biopiracy and its impacts on biological
and cultural diversity
Modern day
bioprospecting contracts have many
qualifications, but “fair” and “equitable”
are certainly not among them.
Miguel Lovera, coordinator, Global Forest
Coalition, Forest Cover 11, February
2004
It is the collective right of local
communities and Indigenous Peoples to have
control over their natural resources. It is
also an important element of
sustainability. However, the act of
biopiracy is taking this right away by
facilitating the privatization of
biodiversity through patents. Indigenous
Peoples’ and local communities’ traditional
knowledge is deeply entrenched in the
nature surrounding them. For millennia they
have utilized and bred plants for various
purposes. The patenting of these plants has
undermined their rights to their own
knowledge and the benefits that they may
derive from it.
bioprospecting &
biopiracy
Bioprospecting initially aims to bring
together the commercialization and
conservation of biodiversity. Genetically
rich countries with limited capacity for
scientific research take samples and make
biological inventories of their resources.
In contrast, countries with a strong
scientific research and development
capacity, usually the industrialized
nations, are in charge of the
identification of the properties of the
sampled beings, thanks to their superior
technology. The properties of the sampled
beings, in general, are patented, or
claimed as intellectual property under
various regimes. As a consequence, genetic
resources are privatized to the benefit of
countries with strong scientific research
capacity. This activity is called
biopiracy, given that it facilitates and
promotes an illegitimate though still legal
appropriation of biodiversity.
The pharmaceutical and agricultural
industries have taken ownership of the
genetic resources of biodiversity and
associated traditional knowledge through
the use of patents to develop an important
proportion of their products. Between 1950
and 1980, 25% of the medicines in the US
were based on products coming from plants,
and currently 48% of the medicines
undergoing clinical tests are derived from
plants. The economic importance of these
resources has led to intergovernmental
negotiations in every possible
international forum to establish national
and international legal frameworks to
facilitate access to these resources, and
therefore legalize biopiracy.
biopiracy legalized
The commercial use of genetic resources,
and inadvertently biopiracy, is being
promoted within United Nations forums,
including the Convention on Biological
Diversity (CBD), and the United Nations
Environment Program (UNEP). Moreover, the
World Trade Organisation (WTO) and the
World Intellectual Property Organization
(WIPO) actively develop and enforce
legislation and policy on patents.
With the alleged goal of fighting
biopiracy, the CBD has promoted
negotiations on Access and Benefit Sharing
(ABS) since 1999. These negotiations were
based on the CBD objective to ensure a
“fair and equitable sharing of the benefits
arising out of the utilization of genetic
resources, including by appropriate access
to genetic resources”.
Events have shown that while those
countries that are theoretically sovereign
over their resources have broadly
facilitated access, the fair and equitable
sharing is nothing but an attractive
concept, a sort of mirage or trick, which
has not been met with either the political
will for implementation or the political
decision to demand it. Benefit sharing has
been scarce or null throughout the whole
world, while biopiracy has increased.
trade negotiations
Discussions on biopiracy also take place
at the WTO specifically in relation to the
Trade Related Aspects of Intellectual
Property Rights agreement (TRIPS).
Similarly, the discussion is present in the
debate on the services negotiations within
the General Agreement on Trade and Services
(GATS), given that biopiracy is considered
as a service. As such it must be granted
the necessary conditions for unhindered
development, even if this happens in
violation of the rights of Indigenous
Peoples or local communities, or if it
facilitates the privatization of
biodiversity and encompasses in this way
privileges that are beyond the sovereign
decisions of nation states.
Additionally, the USA has been
negotiating diverse bilateral trade and
investment treaties, given that the
multilateral forums have not fully
satisfied their commercial goals. For
example in a treaty with Chile, they have
pushed for what is known as TRIPS-plus
clauses related to intellectual property.
The proposals go beyond what is currently
allowed through TRIPS and furthermore
entrench corporate proprietary rights, for
example by allowing the patenting of plants
and animals - transforming what are
exceptions in TRIPS into rules.
conclusion
Biopiracy results from a vision of the
world that believes that we can only
conserve what we own. It is the rationale
behind the million-dollar industry that has
profited from the natural resources and
traditional knowledge of Indigenous Peoples
and local communities. They, in contrast,
have permitted the conservation, use and
improvement of biological diversity on the
basis of collective practices that need to
be shared in order to survive.
The forums that emerged as a space for
the protection of biodiversity are
currently not very different from those
that promote the imposition of a
market-based commercial model. On the
contrary, biopiracy is on the increase,
while the sustainable practices developed
by Indigenous Peoples and local communities
are weakened, as are their customary
rights.
more information
COECOCeiba Friends of Earth, Costa Rica
email:
