Dana Perls (Friends of the Earth US)
Developing countries have long called for predictable finance, equitable access to appropriate technologies, scientific cooperation and stronger regulatory capacity to conserve biodiversity and secure fair benefits from genetic resources. At COP17, the question is what kind of capacity will be built - and for whose benefit. The Thematic Action Plan on Synthetic Biology (TAP) could strengthen countries’ ability to assess, regulate and, where necessary, reject synthetic biology applications. Yet it currently leans towards technology development. Where organisms may persist and spread, precaution must come first.
Synthetic biology redesigns genetic material, organisms and biological systems. Applications include gene drives, engineered microorganisms and genetically engineered pesticides. Combined with artificial intelligence, automated DNA synthesis and proprietary biofoundries, it aims to make living systems programmable and commercially scalable - raising serious concerns when genetic resources, traditional knowledge and biological functions become patentable digital assets.
COP17 will help determine whether biodiversity policy prio-ritises technological interventions or tackles the structural causes of biodiversity loss. Evidence for many claimed benefits remains limited, while methods for assessing irreversible impacts and addressing liability, redress and benefit-sharing remain inadequate. Technological responses must not displace action on industrial agriculture, extractivism, pollution, dispossession and corporate concentration.
The TAP could shape policy and finance
Although non-binding, the TAP could shape national policy, research priorities, partnerships and finance, including through the Global Environment Facility and the Global Biodiversity Framework Fund. Adoption by the Conference of the Parties would give it greater authority, but even a decision merely taking note of it could influence investment and technology transfer. The bracketed draft decision text therefore matters: it reflects a deeper choice between faci-litating the development and use of synthetic biology and prioritising the precautionary approach, independent risk assessment, regulatory oversight and the sovereign decision-making of Parties.
Organisms developed through synthetic biology may persist, cross borders and cause irreversible harm. The technology may also enable access to genetic resources, traditional knowledge and data without meaningful consent or equitable benefit-sharing. Patents, proprietary platforms and public-private partnerships may further concentrate control in corporations and Northern research networks. Biodiversity-rich countries must remain sovereign decision-makers - not sources of biological material, testing grounds or recipients of externally defined technologies.
COP17 can address these concerns through clear safeguards. The CBD should not present synthetic biology as inevitable while its benefits and consequences remain uncertain. Precaution must apply before research and finance create technological lock-in—not only at environmental release. Field trials or deployment should not proceed where biodiversity, livelihoods or rights may be threatened. Proponents should bear the burden of demonstrating safety and public benefit.
What COP17 must do
The TAP should centre precaution, public-interest governance and sovereign decision-making. Capacity-building and public finance should support independent horizon scanning, assessment, monitoring, biosafety regulation, liability and redress. Donor-supported pilots, commercial partnerships and biofoundries must not foster dependency or narrow national policy space. Parties and affected communities must retain the authority to withhold approval and reject deployment.
COP17 should affirm national sovereignty over genetic resources, the fair and equitable sharing of benefits arising from their utilisation, prior informed consent, and the rights of Indigenous Peoples and local communities. It should also ensure that the use of digital sequence information on genetic resources does not circumvent access and benefit-sharing obligations. Public resources should support agroecology, farmer-managed seed systems, community-ledconservation and locally determined innovation. Negotiators should resolve the bracketed draft decision text in favour of the precautionary approach, public accountability and regulatory autonomy - not technology promotion. Sound governance rests on ecological integrity, democratic accountability and the sovereign right to say no.
More info at acbio.org.za/gm-biosafety/synthetic-biology-at-cbd-cop17