Rachel Wynberg*
* Rachel Wynberg is a consultant and expert in environmental and conservation law. She acknowledges with gratitude the assistance of Sem Shikongo in providing information about Namibia.
This study was originally prepared in January, 2004, in preparation for the discussions in CBD COP 7. To avoid duplicating other material in this book or The ABS Series, only excerpts of its discussions are provided. Its conclusions and discussions are based in part on the case studies set out in parts 6.1 and 6.2, below.
Because biodiversity is found in inverse proportion to technological and industrial wealth, the biologically rich South has argued that in order to allow companies access to its biodiversity – and indeed to justify the conservation of economically important biological resources in developing countries – the technologically rich North must transfer technology and share benefits from commercialization.120 This is considered especially crucial given the historical accrual by colonial powers and Northern companies of benefits derived from the commercialization of resources from the South. These sentiments underpin the new policy framework encapsulated in the CBD, and also form the context for implementation of ABS provisions of the CBD, and the treaty's third objective – to share equitably benefits arising from use of genetic resources.121
Much of the most active developing-country participation in the ABS debates and processes has emanated from the so-called ‘megadiverse’ countries, and in particular from a newly formed ‘like-minded, megadiverse’ coalition, representing 15 of the most biologically diverse countries in the world.122 Seventy percent of the planet's biodiversity and 45% of the world's population are found within the boundaries of the member countries of this group.123 Non-implementation of ABS provisions within the CBD and the voluntary nature of the Bonn Guidelines remain major frustrations for these countries, many of whom are targeted continuously, and often relentlessly, by Northern companies and their intermediaries seeking biological resources and traditional knowledge for commercial application.124
But what of other developing countries that do not hold exceptionally rich repositories of biodiversity, and for whom ABS might not be an immediate priority? As acknowledged by the ABS expert panel set up under the CBD, there is ‘enormous difference in the circumstances of particular cases of access and benefit sharing.’125 A ‚one size fits all‘ approach may well be inappropriate, and a presumption that all developing countries are biologically rich might result in practices, policies and instruments that are ultimately more onerous than helpful to developing countries. While standards, guidance and political support are clearly essential for ABS implementation, these must clearly address the needs not only of megadiverse countries, but also of countries with neither the resources, power nor interest to develop comprehensive ABS systems themselves.
This paper aims to explore these issues in further detail, by drawing on the experiences of arid and/or low diversity countries with high levels of endemism, and attempting to look practically at the legal and institutional implications of ABS arrangements in these countries, presenting case studies from southern Africa, Lebanon, and Burkino Faso. Following these it provides an overview of the biological, social and developmental characteristics of arid and/or low diversity countries and those with high endemism, and considers the differing impacts of ABS in terms of policy and legal approaches adopted by these countries, and their relevance to these countries.
Countries seldom have a uniform set of characteristics that obviously classify them as having low or high levels of biological diversity. Clear distinctions are also made difficult by the fact that politically-defined regions seldom coincide with biologically-defined regions. For the purpose of this paper, however, we consider low diversity countries to be those outside of the tropics, without significant tracts of rainforest, outside of any major centres of plant or crop diversity, and often having arid climates and vegetation types and high levels of endemism. Of course we recognize this definition to be loose and open to interpretation. Some countries may have pockets of high species diversity within their boundaries, or high levels of endemism, but overall low species richness and ecosystem diversity. Others may have few biomes within their country borders, but high species richness within these biomes. For the purposes of this paper a rigorous scientific characterization is neither desirable nor appropriate. Rather, the intention is to draw attention to the different constituencies that may be affected by ABS, and the practical implementation of ABS in these countries.
