Problems traditional knowledge, in 1992 Rio Submit, more

Problems and Solutions Regard to Bioprospecting Involving Bio Piracy1.Introduction”Bioprospecting”, a term firstly introduced in the book Biodiversity Prospecting (Reid et al), describes a raising practice of developing new drugs or plants based on the existed natural products. It is always connected to the direct or indirect utilization of traditional knowledge from indigenous or local organizations. Due to the large benefit that this practice can bring into drug, cosmetics and new crops production (citation from books), some producers are currently criticized for registering patents and gaining commercial benefits without informing indigenous people, which lead to another rising problem, “Bio Piracy”.         “Bio piracy” is a term initially defined by Action Group on Erosion, Technology, Concentration ETC Group. It is a generally description of a practice that individuals or institution using methods as registering patents to take absolute control of natural resources or natural resource-related traditional knowledge (e.g. herbal treatment). For example, majority of patents related to neem trees are registered by western medicine companies, despite the fact that neem tree has been used more than a thousand year for medical purpose in India (Sheridan, 2005). Non-Government Organizations (NGOs) and governments of natural resource-rich countries believe such behaviors violate the rights of indigenous groups or local governments. However, the various definitions of “patentable”(Efferth et al., 2016), and ambiguities regard to the definitions of bio piracy(book), make it extremely challengeable for natural resource providers (such as less developed countries) to detect and negotiate the bio piracy issue with multinational companies and other institutions from developed countries.               In order to provide universal guidelines for manipulating bio-resource and traditional knowledge, in 1992 Rio Submit, more than 160 signed on an agreement known as The International Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) proposed by UN Environmental Program (UNEP). Notably, CBD coined prior informed consent (PIC) and access and benefit-sharing (ABS) ( https://www.cbd.int/convention/text/default.shtml/), which impose a restriction on individuals and institutions that biological resource and indigenous knowledge are not accessible, unless the purpose and the predictable outcomes of utilizing are well informed among all the parties which may be influenced. In 2010, Nagoya CBD conference organized by UNEP reviewed the contents of previous CBD and specify the obligations of sharing and cooperation among countries (Morgera, Tsioumani and Buck, 2011). Nagoya Protocol, with the signatures from more than 190 countries, confirms that inhibition of bio piracy and protection of traditional knowledge owners’ benefits should become worldwide concerns.   To solve bio-piracy appear in bio-prospecting, international organizations should certainly act as pioneers in establishing common regulations, moreover, it is also urge to deal with power imbalance between providers and producers. This paper shall tackle the issues by first identifying the problems, and then offer viable solutions. 2.ProblemsBiopiracy, considered as another form of colonization, merged due to the imbalanced power between developing countries and developed countries. Consequently, developing countries are affected in both direct and indirect way. This section will analyze the problems raised from biopiracy from economic, cultural and environmental aspects.  2.1 Economic Aspect2.1.1 Influences on Sale and ExportUnder most of the circumstances, if a plant or a seed has been signed a patent in a country, other producers or institutions have to pay for the high patent fee to receive permission for  breeding, growing and  modifying, which lead to two dimensions of  harms when the patent involved in biopiracy.Firstly, the patent laws are various among countries, that is, in some countries, plants related intellectual knowledge is not considered as a part of protection provided by patent law, which may harm the actual owners of intellectual properties. For example, in Argentina, plants varieties are not protected by their patent law, this caused troubles to Monsanto Cooperation since their genetically modified soya plants was assigned a European patent by their importer(book).    Secondly, besides violating the owners of intellectual knowledge, barriers created by patents will also become an inhibition of economic growth of exporting products based on plant seeds or varieties. Yellow Enola bean case between Mexico and America, for instance, is a clear example of biopiracy directly connected to patent. Pod-Ners seed company modified an edible dry bean species obtained from Mexico, and successfully applied patent for the modified species in the USA. Since then, unlicensed users were prohibited from using this species, which lead to the violation of Mexico bean growers’ rights.  The International Center for Tropical Agriculture (CIAT) pointed out the problem, and with the support of United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization, the patent is cancelled. Not only this case, but also in another case, the Thai herb variety pala noi is been patented in Japan and it is exported back to Thailand. Without any compensation, the benefits are all gained by Japanese companies.  (http://www.etcgroup.org/content/cancel-enola-bean-patent).  2.1.2 Inequities on the Concern of Tecnology Transfer Bioprospecting, as is mentioned previously, is also form of  commercialize of knowledge. As a provider, local government, indigenous communities, or even the country are ought to receive compensation through a process called “technology transfer”, before companies licensing knowledge-based products. Unfortunately, the level of concerns towards “technology transfer ” of traditional knowledge is low among most of the developed countries, which results in the current situation that companies from developed countries keep committing biopiracy cases without considering the benefits of developing countries.   Technology transfer have to be processed when commercialization of interlectual properties occur. According to European Commission’s science and knowledge service (https://ec.europa.eu/jrc/en/research/crosscutting-activities/intellectual-property/technology-transfer), technology transfer usually goes through a procedure that companies negotiate and pay the refund for the owners of certain intellectual properties before they apply the knowledge into production. It is a common practice among university, institutions and companies and nearly all of the international trade organizations as WTO have specific regulations regard on this point.  However, United National Conference on Trade and Development (UNCTAD) officially announced that many developed countries do not have strong concerns and follow the proper procedures of knowledge transfer. Besides, regardless of CBD provides specific guidelines related to “technology transfer” of biological resource and associated knowledge, developing countries still failed to share benefits even under the circumstance where their biological resources (and knowledge) are monopolized by companies or institutions from developed countries.  For instance, US patented peanut “C-99R” variety was bred by collecting more than 50 types of seeds from Malawi. Despite the fact that local farmers and researchers made contribution to the breeding, there is no evidence showed that there was any compensation from the American side. If developing countries are continuously in disadvantageous position of “technology transfer”, they will also been left out of the advanced technological developments in these fields. 2.2 Indignify the Culture and Indegious BelievesThe failure of understanding the cultural importance of biological materials to a certain indigenous group is one of the main reasons for accelerating number of biopiracy cases. The major interest of profit-seeking companies are monopolization and commercialization, consequently, prior informed consent (PIC) and material transfer agreement (MTA) in CBD regulations and Nagoya protocol are sometimes neglected when it comes to handling biological resources (along with related knowledge). PIC stands for informing all the authorities that have connection with targeted biological (including genetic) resources and MAT represents that the common acknowledgments have to be achieved within every single stakeholders. In many cases, traditional knowledge is a form of secret s that local people are not willing to make it openly accessible. Under this situation, it is necessary for researchers to reach common consent through PIC and MAT procedure. More crucially, when the traditional ways of controlling plants and biological knowledge are directly linked to the cultural and spiritual beliefs of local people, without PIC and MAT, it is clear that indigenous people will have a strong feeling that their culture and dignity is offended. For example, ayahuasca,made by Amazon autochthonous people, is known as a type of traditional beverage extract from Banisteriopsis caapi vine and have remarkable effect in curing disorders of the central nervous system. Additionally, it plays an important role in nearly every aspects related to  anthropology and cultural identity, that is, to local people, its spiritual meanings are more important than its actual medical effects. In 1986, Loren Miller of International Plant and medicine cooperation patented the effective chemical compounds excerpt from one of the biological major materials–Da Vine in America, which lead to the strong dissatisfaction of  Amazon aborigines. Scientific achievements, along with innovation, have become major concerns for researchers and most of the companies. However, before the patenting process, it is a must for them to achieve common agreement with indigenous groups if any of their research results are driven from their traditional knowledge. Direct Plagiarism of traditional knowledge is certainly prohibited under the current frame of CBD law and many other patent laws, nevertheless, even under the situation when the researchers’ findings are innovative, it is also inappropriate to ignore the contribution and the value of previous efforts done by indigenous people.   2.3 Overharvesting of Biological Resources2.1 the patent caseDifference in patent law, organic materials is not patentable in one country but is in another Extracts and other synthetic method cause the difficulties in detection2.1 min patent case

x

Hi!
I'm Mary!

Would you like to get a custom essay? How about receiving a customized one?

Check it out