15
de octubre del 2000
 |
|
|
15
de octubre del 2000
|
|||||||||
|
|
|
|||||||
|
|
|
||||||||
|
|
||||||||
|
By Diego Cevallos The Swiss corporation Novartis Pharma saw its plans to research as many as 10,000 microorganisms in Brazil defeated, while in Mexico and Venezuela several similar projects are in question. MEXICO CITY - With little sense of order or consensus, Latin America is tightening the screws on pharmaceutical and food transnational corporations, which are anxious to obtain genetic materials from the developing South that could prove highly profitable. Armed with laws and last minute decrees, and amid discussions that have not officially concluded, Brazil, Mexico and Venezuela this year halted or at least postponed several projects for bioprospecting, the search for valuable compounds in nature. In Brazil, the Swiss corporation Novartis Pharma's plans were frustrated, and other transnationals from the industrialized North saw their projects run into difficulties, while in Mexico, an initiative of the US-based University of Georgia, with support from Washington, came up against sharp criticism. In the case of Venezuela, the ones who ran into obstacles were not powerful transnationals but the academics at the Venezuelan Institute of Scientific Research. The controversy has its history. Beginning with the 1992 Earth Summit, organized in Rio de Janeiro by the United Nations, and in numerous forums since then, the international community has been debating the issue of bioprospecting. In 1996, the governments of the Andean region (Bolivia, Colombia, Ecuador, Peru and Venezuela) approved standards to regulate such activities and Central America is now seeking to implement similar norms. Bioprospecting involves the gathering, classification and - in certain cases - the modification of plant or animal materials for use in medications, foods and substances to develop oils, perfumes and dozens of other products. Access to the flora and fauna - many of which have been utilized by indigenous peoples for centuries, while others have never been scientifically documented - feeds a global market for genetic materials with significant profits for the pharmaceutical and food industries. Costa Rica, which has been at the cutting edge of the issue since the early 1990s, is the only Latin American nation that has fully developed bioprospection and maintains regulated ties with the transnational firms. But the experts say that in general, Latin America, considered a gold mine for its high levels of biodiversity, is still in the early stages of efforts to defend and develop its natural heritage. Most of the countries in the region lack sufficient legislation in the area, and if it does exist it has come under fire. Additionally, no government or community can assure that the transnationals or their local partners are not currently extracting genetic material from the region illegally or through legal loopholes. In Brazil, world leader in biodiversity, the lack of laws governing the matter led the government to suspend an agreement with Novartis Pharma last May. In its alliance with the Bioamazonia organization - which unites governmental, scientific and business institutions - Novartis saw its plan to invest four million dollars over three years to investigate 10,000 microorganisms evaporate. Bioamazonia had signed a contract with Novartis without consulting the proper authorities, overstepping its powers to the detriment of national interests by permitting studies of such an enormous number of microorganisms and granting patent rights, said Brazil's Environment Minister, Jose Sarney Filho. Like most countries, Brazil does not have a law that regulates access to genetic material, but it does have several legislative bills pending on the issue. Based on the experience with Novartis, other projects with transnational corporations are now in question, including one with Glaxo-Wellcome labs and another with the US Cancer Institute. But, in spite of the problems, the Brazilian government is convinced of the necessity to take advantage of its natural wealth, and so created the Molecular Ecology Program for the Sustainable Use of Biodiversity of the Amazon. ''Like the gold fever of nineteenth century California, or its current counterpart in Brazil, 'genetic fever' could cause destruction of the ecosystems and of the human populations that inhabit them,'' warned the non-governmental National Institute of Biodiversity (INBio), of Costa Rica. A study by the Amazonian Commission for Development and Environment shows that at least 25 percent of the medications prescribed in the United States originate in plants, and that the market for these pharmaceuticals is on par with that of information technology or petroleum. In Mexico, an indigenous organization from the southern state of Chiapas petitioned in September for an immediate moratorium on all bioprospecting projects in the area, but especially an initiative developed by the University of Georgia, which carries a price tag of 2.5 million dollars. The project of this university, which in 1999 obtained approximately 6,000 samples of various species from the Chiapas jungles, is supported by the US government and includes the participation of the British bio-tech firm, Molecular Nature. According to the local indigenous population, Mexico should suspend all bioprospecting plans - 10 such projects are thought to exist. Among them is an accord with Novartis, as well as others with American Cyanamid, the University of Arizona (US) and American Home Products. According to the Chiapas Council of Indigenous Doctors and Midwives, made up of 11 native organizations, Mexico can allow bioprospecting only after the community is informed of the project's details and regulatory standards have been established to protect the genetic resources. Venezuela is not free from this controversy either. In May, the National Institute of Parks annulled the permit obtained in 1999 by experts from the Venezuelan Institute of Scientific Research to develop the Agreement on Access to Amazonian Genetic Resources. The suspension of the permit was based on principles of the new Constitution, enacted in late 1999, which guarantees the collective intellectual property rights for knowledge and technology of the country's indigenous peoples. ''All activity related to genetic resources and the knowledge associated with them shall be considered collective benefits. It is prohibited to register patents for these resources and environmental knowledge,'' says Article 124 of the new Constitution. Venezuela is at the forefront as far as legislation, though it still must be implemented, indigenous leader and parliamentarian Guillermo Guevara told Tierramérica. Unlike Venezuela and other Latin American countries, bioprospecting is closely regulated in Costa Rica, where there are an estimated 500,000 plant and animal species. As of October, INBio of Costa Rica had signed 12 bioprospecting agreements with such firms as the US-based Merck, Bristol Myers Squibb, Akkadix Corporation and Gidauvan Roure, and European companies such as the British Technology Group, Italy's Indena and Scotland's Strathclyde University. INBio does not work with indigenous traditional knowledge, but rather collects samples of plants, insects and microorganisms in protected areas. As compensation, 10 percent of the income arising from bioprospecting agreements is invested in the protected areas, environmental lawyer and INBio advisor Jorge Cabrera told Tierramérica. Costa Rica has received four or five million dollars from such accords, a small sum compared to the 400 million dollars in income from eco-tourism, ''but very important from the perspective of knowledge, technology transfer and the training of professionals - which stays in Costa Rica,'' commented Cabrera. Costa Rica acts in function of the ''new environmental standards,'' which establish the distribution of benefits from bioprospecting within the country providing the genetic resources and the pharmaceutical or food company that seeks them, say local experts. But for the rest of Latin America, these new standards are still a matter of debate. The rights of indigenous communities, the defense of strategic resources, the role of transnational corporations and the possibility of patenting ancestral knowledge all form part of the ongoing controversy. * The author is an IPS correspondent. Copyright © 2000 Tierramérica. Todos los Derechos Reservados |
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
