page 08-09

sharing the benefits?

biodiversity convention's grand vision fails

isaac rojas, foe costa rica

In their bid to profit from earth's genetic and biochemical riches, the life science industries have made great headway in setting up legal frameworks that advance their interests. The biotechnology, seed, agrochemical and medical industries have relayed their concerns about access to resources to governments, and have ensured their interests will be defended internationally. Northern nations, Switzerland being one excellent example, are the home territory of most of these corporations, and it is these nations that have led critical negotiations to protect corporate interests in these areas.

theory and reality
Biological diversity tends to originate in the South, while technological development and economic resources usually stem from the North. In theory, a just sharing of biological and economic benefits should be possible.

The Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD ) has as a main goal the free access to these resources, and the fair and just distribution of benefits derived from them. This includes economic benefits.

However, historically it hasn't worked this way. Access to resources has been widely granted, but we are still waiting to see a fair and just distribution of the benefits.

This issue has been discussed recently at a number of CBD meetings; by experts' panels in San José and Montreal, at COP-5 in Nairobi, and again in Bonn in 2001 when an ad hoc group made overall recommendations at the global level. The question will again be debated in the Hague during COP-6, where the recommendations from the above meetings will likely be accepted. Whatever is approved in The Hague, the subject of access to genetic resources demands our consideration in a number of ways.

inequality is the norm
To date, the majority of the negotiations about access have been between interested parties that are not equal. This is because negotiations often occur between a local community, with little or no knowledge of the issues or even knowledge about negotiating procedures, and a multinational firm or a government. This inequality is reflected in the final agreements, i.e. the benefits obtained by the party granting access are minimal.

This fundamental inequality must be examined and sufficient guarantees given to ensure that it ceases. Negotiations must strive to protect the rights and interests of the weakest party so that equality can be achieved. To create more equality, instruments such as prior informed consent, or the supervision of official bodies with the broad participation of civil society, should be pursued.

Unfortunately, these points are not tackled in trade negotiations or, if they are, the only agreement reached is a rhetorical one.

The issue is important, because where inequality exists, the access issue furthers injustice and deepens the rift. However, eliminating inequality during negotiations and protecting the interests of local communities are goals almost impossible to achieve when we consider that industry's prime motive is to earn the highest profit. Thus we must ask who gains from access to genetic and biochemical resources, and what has happened to the fair and equitable distribution of the benefits?

not a pretty package
Access must also be analyzed within the framework of other key mechanisms, such as intellectual property rights, new technology development and dissemination of genetically modified organisms.

Access guarantees availability to the resources that are transformed into new products and later sold to us. These new products, some of which are genetically engineered, are patented to secure monopoly rights for the patent holder. The whole structure is geared to be very beneficial to transnational corporations. Granting TNCs access to resources is now compulsory, and there is no impediment to patenting the new goods that result. If the resulting product is rejected by a nation because, for example, it has been genetically engineered, then trade sanctions may be levied against the rejecting country.

If this package does not ensure better living standards for local communities and indigenous populations, then why have our governments accepted it? Who are our governments serving in their negotiations?

access favours bio-piracy
Bio-piracy also goes by the more friendly term “bio-prospecting”. But we believe the former term is more appropriate since, in our experience, it describes an activity that generates injustice and allows the plunder of our natural resources. The current model of access and benefit sharing furthers bio-piracy, thus increasing the ecological debt and hindering local sustainability. Again, negotiations and the resulting agreements take no account of justice and equality, but serve the interests of large corporations, the activities of some of which ought to be considered illegal.

big myths, little delivery
By now, these activities have been granted so much official legitimacy that they have become linked to myth-like promises of development with low or zero environmental impacts. For example, in Costa Rica, much official mythmaking exists around INBio, established in 1989 as a private non-profit institution to promote the wise use of biotic wealth. However, INBio's 1991 agreement with US pharmaceutical company Merck is not even open to public scrutiny. INBio is often used as an international model, even though it has achieved no significant improvement in quality of life for local communities, nor any significant gains for the country.

Local communities and Indigenous Peoples are typically those responsible for the improvement, conservation and use of biodiversity. So why have they been denied the chance of exercising control over the natural resources which lie within their territory?

more questions
Why have the frameworks that facilitate the plunder of Indigenous Peoples' biological and cultural wealth been negotiated with such ease? Why are there no instruments to guarantee their rights as collective entities? Why has the discussion and implementation of community rights been put aside, rights which would create a more just scenario? And why have all these discussions taken place without the participation of these stakeholders?