Parks for the Protection of the Interests of Multinationals: Beware the Bioprospecting Monster

As some of you might know already, although the benefits of the CBD for biodiversity remain to be seen, Article 8(j) from the CBD has been celebrated by indigenous people all over the world. It obliges the contracting parties, (of course, as far as possible and as appropriate), to “…respect, preserve and maintain knowledge, innovations and practices of indigenous and local communities embodying traditional lifestyles relevant for the conservation and sustainable use of biological diversity and promote their wider application with the approval and involvement of the holders of such knowledge, innovations and practices and encourage the equitable sharing of the benefits arising from the utilization of such knowledge innovations and practices”.

However, the potential benefits for the indigenous people depend on the strength of the CBD in respect to competing interests and treaties. The CBD has been notoriously in conflict with TRIPS, the Treaty on Intellectual Property Rights. TRIPS allows the patenting of plants and animals, and provides a strong protection for patent holder, something that can be seen as directly opposed to the concerns of the CBD expressed in the article above.

In their 2003 article, Ullrich Brand and Chris Görg analyze the CBD and TRIPS, with special attention to the biodiversity politics in Mexico. The authors, writing from a post-fordist viewpoint (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Post-Fordism), put the tensions over Mexico’s genetic diversity in a global context. They argue that the state, as a consequence of competition between states rich in biodiversity, should do everything to facilitate the exploitation of its genetic resource by western industrial companies (pharma, agro, chemical). This view is endorsed by Conservation NGO’s, which are more than happy with the extra funding this could provide. However, within Mexican politics this has led to resistance by indigenous groups, who fear expropriation from their own genetic resources, of which they are the legal owners according to the CBD (art. 3). In fact, in 1999, just that happened – the state began limiting access of indigenous peoples to the Chiapas Lancandon Rainforest, claiming that people in this area would destroy nature. This left the region open to bioprospecting, or the collection of genetic material. There are other examples, some involving local actors, others industry and/or NGOs.

In this context, Brand and Görg offer two solutions for this conflict: (1) a “soft” solution, taking into account indigenous knowledge, and utilizing it while bioprospecting. This method allows local actors to become involved in, and partly control, the decisions that are made. This method may influence competition between states, but the authors argue that competition between local actors may also be encouraged; (2) A “hard” solution, primarily concerned with collecting the genetic material, and not with the knowledge that might be associated with it. This may involve the creation of National parks, which then transfer the property rights to the state, opening the way for bioprospecting by western consumers and expropriating local people from their homes.

We see this as yet another monstrosity spawned by globalization. Parks created for this purpose have nothing to do with the conservation of biodiversity, and could result in misleading figures about the conservation in biodiversity some countries. Furthermore, this could hamper the efforts of conservationists around the globe to find solutions to the conflicts between indigenous people and national parks.

Beware the Bioprospecting monster!

- Wouter Langhout and Emma Burnett