During the last 500 years, indigenous communities of Mexico have faced
many attacks. They have endured colonization, impoverishment,
marginalization and, in recent years, increasing military
occupation. The predominantly indigenous Southern States have been
exploited for centuries for resources such as corn, sugar, coffee, oil
and hydroelectric power. Now, Mexico's indigenous are faced with a new
attack -- subtler, but no less dangerous: biopiracy.
Mexico is a country of exceptionally high ethnic and
bio-diversity. A key resource for food, pharmaceutical and
agricultural products, it is this diversity which now endangers
it. Mexico is in the crosshairs of pharmaceutical and biotechnological
corporations looking to harvest the "green gold" of the region, and to
tap into the indigenous knowledge that accompanies it.
1. What is biopiracy?
Biopiracy is the illegal appropriation of life -- microorganisms,
plants and animals (including humans) -- and the traditional cultural
knowledge that accompanies it. Biopiracy is illegal because, in
violation of international conventions and (where these exist)
corresponding domestic laws, it does not recognize, respect or
adequately compensate the rightful owners of the life forms
appropriated or the traditional knowledge related to their
propagation, use and commercial benefit. Biopiracy commonly operates
through the application of Intellectual Property Rights (IPR)
(primarily patents) to genetic resources and traditional knowledge.
2. What is bioprospecting and how does it relate to biopiracy?
Bioprospecting is the search for biological resources and
accompanying indigenous knowledge -- primarily for the purpose of
commercial exploitation.
As such, while bioprospecting is not inherently contrary to the
interests of indigenous peoples or a threat to biodiversity, it
facilitates biopiracy. In other words, bioprospecting identifies
biological resources and traditional knowledge with commercial
potential, while biopiracy appropriates these resources and knowledge
(or privatizes them for commercial gain) without obtaining Prior
Informed Consent (PIC) or awarding just compensation.
3. Why is biodiversity a strategic resource and how is it being threatened?
Biological diversity, or biodiversity, refers to the broad range
of life forms found within a given ecosystem and is the backbone of
food security and basic health needs. As the source of primary
material and active ingredients for many commercial products -- foods,
pharmaceuticals, cosmetics, biotechnology, veterinary science, seeds
and agrochemicals -- it is now recognized as a highly strategic
resource with commercial potential comparable to that of petroleum or
uranium. This strategic importance of biodiversity is compounded by
the largely untapped potential of the emerging genetic engineering
sector.
In conjunction with advances in modern technology and the
exploitation of traditional knowledge, biodiversity has the market
potential to be extraordinarily lucrative. In fact, commerce involving
biological products and processes now accounts for almost half of the
world economy, with profits concentrated in the emerging "life
science" industry (food, pharmaceutical and agricultural production.)
The following market figures (annual net sales) illustrate the
importance of biodiversity as a strategic resource of the 21st century
(RAFI, Wall Street Journal, Agriculture News-2000):
| Food |
$2-3 trillion |
| Agroforestry |
$300-400 billion |
| Pharmaceutical |
$300 billion |
| Agrochemical |
$35 billion |
| Commercial seed |
$23 billion |
| Biotechnology |
$23 billion |
| Veterinary medicine |
$19 billion |
| Cosmetic |
$15 billion |
| |
|
Approximately 90% of the world's remaining biodiversity is
concentrated in tropical and sub-tropical regions within developing
countries, mostly located in the southern hemisphere. The Worldwatch
Institute has identified the following countries as regions of
"mega-diversity" due to their exceptionally high levels of cultural
and biological diversity and high concentration of endemic plant
species: Mexico, Brazil, India, Indonesia, Australia and The
Democratic Republic of Congo. Not surprisingly, these mega-diverse
countries are the focal points for biopiracy ventures.
Biodiversity is under siege, threatened by the compounded effects
of carbon-dioxide emissions, unregulated industrial logging,
desertification, natural resource extraction (through activities such
as petroleum drilling, hydroelectric power generation and mining,)
genetic contamination (through the use of genetically modified
organisms) commercial exploitation of endangered species and the
disappearance of traditional cultures.
While affecting the world as a whole, the impact of biodiversity
depletion is most dramatically felt by indigenous and rural
communities whose livelihood and local economies depend upon
it. However, the disappearance of indigenous cultures also represents
loss of the cultural wealth of humanity as well as that of traditional
knowledge relating to the sustainable uses of biodiversity. An
estimated 10,000 languages were spoken in 1900, but this figure has
dropped to an estimated 6,700 languages surviving today.
Anthropologists predict that 90% of the languages spoken in
1999 will be extinct by 2099. ("The ETC Century," Pat Roy Mooney,
RAFI, 2000) "As a result of this cultural erosion, by the middle of
the 21st century almost all of the world's many ecosystems will be
occupied by peoples who have no indigenous language capable of
describing, using, or conserving the diversity that remains." (Ibid.)
4. The life science industry
Corporations in the life science industry are the dominant
perpetrators of biopiracy. The chart below shows the market shares of
the 10 largest life science corporations and illustrates their
monopolistic control of this industry's key markets.