Arid countries are often home to extraordinary and unique species and thus present a particular set of issues for ABS. Arid plant species produce a wide array of secondary compounds as protective agents against abiotic (e.g., drought) and biotic (e.g., herbivore grazing) stress. These compounds aid plants in adapting to environmental conditions, competing with other plants, warding off attacks by predatory insects or animals, or attracting pollinators or seed dispersers. Many of these compounds are of commercial interest as medicinal agents or industrial chemicals. Active constituents of the succulent plants Hoodia sp. and Trichocaulon sp., for example, have recently been patented by the South African-based Council for Scientific and Industrial Research (CSIR), and are currently under development as an appetite suppressant drug. In another example, the desert shrub Chrysothamnus nauseous (Rabbit Brush) produces high concentrations of natural rubber, resin for polymer plastics, and specific chemical compounds for the chemical industry.126 In the Sonoran Desert of Arizona, the secondary metabolites produced by desert plants and micro-organisms are the subject of extensive testing for their anti-tumour properties.127
Arid regions are often of particular interest for their agricultural resources. Agriculture, based on pastoral systems and dryland crop cultivation, frequently forms the backbone of economic activities in arid countries. In Burkina Faso, for example, 85% of the economically active population is employed in the agricultural sector. In Lebanon, up to 50% of the population is involved in agriculture or related activities. In Namibia and Botswana, the majority of rural people practice livestock farming and subsistence agriculture. Often, land that is farmed is suitable only for nomadic or rotational grazing due to poor surface water availability, erratic rainfall and infertile soils. Traditionally, nomadic pastoralists and other mobile peoples have used arid rangelands, moving animals long distances to find water and grass, and managing livestock as mobile, flexible assets that can provide multiple social, cultural and economic benefits. Such systems spread economic risks over a range of activities and also enable greater maintenance of species diversity.128
Over centuries, farmers cultivating dryland crops have similarly evolved traditional cultivars resistant to drought, poor soils, salinity and local pests. The selection and use of an array of cultivars with different traits is one of many ways in which to reduce crop failure. These stress-tolerant varieties are of great commercial interest for new agricultural applications. In the Arab Maghreb region of north-west Africa, for example, characteristics for resistance to drought and salinity are much sought after to improve agricultural production of important crops such as alfalfa, oats, wheat, barley, olives, vines and a range of fruit trees.129 In the mountain-top habitats of Lesotho and South Africa, the resurrection plant Xerophyta viscosa, is able to survive for long periods without water, and is also highly tolerant of temperature extremes and high winds. Most remarkable is the plant's ability to rehydrate completely and resume its full metabolic functions within 24–72 hours of rain.130 Scientists at the University of Cape Town in South Africa are using X. viscosa as a source of genes that code for proteins responsible for this resurrection phenomenon. The ultimate intention is to engineer stress-tolerant crop plants for sub-Saharan Africa.131
High levels of endemism also often typify arid countries. Namibia, for example, is one of the world's driest countries, and contains the world's oldest desert, and an unusual and complex array of habitats, species and adaptations, many of them unique to the country and region.132 Africa's arid southwest zone is roughly centered on Namibia and is a major zone of evolution for melons, some families of succulent plants, and several invertebrate, reptile and amphibian species.133 Namibia also includes parts of three floristic regions: the Zambezian regional centre of endemism, the Kalahari-Highveld transition zone, and the Karoo-Namib regional centre of endemism. The Karoo-Namib region, which stretches from southern Angola to the Eastern Cape (South Africa) includes at least half of its 7000 species as endemic.134 The Arab Maghreb region in north-west Africa similarly includes high levels of endemism: of the more than 4000 species occurring in the region, at least 20% are endemic.135
While arid environments have a suite of interesting biological and physical attributes, they are also most vulnerable to land degradation and desertification. Desertification carries huge economic, social and environmental costs for countries, among them a loss of soil productivity, loss of vegetation cover, reduced food production, reduced resilience to natural climate variability, and a loss of cultural diversity.136 For many arid countries, and more especially those in Africa, desertification is tied integrally to poverty, migration, food security, and development. Communities in dry areas with marginal, degraded land resources are among the poorest of rural communities, and development choices are usually extremely limited.
