By Haider Rizvi
CURITIBA, Brazil, Mar 29 2006 (IPS)

When 150 of the world’s leaders gathered in Rio de Janeiro for the historic Earth Summit 14 years ago, they agreed to embrace the principle of fair and equitable sharing of the benefits of genetic resources as part of global efforts to protect biodiversity.

Today, back in Brazil, their policymakers are still talking about how to implement that principle.

At a two-week international conference on biodiversity here, delegates from developing countries are calling for the establishment of an international legal framework to protect rights over genetic material derived from plants and animals.

But so far the response they have received from the developed countries suggests that there is no agreement in sight.

“We are dissatisfied with the slow pace (of negotiations),” Marthinus Van Schalkwyk, South Africa’s minister of environmental affairs, told his counterparts, who are here discussing numerous issues surrounding the effective implementation of the U.N. Convention on Biological Diversity.

Speaking on behalf of the G77 and China, South Africa’s minister said the developing countries attach “great importance” to the global regime on fair and equitable share of benefits, because they are “the custodians of a significant portion of the world’s biological resources”.

Opposition to the granting of patents on biological material, such as genes, plants and animals, has grown in recent years as a result of corporate abuse of indigenous resources and massive destruction of the environment, critics say. Worldwide, peasant groups and indigenous communities say that the plants they have cultivated for centuries are being used by corporations without their permission.

“The incidents of biopiracy are coming to the fore quite often,” India’s environment minister, Namo Narain Meena, told the conference, adding that was why his country stood behind “speedy development of a legally binding international regime on access and benefit sharing”.

India, which is home to one billion people, is described by environmentalists as one of the most bio-diverse countries in the world. The Indian government considers legal protections to be necessary for important biological resources, but argues that they are not enough to ensure that the country that provides the resources also get its fair share in benefits.

“This is particularly so in cases where such genetic material is utilised in another country for developing processes and products on which intellectual property rights are obtained,” said the Indian minister, arguing that the onus of benefit sharing, therefore, “must also be shared by the user country”.

In addition to over 4,000 delegates, including civil society and industry representatives, the conference on biodiversity is being attended by more than 100 ministers of environment, health, food and forestry.

Given the growing evidence of global biodiversity loss, Schalkwyk said emphasis must be placed on mechanisms that will help the Convention to achieve its targets in 2010, which include achieving “a significant reduction of the current rate of biodiversity loss at the global, regional and national level as a contribution to poverty alleviation and to the benefit of all life on earth”.

“We need strong political will to accelerate the implementation of all the programme of work,” he said.

Many countries of the G77 are severely affected by land degradation and desertification, and therefore need to implement the programme of work on biodiversity, which requires resources. The G77 has also expressed its concern over the lack of a desirable level of funding by the developed countries.

The Convention on Biological Diversity is seen by many environmentalists as a counterweight to the World Trade Organisation (WTO) when it comes to the question of patents. In the WTO, the rights of holders of “traditional knowledge” are not taken into consideration.

In fact, the WTO was partly responsible for opening doors to patenting of genetic materials, seeds and plants by corporations at the 1993 Uruguay Round trade talks. However, negotiators at the conference now seem increasingly inclined to consider the need for a relationship with the WTO.

Some industrialised countries like Japan and members of the European Union have expressed interest in the idea that the conference observers should be allowed to take part in the meetings of the WTO’s body on intellectual property rights.

Whether and when this happens is not clear at this stage. Meanwhile, observers say the issue of “fair share in benefits” is bound to resurface at the next meeting on the Convention due to take place in Germany in 2008.

“The conference must send a clear message,” Schalkwyk told delegates. “That is (to say) that negotiation will continue.”

Excerpt: