – which he knew since its beginning.
The post-2020 global biodiversity framework is a real chance for ABS – and the other way around. The benefit-sharing principle of the Convention will be one of the four goals of the new global biodiversity framework, thus shifting ABS to the center of political interest and fostering comprehensive national implementation of the CBD.
When you compare ABS back then in the mid-2000’s with today, is ABS better or worse off now?
Way better off.
Despite being one of the three objectives, it started as a niche topic with little support but is now almost mainstreamed.
“Almost” as we are not where we want to be with ABS: To be recognized and implemented as a core link between the 1st and the 2nd objective of the CBD. The benefits shared under ABS contracts should support measures for the conservation and the sustainable use of biodiversity. And at the same time, the ABS aim of the CBD is an important trigger for environmental justice and socioeconomic development.
The post-2020 global biodiversity framework is a real chance for ABS – and the other way around. The benefit-sharing principle of the CBD will be one of the four goals of the global biodiversity framework, thus shifting ABS to the center of political interest and fostering comprehensive national implementation of the CBD.
So, what is the potential role of ABS in implementing the post-2020 global biodiversity framework?
The draft framework justifiably highlights that ABS contributes to “meet people’s needs” through monetary and non-monetary benefits arising from the use of genetic resources. But what is the practical meaning behind these rather political terms? A hypothetical example may help to provide more clarity here:
A cosmetic company intends to use a plant from country X that developed a functional domestic ABS framework for research and development with the goal to develop a wrinkle cream. Before it can take this plant to its laboratory, it must sign an ABS contract with the providing country in which it guarantees a share of the profit from the commercialization of the cream. In return, the company receives reliable access to the resource and can operate with legal certainty. Both sides benefit. How does the profit share look like? It can simply be money, usually tied to specific purposes, or transfer of technological knowledge with which biodiversity can be better protected or the cultivation of plants improved. It could also simply be the construction of processing facilities on-site. The scope is broad. As long as it benefits socio-economic development and biodiversity protection, this benefit-sharing fulfills the spirit of the CBD.
When talking about contract agreements between providers and users of the genetic resources, what comes to mind are legal standards guiding the contract negotiators.
This is where the Nagoya Protocol comes into play. This international treaty came into force in 2014 and provides the global framework for the national implementation of ABS. It sets out core obligations for its contracting Parties to take necessary measures including ABS relevant laws and regulations. The concrete ABS contract negotiations are also guided by principles and practices of private international law. It is of utmost importance to ensure that these contracts are valid and enforceable in the providing country and the country in which the utilization is happening.
Sounds easy: Global ABS framework in place, Parties implement it. Is that a done deal?
In theory: Yes. In practice: not so much. There are a few reasons why implementing the Nagoya Protocol on a national level is a long process, nothing that happens overnight:
The guidance provided by the Nagoya Protocol remains very broad by setting only minimum standards. Parties can thus define national measures for ABS in a relatively flexible way. Some of them may already have existing laws that need to be taken into account, resulting in a complex policy process. Also, the Protocol obliges Parties to build up functional institutions, such as the competent national authority or checkpoints - a process that can take a while.
Or consider the role of indigenous people and local communities (IPLCs) about which the Protocol says that each Party shall take measures to ensure that the benefits are shared with them, in particular with regards to traditional knowledge when accessed. In reality, the legal status of IPLCs, especially their rights over land and resources, varies significantly from country to country. To make ABS work for IPLCs, these rights need to be secured and implemented at the national level together with effective ABS procedures.
As already touched upon in the last answer, especially the necessary technical and legal expertise in these institutions to make ABS a success needs to be developed and maintained. In general, the knowledge of ABS varies significantly in degree among relevant stakeholders.
Isn’t this exactly what the ABS Capacity Development Initiative has been doing since 2006: developing capacities for the implementation of ABS and the Nagoya Protocol?
Yes, we engage in all these fields – with a dedicated but still small team and rather limited financial means. I fully understand the impatience of some when you look at functional ABS systems at a global level. But this is part of the game in which ABS and the Nagoya Protocol are players. They trigger the global principle of environmental justice that is still waiting for its breakthrough. Inherent in the Nagoya Protocol are important factors in this regard: sovereignty over genetic resources on national territory, biodiversity as an economic factor that needs to be developed, and a re-adjustment of the global balance of justice between North and South. These are not small screws being turned. Instead, a large part of the machinery is being replaced. When proponents of ABS understand this more general leverage of ABS, they will certainly understand that such a transformative change is a longer process. With this in mind, we can be proud of what the ABS community has accomplished so far. The global community has started to realize this. The fact that ABS is currently an important topic in the draft version of the post-2020 framework with an own goal is no coincidence given our global challenges in climate and environmental protection as these are closely linked to the question of global justice.
Tell us a bit more about the ABS Capacity Development Initiative. How did it start in 2006?
When the Initiative started, we were the only capacity development project worldwide solely focusing on ABS. Since then, others appeared on the global stage.
In the early days we focused on Africa and building negotiation capacity. In 2012 our activities extended to the Caribbean and the Pacific regions, mainly to raise awareness and support countries in putting ABS on the national agenda. Take the liberty of asking one of our old partners what we were known for back then. I guarantee you that two words will be mentioned: workshops and training courses. While both are still important parts of our capacity development work, we also recognize the opportunities provided by digital tools and processes. Examples are our hybrid training tool on ABS contracts or the almost world-famous explainer videos.
