|
 |
|
The steady disappearance of the world’s biodiversity had been recorded earlier, but the problem reached scary heights in the late 1980s. The loss during this decade was described by experts as “the most catastrophic” in the last 65 million years! It was also becoming quite obvious by then, that these resources were the fodder for a booming market. Want to know exactly how booming it was? Well, the worldwide biotechnology business in 1992 was estimated to be US $ 50 billion. Add to this the volume of resources used as raw materials by wings of the agriculture and pharma industry, and you would arrive at a truly staggering figure. There was another, uglier, more complicated issue that was raising its head in the arena of international trade. The developing world or the South was waking up to the fact that companies from the industrialised nations or the North were doing business with their reserve of genetic raw material. Because the South provides habitat for almost 80 per cent of the planet’s biodiversity, and the industries were helping themselves to it indiscriminately! They were also accessing the traditional knowledge of the local communities on the properties and uses of these resources. But none of the phenomenal profits flowing out of these products were being shared with the countries ‘of origin’. Neither was any compensation for the loss of the valuable species being offered to their people. Clearly, time was ripe for business negotiations of a unique kind. It was in this environment that the Convention on Biological Diversity came into being. |
 |
|
The final draft of the Convention on Biological Diversity was tabled in the historic Rio Summit in 1992. The last lap of the negotiations was severely hampered by the divided interest of the two squabbling camps. While the North was pushing for easy access to germplasms while delaying discussion on profit sharing, the South were determined not to allow access without a legal share of the profits!
However, disputes were resolved, albeit with certain conditions, and the Convention was signed by 156 nations at the end of the Rio Summit. The US, predictably, was the only country to reject the CBD, on the ground that it found its text an “assault” to the concept of Intellectual Property Rights (IPR) and related issues. Obviously the US government
was under tremendous pressure from powerful business houses and corporate groups such as the Pharmaceutical Manufacturers Association. So what does the CBD text highlight? It focuses on three main issues: |
 Conservation of biodiversity; Its sustainable use; And fair and equal sharing of benefits arising out of its use. |
Community covered! The most dynamic component of the Convention is that it recognizes the rights of the ‘communities’ on wild and domesticated resources. That’s not all. It also makes the signatory countries commit to setting up a system of benefit sharing, to compensate communities for the use of bioresources and related knowledge by national or multinational or pharmaceutical, agricultural and biotechnological companies. The gene-rich South is to get biotechnology in return for the bioresources it provides. There is a catch though. While CBD is a legally binding treaty, it does not spell out specific targets, or list out species and areas to be protected. It provides the guidelines, but leaves it to individual nations to flesh them out and work towards the final objectives. Today it has 192 signatories, and only four countries, Andorra, Holy See, Somalia and, yes, the United States have not signed it as yet. Now let us take a closer look at the Charter. Understanding the nitty gritties of each article of the Convention will take time, so lets focus on the two components that directly relate to the business of biodiversity. The one which defines the rights of the local people and the one which talks about safe handling and use of genetically modified organisms. |
 |
|
Definitely the most talked about article in the convention text of CBD. Article 8 j says. “Subject to its national legislation, respect, preserve and maintain knowledge, innovations and practices of indigenous and local communities embodying traditional lifestyles relevant for the conservation and sustainable use of biological diversity and promote their wider application with the approval and involvement of the holders of such knowledge, innovations and practices and encourage the equitable sharing of the benefits arising from the utilization of such knowledge, innovations and practices”. Rather long winded, isn’t it? Suffice to remember two important points: Nations must have their internal mechanisms to protect the traditional knowledge of their own community, enforced through a legislation. The law must ensure equitable sharing of the profits, which arise from use of this traditional knowledge. Incase you are wondering why such a big deal is being made out of “approval and involvement of the holders of such knowledge, innovations and practices”, consider this: A study in 2000 revealed that worldwide, 7000 patents had been granted for the unauthorized use of traditional knowledge or the misappropriation of medicinal plants. Researchers stated that of the more than 130 clinically useful prescription drugs that are derived from plants, over 70 per cent attracted the attention of pharmaceutical companies because they were being used in traditional systems of medicine. |
