IUCN regional meeting avoids discussion on genetic engineering in natural ecosystems

As scientists and environmentalists grapple with synthetic biology, a crucial debate failed to materialize at the IUCN regional meeting in Bruges, Belgium. Instead, the meeting revealed significant concerns about the organization's policy development process on synthetic biology and its implications for nature conservation.

A Process Under Scrutiny

Despite IUCN Chief Scientist Tom Brooks characterizing it as "the most participatory process the IUCN ever had," many members are raising red flags. During a recent side event – that explicitly aimed to merely talk about the process; not the content of the policy - Dr. Ricarda Steinbrecher voiced a concern that echoes throughout the conservation community: "This topic is so complex, and something is lacking in the process. How can members vote on a policy in 2025 when many still haven't grasped what synthetic biology truly entails?"

The Path to Policy: A Rocky Road

The journey began in 2021 in Marseille with Resolution 123, which called for a balanced working group representing diverse perspectives, genders, regions, and knowledge systems. However, the implementation has sparked controversy. Instead of relying solely on this comprehensive group, the Secretariat:

• Created a separate 'citizens council' of just 15 IUCN members
• Partnered with the International Centre for Genetic Engineering and Biotechnology (ICGEB) for training workshops—a decision that raised eyebrows due to potential conflict of interest
• Drew criticism from over 80 NGOs who called for a halt to the process, citing concerns about participation and transparency

The Current Draft: More Questions Than Answers

The draft policy, to be presented at the World Conservation Congress in Abu Dhabi in October 2025, has significant shortcomings in its current form:

• Uses overly broad definitions of synthetic biology
• Avoids specific references to concrete technologies like Gene Drives
• Lacks clear guidelines on risk assessment and cut-off criteria
• Relies heavily on case-by-case assessments without establishing firm frameworks

The Stakes Are High

As one IUCN member pointedly noted, transparency requires explicit discussion of genetic engineering in the wild. The current approach risks creating a "zero impact document" that could be interpreted in vastly different ways by governments, industry, and other stakeholders.

Time for Action

The window for meaningful debate is closing rapidly. A growing coalition of NGOs is already mobilising to push for strong regulations that prioritise ecological and ethical standards. The press release and briefing for this regional meeting can be found here, including ways to get engaged.

by stopgenedrives

Recap of SBSTTA 26 - what happened to gene drives?

At the 26th meeting of the Subsidiary Body on Scientific, Technical and Technological Advice (SBSTTA 26) to the Convention of Biological Diversity (CBD) Gene Drives received significant attention in the context of the CBD’s horizon scanning of new challenges arising from synthetic biology as well as the Biosafety Protocol’s guidelines for risk assessment and risk management. Stop Gene Drives followed closely the preparation of texts to be adopted at the upcoming Conference of the Parties (COP16) in Cali, Colombia, this October.

At the last COP15 in 2022, adopting the "Kunming-Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework 2020", two pivotal decisions concerning Synthetic Biology and the risk assessment of Gene Drives had been adopted and two ad hoc technical expert groups (AHTEG) were established. A multidisciplinary  one (mAHTEG) was charged with designing a horizon scanning, technology assessment, and monitoring methodology to evaluate impacts of future technologies on biodiversity. It’s 'multidisciplinary' was hard-won and is still a contentious issue. Barbara Pilz of Stop Gene Drives was amongst the members of this group. The second AHTEG with no m focused on developing voluntary guidelines for the risk assessment of mosquitoes containing genetically engineered Gene Drives.

The groups produced reports on synthetic biology and on case-by-case risk assessment of living modified organisms containing engineered gene drives. From these reports national representatives gathered in Nairobi were expected to draft recommendations for COP16.

