|
|
 |
 |
| Sunday, 26 January 2003 |
 |
|
 |
Features |  |
| News Business Features Editorial
|
Theft most foul by Preethi Von Den Dresch The possession of a bean worth a million can make a holidaymaker very
happy indeed. So was the case with Larry Proctor, the director The modus operandi of the pattern reinforced the Mexican farmers to pay royalties to Pod-Ners and consequently they lost two thirds of their export market of beans to the US. This is a classical example of "bio-piracy" - unauthorised possession and usage of genetic resources to gain profits. core of the issue The core of the issue is the protection of bio-diversity and the question if resources can be preserved by means of patent legislations. The very idea that a company can own a seed variety and this ownership is legitimised by international treaties is appalling especially as it jeopardizes ethical values. Third World countries and NGOs use the expression bio-piracy to describe the "theft' of natural resources - plants, animals, seeds, algae and micro-organisms - by private companies, individuals or government institutions with the aim of patenting their "discoveries". Taking away plant varieties from other countries was a common practice during the colonial era. Hence, thousands of plant varieties belonging to the Asian, African and South American countries came into the hands of institutions and botanical gardens in the Western countries under the delusion of scientific experimenting. Kew gardens in UK is one of them. Today, it is a mega-storehouse with a collection of more than 10,000 varieties of bio-diversities. Kew authorities claim that these varieties are there for research purposes and that they protect the species from being extinguished. Roger Smith, head of the Kew's seed conservative department says: "The last thing we want is to be accused of being bio-pirates. We must not deny that we ever did it. But we must acknowledge that that world is gone." Many Europeans prefer to make believe that the colonial period - "that world" is over without considering its outcome. This very argument illustrates that Europeans are not ready to bear consequences of the past. That they made profit out of what was taken away legally or illegally is not disputed, nor are they ready to pay compensation or share profits from their revenues. This is the reasons why Third World countries refer to the transfer of their resources to Western countries as acts of piracy. Industrialised countries find the expression "bio-piracy" ill founded. In their view, then dealing with bio-diversity is connoted as "innovation' - protecting bio-diversity while developing products to help the people of the third World countries. To support this theory, polemics such as " population explosion", "poverty" and "hunger", "scarceness of essential food" are supplemented. Bernhard Le Baunec, the secretary of the International Association of Plant Breeders says: "As global population continues to grow, especially in the developing world, the need to develop new types of plants that are resistant to disease and able to produce higher yields is more important than ever. Companies will only be incentivised to do this if they are able to obtain intellectual property protection." In contrast, Geoff Hawtin, Head of the International Plant Genetic Resources says: "There is little evidence that plant protection stimulates innovation. Most of the agricultural advances in the world came without any protection of patent systems." Agreements Bio-technology is a booming industry. Potential markets can be secured only through political consensus and legal frameworks. Multinational companies seeking profitable ventures on bio-prospecting were eager to have access to the areas where resources are available and secure their prospects. With carefully orchestrated strategies and seudo-protectionism, the bureaucrats of the World Trade Organisation (WTO) created an arcane trade agreement, dictated by corporate eminence to control and gain access to bio-diversity available in the Southern countries. Member countries of the WTO were enforced to agree to the agenda on Treaty of Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPs), making it compulsory to document, process and categorise all species available in their countries by means of patent legislation. Thus, the Eurocentric notion of scientific codification became the yardstick for the protection of bio-diversity.The TRIPs agreement classified bio-diversity into two different groups: plants, animals and living organisms that exist freely within their ecosystem is called "in-situ" resources, and bio-diversity, which exists isolated from its natural habituates in gene banks, laboratories, botanical and zoological gardens, aquariums, and university institutions, is named as "ex-situ" resources. The critical hypothesis is the different decree given to each form. While bio-diversity available in "in-situ" form could be obtained under conditions such as benefit sharing and was induced to be protected and controlled, the "ex-situ" resources were consciously left out of the agreement. These varieties were not subjected to any obligations. They remained the inaccessible property of the institutions, gene banks, and botanical gardens. Controversially, at the time of the implementation of the TRIPs agreement samples of 75% of the plant varieties in the world were already in the "ex-situ" form, although they were and still remain the sovereign right of the country from which they originated. Precisely this biased attitude and the patent system was criticised vehemently by the representatives of the Third World countries. In spite of their complaints, protests and proposed alternatives there was no compromise. The major players of the agreement, the US, Europe and Japan who control 97% of the bio-technology in the world argued that the Third World countries are attempting to enforce unfair trade barriers and threatened with unilateral trade isolation if they do not consent. Legal protection The TRIPs agreement grants legal protection up to 20 years on innovative inventions. However, detailed analysis on its agenda reveals that patenting life-forms provides inequalities in the global trade system. This view is further strengthened by the fact that mainly discoveries made in laboratories are qualified and given priority to gain patents. Thus in real terms patenting of life-forms is an "instrument" chiefly used by policy makers, experts, and scientists from Western countries to safeguard their scientific and industrial view point to weaken the stature of the Third World countries. Furthermore, the TRIPs agreement failed to recognise the cultural and ethical precepts existing in the Third World countries regarding to the themes such as bio-technology and life patenting. The traditional knowledge of the Third World countries is an integral part of their societies documenting and processing are uncommon. These countries are rich in bio-diversity. It is their most valuable heritage, which they developed and preserved throughout centuries. They have neither adequately equipped laboratories nor financial means to carry out complicated, time absorbing, meticulous documentation procedures based on scientific systems familiar to the Western countries. Besides, the indigenous people in the Third World countries who have potential knowledge on plants and their affectivity on human beings neither understand the meaning of patenting nor are able to interpret the intentions of the scientists who enjoy their hospitality to acquire this traditional knowledge. Countries from which bio-diversity is taken away are seldom given an incentive or an equal share. NGOs in the Third World countries say: "Multinational companies are raiding our forests to earn lot of money on their findings". The root of the problem is the existing system of "patent" on intellectual property, which does not accommodate non-Western systems of knowledge in their agendas and agreements." Broadly speaking the TRIPs agreement gave permission to multi-national companies to "rob" the knowledge on bio-diversity and collect "raw materials" from African, Asian, and South American countries under the pretext of innovation. root cause Pharmaceutical and agricultural companies are now sending their representatives all around the globe hunting for treasures. The trick is to find a beneficial "gene" in a cell and manipulate it through the process of gene engineering - reorder the basic building blocks of the cell, isolate a gene and transfer it in to another gene calling it an invention. So far no human being has ever been able to invent a life-form. The question of patenting a living being was resolved in 1980 by the US court when the Supreme Court granted a patent on a bacterium which digested oil. The court ruling said: "Relevant distinction is not between animate and inanimate things, but whether living products could be seen as human-made invention." Theoretically, there is much confusion on the meaning if invention quoted in the TRIPs. Transformation of components from one cell to another as it is the case with manipulated seeds is by no means an invention, but a process. To proclaim a discovery made through manipulation an invention is a pre-emptive deception. One can discover what had remained concealed. Invention is a creation of completely new thing, which had not existed before. The creation of the motor is considered as an example of an invention. Hence, the logic if patenting life-form is incomprehensible to many critics. The well-known legal process on the Neem seeds portrays how native property goes into the hands of companies. The multinational a gra-business company Grace in the US claimed a patent on the Neem seed proclaiming a discovery in its cells - a substance which controls fungies on plants. No sooner the patent application was forwarded to the patent office for approval in 1989, the company set up a processing plant in India with the capacity to handle twenty tons of seeds a day even before the patent was granted. To make high profits within a short time, the company purchased almost all the seeds that were freely available before. Consequently, price of neem oil increased rapidly. The people in the communities were unable to utilise Neem oil for domestic purposes like lighting lamps. The community lost one of its major resources because of the company's claim to "own" the seed. In an effort to cope with this problem NGOs in India and in many other countries filed a court case against the claim of the Neem patent. Producing ancient texts, the NGOs were able to convince the court that there is no "novelty factor" in the Neem seed. They were able to prove that Indians had prior knowledge of the seed's effectiveness. This process took ten long years from the time of the application until the court annulled the patent application. Challenge Another stunning example was the claim made by the Texan company RiceTec 1997 on a rice seed equivalent to Basmati rice. NGOs claimed that RiceTec is planning to stop the Basmati rice export to the US, which is worth $ 25 million a year. After a massive protest from NGOs and the Indian government, the commission who made the inquiry stated that 13 out of 16 claims were unacceptable. RiceTec had to withdraw their patent claims. To encounter the menace of bio-piracy, NGOs from Third World countries have to challenge them in the courts of rich countries. Such legal battles involve large sums of money and time. Furthermore, the courts in the Western countries are insisting on "written documents", which make the procedure more to the disadvantage for the opponent party as such systems of documentation were rare in Third World countries. Knowledge in "oral form" is not accepted as proof. This clearly works to the benefit of the companies." These examples reveal how mechanisms and strategies function and in which dimensions biological and intellectual wealth is transferred from the Third World countries to industrialised countries. Patent claims made by companies can exceed all boundaries. As the self-acclaimed master of modern technology and the world's largest and most innovative bio-technology company, Monsanto has recently discovered a seed called "terminator" which produces sterile plants with infertile seeds. Additionally, Monsanto wants to own all spices which have the specific gene they supposed to have discovered. What we are witnessing today is an unholy syndicate of corporate oligarchy that is lethal to all what we cherish as nature. The demands of the industry are put before the rights of the communities, implementing neo-liberal, neo-imperial politics, which endanger the whole systems of moral values and fundamental principles. With counterarguments such as "good governance", rich countries are putting conditions before coming into any kind of benefit sharing or common transfer of technological knowledge with the Third World countries. This demonstrate as dangerous heirarchical policies. The counterparts in the Third World countries have every reason to worry. Intellectual property protection has become a convenient instrument to exploit the Third World countries. What is common heritage to all of us is now in jeopardy, becoming the exclusive property of unaccountable companies. |
|
News | Business | Features
| Editorial | Security Produced by Lake House |
of the
Colorado-based company Pod-Ners when he returned from his holiday to
Mexico. A novelty factor in the "stolen" yellow bean was
discovered - a new investment opportunity for the Pod-Ners. Ironically.
Mexico, the homeland of the yellow bean did not receive a cent.
