AGRICULTURE: Developing Countries want Share of Biodiversity Riches

By IPS Correspondents Reprint | | Print |

Angeline Oyog

LEIPZIG, Jun 19 1996 (IPS) - Developing countries are keeping the pressure on the rich nations of the world to give them a share of the benefits reaped from the commercial use of the biological diversity taken from the South.

At the weeklong International Technical Conference on Plant Genetic Resources being held here the developing countries have been reminding the North of their obligations for the use of the South’s agricultural genetic wealth.

Delegates from more than 150 countries are meeting in Leipzig to negotiate and to adopt a Global Plan of Action that proposes policies and measures to conserve and to better utilise the world’s disappearing plant genetic resources.

“For millenia, Ethiopia has let anyone wanting access to its biodiversity to have it free. The thought never entered anybody’s mind to keep tally of Ethiopia’s generosity,” said scientist Tewolde Egziabher, head of the Ethiopian delegation.

“We would be very happy to continue our usual hospitality provided we feel that there is reciprocity,” Egziabher stressed. “Reciprocity is very important and it should continue….but it need not be in kind. Those who have money y must reciprocate financially.”

Developing countries and farmer communities have long complained at the the lack of access, except at great cost, to material that once came from the South but which has since become the protected property of private companies or the seed industry.

They also have had little or no part in the profits that foreign companies have made in the commercial use of the biological diversity developed from material coming from the South.

A study done by the International Plant Genetic Resources Institute (IPGRI) stated the world market for commercial seed in 1990 was valued at 15 billion dollars. and assuming a profitability of four percent on sales, industry profits would amount to about 600 million dollars. On the other hand, the Rural Advancement Foundation International (RAFI) estimated that total profits run up to five billion dollars a year.

The situation is complicated as developing countries are being driven to provide intellectual property rights on plant varieties – a requirement of all signatories to the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT).

Some developing countries and non-governmental organisations (NGOs) contend that some industrialised countries are lukewarm to the idea of a fair and equitable sharing of biodiversity riches.

Opposition by the United States to include “Farmers’ Rights” in the proposed Global Plan of Action was an indication how some countries wanted continued unfettered access to the South’s biological diversity, one southern delegate said.

Developing countries scored a point when the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) gave them sovereign rights to control access to their biological diversity and to make it available under terms and conditions agreed upon between providers and recipients.

The issues are re-surfacing in Leipzig as developing countries seek guarantees that they will be discussed during negotiations later this year of an equally important but still legally non- binding International Undertaking on Plant Genetic Resources.

“If there was a collection of genetic material that we clearly wanted and would be covered by the CBD, we would and will have to negotiate,” said Stephen Smith of the Pioneer Hi-Bred International, Inc, a member of the International Association of Plant Breeders for the Protection of Plant Varieties.

According to IPGRI, crop varieties typically contain genes from many different sources. Modern varieties, especially those with a long history of breeding, may have scores of lines in their parentage, originating from farms, local communities and breeding programmes in many countries.

“To negotiate specific benefit-sharing arrangements with every country of origin would be daunting. To negotiate with individual farmers or communities would be virtually impossible,” IPGRI reported in a feasibility study on access to plant genetic re sources and equitable sharing of benefits, requested by the U.N. Food and Agricultural Organisation (FAO).

IPGRI director Geoffrey Hawtin said, however, that the principle of an equitable sharing was accepted, although the process to find a working mechanism would probably take a few more years. The benefits may also not necessarily be monetary.

IPGRI’s feasibility study proposed a Multilateral System for Exchange (MUSE), a flexible multilateral framework for an exchange system. According to IPGRI, it retained the strengths of the current multilateral approach but correct the lack of transparency by clearly specifying the rights and obligations of all members.

MUSE could also make provision for benefit-sharing on a bilateral basis under certain circumstances, typically upon commercialisation. Another option is a fund as a mechanism for financial compensation in return for access and in recognition of the concept of Farmers’ Rights.

The proposed framework would also ensure continued access to plant genetic resources now that, as a result of the Convention on Biological Diversity, some developing countries have begun regulating access.

“The future development of agricultural systems world-wide requires that the plant genetic resources for food and agriculture are available under terms and conditions designed to ensure conservation and continued sustainable use, and that the benefits ar ising from that use are shared equitably,” the study stressed.

“Many local communities want to share their biological diversity and have done so at no cost. Now, after improvements and patents, this is being sold to them when the original material came from them in the first place,” said Oscar Zamora, associate professor at the College of Agriculture at the University of the Philippines- Los Banos.

According to Zamora, some 70 patents have been filed by U.S., European, and Japanese companies on a local and ancient technology that produces “nata”, an ingredient used mostly for sweets – and the ingredient itself.

“My students found a thesis dating back to 1928 where the author related how her grandmother learned from her grandmother how to make ‘nata’,” said Zamora.

“There should be no patents on life forms and process because of moral and ethical implications. Patents are monopolistic control and we cannot have monopolistic control over life,” said Zamora.