The first day of SBSTTA 26 saw both topics discussed in the plenary, allowing the Chair to gauge whether these issues were contentious enough to warrant further group discussions (called “contact groups” in UNish) or if they could be addressed in the plenary itself. The risk assessment guidelines for engineered Gene Drives, developed by the AHTEG, identified major risks and uncertainties, such as gene flow to non-target species, potential transboundary movements, and significant public health risks. While these guidelines provided a foundation, they were criticized for using methodologies for GMO assessment and not a Gene Drive specific assessment. Questions about potential conflicts of interest within this AHTEG were raised.

The discussions on the AHTEG were less controversial compared to those on synthetic biology. However, significant portions of the text were put in brackets, indicating that no consensus was reached at the SBBSTA and further discussions will be needed at COP16. The majority in the plenary welcomed the work of AHTEG. However, while some argued that there was no need for further AHTEG meetings, many countries, particularly African nations where Gene Drives might first be tested, called for more refined guidelines that could truly aid practitioners in assessing gene drive risks. COP16 will now have to decide whether the Cartagena Protocol maintains its expert group and continues providing oversight and resources to the parties, or closes this chapter. As usual, there was a general agreement on the need for increased capacity building. NGO as well as Youth observer groups emphasized the precautionary principle, criticized the overreliance on computer modeling in the guidance materials. They called for further AHTEG sessions and refined methodologies.

In the synthetic biology discussions, the report from the multidisciplinary ad hoc technical expert group (mAHTEG) was insightful, despite the limited time available to assess technologies after extensive methodology development. The experts recognized that some assessed technologies warranted precautionary measures and broader evaluations including socio-economic, cultural, and ethical considerations. The report specifically recommended to conduct such in-depth assessments for Gene Drives. During the debates, there was a clear division between those favoring continued horizon scanning and others advocating for a shift towards capacity building. The African group generally saw the value in an expert group that could assess emerging technologies and inform state decisions, also calling for capacity building, technology transfer, and cooperation in the field of synthetic biology. However, differences emerged on what this would entail, with asking when discussions would shift from risks to benefits, hinting at an interest in developing Gene Drives. Meanwhile, other African states sought "appropriate" technology transfers to avoid becoming dumping grounds for untested and unsafe Western technologies.

A faction within the room, particularly Argentina, Brazil, Japan, and New Zealand, strongly supported the call for recognizing benefits. During the plenary, Argentina proposed an action plan on synthetic biology that would promote such technologies globally.

The two options at hand during the contact group were quite opposing:

1. continuation of the mAHTEG with proper horizon scanning and capacity building also for risk assessment and monitoring
2. promotion of synthetic biology worldwide with a new action plan, and reducing the mAHTEG to conduct a literature review

Brazil criticized the mAHTEG members as lacking expertise and other states supported this reasoning. The mAHTEG’s assessments that these technologies posed risks not only to biodiversity but also to society and livelihoods were obviously not well received by states promoting synthetic biology. There were further attempts to obstruct the process, in line with an incident at COP15 where a delegate boasted about "killing the process" before COP16.

The recommendations SBSTTA delegates finally agreed to send to COP16 fails to reflect the mAHTEG's clear formulations and recommendations, particularly on Gene Drives.  It is crucial that the mAHTEG continues in its current or an enhanced form, and not be diminished to only review predominantly English literature from mostly Western institutions and patent holders. Also, capacity building and technology transfer must reduce disparities between more or less industrialised countries, rather than serving as avenues for testing potentially harmful technologies.

The document prepared for COP16 suggests that the current methodologies are sufficient for assessing environmental and socio-economic impacts of Gene Drives, which is misleading. These methodologies were originally designed to assess the risks of GMOs cultivated and traded in restricted agricultural environments. These are fundamentally different from Gene Drives, designed to spread in the environment and alter entire species in their wild habitats. This inadequacy extends to monitoring capabilities, making it challenging to manage GDOs effectively if issues arise.

