|
The term was coined in 1993 by a Western NGO, RAFI. Biopiracy defines the industry’s systematic manner of taking over genetic resources and knowledge systems of local communities, and then seeking exclusive monopoly control (usually patents) over these. Here are some tales of piracy that have shaken the world Turmeric (Curcuma longa Linn): cooking up a storm Generations of Indians who grew up using ‘grandmother’s remedy’ of using hot turmeric paste on scrapes and cuts were furious when two expatriate scientists at the University of Mississippi Medical Centre claimed rights on it. Suman K. Das and Hari Har P. Cohly were granted a US patent (no.5, 401,504) on use of turmeric in wound healing in 1995.Our Council of Scientific & Industrial Research (CSIR) filed a case with the US Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO), citing ancient Sanskrit texts as evidence. The patent was revoked in 1997. It was a landmark case. A patent based on the traditional knowledge had been successfully challenged. Neem (Azadirachta indica): bitter but not sweet Every bit of neem--from branch to bark to leaf – has been used in Indian households and by medics for centuries. In 1994, European Patent Office (EPO) granted a patent to the US-based company, W. R. Grace and the US Department of Agriculture for a neem oil based pesticide. A group of NGOs and farmers’ representatives challenged it in 1995 claiming that the formulation is already in use in farmlands. In May 2000 the patent was revoked. Basmati: no alien aroma In 1997, the USPTO granted a patent to a US agribusiness house, Rice Tec, to call a variety of aromatic rice, Basmati. Since this grain grows exclusively in the Himalayan foothills in India and Pakistan, just as Scotch whisky is produced only in Scotland, angry protests erupted in the subcontinent. The Agricultural and Processed Food Exports Development Authority (APEDA), on behalf of Indian rice traders challenged the patent. It was withdrawn after years of legal tangle. But varieties that ape the celebrated basmati strain, can still be cultivated anywhere in the world. Simply by altering their names. |
 |
When CBD was negotiated in 1992, one of the key issues set aside for discussions later was the question of regulating the unique risks presented by Genetically Modified Organisms (GMOs). The text mentioned that countries must ‘consider the need for’ a biosafety protocol to ensure safe handling of GMOs. Experts in the South gave three specific reasons why a protocol on biosafety was needed:There is a strong possibility of Northern biotech companies would transfer their research work and production units to developing nations with loose or non existent regulations. Pesticides banned in the North were being exported to the South. Similarly, GMOs that fail safety standards of the West may be shipped to the less developed countries where the governments were more permissive; The traditional exporters of agricultural products may suffer a financial setback when importing countries begin to produce the same products at home using genetic engineering, and this had to be considered. The Protocol faced stiff opposition from countries in the West, especially the US, who were in turn being prodded hard by the industry bloc. But after years of hectic negotiations the Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety was adopted in January 2000. It’s root is in the Principle 15 of Rio’s declaration on environment and development – which is based on Precautionary approach. It seeks to protect biodiversity from any risk that modern biotechnology may pose. It is a shield against any ‘living modified organism, (LMO)’, which is any genetically modified organism that is essentially living and can grow. Typically an agricultural crop variety. The precautionary approach says that if an LMO is considered as a threat to biodiversity, it can be restricted from ‘introduction’. Even in the absence of adequate scientific evidence, t a LMO can be banned on the basis of ‘apprehensions’ it can be stopped. |
|
What has India done till now? It is particularly critical for us. India, after all, is a predominantly agricultural society with 60 per cent of its population earning its livelihood from land. Millions more, including out numerous tribal communities are tied inextricably to bio resources. Do we have our checks and balances in place? Lets take stock. |
|
Traditional Knowledge Digital Library (TKDL) This is a website which documents traditional medicinal systems of Ayurveda, Unani, Siddha, Yoga and Homeopathy. It has records of more than two lakh formulations from various scriptures of Sanskrit, Persian and other languages. It was conceived so as to contest any patent claim on a product or a process that is already in use in any part of our country. As revoking a patent after it has been granted is an extremely time and money consuming process, TKDL is a very useful and proactive initiative. The website follows the format of the International Patent Office. For instance, the scientific name of Tulsi, Ocimum Sanctum, is recorded there, along with it’s thereapuatic composition, that is, a description of its use as a medicine. National Biodiversity Act, 2002 This Act was passed by Parliament after five years of deliberations. It is in response to the CBD stipulation on ‘national legislation’ for conserving biodiversity. India already had a host of related laws—the Indian Forest Act, 1927, the Wildlife (Protection) Act, 1972 and the Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980, but a separate legislation was required still. NBA’s main focus is Article 8 j. It establishes a procedure to check biopiracy and to ease the process of benefit sharing. It also plugged the gaps in Indian Forest and Wildlife Protection Acts. The key sections of the Act are :   (Section 3) (Access to biological resources or Associated knowledge). This in effect means that outsiders (mainly foreigners) cannot undertake Biodiversity related activities without approval of the National Biodiversity Authority (Section 4) (Transfer of Research Results). Results of research cannot to be transferred to certain persons without approval of the National Biodiversity Authority (Section 6) (Seeking IPR) Application of IPR rights not to be made without approval of the National Biodiversity Authority. |
| Challenges ahead
Immediately after the Biosafety Protocol came into force, Juan Mayr, key negotiator from Colombia, had warned, “Don’t forget that this only represents the beginning. We have still before us a great challenge”. A decade later, this still remains true. The governments must keep a constant vigil on its bioresources, and adopt stronger laws on labellling genetically modified products. After all, the health and livelihood of its people are at stake. And this will only happen if we, the people, keep up the pressure. |
