JOIN USBut whether they can hold their ground together is a question that still looms large in discussions assessing the outcomes of the recently concluded CBD gathering of governments and peoples in the city of Nagoya.
There under the CBD an international regime on ABS was agreed upon by 193 countries, that lays down a text, by which ‘benefits’ arising out of any kind of use of biological material and associated traditional knowledge when accessed should be determined and shared.
Biological matter is the raw material for seed, medicines and the energy industry, most of which are either controlled by or physically based in the global North ie the ‘developed’ world. It is bio-rich countries like India (in the South) where these industries find their leads.
The CBD has accepted that the use of biological resources for research or commercial purposes is a given, even though it prefixes sustainability to it. While, CBD can do little to take action when countries by their use deplete or threaten biodiversity, the industry has shown little commitment to conservation.
Sharing benefits
The Nagoya ABS Protocol after 10 years of negotiation in its preamble emphasises limitedly the economic value of both the biological resources and associated traditional knowledge. If the profits are shared as benefits, it would encourages conservation, it states.
This presumes two things. First, that genes and know-how can be regarded as the property of one or a few. It turns a blind eye to the fact that many local uses and traditions cannot be attributed to one person or a few territories. Over the years biological material and its use has transported itself across villages, state and even international boundaries. Thereby granting ownership to a few makes it impossible to be fair and equitable in determining shares.
Second, is the question of ethics. The business of biodiversity has conveniently sidelined the fundamental questions surrounding the nature of access itself and which actors dominate there. So user countries, including those in the South move further into developing mechanisms which give the facade that access and benefit sharing can actually be built on the same foundation. What follow are ‘model’ contractual agreements between two unequal parties. It completely steers the argument away from whether the access is justified in the first place and what impacts it might have locally.
The Nagoya Protocol in an attempt to acknowledge the rights of local and indigenous communities to take decisions on their resources lays down full prior informed consent (FPIC) as a must before any access takes place. But it relies almost entirely on national laws and a CBD-country’s own mechanisms to effect FPIC.
In India the Biological Diversity Act of 2002 pays mere lip service to FPIC. The letter of the law requires only a mere consultation with local level committees, which are yet to be formed in most parts of the country. Moreover, none of the approvals given till date have followed the consultation clause!
Other countries in the Latin American region put on record at CBD that they do not accept a Protocol that does not meet the minimum requirements of preventing bio-piracy.
With access as a given, other ‘pragmatic’ approaches are towards procuring the best price by host countries/institutions. This is the line that India toes. The Nagoya ABS Protocol will be open for signature by national governments at the UN headquarters in New York from Feb 2, 2011, to Feb 1, 2012.
However, even if it comes into force, effecting biodiversity justice and bridging the disparities between technology-rich and resource-rich, yet poor, if made subject to trade interests then access and money will tower over sharing and benefits.