|
|
|
Resources: A threat to our ‘green gold’
Pakistan is blessed with a variety of climates that give rise to a myriad of natural flora and fauna. But sadly, some of these species are on the verge of extinction.
Deforestation through activities such as mining, timbre harvesting, farming cash crops and cattle ranching — which may be described as short-term remedies to deal with national debt — is therefore a major concern.
Biodiversity is dwindling at an unsettling rate throughout the world and it has been estimated that 50 species become extinct daily. It has also been projected that by 2020, 15 per cent of our biodiversity will be lost.
More than half of all plant and animal species live exclusively in the rainforests of the Third World. The commercial potential of biodiversity has driven pharmaceutical and biotechnology companies to seek out and extract useful biological resources before it is too late.
Impressive statistics on the utility of natural resources emerged following a survey which revealed that of the top 150 prescription drugs sold in the US, 57 per cent were derived from natural resources. Most antibacterial agents (78 per cent) and anticancer compounds (61 per cent) available worldwide are derived from natural sources. Likewise, marine-derived therapeutics have great potential.
Marine ecosystems represent 95 per cent of the biosphere, and coastal regions are particularly promising because of the highly adapted species found in these harsh environments. Animals, especially venomous species, have provided a highly rewarding source of new drugs.
Biodiversity prospecting is the exploration, extraction and screening of biological diversity and indigenous knowledge for commercially valuable genetic and biochemical resources. While it is true that biodiversity prospecting does not always involve the use of indigenous knowledge, it is clear that valuable chemical compounds derived from plants, animals and microorganisms are more easily identified and are of greatest commercial value when collected with indigenous knowledge.
Biodiversity prospecting is not new, of course. “Take-and-run” describes the old approach to collecting, lately dubbed “biopiracy”. The recorded history of international plant collecting missions goes back at least 3,500 years, when Egyptian rulers began bringing plants home after military expeditions. In the last century, the British Empire instituted regular plant collection missions.
During the voyage of the Beagle, Charles Darwin simply took what interested him, from the Galapagos and elsewhere, and brought it home. The Royal Botanical Gardens took rubber trees from Brazil, and planted them in Southeast Asia.
They took cinchona seeds from Bolivia, in violation of national laws, and planted them in India. Similarly, Commodore Perry’s naval mission to Japan collected a wide variety of plants to bring back to the United States. But no money changed hands in the process, nor was recognition given to the indigenous farming communities who selected, maintained and improved traditional crop varieties.
The traditional knowledge of indigenous people is highly valuable. It is important for both biological and cultural conservation, and it is arguably the most effective means of discovering new medicines from nature. Indigenous cultures view nature as an extension of their society.
More than half the world’s biodiversity resides in rainforests of the Third World. The exploitation of the knowledge and resources of indigenous communities must be based upon mutually agreed terms between the industrialized nations and developing countries
They do not attempt to classify and compartmentalize. For instance, no distinction is usually made between food and medicine. They have a holistic view of nature and society where the well-being of both go hand in hand.
Their knowledge and culture are thus inextricably linked to the land on which they live, and life is a common property not subject to ownership. Their struggle for self-determination and rights to land and resources cannot be separated from their campaign against intellectual property rights.
A growing number of pharmaceutical corporations, biotechnology companies and their intermediaries are stalking the forests, fields and waters of the developing world in search of biological riches and indigenous knowledge. Western-based institutions seek access to tropical/sub-tropical biodiversity for the primary purpose of developing patented and profitable products.
Under the vast majority of current bioprospecting agreements, when indigenous peoples share information or genetic materials they effectively lose control over such resources, regardless of whether or not they are compensated for. For example, a plant cultivated in the Indian subcontinent — neem (Azadirachta indica) — has been pirated by a developed country that has patented different compounds isolated from this plant. Owing to this piracy by a developed country, the indigenous people no longer have claims over the plant.
It is generally acknowledged that about one in 10,000 chemicals derived from mass screening of plants, animals and microbes eventually results in a potentially profitable drug. By contrast, a detailed interview with indigenous healers by ethnobotanists identifies the most valuable plants.
For instance, Shaman Pharmaceuticals of the US claim that about 50 per cent of the plants collected as a result of talking to indigenous healers provide hits in screening programmes. With each interview, more medicinal applications for a particular plant become apparent, so performing only a few interviews is inappropriate.
Often the same plant is used by different cultures for the same disease. Shaman targets these plants in particular. Unfortunately, the indigenous cultures are under threat from the patterns of social interaction and less knowledge is being handed down.