An important question to ask is what value is placed on resources from arid countries by companies seeking access to genetic and biological material. Although most countries of the world seem to have experienced some level of bioprospecting, in all most large-scale natural products programmes collect material from 20–30 countries, and most bioprospecting efforts to date have focused on a much smaller number of countries with high levels of species diversity rather than their less glamorous counterparts.137 Merck, for example, list species diversity as a key question to guide their selection of countries in which to conduct sampling.138 Monsanto, cited in Laird and ten Kate,139 states that ‘areas with lots of biodiversity are extremely important sites for collection.’ Several other companies likewise reiterate the importance of collecting in regions of high biodiversity – and thus, chemical diversity.140
While species diversity is an important criterion, a number of different approaches can be adopted for the sampling of natural products, most of which are used by companies to varying extents: Laird and ten Kate141 describe four main approaches:
Random, where collections are conducted on a random basis to obtain a representative sample of local diversity;
Ecology-driven, where collections are based on an understanding of ecological relationships between species which might lead to the production of secondary compounds;
Chemotaxonomic, where collections are based on knowledge of taxa with important compounds; and
Ethnobotanical, where collections are based on local knowledge of species.
Clearly, all of these could apply in arid and low diversity countries, although in all likelihood the ‘ecology-driven’ and ‘chemotaxonomic’ approaches would be most relevant. Ethnobotanical leads are also crucial, evidenced by the case of Hoodia, where traditional knowledge of the plant led researchers directly to further investigation of the plant's pharmaceutical potential as an appetite suppressant. Similarly, traditional knowledge led researchers to patent active constituents of plants in the succulent Mesembryanthemaceae family for the treatment of mental disorders. Different factors are also likely to come into play depending on whether genes or chemicals are being sought. Genes for pest- or drought-resistant crops, for example, would best be located through a targeted search, focused on geographical areas where certain traits are evident. However, a screening programme for useful chemicals, such as new pesticides or drugs, is more likely to find success in biologically diverse systems.142
To varying extents, these interests are played out in arid countries. Namibia, for example, reports a high level of commercial interest in the country's biodiversity, and wide-ranging enquiries about exploiting the potential of local species – from the country's curcubits (melons) through to the venom of snakes, the urine of rodents, and the spectacular succulents of the Sperrgebiet. For the princely sum of US$5000, an offer was recently made by a US institution to survey Namibia's entire flora!143 In South Africa (a megadiverse country with arid regions), arid species are included by the parastatal CSIR in a major bioprospecting project aimed at investigating most of the country's 23,000 plant species for commercially valuable properties over the next ten years. Hoodia,which is an arid species found in and around the Kalahari desert of South Africa, Namibia and Botswana, is one of the species under development by the CSIR. Arid species are also collected in South Africa by the New York
Botanical Garden as part of a Global Systematic Phytochemical Survey, initiated in an endeavour to systematically collect representatives of every vascular plant family in the world.
In Lebanon, the Lebanese Agricultural Research Institute is involved in several agreements, including a bilateral transfer agreement with the International Centre for Agricultural Research in Dry Areas (ICARDA), and an agreement with Kew Gardens in which Kew covers the running costs of collections and training in the field. At the American University of Beirut, scientific research is being conducted as part of a bioprospecting project to investigate the scientific validity of traditional use of indigenous plants (see Case study 2, section 6.2).
Bioprospecting in Burkina Faso is also prevalent, with particular interest in agricultural varieties (see Case study 1, section 6.1). Historically, Burkina Faso was home to Sahel whippets, since exported to Europe and the USA by foreigners for use in cross-breeding and the development of new breeds of dog.
It is clear that ABS is of great relevance to arid countries, but that strategic responses to the issue may differ, depending on the range of social, economic, political, developmental and environmental circumstances at play in respective countries. Of interest is that none of the countries investigated have yet noted any need to develop comprehensive strategic planning processes for ABS, an observation that is shared for megadiverse countries.144 For countries such as Burkina Faso, faced with desertification, crippling levels of poverty, and other pressing development needs, ABS issues unsurprisingly play second fiddle. But in other arid countries, limited development choices and unpredictable rainfall have led to increased recognition of the importance of alternative and diversified livelihood strategies such as wild product harvesting, bioprospecting and ecotourism. Only 6.5% of Namibia's land, for example, is suitable for arable farming, and wild products form an important component of drought-coping strategies in poor rural communities.145 Commercial use of the country's biodiversity for wildlife tourism and trade in biodiversity is receiving increasing political support, accompanied by the introduction of supportive laws and policies. Reflecting these differences, arid countries have adopted a mix of policy responses to ABS, with some pursuing the issue more actively than others.
