Biopiracy Biopiracy Château de Loches Category="Social justice"Biopiracy refers to the privatization and unauthorized use of biological resources by entities (including corporations, universities and governments) outside of a country which has pre-existing knowledge. This privatization and use is sometimes claimed to be predatory. Particular activities usually covered by the term are:

A possible biopiracy scenario

An agricultural biotechnology company learns of a Plant with unique traits from the indigenous community of the Biodiversity-rich country. After discovering the plant's traits have commercial application in developed countries, the company acquires samples of it and returns to their country.

The company isolates and purifies the Gene encoding the desirable characteristics and applies for a Biological patent. The company introduces patented and trademarked products incorporating the gene into the market, and the company profits. None of the money is returned to the original indigenous peoples because the company had no legal obligations-contractual or otherwise.

Real scenarios are in the external links section.

Results

As a result of biopiracy, and absent agreements and laws to the contrary, the source country and peoples receive no further financial benefit and may even be obliged to pay for the use of the same products because of enforcement of TRIPs and GATT. The company, on the other hand, has the Right to exclude others from making, using or selling products incorporating the isolated and purified gene which is again enforced by TRIPs and GATT.

However, not everyone in a developing nation is indigenous (for example, [w:India]), and as such the term indigenous is often used as a subjective term and has variant definitions around the world.

Historical background / CBD (1992)

In the 1980s, an erosion of biodiversity was observed. The majority of the actors estimated that the first cause of biodiversity erosion was the lack or the wrong definition of the rights of ownership. Indeed, before 1992, the living resources were regarded as Common Heritage of Mankind. As common resources, private companies could take and use each resource without having any justification or compensation to give.

The Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) entered into force in 1994. It gave sovereign national rights over biological resources. One of the advantages of it was that it would enable southern countries to better benefit from their resources and traditional knowledge.

Under these new rules, it is expected that bioprospecting implies a prior Informed consent, and must result in a share of the benefits between the biodiversity-rich country and the prospecting firm. However, some critics believe that the CBD has failed to establish appropriate regulations to prevent biopiracy.

Research costs and benefit sharing

Some companies argue that under-developed countries are themselves guilty of piracy. They believe that the southern countries do not have adequate and efficient intellectual property protection laws, and say they are losing millions of dollars per year because of lack of respect of patents. These companies have been applying pressure for the strengthening of intellectual property issues within the WTO.

Companies say access to biological resources allows them to develop new products that could help solve food and health essential issues. They also argue that research, development and commercialisation authorisations have a cost that must be balanced by the protection of the resulting product. Patents offer this much needed revenue and favour innovation.

One of the solutions suggested to solve this North-South disagreement was to define bilateral contracts between source country and pharmaceutical or seed companies. These contracts of bioprospecting lay down the rules of benefit sharing, and can potentially bring substantial royalties to southern countries.

Ownership of plants, animals, and human genes

The concept of biopiracy assumes that it is a natural right to own plants, animals and human genes. For many indigenous people, Nature and Culture are indissociable. Resources belong to the community, private property has no meaning. They argue that what is "wrong" is not so much the appropriation of somebody else's property, but rather the idea that natural resources, which should stay public, can be privatized.

In the United States, the patent law has long protected the ability to protect "isolated and purified" compounds. In 1873, Louis Pasteur patented a "yeast" which was "free from disease" (see patent #141072). US courts have upheld patents on biological substances like adrenaline, chemicals, and even basic elements.

Patents covering biological inventions have been treated similarly. Importantly, however, the United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) notes, "A patent on a gene covers the isolated and purified gene but does not cover the gene as it occurs in nature."

Preventing biopiracy

Preventing biopiracy is difficult for several reasons:

Some southern countries instead have tried:

Advocacy

The issue of biopiracy is mostly raised by under-developed biodiversity-rich countries (e.g. India, Brazil, and Malaysia, among others) and by some NGOs (e.g., GRAIN, ETC (previously RAFI) and Third World Network), and is not always acknowledged by corporations and governments.

The issue of biopiracy is not new. In her book Biopiracy: The Plunder of Nature and Knowledge, Third World environmentalist Vandana Shiva describes the way the Natural capital of indigenous people (as applying to land, to labour and to knowledge), was converted under Colonialism. She argues that since all lands have already been colonized by northern countries, northern corporations are now trying to colonize life itself, plants, micro-organisms, animals, and even human organs, cells, and genes.

Indeed, a controversial case of biopiracy was reported on human genes of a tribal community reported to be resistant to malaria and leprosy (Shiva).

According to some, biopiracy is not only happening at the expense of Third World farmers, but also at the expense of Northern farmers. Some American and European farmers consider themselves to be compelled with contracts limiting their independence.

See also

Source

Biopiracy : The Plunder of Nature and Knowledge

Vandana Shiva, SouthPress, 1997

External links