We depend significantly on plants and animals for survival. We use them for food, for medicine and even for cosmetics. Thus, the exploration for new biological resources has increased in the last several years. With this development, biodiversity-rich countries like ours have developed regulatory and policy measures to ensure the protection of the resource and the traditional knowledge about the use of the resource as well as recognition of ownership of the resource.

Biological prospecting or bioprospecting is defined as the exploration and collection of plants and animals (dead or living specimens) and the extraction of their biochemical compounds as potential sources of medicines and other products for future commercial purposes. When properly managed and regulated, bioprospecting can contribute to biodiversity conservation and generate income for the local communities who serve as stewards of these resources (Sinha 2005). The urgency of a policy regulating bioprospecting is reflected in the growing trend among developed countries with economic and technological means to exploit natural resources for chemical substances and genetic resources useful in industry, agriculture or medicine (Reid 1994).

The Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD), an international treaty which the Philippines has ratified, addresses the unregulated practice of commercial exploitation for biological materials by biodiversity-rich countries as well as using indigenous knowledge in harvesting and utilizing these resources. The Convention also focuses on the equitable sharing of benefits between biodiversity-givers (usually developing countries) and biotechnology-users (usually developed countries), the latter having the technological and financial capabilities to transform biological resources into commercially profitable products.

Countries with regulatory policies on bioprospecting have a better chance to negotiate for resource ownership and benefit sharing. It is said that the patent for the ylang-ylang oil is with a French perfume maker, thus, we cannot manufacture this commercially and benefit economically. Therefore, it is preferable that we become biotechnolo¬gically self-reliant by strengthening our biotechnological base and improving the implementation of property rights and patenting systems.

In 1995, Executive Order 247 on the development of guidelines and regulatory framework for bioprospecting began to be enforced. The Department of Environment and Natural Resources (DENR) is the government agency mandated to execute its implementing rules and regulations. Although the Philippines is the first country in Southeast Asia to pass a policy on bio¬prospecting (La Vina et al. 1997), the DENR encountered problems in its implementation due to insufficient funding and unclear operating mechanism. The policy was also criticized for causing unnecessary bureaucratic delay in the issuance of collection permits even for legitimate, non-commercial research studies and on-going conservation projects. Thus, in April 2005, a new set of bioprospecting guidelines was issued to clarify and improve EO 247’s implementing procedures, including a provision exempting legitimate researches with “no commercial interests” from the stringent permit requirements.

There is also the International Treaty on Plant Genetic Resources for Food and Agriculture (PGRFA) that came into force in June 2004 and is closely linked to the CBD with respect to the conservation of genetic resources and the “fair and equitable” sharing of commercial benefits arising from the use of these resources. Under this treaty, the negotiated list of the most important agricultural plants (35 food crops and 29 forage species) can be accessed through multilateral agreement, allowing farmers and researchers worldwide access to genetic resources and information. It stipulates that no genetic resources or information may be patented or used for chemical, pharmaceutical and any other non-food/feed industrial uses. It emphasizes access of a country to plant genetic resources deposited in a public institution in any other country. For example, access to seeds of rice varieties is free of charge and not subject to individual bilateral negotiation. To ensure the success of this treaty, the provisions regarding the sharing of commercial and other benefits from the use of these genetic resources should be fair and transparent. There is a need to clarify the provisions of the material transfer agreement between countries. This issue is controversial especially in the rich-poor flow of resources, as rich countries have the biotechnology to breed the species while the poor countries are the origin of the majority of the most agriculturally important genetic resources in the world (FAO 2005a).

orgsus@haribon.org.ph