In Lebanon, there has been active discussion on ABS and ongoing participation in the development of the Bonn Guidelines, both through the CBD-constituted panel of experts and the ad-hoc Working Group on the matter. Lebanon's National Biodiversity Strategy and Action Plan (NBSAP) stipulates the need for laws relating to ABS, and the Environmental Protection Law (444 of 2002) calls specifically for the elaboration of a system to control access to genetic resources, to manage natural resources, and conserve biodiversity. In response, a draft law has been prepared to regulate access to Lebanese biological and genetic resources, and the sharing of benefits from their use, but this has not yet been adopted (see Case study 2). Lebanon has not developed a national strategy to protect traditional knowledge although the recently adopted Law for the Protection of the Environment addresses the importance of traditional knowledge in rural areas and stipulates that indigenous information must be taken into consideration in the absence of available scientific information. Existing intellectual property laws are however considered ill-suited to the protection and promotion of TK use, and sui generis legislation is currently under development.
Namibia too has participated actively in the development of ABS policy and legislation and considers ABS legislation to be a priority issue, more especially to prevent illegal prospecting and to ensure national and local benefits.146 ABS features prominently in the country's NBSAP, which stipulates as one of its strategic aims the need to ‘promote and control bioprospecting and biotrade to generate sustainable benefits for Namibia’. A related objective is to ‘demonstrate and promote the role of indigenous knowledge systems in biodiversity conservation and sustainable resource management, and establish opportunities for indigenous communities to share this knowledge with other parties.’ Draft legislation on ABS has been under development for some years, and promulgation is anticipated in 2004.147
Burkina Faso, in contrast to the two countries described above, does not consider ABS a strategic priority and there has been little debate on the issue within the country. However, ABS does feature in the country's NBSAP, which refers to the ‘fair distribution of benefits obtained from the exploitation of genetic resources,’ with a particular focus on the distribution of benefits at national and local levels. However, although Burkina Faso has ratified the CBD, no legislation exists or is under development to regulate ABS (see Case study 1). The need to preserve and protect traditional knowledge is similarly recognized by various programmes and action plans, but no legislative or institutional measures have been adopted to reach this objective.
Arid countries (and, indeed, most developing countries) are clearly faced with a bewildering array of international initiatives to which responses need to be formulated, and a continual juggling and weighing up of priorities versus available resources takes place. While the above discussion suggests that the regulation of ABS is still at an early stage, a number of common issues and needs can be identified – both in the regulation and practice of controlling ABS.
The governance of natural resources in arid regions presents major administrative and technical problems, both because resources are often dispersed over vast areas, and because of the remoteness and inaccessibility of these areas. A key constraint is the ability to monitor and enforce harvesting and trade policies, particularly in more remote areas. In many instances, insufficient capacity exists within government, requiring innovative approaches to be adopted, including self-policing and monitoring by communities. This in turn requires capacity-building programmes at the local level, and an enhancement of existing extension services. Devil's Claw, for example, is a medicinal plant widely harvested in southern Africa for the international trade. The plant yields significant social and economic benefits, yet the vast areas over which it occurs, combined with a lack of knowledge as to its population status, and low levels of capacity and community organization make its effective management especially difficult. Similar constraints exist for many other arid-zone species.
Obtaining the prior informed consent of communities to collect their biological resources and/or knowledge is also more difficult to implement and monitor under these circumstances. For mobile communities with no fixed abode, PIC is extremely difficult, but not impossible to physically administer. However this implies the existence of strong community institutions, and a uniform and well-informed understanding as to the purpose of the collection.