5. The "privatization of life"
Privatization of life refers to the ownership of life forms and
traditional knowledge. Life forms and knowledge are privatized via
IPR's so that individuals or corporations can claim ownership of
biological resources and applicable processes. Privatization also
leads to monopolistic control of natural resources, such as water,
upon which our survival depends.
Patents on life forms threaten community access to three of the
most critical elements of human survival: food, water and health
care. 1
The privatization of life threatens food security by jeopardizing
farmers' access to essential agricultural resources. Patents on life
forms deny farmers access to their traditional medicines and force
them to pay royalties for seed and livestock derived from patented
stock. Such patents, as well as the consolidation of the life science
industry, also severely limit farmers' ability to diversify crops and
livestock.
Patents also deny farmers their right to save seeds. For example,
planting seeds without paying royalties amounts to making an
unauthorized copy of a patented product. This forces farmers to pay
royalties for every seed derived from patented stock and makes them,
due to the increasing ownership of seed companies by agro-chemical
corporations, dependent upon fertilizers and herbicides developed by
the same companies. To develop new crops, such companies collect
farmers' traditional seeds, only to later turn around and then sell
them the chemically dependent derivatives.
The current case in South Africa in which 39 pharmaceutical
companies are suing the South African government for its distribution
of low cost medications to 4 million HIV positive citizens
demonstrates the detrimental effect of IPR's on public health. The
pharmaceutical companies claim the distribution program is an
infringement of their patent rights.
Furthermore, the costs associated with the acquisition,
maintenance and protection of patents prevent IPR's from benefiting
the developing countries where the vast majority of biological
resources are located. Because of these costs, 95% of patents on life
or life processes are held in industrial countries, despite the fact
that 90% of the world's biological resources are found in developing
countries (La Jornada, 4/8/00.) The average cost of soliciting a
patent is $21,000, with an additional $5,000 required annually to
maintain it. In the US, patent litigation costs average over $1
million (GRAIN, Seedling May 2000.) These costs render patent
ownership financially untenable for the majority of the world's
population.
6. Biopiracy: methods
Corporate bioprospecting and biopiracy ventures are increasingly
undertaken in collaboration with intermediary bodies - including
universities, governments and non-government organizations -- which
are able to contribute expert yet relatively low-cost field research
and input and are generally better placed to gain access to
biodiversity "hot spots." In exchange for their involvement,
intermediary partners often receive project funding, scholarships or
technological hardware; however, corporate partners inevitably retain
the vast share of royalties relating to the sale of any marketable
products.
In recent years, certain environmental organizations (including
Conservation International) have also become involved in
bioprospecting activities, lending a degree of "credibility" to the
ventures but also casting doubt upon the integrity of these
organizations' commitment to social justice and environmental
preservation.
7. Why don't indigenous peoples patent traditional knowledge and
products themselves?
Traditional knowledge is vital to the commercialization of life
products and processes. While only one specimen in a collection of
10,000 random samples has identifiable commercial use, consultation
with indigenous peoples doubles this success rate (i.e., to 1 in
5,000.) (NIH)
However, the concept of indigenous peoples patenting their own
knowledge, resources and products is virtually non-existent. Two key
factors inhibit indigenous peoples' use of patents: extremely high
costs and, more significantly, cultural values. For indigenous peoples
whose traditional values and lifestyle are rooted in communal living,
shared resources, and the interdependence of all living things,
patenting life is an anathema to the very value system upon which
their culture is based. Patents are a tool of western societies and
reflect values of private ownership and the pursuit of wealth, which
are not paramount in indigenous cultures.
8. Why is Mexico, and particularly the state of Chiapas, so
attractive to biopirates and prospectors?
Because of Mexico's, and especially Chiapas', mega-diverse
character, it has become a frequent target for bioprospectors. Mexico
owes part of its mega-diverse character to its geographic diversity,
varying climates and geological complexity. Additionally, it's role as
a species bridge between North and South America also contributes to
its biological wealth. Geographically, Mexico functions as a
transition zone between two distinct regions: the neo-tropical (South
and Central America) and the neo-arctic (North America). For example,
Mexico contains 34 of 36 identifiable ecoclimates, while the
continental 48 states of the US has only 4. Out of 28 categories of
recognized soils, Mexico is home to 25. Though Mexico contains only
1.3% of the world's landmass, it contains 14.4% of all living species
in the world. Mexico has a large number of endemic species, and is the
region of origin for some 118 plant species, including maize.
9. Legislation regarding bioprospecting and biopiracy
Mexico is signatory to both the International Convention on
Biological Diversity and Convention 169 of the International Labor
Organization. Both agreements provide a degree of protection to
indigenous peoples with respect to the sustainable use of
biodiversity, equitable sharing of benefits arising from their
commercial use and the preservation of traditional knowledge and
practices. However, Mexico has yet to implement effective,
corresponding national legislation.