Significant efforts are required both before and during COP16 to ensure that parties advocate for the continuation of the mAHTEG on horizon scanning for synthetic biology and the AHTEG on risk assessment. These efforts are crucial for developing a truly robust methodology for assessing the risks associated with Gene Drives.

by stopgenedrives

Seminar und Pressekonferenz zu Gene Drives in Nairobi

Am heutigen Morgen, Freitag, den 17. Mai, veranstalteten Save Our Seeds in Zusammenarbeit mit Pollinis ein hybrides Seminar über gentechnisch veränderte Organismen (GMOs) und Gene Drives. Diese Veranstaltung bot eine außergewöhnliche Gelegenheit, Einblicke in die politische Landschaft rund um GMOs und das zunehmend umstrittene Thema der Gene Drives zu gewinnen, die derzeit auf der Konvention über die biologische Vielfalt der Vereinten Nationen diskutiert werden. Unsere Expert:innen, frisch aus den jüngsten SBSTTA-Diskussionen, beleuchteten, was während dieser entscheidenden Debatten geschehen ist und was dies für lokale Kontexte bedeutet.

Im Anschluss an das Seminar fand eine Pressekonferenz statt, an der Journalisten aus mehreren afrikanischen Ländern teilnahmen.

Pressemitteilung (auf englisch)

UN Body Considers Risky New Genetic Technologies: Civil Society Urges Precaution

Nairobi, Kenya, May 17 2024: Parties to the United Nations Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) are currently discussing controversial technologies in Nairobi.  One such technology is engineered gene drives. It is a form of extreme genetic engineering which is designed to spread its modification throughout an entire species and persist in the environment. In Africa, gene drive projects, largely funded by the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, are already underway in several countries including Burkina Faso, Ghana, Uganda and most recently in Tanzania, aiming to eradicate malaria. However, these techno-fixes do not address the root causes of health challenges on the continent and pose novel risks. Furthermore, these projects are proceeding despite the absence of adequate local capacity to assess and regulate them effectively.

While gene drive lobbyists, at the 26th meeting of the Subsidiary Body on Scientific, Technical and Technological Advice (SBSTTA) to the CBD in Nairobi,  use the possibility of malaria eradication to promote the technology, civil society organizations have found that most patents are being filed for agricultural use. Patents reference hundreds of agricultural uses, such as for herbicides, pesticides and so called “pests”. Researchers found that agribusiness firms such as Monsanto-Bayer and Cibus Bioscience were also engaging with gene drive development.

At this year’s SBSTTA meeting, member states are examining reports from expert groups, highlighting numerous risks and unanswered questions about gene drives. Discussions are particularly focused on the contrasting potential benefits and risks these technologies might pose. Sub-Saharan countries are advocating for enhanced capacity building, technology transfer, and some seem to be willing to adopt gene drives. African civil society organizations (CSOs) are calling for ongoing evaluations and a robust, updated regulatory framework to manage these technologies. They endorse a precautionary approach and support the establishment of an international expert group to review new technologies before they are introduced to the environment.

Decisions made at SBSTTA will be taken to the Conference of the Parties to the CBD in October 2024 to be further discussed, where heads of states will decide on how to proceed with these technologies.

Contacts: 

Sabrina Masinjila

African Centre for Biodiversity

+255 767 089 834

Barbara Ntambirweki

ETC Group Uganda

bntamby@gmail.com

References:

Gene Drive Brochure

https://www.stop-genedrives.eu/wp-content/uploads/2021/06/GeneDriveOrganisms_-A-New-Dimension-of-Genetic-Engineering_210615.pdf

Forcing the Farm:

https://www.etcgroup.org/content/forcing-farm

by stopgenedrives

Seminar and Press Conference on Gene Drives in Nairobi

This morning, Friday 17th of May, Save Our Seeds with Pollinis hosted a hybrid seminar on GMOs and gene drives. This event offered an exceptional opportunity to gain insights into the political landscape surrounding GMOs and the increasingly contentious topic of gene drives currently under consideration at the United Nations Convention on Biological Diversity. Our expert speakers, fresh from the recent SBSTTA discussions, shed light on what transpired during those crucial debates and what it means for local contexts.

