part five: the new markets 2: selling
our genes and knowledge
introduction
The World Bank and other promoters of
the Washington Consensus were the major
force behind the promotion of mercantilism
in multilateral environmental agreements
(MEAs) like the Biodiversity Convention and
the Framework Convention on Climate Change.
During the negotiations of the Biodiversity
Convention in 1991 - 1992, this
mercantilism was already codified by the
inclusion of what seems a relatively
idealistic third objective of the
Convention to ensure “ fair and equitable
sharing of the benefits arising out of the
utilization of genetic resources, including
by appropriate access to genetic resources
and by appropriate transfer of relevant
technologies, taking into account all
rights over those resources and to
technologies, and by appropriate
funding”.
However, the main motivation to include
this objective and the relevant access and
benefit sharing provisions in the
Convention was the suggestion that the only
way to save biodiversity was to claim back
the millions of dollars that commercial
plant breeders and biotechnology companies
in the North had earned on the basis of
seeds and other genetic information
collected in developing countries. It was
thought that fair benefit sharing by the
then rapidly growing biotechnology sector
would lead to an impressive financial flow
for biodiversity conservation.
Yet, the presumption that one of the
most scrupulous industrial sectors, the
biotechnology sector, would turn into a
driving force behind biodiversity
conservation has turned out to be rather
naive. During the negotiations themselves
the industry ensured that the great
majority of genetic information, which was
already safely stored in Northern gene
banks, was exempted from the benefit
sharing provisions. Twelve years later,
there are still no legally binding
provisions to ensure the benefits are
equitably shared with the countries where
the genetic information comes from. But
even if such provisions were agreed upon,
what would be the result? Who would get the
money? Most biodiversity is under the de
facto management of local communities: only
if their practices are sustainable will
biodiversity be protected. Thus, comforting
fairy tales are told about local
communities getting a reward out of the
profits of biotech companies. But in
reality the great majority of genetic
information is simply taken without any
permission. Only in exceptional cases have
communities received some sort of reward,
and those cases were only concretized due
to government interference and/or clever
green marketing strategies by the companies
involved. When subjected to “real” market
forces, most genetic information turns out
to be literally in the wild. It can be
found in many places, so even when they
decide to pay for it, the buyers are able
to go to the cheapest seller. With many
sellers being remote communities like
Indigenous villages, any price goes.
And then there are the moral aspects.
Much of the information is sacred, as some
of the most interesting genetic information
consists of traditional medicines that are
closely related to religious rituals. And
how cynical is it when the Sen in South
Africa, an Indigenous People living in the
harsh Kalahari Desert facing regular
periods of malnutrition and hunger, are
helping biotech companies to develop
products like an anti-obesity drug.
The privatization and commodification of
elements of biodiversity threatens to
destroy the livelihoods and culture of
local communities, especially farmers,
indigenous peoples and women. The earth’s
gene pool, in all of its biological forms
and manifestations should not be
commercialized. It should not be claimed as
negotiable genetic information or
intellectual properties by governments,
commercial enterprises, other institutions
or individuals.
privatizing life
Patent-holders are permitted to restrict
the use of new inventions for decades, to
allow them to promote their inventions
without competition and thereby reap the
rewards of their initial investment.
However, the patenting of life - a
relatively new phenomenon - now permits the
ownership and subsequent commercialization
of ‘discovered’ knowledge about
biodiversity. It conveniently ignores the
facts that such knowledge may rightfully
belong to Indigenous Peoples and local
communities - and that no invention may
have been involved. Indeed, this type of
patenting is commonly referred to as
biopiracy.
The WTO’s TRIPS agreement (on
‘trade-related aspects of intellectual
property’) came into being in 1995. As a
result, it is now mandatory for all member
governments – even those that had
previously prohibited the patenting of
biological resources – to allow the
patenting of microorganisms and
micro-biological processes and to amend
their national laws if necessary. They are
also required to introduce intellectual
property protection for plant
varieties.
There are now many patents on life,
covering both genetically modified and
naturally occurring organisms and including
plant, animal and human genes. By November
2000, for example, patents had already been
granted or were pending on more than half a
million genes and partial gene sequences in
living organisms. Nevertheless, the
patenting of life remains hugely
controversial, both because of its
implications for living beings and because
of its impact on communities in
impoverished countries.
Companies or institutions appropriating
local communities’ knowledge of
biodiversity and its uses (with or without
their permission) are effectively creating
private, profit-generating monopoly rights.
This frequently gives rise to an ironic
situation of ‘reverse transfer of
technology’ in which the poorest transfer
their knowledge to the rich developed
world, often for little or no reward.
There are multiple benefits for
intellectual property owners, the most
obvious being the profits generated
following the successful commercialization
of their patented products. Less obvious,
perhaps, is the fact that a select number
of global corporations are steadily
increasing their control over the world’s
staple food crops including maize, potato,
soybeans and wheat. Indeed, techniques to
decode and identify the best plant genes
are accelerating and the biotechnology
industry is racing to map the genomes of
the world’s staple food crops with a view
to patenting the results.
In complete contrast, the impacts on
those relinquishing their intellectual
property rights are almost wholly negative.
Traditional knowledge may have been
painstakingly developed by many generations
over the centuries, but people and
communities can - at the stroke of a pen -
find themselves unable to use that
knowledge either for their own benefit or
as a means of generating income. They may
even find themselves obliged to buy the
knowledge back, at hugely inflated monopoly
prices. Farmers for example, may have to
buy seeds from large agricultural
corporations rather than saving and
exchanging seeds amongst themselves. In
short, traditional knowledge about the
conservation and sustainable use of
biodiversity is being eroded.
Friends of the Earth believes that the
TRIPs Agreement must not restrict the right
of governments and peoples to promote and
protect essential public interests in
relation to health, the environment and
development. The patenting of life and the
theft of traditional knowledge must be
prohibited.
