2 - 1998

Without Patents, You Lose

The Global Genopoly

by Olaf Kaltenborn

1992 could have seen the signing of the International Convention on Biodiversity, in which 170 states promised, among other things, to safeguard biological diversity but also to guarantee the fair distribution of benefits of its economic exploitation. Still, the United States haven't signed the convention so far. And in 1994 the so-called Uruguay Round of the international GATT treaty made a decision with far-reaching consequences: In future not only technical inventions are to be patentable but also micro-organisms, plants, animals, and human genes. Olaf Kaltenborn is a free-lance journalist and lives in Bochum. Christine von Weizsäcker is the Evangelical Church in Germany's committee member for environmental issues.

World-wide gold fever

The world-wide rush for patents which set in like a fever as a result of the GATT resolutions won't just exploit one region but the whole world - especially the countries of the south with their rich variety of fauna and flora: "It's the last free space left to conquer" explains Bonn-based biologist Christine von Weizsäcker. She claims that outer space has turned out to be unattractive, all licences to dig for minerals and natural resources have already been issued - "now a new field has emerged for pioneers and colonisers."

That's why, for a few years now, researchers have set out - especially from America - to buy rights in plants - especially medicinal plants from tropical rain forests. Their exploitation promises particularly big returns. Some developing countries are virtually outdoing each other in "selling off their biodiversity to the highest bidder". Even gene banks like the International Rice Research Institute (IRRI) on the Philippines are attracting more and more western scientists. The reason is that, since 1972, the bank has stored more than forty per cent (100000) of the world's wild species. They are seen as the "common legacy of mankind". So any scientist has access to them.

Some Australian researchers thought they were particularly clever when they simply patented the samples obtained in the name of research, once they were back home. It all came out and the patents were annulled in January 1998 in response to sharp international protests. After these cases of "biopiracy" the gene banks now want a moratorium for patenting the plants they stock.

But primarily researchers from the USA were able to import a vast array of biological substances to their own territory. For only there are they protected by patent law. Particularly smart institutes and universities even selectively awarded generous grants to researchers from developing countries - on condition that they bring back indigenous species to the USA. This miraculous legal transformation of a public good into private property takes place in the lab. To receive a patent or at least pending protection, it often suffices to pick up a species from the ground or to fish it out of the ocean. Under the burden of thousands of patent applications, the American Patent Office is no longer able to carefully examine individual cases.

They award patents on suspicion that can theoretically be contested by the injured Third World states, but, in practice, such contestations often founder on lacking funds and long proceedings. The annulment of a patent in the USA costs at least half a million dollars and takes about five years.

A coveted speaker at international events, Weizsäcker pinpoints the effects of this newly created property for agriculture. So far traditional cultivar protection has ensured that all culturists have free access to all cultivation materials. Farmers may even continue cultivation for their own needs. "Patented, genetically engineered species put an end to this century-old practice" - now every farmer has to use the patented seeds.

The "mother of all promises" put forward by the biotechnology industry, i.e. that it can solve the world hunger crisis, annoys Weizsäcker most. She fears that the opposite is the case: "Because farmers are no longer able to go on cultivating, but have to pay licence fees for every new planting, the genetically engineered cultivars will encourage an increasingly capital-intensive style of farming." Monocultural intensive farming has already started to displace indigenous species, a process that will continue with the help of genetic engineering. So the biologist believes, "Gene patents will rather aggravate the hunger crisis."

Pressure on developing countries

The Biodiversity Convention does speak of an obligation of the signing states to protect the traditional knowledge of the indigenous population and local communities. But since 1992 the rich nations have been voraciously helping themselves. "To obtain their resources" the countries of the north have even tried to exert pressure on developing countries via the World Trade Organisation (WTO). There are attempts to "make as many national legislations of countries with a great diversity (Brazil, Ecuador, Costa Rica, Thailand) compatible with US patent law" - or to grant famine relief, like in the case of Indonesia, only on condition that import bans on genetically engineered wheat and soy beans are lifted.

Now Christine von Weizsäcker has observed that the countries of the south are taking action against this biocolonalism, Recently she attended negotiations for a biosafety protocol in Montreal. The issue of patents and insurance cover for when patented plants harm people and the environment played a major role there. Christine von Weizsäcker, "The lobbies that demand patents the loudest, also voice the loudest protest against social responsibility for their property, in other words the acceptance of liability for damages."

Reprint from »Süddeutsche Zeitung«, March 21, 1998, slightly abridged and translated for publication in this magazine.