Land tenure is a central issue in most arid countries, where communal systems of tenure are generally most prevalent, and more appropriate than systems based on individual tenure. Communal lands typically fall under customary regimes, where rules governing access to biological resources (in the broadest sense), and cultural taboos are often far better understood and implemented than statutory measures.148
Oral cultures and practices are the primary medium for communication, and approaches to property are likely to be very different from western norms, and more firmly embedded in a community collective than in a monopolistic, individualistic and privatized system. This is an extremely important context for the development and implementation of ABS laws. Chishakwe and Young149 point out the difficulties countries have had in developing a workable legal framework that clarifies ownership of genetic resources. Because a definition of genetic resources is ambiguous, it has been hard to legislatively determine who has rights to dispose of, give access to, or receive benefits from such resources. Where customary laws apply at the community level, the situation is even more fraught. ABS legislation clearly needs to take into account the impact of different systems of land ownership on the way in which resources can be accessed and used.
In the arena of ABS, arid countries share with other countries the problems of overlapping responsibilities of different Ministries and government departments, sometimes leading to different policy approaches being adopted to the same issue. However, this is less pronounced than in countries with more complex bureaucracies and institutions, suggesting that policy coherency may be more easily achieved in low diversity and/or arid countries. In Namibia, for example, PGRFA are included within the country's draft ABS law, whilst in South Africa territorial disputes between different Ministries have led to the recently adopted Biodiversity Act explicitly excluding agricultural biodiversity from its ambit, despite the legislative vacuum that exists for PGRFA and farmers' rights. While problems of overlapping mandates between different Ministries may be less pronounced in arid countries, the prevalence of communal systems of tenure suggests that overlapping responsibilities between traditional organizations and modern state administrative structures is likely to be an obstacle towards legal coherency and coordination. As is the case for other countries, an important challenge is to improve communication between decision makers, researchers, NGOs and communities.
The extensive nature of arid systems suggests that many biological resources and TK systems are likely to be shared between countries. This highlights the importance of regional initiatives to provide policy guidance on benefit sharing for shared resources and knowledge. The Hoodia case describes a rather unique situation where shared resources and knowledge were acknowledged through benefit-sharing arrangements to reward the San in Namibia, South Africa and Botswana. In this case, the existence of suitable institutions and goodwill between parties allowed for an amicable agreement to be reached, but it is doubtful that these circumstances can be replicated in every case.
ABS is generally predicated on the idea that source countries can move beyond simply being providers of raw materials and knowledge, by enhancing their technical capacity to add value to resources, through enhanced manufacturing facilities and infrastructure, and increased research and development. Whether this is an appropriate strategy for all arid countries is, however, questionable. For countries struggling to provide basic services, an expensive national strategy to promote value-added products from biodiversity is unlikely to be the most efficient use of scarce resources, and a more prudent approach may be to form alliances and partnerships with trustworthy neighbours and responsible foreign partners.
While such matters fall within the scope of national strategic decision making, they also have implications for the nature and scope of ABS legislation and suggest that countries need to consider carefully the implications of implementing cumbersome ABS systems. Moreover, they point to the need for countries to assess more broadly legal frameworks for trade in biodiversity, including for non-timber forest products traded regionally and internationally in bulk, and not as genetic resources. Improving the legal and policy framework for the trade and conservation of such resources could well deliver significant development benefits for low diversity countries, often reliant on trade in a few significant species.
Finally, systems for ABS in arid countries are likely to be most effective and workable if they are simple, flexible and well integrated into ongoing development programmes and policies. Implementing a complex ABS regime is a costly exercise, both in terms of the human and financial resources required. Experiences over the past decade suggest that as a development strategy, bioprospecting delivers limited benefits and, contrary to popular opinion, is unlikely to provide significant financial benefits to either high or low diversity countries. On the other hand, non-monetary benefits can be significant, especially with regard to the building of scientific and technical capacity.150, 151 This suggests that arid countries need to be cautious when regulating for ABS, and mindful of the ‘transaction costs’ of introducing and implementing new laws and institutional arrangements.