Following the seminar we hosted a press conference attended by journalists from several African countries.

Press Release

UN Body Considers Risky New Genetic Technologies: Civil Society Urges Precaution

Nairobi, Kenya, May 17 2024: Parties to the United Nations Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) are currently discussing controversial technologies in Nairobi.  One such technology is engineered gene drives. It is a form of extreme genetic engineering which is designed to spread its modification throughout an entire species and persist in the environment. In Africa, gene drive projects, largely funded by the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, are already underway in several countries including Burkina Faso, Ghana, Uganda and most recently in Tanzania, aiming to eradicate malaria. However, these techno-fixes do not address the root causes of health challenges on the continent and pose novel risks. Furthermore, these projects are proceeding despite the absence of adequate local capacity to assess and regulate them effectively.

While gene drive lobbyists, at the 26th meeting of the Subsidiary Body on Scientific, Technical and Technological Advice (SBSTTA) to the CBD in Nairobi,  use the possibility of malaria eradication to promote the technology, civil society organizations have found that most patents are being filed for agricultural use. Patents reference hundreds of agricultural uses, such as for herbicides, pesticides and so called “pests”. Researchers found that agribusiness firms such as Monsanto-Bayer and Cibus Bioscience were also engaging with gene drive development.

At this year’s SBSTTA meeting, member states are examining reports from expert groups, highlighting numerous risks and unanswered questions about gene drives. Discussions are particularly focused on the contrasting potential benefits and risks these technologies might pose. Sub-Saharan countries are advocating for enhanced capacity building, technology transfer, and some seem to be willing to adopt gene drives. African civil society organizations (CSOs) are calling for ongoing evaluations and a robust, updated regulatory framework to manage these technologies. They endorse a precautionary approach and support the establishment of an international expert group to review new technologies before they are introduced to the environment.

Decisions made at SBSTTA will be taken to the Conference of the Parties to the CBD in October 2024 to be further discussed, where heads of states will decide on how to proceed with these technologies.

Contacts: 

Sabrina Masinjila

African Centre for Biodiversity

+255 767 089 834

Barbara Ntambirweki

ETC Group Uganda

bntamby@gmail.com

References:

Gene Drive Brochure

https://www.stop-genedrives.eu/wp-content/uploads/2021/06/GeneDriveOrganisms_-A-New-Dimension-of-Genetic-Engineering_210615.pdf

Forcing the Farm:

https://www.etcgroup.org/content/forcing-farm

by stopgenedrives

SBSTTA 26: Robust risk assessment needed for LMOs containing engineered gene drives

As participants in the 26th Subsidiary Body on Scientific, Technical, and Technological Advice (SBSTTA 26) of the UN Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD), we will be sharing insights through articles authored by members of the CBD-Alliance's Working Group on Synthetic Biology, to which we belong.

Key topics of discussion at the Nairobi conference include synthetic biology and the risk assessment of gene drives. For more detailed information on the issues at play, we invite you to consult the briefings (short/long) we have developed in preparation for this conference.

Please find below an article by our partner Dr Eva Sirinathsinghji from Third World Network:

Robust risk assessment needed for LMOs containing engineered gene drives

The development of living-modified organisms containing engineered gene drives (EGD-LMOs) has raised significant controversy due to their explicit design intention of spread and persistence within wild populations.

The novelties of EGD-LMOs raise fundamental challenges to (i) the ability to assess risk; (ii) the capacity to mitigate or recall them; (iii) the ability to prevent transboundary movement; (iv) assessment of socio-economic impacts; (v) operationalizing mechanisms of obtaining free, prior and informed consent; and (vi) liability and redress.

In decision 14/19, Parties recognized that specific guidance may be useful for the risk assessment of EGD-LMOs and set out precautionary conditions that should be met before any consideration of environmental release. The AHTEG on Risk Assessment has now developed guidance materials, for discussion at SBSTTA-26.