I would like to emphasize that the ABS Initiative hardly implements anything on its own. We always work with partners and the ABS stakeholders themselves. I would call this a cooperative-inclusive approach that we have been pursuing consistently for 15 years. This does not always make the development of the content and the actual implementation easier. But at the end of the day, ABS processes need to be integrated in the providers’ institutional work and the operations of users in academia and the private sector.
Looking back: Which successes are the ABS Initiative most proud of?
If you have been closely involved with ABS for years, you sometimes lose sense of what only you consider successful and how partners and target groups actually think about it. As part of the cooperative-inclusive model described above, we are permanently seeking feedback which we take into consideration seriously. Perhaps it makes more sense to ask our partners and target groups than for me to start with self-praise here. But I can give you a very personal perspective:
In my view, the greatest successes come about in a rather invisible, year-long processes. I really feel happiness when at a workshop the participants are suddenly engaging in discussions on a completely different level than they were two years earlier. For instance, this is explicitly the case with regards to the Nagoya Protocol’s monitoring system or the topic of digital sequence information on genetic resources (DSI). Countries now understand much better what DSI means for them in terms of implementation and political negotiations. In other words, our capacity development measures, in addition to the work done by the Ad Hoc Technical Expert Group on DSI under the CBD Secretariat’s stewardship, among others, have worked. Or take our concept of an IT-based system for ABS applications, permitting and monitoring. More and more countries implement this concept in the context of their good governance and e-government approaches.
Would you consider the ABS Initiative to be innovative or conservative in its approach?
As in any established organization, we consist of traditionalists as well as innovationists or: conservatives and progressives, however you want to phrase it. Both are being integrated for the sake of better results.
We certainly don't opportunistically jump on every innovation train that passes by. Just because I can potentially reach the whole world with Microsoft Teams doesn't mean that the effect of a digital training is the same as that of a physical on-site workshop. On the other hand, we see a new, younger generation of environmental enthusiasts emerging. Their way of thinking, absorbing, processing and implementing knowledge is different from that of my generation. They are much less afraid of simplification and public display than experts of my age. It would be great if we could convince these young people that ABS is part of global environmental and social justice. We work on that regarding our methods and the composition of the team.
Who are the stakeholders the ABS Initiative is working with?
In principle, the stakeholders have not changed since 2006: policy makers, governments, the private sector, IPLCs, and academia. As biodiversity-based value chains - and especially biotrade value chains - become increasingly important for the implementation of ABS, we are also working with Small and Medium Enterprises. In this regard, we are closely cooperating with our sister project, BioInnovation Africa which promotes European-African business partnerships for biodiversity conservation and local development. Our sub-project ABioSA is working with 13 biotrade value chains and plant species in Southern Africa. It aims to create an innovative high-growth, job-rich biotrade sector that complies with international and domestic ABS principles and regulations.
What are the main challenges facing the implementation of the Nagoya Protocol in the future?
We talked about the bureaucracy already. Highly bureaucratic procedures will hinder research and development projects and the creation of benefits, especially through biodiversity-based value chains. Of course, DSI emerged as a new major challenge. It seems that the digital “copy” of the genetic resource will rapidly become a major tool in research and development in the future. Therefore, within the bounds of the post-2020 framework, it is imperative that we find a solution to carry the benefit-sharing principle into the future - for the sake of biodiversity conservation, socio-economic development and environmental justice. Since 2019 the ABS Initiative intensified its capacity development activities on DSI, jointly with the SCBD and supported by the environmental cooperation programme between South Africa and Norway, in the form of webinars, Global Dialogues, publications and multimedia tools.
A lot of discussions during the negotiations of the post-2020 global biodiversity framework have been around the need for data to inform decision-making. The guiding question is: What are the challenges around developing SMART indicators for ABS?
Regarding the possibilities of Specific, Measurable, Achievable, Relevant and Time-bound (SMART) Indicators, there are a variety of approaches at different levels. For example, in relation to ABS contracts, indicators could cover the number of signed contracts; the number of countries and IPLCs receiving benefits; the number of ABS-relevant laws; the number of internationally recognized certificates (IRRCs); the types of benefits shared, monetary and non-monetary. These quantifiable indicators can be tracked over the years provided the ABS Clearing-House will be fed by the Parties and stakeholders regularly.
We need to recognize though that Parties to the Nagoya Protocol–and the CBD–decided that the crucial instrument to ensure benefit-sharing are ABS contracts, which are confidential, per se. Therefore, it might be impossible in many cases to report on, for example, the details of monetary benefit-sharing.
In my eyes, it is also worth discussing whether we should add qualitative indicators. Only in this way can we assess the extent to which the ABS-inherent principle of environmental justice has been strengthened in a country, or at least the awareness of it. This is crucial as we have to keep one thing in mind: ABS and the Nagoya Protocol are not only important tools for biodiversity conservation and socio-economic development, but also an important lever for justice in countries on a global level.
After all, if the biodiversity community does not develop measurable and meaningful ABS indicators there is a risk to underreport achievements and this might be a disservice to us all.