Arid countries have a unique set of social, economic and environmental attributes but share many of the constraints faced by high diversity countries in implementing ABS systems. At the international level, there are distinct benefits that an international, legally binding ABS regime could offer arid countries, especially in cases where no legislation exists and where there is insufficient expertise to negotiate contracts.152 Specifically, there would be advantages for standardizing the terminology that is used in national ABS legislation, for stipulating the basic elements that require inclusion in material transfer agreements, and for setting criteria for access protocols and PIC procedures. Including such components within a legally binding protocol under the CBD seems to be an approach that would guarantee a certain level of protection for provider countries. A legally binding international tool is also likely to bring much-needed funding to arid countries, enhanced political support and awareness, and greater momentum to the issue.
Drawing on discussions in this paper, the following recommendations are made:
ABS regulatory systems in arid countries should be simple, effective, clear and not draining on the national purse.
National ABS policies and laws come at a cost that arid countries cannot afford on their own. Financial support is needed from the international community to enable the development and implementation of effective ABS systems in arid countries.
Institutional and legal arrangements for ABS should combine and/or dovetail requirements of both the CBD, and those of the ITPGR and other related international agreements.
Different ministries working on issues relating to ABS need to ensure that policy responses are integrated and coherent.
The elaboration of international and national ABS laws needs to take into account the fact that communal tenure and rights systems are often most prevalent in arid countries, and that customary law frequently applies in such areas. ABS legislation needs to recognize that resources are accessed and used in different ways under different systems of land ownership.
Further attention should be given to the development of regional initiatives to provide guidance on benefit sharing for resources and knowledge shared between countries.
ABS capacity building is an important need for a range of different stakeholders in arid countries but efforts need to be focused and tailored in accordance with the benefits that bioprospecting can realistically deliver.
Wherever possible, ABS awareness-raising and capacity-building initiatives should be integrated into on-going development projects and programs, rather than being pursued as stand-alone projects.
Special efforts should be made to support arid countries in inventory work to describe and catalogue local biodiversity.
Greater efforts need to be made to investigate the type of legal regime that applies to trade in non-timber forest products and its relationship to ABS legislation.
The limited financial rewards to be gained from bioprospecting suggest that on its own, financial gain is not a sufficient reason to initiate comprehensive ABS laws and programmes in low diversity countries. Broader benefits obtained from ABS, including those relating to conservation, research and development, need to be an integral part of ABS policies and laws.
120 Macilwaine, C. 1998. ‘When rhetoric hits reality in debate on bioprospecting.’ Nature 392: 535–40; Sanchez, V. and C. Juma. 1994. Biodiplomacy. Genetic Resources and International Relations. Nairobi: African Centre for Technology Studies.
121 Convention on Biological Diversity (adopted Rio, 1992, entered into force 1993). Discussions are currently underway regarding the necessity for international instruments to achieve ABS commitments and objectives. These matters are discussed in detail in the other books in this series, and in: Chambers, W.B., 2003, ‘WSSD and an International Regime on Access and Benefit Sharing: Is a Protocol the Appropriate Legal Instrument?’ RECIEL 12(3): 310–320.
122 The so-called Group of Like-Minded Megadiverse Countries comprises Bolivia, Brazil, China, Colombia, Costa Rica, Ecuador, the Philippines, India, Indonesia, Kenya, Malaysia, Mexico, Peru, South Africa and Venezuela. The Group was formally constituted through the Cancun Declaration of February 18, 2002 as a ‘consultation and cooperation mechanism’ to promote common interests and priorities related to the conservation and sustainable use of biodiversity. The development of an international regime to promote and safeguard the fair and equitable sharing of benefits arising out of the utilization of genetic resources has been adopted by the group in its action plan as one of five areas of priority and action. See also www.megadiverse.org
123 Id. Note, too, recent thinking that challenges conventional thinking on biodiversity ‘hot spots,’ and calls for multiple strategies that take account of environmental degradation and local social and economic conditions (see Dickson, D. 2003. ‘UN advisor urges focus on environmental ‘hotspots’.’ www.scidev.net).