The guidance identifies major risks and uncertainties of EGD-LMOs, including the potential for gene flow to non-target species, the likely inability to isolate or prevent transboundary movement for some EGD-LMOs, and potential serious risks to human health for public health applications.

However, while the guidance provides a starting point, it lacks methodological guidance on how to address the identified risks and uncertainties. There is an overemphasis on describing a new methodology, but not how it can be applied specifically to EGD-LMOs.

Moreover, concerns were raised over a potential conflict of interest involving a member of the AHTEG, and an associated failure by this individual to disclose the relevant situation in accordance with decision 14/33.

We therefore call on Parties to:

• Improve the draft guidance materials and define appropriate modalities to do so
• Ensure the proper application of the procedure for avoiding or managing conflicts of interest, including adopting the amendments set out in CBD/SBI/4/11
• Ensure a wider assessment of the socioeconomic, cultural, and ethical impacts of EGD-LMOs
• Reaffirm the precautionary approach and ensure no release of high-risk and unassessed EGD-LMOs.

by stopgenedrives

SBSTTA 26: Ensuring good governance of synthetic biology

As participants in the 26th Subsidiary Body on Scientific, Technical, and Technological Advice (SBSTTA 26) of the UN Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD), we will be sharing insights through articles authored by members of the CBD-Alliance's Working Group on Synthetic Biology, to which we belong.

Key topics of discussion at the Nairobi conference include synthetic biology and the risk assessment of gene drives. For more detailed information on the issues at play, we invite you to consult the briefings (short/long) we have developed in preparation for this conference.

Please find below an introductory article from the Working Group on Synthetic Biology:

Ensuring good governance of synthetic biology

At the Conference of Parties (COP) 15 of the Convention of Biodiversity, Parties established, in Decision 15/31, a “broad and regular” process of multidisciplinary horizon scanning, assessment and monitoring of new developments in Synthetic Biology. The need for this process was already identified by Parties in Decision 14/19, and provides a means for governments to collaboratively track and provide timely responses to biodiversity threats and opportunities emerging from modern biotechnology developments.

In the past two years, the multidisciplinary Ad Hoc Technical Expert Group (mATHEG) on Synthetic Biology undertook extensive work to design, review and test a working methodology for the broad and regular process. This was reported as Annex IV of CBD/ SBSTTA/26/4. It involves an expert-driven process with multiple steps of information gathering, synthesis, screening, selection, filtration, and analysis.

The mAHTEG identified 5 priority topics for assessment: self-spreading vaccines for wildlife, self- limiting insect systems, development of engineered gene drives to control vector-borne diseases and invasive species, integration of artificial Intelligence and machine learning, and inequity in the participation of developing countries in the context of synthetic biology.

The group undertook a first round of multidisciplinary horizon scanning, monitoring, and assessment for these 5 topics, reported their findings, and articulated proposals for further policy work.

They identified key areas of developments for policy attention, and issued a set of recommendations to the SBSTTA. Read the CBDA Working group on synthetic biology brief on this topic here- https://cbd-alliance.org/en/2024/factsheet-synthetic-biology

Drawing on the work of the mAHTEG, we believe the Parties at SBSTTA 26 should:

1. Agree the methodology of the broad and regular process, as outlined and road-tested by the mAHTEG, and confirm that the process should occur at least each biennium (ie; between every COP).
2. Re-emphasize the importance of multidisciplinarity and precaution to the functioning of the broad and regular process.
3. Initiate timely policy formulation processes on priority topics identified by the mAHTEG, including 1. The Integration of Artificial Intelligence (AI) with synthetic biology and 2. Self- spreading vaccines for wildlife.
4. Request that assessment guidelines on gene drives also incorporate socioeconomic, cultural, and ethical impacts.
5. Address other topics raised by the mAHTEG: including issues of North-South equity, self- limiting insects, technology facilitation, and capacity-building for horizon scanning, assessment and monitoring activities.
6. Ensure no release of high risk and unassessed synthetic biology organisms, components, or products takes place.

by stopgenedrives