Lessons learned in . . . Tanzania presentation prepared by Preston T. Scott WFED

1. The ABS Management Tool (ABS – MT)International Stakeholder Workshop27-28 November 2006Heredia, Costa Rica Lessons learned in . . . Tanzania presentation prepared by Preston T. Scott WFED

2. Assumption Successful ABS projects are characterized by the presence of three factors: • Valuablebiologicalresources • Demand for those resources • Politicalwill to manage resource-demand equitably & efficiently

3. Resources of interest? Thermophilic microorganisms in hot springs located throughout Tanzania • Identification of hot springs of interest (mapping) • Specimen collection (access permit required) • Evaluation of specimens collected (inventory) • ‘Value’ unknown (?)

4. Parties? • User(s) • Small Non-TZ R&D Company • TZ University Partner • Non-TZ University Partner (potential) • Non-TZ Culture Collection (potential) • Provider(s) • TZ Gov’t • Multiple Agencies (Land Management / Regulatory / Political) • Role of Local Communities / Other Stakeholders (not clear)

5. Political will? • Mixed signals • Multiple agencies / potentially competing agendas • Top-down political culture • Local / nat’l + regional + int’l concerns • ‘Research’ regs established (but no ‘benefit-sharing’ provisions or ‘trigger-mechanisms’) • IPR policies in flux

6. Role of the ABS-MT? • Key player: Small Non-TZ R&D Co. • Not bureaucratic (quick-decision-making) • Pragmatic commitment to ABS (but not to BS) • Keen on ‘pilot project’ success (invested) • Initially skeptical of ABS-MT (‘why use it?’) • Provides step-by-step framework for convening & structuring multiparty ABS negots (‘efficiency’) • ‘Neutral’ / ‘respected’ playbook (‘equity’) • Could promote ‘transparency’ in light of regulatory uncertainty (‘confidence builder’)

7. Some interim observations . . . • ‘User’ not inclined to use the ABS-MT without persuasive explanation of the potential benefits (focus on transaction-cost-effectiveness) • Facilitators needed to keep process on track (potentially costly / not-self-implementing) • Perceptions of repetitious convoluted process • ABS-MT does not provide the actual instrumentsneeded for agreement (ABS experts still required) • But: Still provides a framework that can guide willing multiparty ABS negotiations (‘worth trying’)

8. What happened? • Initial inquiries with TZG concerning ‘possible interest’ (favorable replies) • Consultations scheduled in TZ • Multi-agency briefing on ABS-MT • Reasons for using the ABS-MT discussed • Exploratory ‘workshop’ format suggested to allow the parties to all move forward together • Generate some ‘lessons of experience’ that might be useful for TZ reg development

9. Reactions ? • Mixed • Some initial interest . . . • But, undermined by suspicions about non-TZ development / source of ABS-MT • Only limited interest in use of ABS-MT as issue-identification / problem-solving tool • No political will to test as ‘pilot project’

10. Result? • Small Non-TZ R&D Co. unwilling to wait on ‘process’ (too costly / too uncertain) • Proceeded with work authorized by permits (but disappointment with specimen evaluations resulted in collapse of ‘demand’) • Incentive to use ABS-MT simply fell apart • No perceived affirmative benefit (now or later) • No other incentive in absence of ABS regs • ‘Worth trying’ ‘Why bother’

11. ¿¿¿ Preguntas ???

12. ¡¡¡ Gracias !!!Preston T. ScottWFED1816 Jefferson Place, NWWashington, DC 20036 USATel +1-202-872-9585 * Tel +1-941-351-7571preston@wfed.org