Parties to the “Rio” Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) and the Cartagena Protocol are meeting in Cali, Colombia, between October 21 to November 1, 2024. What is at stake for gene drives in the coming days?

Gene drives are on the agenda under two key items, under “Synthetic Biology” within the CBD’s Conference of the Parties (COP), and under “Risk Assessment and Risk Management” within the Cartagena Protocol’s Meeting of the Parties (MOP).

Two crucial reports are up for discussion—one from a multidisciplinary Ad Hoc Technical Expert Group (mAHTEG) on Synthetic Biology including horizon scanning, technology assessment, and monitoring, and another one from a (not so multidisciplinary) Ad Hoc Technical Expert Group (AHTEG) outlining risk assessment guidelines for gene drive organisms.

Report on Synthetic Biology

At COP15 in 2022, a multidisciplinary group was tasked with conducting horizon scanning on emerging technologies that could impact biodiversity. The group presented initial findings on five issues including gene drives, and Parties proposed during a preparatory meeting to COP16 that the mAHTEG should conduct an in-depth assessment of several issues including “potential impacts of engineered gene drives to control vector-borne diseases and invasive species”.

However, gene drive developers are pushing back against any specific consideration of gene drives and several countries, such as Brazil, Argentina, Canada and New Zealand (see previous ECO article about this group) are lobbying to stop any further work by the mAHTEG. Instead, they are proposing an “action plan on synthetic biology,” which could pave the way for the global development and transfer of gene drive technologies. The Stop Gene Drives campaign is actively pushing to ensure that gene drives undergo a thorough assessment.

Gene Drive Risk Assessment Guidance

Parties to the Cartagena Protocol are likely to “welcome” the guidance materials for the risk assessment of living modified organisms containing engineered gene drives developed by an Ad Hoc Technical Expert Group earlier this year. This is despite the fact that the Guidance is not sufficiently precautionary, according to scientists from the European Network of Scientists for Social and Environmental Responsibility (ENSSER). It shifts the burden of proof from having to prove safety to having to prove harm and uses a “problem formulation approach” that is not fit for purpose. This approach was introduced by Mr. John Connolly, the Senior Regulatory Science Officer for Target Malaria, an organisation aiming to release gene drive mosquitoes in Africa.

Initially, many Parties including the EU, UK and others wanted to go further and ”endorse“ the guidance. But in a late-night session on the third day of the COP-MOP, Parties went with the less strong wording “welcome”. However, the Guidance will not be subject to a wider independent review, as our NGO coalition had asked for. It remains to be seen whether and how it will be used in the context of planned releases of gene drives.

Read our detailed brief for more insights here.