|
United States NGOs are celebrating an important
victory in a biopiracy case they have been fighting for the last
year. On March 24th, a US judge suspended implementation of the
bioprospecting deal between Yellowstone and the US biotech company,
Diversa, that had been announced by the National Park Service in
August 1997 (see Seedling, March 1999, p2). Diversa had conducted
a back-room deal with the US National Parks Service to sell exclusive
rights to Yellowstone's natural resources in exchange for scientific
information.
In March 1998, a coalition led by three organisations
(the Edmonds Institute, the International Center for Technology
Assessment, and the Alliance for the Wild Rockies) sued the US Department
of the Interior and National Parks Service for allowing the commercial
exploitation of natural resources of the Yellowstone National Park,
and violating at least five legislative texts in the process. The
NGOs contested the Park's decision to allow the privatisation of
resources that had been conserved "for the benefit and enjoyment
of the American people." Another issue was the secrecy maintained
on the agreed terms of financial compensation.
The subjects of interest to Diversa were heat-loving
micro-organisms which thrive in Yellowstone's thermal pools and
geysers. These have found all sorts of applications in industrial
processes from paper-making to meat tenderising. Thermus aquaticus,
one such micro-organism, was taken from Yellowstone a few years
back and one of its enzymes currently earns for its 'owner' Hoffman
La Roche, the Swiss drug giant, more than US$ 100 million a year.
In the recent ruling, the judge called on the US
Department of the Interior (DoI) to prepare an environmental assessment
in accordance with the requirements of the National Environmental
Policy Act. He also ruled that the plaintiffs could seek a further
judgement on whether the Dol ever had legal authority to enter into
the type of deal attempted with Diversa. The judge said that, "the
future of bioprospecting on federal lands in the US appears to be
a work in progress, but the government as of yet has not engaged
in any public debate on the issue nor made any definitive policy
statement through regulations or less formal means. "
Source: Press release from the Edmonds Institute.
Contact: Beth Burrows, Email: [email protected]
|
