Background
The three objectives of the 1992 Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) are incredibly ambitious. Number one and two alone are daunting - the conservation of biological diversity and the sustainable use of its components - without reserve or restriction. But the boldest and most remarkable is nevertheless number three - the fair and equitable sharing of the benefits arising out of the utilisation of genetic resources.
If realised, a fair and equitable benefit-sharing from the world's biodiversity would fundamentally change the way genetic resources are controlled and exploited. Today, benefits are increasingly dissociated from the hard work of conservation and sustainable use. Rural communities and indigenous peoples who actually manage most of the world's biodiverse forests, fields and waters are rapidly being marginalised by economic and political forces. Not only are their resources exploited by others without proper recognition or support. Worse, their traditional systems of use and sharing are constrained and undermined, and biodiversity itself is eroding as a result.
Fair and equitable sharing would imply, for a start, the restoration of full usage rights to the biological resources necessary for traditional community livelihoods, as well as the corresponding land and water rights needed for their proper management. It would mean an end to all monopolisation or privatisation of genetic materials through intellectual property rights (IPRs) or other means, including through government claims of national ownership rights over biological resources. It would require all results of biological research to be freely shared among those who could have use for them. It would, in short, require genetic resources to be managed as a heritage to nurture rather than as a market commodity to sell.
This, of course, is not about to happen at the CBD, because it was never intended to. Like in so many international treaties, the rhetoric of the CBD is one thing, and its real political content another. While many of the idealistic biologists who helped draft the text nearly 20 years ago were no doubt sincere about the aims of conservation and sustainable use - some possibly even about benefit-sharing - the hard-nosed politicians who moved in to finalise the deal had a different agenda. The emerging biotech industry in the North, eagerly promoted by its governments, wanted to secure its access to genes. Biodiversity-rich governments in the South had realised that this gave them both political leverage and a unique business opportunity.
So the text was drafted to allow governments (of the South) to control the flow of genetic material across their borders, and to claim a share of the profits whenever something was commercialised by private corporations (of the North). In return, the corporations would be allowed to freely use patents and other IPRs to exclude others from using the genes they had lawfully paid for. This business deal - not the conservationist concerns - was the real origin of the political consensus that brought the CBD into being.
Source: GRAIN
Paving the road: The Granada meeting
The Granada meeting (Granada, Spain, 30 January- 3 February) was the second session of meetings to "elaborate and negotiate" an international regime on access and benefit sharing (ABS). It also meant to assess the social, economic and cultural impacts of 'Terminator seeds' (plants that are genetically modified to produce sterile seeds at harvest) on indigenous and local communities, and on peasant farmers. The event produced recommendations to the 8th Conference of the Parties to the Convention on Biological Diversity (COP8) to be held in Curitiba, Brazil, 20-31 March 2006.
The main ingredients of an international agreement on access and benefit sharing (ABS) under the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) have been set out.
Indigenous peoples, farmers’ organizations and civil society representatives felt betrayed by the recommendations adopted at the meeting not only because it failed to condemn Terminator as immoral and anti-farmer, but also Australia and the United States falsely claimed that Terminator, which creates sterility, would "increase productivity." thus clearing the path for its approval in Curitiba.
Below you will find a collection of articles and civil society positions papers regarding the Granada meeting.
Source: Ban Terminator Campaign , ETC group
8th Conference of the Parties to the Convention on Biological Diversity
Curtitiba, Brazil, 20-30 March 2006
The eighth Conference of the Parties on the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) promises to take major decisions regarding the conservation of biological diversity and the fair and equitable sharing of the benefits arising out of the utilisation of genetic resources. |