A formula for success
Where three different communities are found to use the same plant kind for medicinal purposes, Shaman targets the plant for further study. About half the plants collected by Shaman’s researchers come up positive in screening tests, making the “filter” of indigenous knowledge 5,000 times more effective than random collection.
It is often difficult for indigenous peoples’ organizations to know precisely with whom they are negotiating, or to whom they are ultimately providing information and genetic materials. It is becoming increasingly clear that most Western-based corporations do not bid directly for access to biodiversity, but instead work through intermediaries.
Intermediaries may be private companies who are in the business of collecting and selling biological specimens, public sector institutions, non-governmental and non-profit organizations such as scientific research institutes, botanical gardens, conservation/environmental groups, or ethnobotanists employed by corporations under contract.
The Carnivore Preservation Trust is a small, non-profit organization based in the US that “rescues” endangered wild animals from the tropics and puts them in captive breeding programmes. This wildlife conservation organization makes extra money on the side by collecting plant specimens for Glaxo Pharmaceutical in Laotian forests.
In Pakistan, a similar scenario is unfolding, particularly in the northern areas. As these areas are blessed with a rich source of plants, the pharmaceutical companies from the developed world are taking a keen interest in them.
A large number of NGOs are working in these areas for “conservation of medicinal plants” and nobody is sure exactly what they want. We saw recently that a plant found in the Kaghan valley was being sold for Rs6,000 per kilogramme by the local people which was then exported to a developed country.
Central in the fight to conserve biodiversity is the struggle for indigenous cultures to gain self-determination. It has been proposed that a permanent forum should be established within the UN to facilitate the participation of indigenous peoples in debates on global issues. Successful resolution of many of these issues may only be possible when developed countries can find some way to accommodate the belief, held by many traditional cultures, that nature in essence is not a commodity that can be owned.
The Convention on Biological Diversity entered into force in December 1993. The convention offers a multilateral facade for addressing conservation and sustainable use of biodiversity, but offers no multilateral mechanisms for making this happen. In reality, the convention promotes bilateral deals (commercial contracts and other agreements for access to biodiversity) while failing to provide a strong plan of action based on broad, multi-country collaboration for access to and development of biological diversity.
As Pakistanis, before playing our role on biopiracy in the international community, we must take good care of our national biodiversity and national laws should be constituted and implemented promptly to save our resources.
The first major bilateral contract for bioprospecting was made public in September of 1991, when Merck & Co (a US-based pharmaceutical corporation) announced a 2-year, $1.135 million deal with the Instituto Nacional de Biodiversidad (INBio) of Costa Rica, a private, non-governmental research institute.
INBio agreed to provide Merck’s drug-screening programmes with chemical extracts from wild plants, insects and microorganisms. In return, Merck agreed to give INBio a two-year research budget of $1.135 million, an undisclosed share of royalties on any resulting commercial products, and technical assistance and training to establish in-country capacity for drug research.
Although the Merck-INBio agreement was hailed by some as a “model” one for bioprospecting, it ignores the rights and roles of indigenous peoples. When the time comes to commercialize a new plant-based pharmaceutical, it will be entirely up to corporate goodwill whether a company decides to acknowledge or compensate an indigenous community’s contribution. In either case, indigenous communities will have no means of enforcing or controlling what benefits, if any, accrue to them.
Unfortunately, there is no mechanism to monitor the number of contractual agreements that currently exist, or the countries/corporations/institutions that are involved. While it is possible to obtain some information about “high-profile” bioprospecting agreements, such as the Merck-INBio agreement, there may be hundreds of bilateral agreements that are shrouded in relative secrecy and receive no public scrutiny.
By and large, the terms and conditions under which indigenous peoples might benefit financially are controlled by Western corporations which are free to claim intellectual property on indigenous knowledge and biodiversity. Indigenous communities will find these same intellectual property systems culturally and ethically alien, as well as politically and economically inaccessible.
Pakistan is far behind even its neighbouring countries like India and Nepal when it comes to the proper exploitation of its natural resources. To address this problem, private entrepreneurs dealing with medicinal plants should set up projects in collaboration with traditional healers, local communities and pharmaceutical companies of developed countries for the identification of plants having latent qualities. All this should take place under the supervision of the authorities.
Later on, these plants can be used for the development of therapeutic agents based on traditional knowledge. It must be ensured that the interests of the various stakeholders are addressed in an equitable manner while conserving biodiversity.
The goal should be to provide communities with the tools to become self-sufficient in an increasingly industrialized world, while retaining as much of their cultural framework as possible. By employing such measures (although initially we will have to depend on others) in time we will get trained enough to lead our country towards self-reliance.
The writers work for the University of Agriculture, Faisalabad
|
|
|
|