Independent of these conventions, the Mexican Constitution accords
certain protection of natural resources and basic rights to indigenous
peoples and local communities, and the General Law of Ecological
Equilibrium and Environmental Protection (GLEEEP) establishes that
bioprospecting requires authorization by both the government and the
owner of the property where the resources are located. However, the
former is scantly observed, and the latter is marred by contradictions
and legal voids. According to indigenous communities, civic
organizations and some bioprospectors, these contradictions and voids
render the GLEEEP ineffective.
In response to these legal shortcomings, the Declaration of the
3rd National Indigenous Congress (held March 2001 in Michoacán)
calls for a moratorium on all bioprospecting projects involving
biodiversity, minerals, water and other natural resources. The
Declaration also calls for a moratorium on all biopiracy operations
carried out in indigenous territories and throughout the country until
indigenous peoples, in their own time and conditions, have discussed
the issues related to the control of their resources.
The Indigenous Rights and Culture Bill which arose from the San
Andrés Accords (signed in a bid to end the conflict in Chiapas
in 1996 and currently before the Mexican Congress) may assist in the
regulation of bioprospecting as well as the protection of indigenous
rights if it results in Constitutional amendments and thus gives rise
to corresponding national laws. However, the financial incentives
involved in allowing free reign to bioprospectors could limit the
government's willingness to implement tighter controls in this area.
10. The impact of biopiracy and bioprospecting in Mexico
The following 4 cases studies demonstrate the threat posed to
indigenous cultures and livelihood by bioprospecting and biopiracy
ventures in Mexico.
In 1994, POD-NERS, a Colorado based seed company, purchased yellow
bean seeds in Sonora Mexico. Two years later, the company president,
Larry Proctor, filed for and won an exclusive patent (US #5984079) for
the bean seed dubbed Enola and proceeded to sue two Mexican food
producers -- Productos Verde Valle and Tutuli Produce -- that were
selling yellow beans in the US. Mr. Proctor claimed that the two
Mexican companies' commercial activities were an infringement upon his
patent. The patent is currently being challenged by International
Center for Tropical Agriculture (CIAT) and remains pending until the
US Patent Office issues a ruling.
Pozol is a traditional drink derived from fermented corn that
Mayan peoples have used for generations, both for its nutritional
value as well as its medicinal properties as a natural preventative
for giardia, amoebas and other intestinal ailments. In 1999 the Dutch
corporation Quest International and University of Minnesota jointly
obtained a patent (US #5919695) and claim, in a classic example of
genetic reductionism, not to have patented the pozol itself, but
rather an isolated microorganism (or active component) which the drink
contains. In presenting this argument they refuse to recognize the
indigenous knowledge used to develop pozol.
In 1998, the San Diego based biotechnology corporation, Diversa,
signed a contract with the National Autonomous University of Mexico
(UNAM) granting Diversa access to Mexico's national parks for the
purpose of bioprospecting. This access was ceded in exchange for the
donation of research equipment, $50 payments per sample collected and
royalties of 0.5% and 0.3% resulting from pharmaceutical and chemical
sales, respectively, to be used for reinvestment in the extraction
zones. In contrast, Diversa agreed to pay the US Department of the
Interior 10% in royalties for bioprospecting projects in Yellowstone
National Park. In late 2000, the Mexican Attorney General for
Environmental Protection suspended the UNAM-Diversa project
on the basis that UNAM lacked the authority to grant access to genetic
resources, rendering the contract illegal.
Maya-International Cooperative Biodiversity Group (Maya-ICBG) is a
US government program, financed through public funds, involving
Molecular Nature Ltd (a Welsh biotechnology corporation,) the
University of Georgia and the Mexican Southern Frontier College
(ECOSUR.) Initiated in 1998, Maya-ICBG's stated goals are drug
discovery, pharmaceutical development, conservation, sustainable use
of ethno-botanical knowledge and sustainable economic development.
Despite its promotion as a groundbreaking project in relation to PIC,
various irregularities regarding just distribution of benefits, the
procedures for obtaining PIC, and community representation and
participation have generated strong local resistance to the project
and its international censure. Compounded with the tense political
situation in Chiapas, these issues have exacerbated existing conflicts
and generated a climate of increased discordance.
The Council of Indigenous Traditional Doctors and Midwives from
Chiapas (COMPITCH,) a coalition of 12 traditional medicine
organizations with grass roots support in almost 3,000 communities,
has been successful in suspending the project -- calling for an
"active moratorium" until Mexican society, and particularly affected
indigenous communities, have been adequately informed about the
project. Additional stipulations for resumption of the project are
passage of appropriate bioprospecting legislation and the existence of
appropriate socio-political conditions, namely an end to the
low-intensity war, for such a project in Chiapas.
In September 2000 Maya-ICBG was denied permission by the Mexican
government to continue its bioprospecting activities; however, team
members have remained in Chiapas in an attempt to revive the
project. Regardless of the outcome, COMPITCH's resistance to Maya-ICBG
is a clear example of effective grass roots resistance.
For more information contact:
Notes
