In the same way that, some three decades ago, bossa nova took the musical world by storm, a new ‘Brazilian Wave’ is mounting a global assault in the field of biodiversity. The Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD, 5th. June 1992, Rio de Janeiro) has started its conquest of the world. This Convention is of major importance to all those prospecting, studying, conserving and utilising life in its different forms and degrees of complexity (genes, organisms, species, populations, ecosystems and the biosphere). It provides research-based service culture collections - such as the BCCM™ - with some most welcome ‘surfing’ opportunities, as well as raising challenging new issues which need to be addressed.

Most importantly, the explicit recognition of the need for ex situ conservation of biological resources in art. 9, provides culture collections with a key political argument, to support their efforts in the continuous search for much-needed funding. The Convention affects culture collections established in over 150 member countries, which currently form the ‘Conference of Parties’ (COP) of the CBD (Belgium ratified the CBD on the 20th. February, 1997). These collections now have a new, internationally enacted, and nationally ratified ‘raison d’être’.

The bossa nova of the CBD also opens opportunities in the field of scientific and technical cooperation (art.12), as well as capacity-building (art.18), particularly from the standpoint of North-South cooperation. As a result, well-established culture collections can contribute valuable expertise in areas such as taxonomy, bioprospection and the management and sustainable use of biological resources and information. They are also well placed to help in the creation of ex situ collections in those countries of origin of biological diversity that wish to acquire such national instruments as recommended in article 9 of the CBD.

Unfortunately, there are some drawbacks, since the CBD is still unclear on quite a number of issues and has created, as a consequence, a de facto situation of legal uncertainty. The legal vagueness is predominantly contained in articles dealing with the access to, and/or the property rights of, biological resources (art. 15, art. 16), or with the principle of the fair and equitable sharing of the benefits related to their use (art. 19).

Article 15, dealing with access to both in situ and ex situ resources, underlines the sovereign rights of states, and could, as a result, conflict with the still widely prevailing policy of almost unrestricted distribution of biological resources, by public service culture collections.

Equally, article 15 calls for the establishment of competent regulatory authorities to control access to biological resources, in a practical manner, under the principle of ‘prior informed consent (PIC)’. Unfortunately it remains the case that such competent authorities are still very difficult to identify, or - worse - do not seem to exist, in many countries of prime interest to bioprospectors.

Moreover, unlike the case for macro-organisms such as plants and animals, specific problems arise when it comes to the monitoring of access to, and/or the repatriation of, microbial resources. As an example, it is well known that we all continuously host innumerable billions of micro-organisms, which are invisible to the naked eye. Many of these come and go, cross borders unobserved and even remain unculturable.

To add to the complexity, there are peculiarities related to patented strains. While the distribution of such strains is rigorously controlled, it may be observed that many countries of origin of these patented strains do not yet have a say in the corresponding international patent regulation laid down in the Budapest Treaty. Moreover, patent deposits of microbial strains is, at present, restricted to some 30 International Depository Authorities (IDAs) which are concentrated in just 17 countries, all of which belong to the industrialised world (see also BCCM™ News 0).

Article 19.1. underlines the need for ‘the effective participation in biotechnological research activities of those Contracting Parties (CPs) - especially developing countries - which provide the genetic resources and, where feasible, in such CPs’. Article 19.2 states that ‘each CP shall take all practicable measures to promote and advance priority access on a fair and equitable basis by CPs, especially developing countries, to the results and benefits arising from biotechnologies based upon genetic resources provided by those CPs. Such access shall be on mutually agreed terms (MATs)’.

It is clear that, while service culture collections should notify these principles to their clients, they cannot be held responsible for their proper external implementation. Indeed, in most cases, clients do not inform the collections of the use and possible commercial utilisation of the cultures they have received. Conversely, culture collections are often restrained by confidentiality agreements.

Conscious of these and similar issues and, wanting to secure easy access to and international circulation of microbial resources in the interest of the sustainable development of both industrialised and developing countries, some culture collections and industrialists, as well as judicial and governmental experts - including representatives from the South - recently agreed to move in a pro-active manner. As a result, a pragmatic code of conduct, MOSAICC (Micro-Organisms Sustainable use and Access regulation, an International Code of Conduct), will be developed.

This international project, coordinated by the BCCM™, is funded by the ELSA (Ethical, Legal and Social Aspects) scheme of the life sciences and technologies directorate of the European Commission (see also corresponding interview).

Comments and requests for further information are most welcome.