Shopping Nature for New Products Offers Few Incentives for Conservation

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE February 20, 1997

Contact: Michael Tebo (202) 328-5019 [email protected] http://www.rff.org

SHOPPING NATURE FOR NEW PRODUCTS OFFERS FEW INCENTIVES FOR CONSERVATION

WASHINGTON, DC -- Conservation advocates may be overstating the promise of biodiversity prospecting -- the search for new products among genes found in wild organisms that may be of potential commercial value -- as a mechanism for financing the conservation of biological diversity, according to a new article published by Resources for the Future (RFF).

The article "Biodiversity Prospecting: Shopping the Wilds Is Not the Key to Conservation" appears in the Winter 1997 issue of Resources, RFF's quarterly publication of news and policy analysis. Authored by RFF's David Simpson, it is based on two recent studies that provide the first compelling argument that biodiversity prospecting offers few financial incentives to preserve and maintain the habitats which sustain biodiversity.

The two studies are "Valuation of Biodiversity for Use in New Product Research in a Model of Sequential Search," by Simpson and RFF's Roger Sedjo, in which a mathematical model of biodiversity prospecting is developed and applied to new product research in the pharmaceutical industry, with a statistical model of optimal search intensity with simultaneous samples then introduced and developed; and "The Social Value of Using Biodiversity in New Pharmaceutical Product Research," by Simpson and Stanford University's Amy Craft, in which the value of biodiversity is further investigated through a model of competition between differentiated products that uses pharmaceutical industry data from 23 countries.

"We are clearly not saying that biodiversity is without value, nor that conservation activities are unimportant," says Simpson, co-author of both studies who is also currently writing a book on the economic analysis of biodiversity and ecological systems that will be published by RFF by Summer 1997. "Rather, we urge that advocates of biodiversity conservation look to funding sources other than the generation of new commercial products. There may be some regions in which biodiversity prospecting could make some contributions to conservation, but it just doesn't generate enough economic value to be an effective strategy on a large scale, or in areas in which development pressures are great."

Biodiversity -- the immense variety of the world's genes, species and ecosystems-- may be valuable for any number of aesthetic, ecological and spiritual uses, but its potential commercial value as a source of new industrial, agricultural and pharmaceutical products has generated a great deal of recent interest.

Genetically-diverse natural organisms have developed elaborate chemical mechanisms to enhance growth, attract mates, capture prey, avoid predators, and resist infection. Many of these chemicals have been especially important to the pharmaceutical industry. In the United States, nearly 25 percent of prescription medicines contain active ingredients that are extracted or derived from plants. These medicines include vincristine and vinblastine, drugs used in the treatment of leukemia from the rosy periwinkle of Madagascar; taxol, a cancer-fighting drug from the bark of the Pacific yew tree; and erythromycin, a common antibiotic from tropical fungi.

Because biological materials gathered from these natural habitats could provide cures for current diseases and future needs that are not yet known, many conservationists promote biodiversity prospecting as a motivation for preserving threatened habitats. Their argument is that pharmaceutical researchers will pay for access to a threatened habitat in their search for new products. The payments received would then be dedicated to maintaining and protecting the habitat for use in ongoing biodiversity prospecting activities.

However, losses in biological diversity may have little bearing on whether the next miracle drug is found, according to Simpson. "That's because there are so many wild plants and animals that can be used by researchers engaged in biodiversity prospecting," writes Simpson. "With millions and millions of species, sources of useful products are either so common as to be redundant or so rare as to make discovery unlikely. Either way, the sheer numbers involved weaken the argument that biodiversity prospecting generates any appreciable economic value."

"Thinking clearly about the values that surround biodiversity is important, since destruction of a habitat is often irreversable" writes Simpson. "We should be more cautious in making related policy decisions and choose to devote scarce funding to only the most effective strategies. Placing too much emphasis on biodiversity prospecting may divert attention -- and funds -- from potentially more effective conservation stratgies. It is important that other, more workable, incentives for conservation be developed."

# # #

The Winter 1997 issue of Resources and the article "Biodiversity Prospecting: Shopping the Wilds: Shopping the Wilds Is Not the Key to Conservation" is available at RFF's internet site at http://www.rff.org/homereso.htm.

The two studies on which the article is based -- "Valuation of Biodiversity for Use in New Product Research in a Model of Sequential Search" and "The Social Value of Using Biodiversity in New Pharmaceutical Product Research" -- are also available online at http://www.rff.org/dpapers/list.htm. Reference discussion papers 96-27 and 96-33.

# # #

Resources for the Future (RFF) is an independent, nonprofit organization that aims to provide accurate, objective information to policy makers, legislators, public opinion leaders, environmentalists, and the public to help them responsibly meet the nation's and the world's long-term environmental and economic needs. For the past 45 years, researchers at RFF have analyzed issues involving forests, water, energy, minerals, transportation, sustainable development, and air pollution. They also have examined, from a variety of perspectives, such topics as government regulation, risk, ecosystems and biodiversity, climate, hazardous waste management, technology, and outer space. RFF neither lobbies nor takes positions on specific legislative or regulatory proposals.