'Biopiracy' is a problem for countries of both the North and South. It undermines legitimate and important scientific research as well as the conservation and sustainable use of biodiversity by depriving all interested parties of the opportunity to negotiate equitable and efficient benefit-sharing agreements.

     In 1969, a microbiologist working for Sandoz, a large Swiss pharmaceutical company, collected soil samples while on vacation in the Hardangervidda mountains of Norway. He took the samples with him back to his laboratory in Basel, Switzerland. One of those samples contained a biochemical called "Cyclosporin A," which later became the active ingredient in the blockbuster drug Sandimunn Neoral, that is used by patients that have undergone organ transplant operations. In 1996, Sandoz merged with Ciba Geigy to form Novartis, and in the following year medicines produced from the Norwegian fungus reportedly earned Novartis US$1.2 billion in gross revenue. However, the collection and use of the soil samples described above was not illegal, because at that time there were no Norwegian laws requiring access authorization or benefit-sharing provisions for this type of activity. A decade after the Sandoz microbiologist collected his samples, the Norwegian government converted the Hardangervidda mountain region into a national park, but even this action failed to establish laws governing bioprospecting.

     As with the distinction between poaching and properly managing wildlife, the difference between 'biopiracy' and conservation-based 'bioprospecting' is critical. Conservation-based bioprospecting refers to the search for valuable chemical compounds in nature, and involves accessing natural resources through legal means, securing prior informed consent from the custodians of the relevant natural resources, and promoting equitable benefit-sharing agreements with appropriate parties. In contrast, the term 'biopiracy' describes the unauthorized and uncompensated taking and use of biological resources -- a practice condemned around the world. As indicated by Dr. Langford Chitsike in the August 1998 issue of Resource Africa, biopiracy leaves nothing for those who preserve and protect biological resources and their respective communal knowledge. Specifically, it deprives custodians of biological resources the opportunity to reinvest research dividends in conservation and sustainable development initiatives.

     Fortunately, many countries around the world are now developing conservation-based bioprospecting frameworks that can ensure that commercial development of their biodiversity occurs only after receiving prior informed consent from, and agreeing to mutually acceptable benefit-sharing provisions with the host country, local communities, and other appropriate parties. Not surprisingly, this global trend has been influenced by the United Nations Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) and its objectives to conserve, sustainably use, and share the benefits derived from biodiversity. As an example, Costa Rica's National Institute of Biodiversity (INBio) in cooperation with the government developed a conservation-based bioprospecting framework that requires researchers to obtain authorization to access biological resources and enter into equitable benefit-sharing arrangements that support conservation of biodiversity on its public lands. In addition, Costa Rica enacted a new biodiversity law in 1998 to further strengthen this framework, and address issues of access and use of biological resources on private lands as well. Similar frameworks have been developed in many other countries including Nigeria, the Philippines, Venezuela, Suriname, Yemen, and the United States (i.e. Yellowstone National Park).

     Consequently, more countries are developing such frameworks in order to take advantage of the benefits that can be obtained through well-designed bioprospecting programs. These benefits include significant financial dividends and technology transfer opportunities. For example, through its bioprospecting program, Yellowstone National Park is now structuring agreements with commercial researchers that include: (1) up-front research investments; (2) royalties on resulting products; (3) in-kind contributions of laboratory equipment; (4) scientific training programs; and (5) annual reporting on the results from research on Park biological resources.

     Furthermore, many researchers can assist with research regarding health or conservation issues of particular interest to a community or conservation area. In one recent agreement with Yellowstone, a bioprospecting partner undertook DNA analysis that allowed Park management to develop a complete genetic pedigree of Yellowstone's wolf population -- important information for ensuring a healthy population.

     These benefits and others can be achieved through written agreements negotiated between two partners, or through national or even regional legislation. For instance, through Decision 391 by the Commission of the Cartagena Agreement, the Andean Community (Bolivia, Peru, Colombia, Ecuador, and Venezuela) in South America requires researchers to obtain proper authorization to access and use genetic resources acquired from their region. In the article mentioned above, Dr. Chitsike recommended a similar regional approach for the nations of Southern Africa.

     Communities and private conservation areas eager to end or prevent biopiracy of their biological resources may not wish to wait for regional or national initiatives. One of the first actions they can take to establish their own conservation-based bioprospecting framework is to develop strategic plans for implementing such a program. This exercise should be relatively straightforward for communities already participating in Community Based Natural Resource Management (CBNRM) projects since many of the characteristics of these projects compliment one another. Indeed, bioprospecting focuses on research involving microorganisms, insects, and plants, which provides yet another avenue for these communities to maximize the benefits that they can obtain from their natural resources. In addition, it can simultaneously improve their ability to conserve and manage those resources.

     Agreements governing conservation-based bioprospecting partnerships can also serve as "testing grounds" for later development of laws and regulations governing the access, use, and development of biodiversity, providing practical domestic experience.

     In addition, by promoting conservation-based bioprospecting frameworks within the research community, 'biopiracy' can be reduced and valuable research increased. This is especially true since many researchers prefer to work in areas that facilitate cooperative and mutually beneficial arrangements. Researchers appreciate equitable and efficient bioprospecting programs because such programs strengthen the long-term viability of research investments, principally by improving the resource custodian's ability to preserve and protect the biological resources that are essential to the researchers.

     Ultimately, it is better for communities to begin taking measures to develop their own conservation-based bioprospecting frameworks now, and pursue partnerships with the research community sooner rather than later. The opportunity costs associated with shutting out researchers and waiting for government legislators to develop or refine laws that enforce such frameworks are too high. Witness Norway's lost opportunity to benefit from the US$1.2 billion earned by Novartis in 1997 alone, as well as the many other examples that exist throughout Africa and the rest of the world. Such self-determination and empowerment reinforces CBNRM projects underway throughout Southern Africa, and should be encouraged by all of those in the conservation community.