The demagogues of diversity

The demagogues of diversity

Alejandro Nadal

In Cancún, Mexico, invited by the Mexican government in February 2002, twelve countries possessing high levels of biodiversity met to create the “Likeminded Group of Megadiverse Countries,” and to sign the “Cancún Declaration.” The countries attending were Brazil, China, Costa Rica, Colombia, Ecuador, India, Indonesia, Kenya, Mexico, Peru, South Africa and Venezuela; later on Bolivia and Malaysia also joined. These megadiverse countries are home to 70% of the planet's biodiversity and 45% of its cultural diversity.

A house is robbed and the burglars flee with the goods. At the last moment, one of them turns back to the home owner and says: “Don't worry, you'll be in for a share of the take from this job once we've split it up. We'll send you a cheque.” This metaphor (the idea of a Quechua activist) goes to the heart of the debate on access to genetic resources: benefit-sharing schemes. Despite the poor record of benefit-sharing schemes (see p 25), some of the most biodiversity-rich countries in the world have launched a new benefit-sharing initiative that they hope will make them rich.

In February 2002, Mexico's federal Secretariat for the Environment and Natural Resources (Semarnat) held a meeting in Cancún with representatives from twelve countries which have more than their fair share of biodiversity. The Cancún Declaration announced the creation of the Likeminded Group of Megadiverse Countries, a cartel aimed at achieving better conditions in their dealings with biotechnology companies that seek access to genetic resources. The document does not question the logic of the appropriation of genetic resources nor the technological development of molecular biology. It does propose “new ethics” for biotechnology to contribute to development, but ignores the fact that biotechnology today is a major risk to sustainable farming and biodiversity – and therefore unlikely to contribute to development. The Megadiverse cartel intends to build an international regime to promote the ‘fair and equitable' sharing of benefits derived from the use of biodiversity by obtaining prior informed consent for the filing and granting of patents. In other words, the declaration accepts the illegitimate appropriation of biological resources through the patent system.

If it were really interested in “new ethics,” the cartel should begin by criticising this distortion of the international patent system. Describing plant varieties as “inventions” is utterly absurd. But the authors of the Cancún Declaration prefer to dive into contradictions rather than question the granting of patents on biological resources. Obtaining the consent of communities is important if their resources are used or collected, but not for the sake of granting patents. In their ignorance, the authors even speak of promoting the communities' capacity to patent their own “innovations,” as if they were not already in the public domain. Moreover, which of all the communities who know about the use of these resources would be given priority? All the problems of the patent system come to a head here, but once again the declaration prefers to force-fit the patent system, rather than contradict the biotech companies.

The Sixth Conference of the Parties to the Convention on Biological Diversity (COP-6) confirmed the general guidelines on access and benefit sharing regarding biological resources. Like COP-6, the Cancún Declaration also identifies the payment of royalties as a mechanism for benefit sharing, although this channel is impractical because it is virtually impossible to trace the origins and identify the specific genetic resources in biotechnological innovations. This monitoring is even more difficult when similar resources are combined from different places of origin. And when corporations merge and their technology is capitalised, the royalty payment schemes can just go up in smoke.

The Cancún Declaration seeks to open the patent system to communities, but not out of the goodness of its heart. This manoeuvre is aimed at splitting the organised opposition to the biotech companies' drive to patent everything. Communities will gain nothing from patenting, but biotech companies will be able to buy patented “inventions” at a bargain price. They could also copy them, since a suit in patent litigation can cost upwards of two million dollars. Could communities afford to sue? The environmental authority Semarnat took the Cancún proposal to Johannesburg as Mexico's contribution. But its “new ethics” make no provision for any consultation on access to genetic resources, as recommended by Mexico's Environmental Protection Agency (PROFEPA) two years ago in its decision in the case on the bioprospecting deal drawn up between the National Autonomous University of Mexico (UNAM) and the US company Diversa. Even as the threat of expulsion hangs over the Montes Azules communities whose villages now lie inconveniently a Biosphere Reserve, the Health Secretariat is actively promoting the patenting of herbal medicine. It would be advisable to put our own house in order before jumping into international demagoguery.

First published in Jornada, México, 10-07-02. www.lajornada.unam.mx