124 SEARICE. 2002. ‘The Bonn Guidelines on Access to Genetic Resources: Another false hope against Biopiracy?’ SEARICE notes, Translator series; and Caillaux, J. and M. Ruiz. 2003. ‘Legislative experiences on access to genetic resources and options for megadiverse countries.’ www.megadiverse.org/armado_ingles/PDF/five/five5.pdf
125 Report of Experts on Benefit-sharing Arrangements (UNEP/CBD/COP/5/8, 2 November 1999).
126 Weber, D.J., W.M. Hess, R.B. Bhat and J. Huang. 1993. ‘Chrysothamnus: a rubber-producing semi-arid shrub,’ in: Janick, J. and J.E. Simon (Eds), New crops, New York, NY: Wiley, at 355–357.
127 McGinley, S. 2001. Looking for anti-cancer compounds in the Sonoran Desert. Tucson: University of Arizona College of Agriculture and Life Sciences.
128 World Alliance on Mobile Indigenous Peoples. 2003. Briefing notes on mobile peoples and conservation. IUCN, WCPA, CEESP, TILCEPA, CMWG, Refugee Studies Centre, DICE, UNDP, WAMIP and CENESTA.
129 Brac de la Perriere, B. 2003. ‘International project ‘Growing diversity’: Summary of the project on the Maghreb Region in North Africa,’ see www.grain.org
130 Farrant, J.M. 2000. ‘A comparison of mechanisms of desiccation tolerance among three angiosperm resurrection plant species,’ Plant Ecol. 151: 29–39.
131 Peters, S. 2003. ‘Resurrecting hope: drought tolerant crops,’ Science in Africa (October 2003). www.scienceinafrica.co.za/2003/october/drought.htm
132 Barnard, P. (Ed.) 1998. Biological Diversity in Namibia: a country study. Windhoek: Namibian National Biodiversity Task Force.
133 Ibid.
134 Cowling, R.M. and C. Hilton-Taylor, C. 1997. ‘Phytogeography, flora and endemism.’ In: Cowling, R.M. D.M. Richardson and S.M. Pierce, (Eds), Vegetation of Southern Africa, University of Cambridge, at 43–61.
135 See Brac de la Perriere, supra note 132.
136 See www.unccd.int
137 Laird, S.A. and K. ten Kate, K. 1999. ‘Natural products and the pharmaceutical industry.’ In: Laird, S.A. and K. ten Kate, The Commercial Use of Biodiversity, London: Earthscan, at 34–77.
138 Borris, R.P. 1996. ‘Natural products research: perspectives from a major pharmaceutical company,’ Journal of Ethnopharmacology 51:29–38.
139 See Laird and ten Kate, supra note 140.
140 Ibid.
141 Ibid.
142 See Ten Kate and Laird, The Commercial Use of Biodiversity, supra note 140, at 213.
143 Krugmann, H. 2001. Namibia's thematic report on benefit-sharing mechanisms for the use of biological resources. Namibia National Biodiversity Programme.
144 See Caillaux and Ruiz, supra note 127.
145 See Barnard, supra note 135.
146 Shikongo, S., Ministry of Environment and Tourism, Namibia, pers. comm.
147 Ibid.
148 See, for example, Wynberg, R., S. Laird, J. Botha, S. den Adel and T. McHardy. 2002. Policy Issues with Regard to the Management, Use and Commercialisation of Marula. DFID report. www.nerc-wallingford.ac.uk/research/winners/
149 Chishakwe, N. and T.R. Young. 2003. ‘Access to genetic resources, and sharing the benefits of their use: international and sub-regional issues.’ Prepared for CBD COP 7 in Kuala Lumpur in 2004. [A slightly redacted form of this article has been published in this book as Chapter 4. Ed.]
150 Wynberg, R. 2003. A review of benefit-sharing arrangements for biodiversity prospecting in South Africa. In: Developing Access and Benefit-Sharing Legislation in South Africa. A Review of International and National Experiences, Pretoria: IUCN, at 56–80.
151 Rodriguez, S. 2002. ‘Bioprospecting has failed – what next? Sprouting UP.’ Seedling October 2002, GRAIN publications.
152 See Chambers, supra note 124.