 |
|
|
Andean Nations Clash with Washington on Patents |
|
By Constanza Vieira*
Free
trade treaty negotiators from Colombia, Ecuador and Peru reject
the U.S. proposal for patenting plant and animal species. The matter
will be taken up during the sixth round of talks, slated to take
place Nov. 29-Dec. 4 in the southwestern U.S. city of Tucson.
BOGOTA - Access to genetic resources in South
America's Andean region, which holds a quarter of the planet's biodiversity,
is a point of discord in the free trade agreement that the United
States has been negotiating with Colombia, Ecuador and Peru since
May.
The U.S. proposal would establish free access to patenting plant
and animal species, designated as ''inventions'' in the chapter
on intellectual property in the draft treaty. This position would
violate existing legislation of the Andean Community of Nations
(CAN).
CAN, comprising the three South American countries negotiating the
treaty, plus Bolivia (an observer of the process) and Venezuela,
has expressly prohibited patenting living species, except microorganisms,
since 1998.
After five rounds of talks, intellectual property and agriculture
are the two areas where the parties to the treaty remain divided.
Both will be dealt with in the sixth round, scheduled for Nov. 29-Dec.
4 in the southwestern U.S. city of Tucson, Colombia's chief negotiator,
Hernando José Gómez, told Tierramérica.
The laws of the CAN countries -- with a combined area of 4.7 million
square km -- establish that biodiversity is national and regional
heritage, and recognize the traditional knowledge associated with
the uses of local genetic resources.
The Andean countries also support the 1991 Convention of the International
Union for the Protection of New Varieties of Plants, which establishes
an intellectual property framework for plant varieties very similar
to patents, and recognize the rights of plant scientists and farmers.
A source close to the Colombian negotiating team told Tierramérica
that there are instructions ''not to contradict the Andean law,''
and that the Colombian, Ecuadorian and Peruvian negotiators are
working in harmony.
Negotiator Gómez stressed that the three South American delegations
have the backing of the other two CAN members. ''Ninety-nine percent
of the Andean texts are already on the table,'' he added.
But the U.S. proposal for patenting plants and animals has generated
concern throughout many different sectors of the Andean community.
The treaty ''is really a patent deal. The United States wants to
impose -- if one can put it that way -- that all countries must
adopt treaties on patents. And this is one of the major problems
of the biodiversity issue,'' Manuel Rodríguez, Colombia's former
minister of environment, said in a Tierramérica interview.
''Many of the things associated with access to genetic resources
are related to patents. For example, the United States has not recognized,
and is not going to recognize traditional knowledge. This is not
going to resolve the treaty, and one can guess that they are going
to find a way to postpone the issue and to move the treaty forward,''
said Rodríguez.
Washington was able to convince the other parties to hold secret
negotiations, so the U.S. proposal is not public, nor is the Andean
proposal. However, at the Colombian Ministry of Trade, Industry
and Tourism, parliamentarians and university researchers can read
both texts on a computer, although they may not copy them and must
sign a ''confidentiality'' agreement.
Ministry officials said journalists would not have access to the
computer, but Tierramérica -- with the condition that notes could
not be taken -- was allowed to read the Andean proposal on intellectual
property. In general terms, the proposal restates the CAN law prohibiting
patenting of plants and animals.
''It can't be any other way. The Andean law is broadly applied,''
Luis Angel Madrid, ministry official and negotiator spokesman for
the panel on intellectual property, told Tierramérica.
But Margarita Flórez, environmental lawyer for the Bogotá-based
Latin American Institute of Alternative Legal Services, disagrees
with Madrid.
''The U.S. negotiators want to allow the patenting of plants and
animals,'' and the bilateral treaty will prevail, and will be more
specific and come after the Andean law, Flórez said. ''Treaties
are signed in order to be honored, and the United States has many,
many ways to ensure that obligations are met,'' he added.
''What is defended in these treaties is not free trade. Products
have been without tariffs for a thousand years. The problem is the
rights of the investor, defended tooth and nail'' in the U.S. proposal,
said Flórez.
Edgar Isch, former environment minister of Ecuador, agreed, noting
that international trade laws tend to undermine national and multilateral
environmental standards.
The World Trade Organization considers itself ''above'' international
agreements on the environment, Isch added.
In the United States, according to the minister, ''the (George W.)
Bush administration has reduced or eliminated around 200 environmental
laws, in many cases as a means to favor free trade.'' However, he
said the Andean treaty ''is not inevitable, and with things as they
are, it is not the best path for development.''
The free trade agreement could be ready in February, and would enter
into force in 2006 if congressional approval is achieved in the
four countries involved. But the groups in the Andean countries
that opposed the treaty have asked -- as a minimum -- that the negotiations
be put on hold and the proposals be made public.
In Colombia, for example, the indigenous movement has proposed a
referendum against the treaty.
* Constanza Vieira is an IPS contributor.
|
