ACCESSION OF THE REPUBLIC OF MOLDOVA
TO THE INTERNATIONAL CONVENTION FOR THE PROTECTION
OF NEW VARIETIES OF PLANTS
The Government of the Republic of Moldova deposited its instrument of
accession to the 1991 Act of the International Convention for the Protection
of New Varieties of Plants on September 28, 1998. The deposit by the
Republic of Moldova of its instrument of accession brings to eight the
number of States which have adhered to the 1991 Act of the Convention. The
1991 Act, which effects important revisions to the UPOV Convention, came
into force on April 24, 1998. The 1978 Act of the Convention became closed
to further accessions on April 24, 1998, except for States which have
started the accession process prior to that date.
When the accession by the Republic of Moldova enters into force on October
28, 1998, the number of member States of the International Union for the
Protection of New Varieties of Plants (UPOV) will be 38. The member States
are as follows:
Argentina, Australia, Austria, Belgium, Bulgaria, Canada, Chile, Colombia,
Czech Republic, Denmark, Ecuador, Finland, France, Germany, Hungary,
Ireland, Israel, Italy, Japan, Mexico, Netherlands, New Zealand, Norway,
Paraguay, Poland, Portugal, Republic of Moldova, Russian Federation,
Slovakia, South Africa, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, Trinidad and Tobago,
United Kingdom, United States of America, Ukraine, Uruguay.
UPOV is an intergovernmental organization which cooperates in administrative
matters with the World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO) and has its
headquarters in the WIPO building in Geneva, Switzerland.
The purpose of the International Convention for the Protection of New
Varieties of Plants is to recognize and to ensure an intellectual property
right to the breeder of a new plant variety. The member States of UPOV grant
such a right in accordance with the provisions of the Convention, under
their national legislation. To be eligible for protection, varieties have to
belong to one of the botanical genera or species on the national list of
those eligible for protection (where there is a limited list), be distinct
>from commonly known varieties and be sufficiently homogeneous and stable.
Protected varieties remain available for use as a source of variation for
the development of other varieties.
_________________________________________________________
ABOUT THIS LISTSERVER -- BIO-IPR is an irregular listserver put out by
Genetic Resources Action International (GRAIN). Its purpose is to circulate
information about recent developments in the field of intellectual property
rights related to biodiversity & associated knowledge. BIO-IPR is a strictly
non-commercial and educational service for nonprofit organisations and
individuals active in the struggle against IPRs on life.
HOW TO PARTICIPATE -- To get on the mailing list, send the word "subscribe"
(no quotes) as the subject of an email message to
<bio-ipr-request@cuenet.com>. To get off the list, send the word
"unsubscribe" instead. To submit material to the list, address your message
to <bio-ipr@cuenet.com>. A note with further details about BIO-IPR is sent
to all subscribers.
ABOUT GRAIN -- For general information about GRAIN, you may visit our
wwwsite http://www.grain.org or send an email to <grain@bcn.servicom.es>.
Subject:
Resent-Date: Mon, 5 Oct 1998 19:16:18 -0700
Date: Tue, 06 Oct 1998 10:15:02 +0800
From: GRAIN Los Banos <grain@baylink.mozcom.com>
To: bio-ipr@cuenet.com
Resent-Message-ID: <"Kkh56.A.bME.y1XG2"@oolaa>
Resent-From: bio-ipr@cuenet.com
X-Mailing-List: <bio-ipr@cuenet.com> archive/latest/19
X-Loop: bio-ipr@cuenet.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: bio-ipr-request@cuenet.com
Subject: [BIO-IPR] Initiatives to protect traditional knowledge (A. Lopez)
Resent-Bcc:
BIO-IPR docserver
____________________________________________________
TITLE: Initiatives for the Protection of Holders of Traditional Knowledge,
Indigenous Peoples and Local Communities
AUTHOR: Mr. Atencio López, President of the Napguana Association, Panama
PUBLICATION: papers from the WIPO Roundtable on Intellectual Property and
Indigenous Peoples
DATE: Geneva, 23-24 July 1998
SOURCE: World Intellectual Property Organization
FORMAT: PDF or MSWord2.0
URL: see under http://www.wipo.int/eng/meetings/1998/indip/index.htm
____________________________________________________
WIPO/INDIP/RT/98/4B
ORIGINAL: Spanish
DATE: July 6, 1998
World Intellectual Property Organization
Roundtable on Intellectual Property and Indigenous Peoples
Geneva, July 23 and 24, 1998
INITIATIVES FOR THE PROTECTION OF HOLDERS OF TRADITIONAL KNOWLEDGE,
INDIGENOUS PEOPLES AND LOCAL COMMUNITIES
Document presented by Mr. Atencio López, President of the Napguana
Association, Panama
Since the establishment of what we now know as the “intellectual property
system” just over a century ago, indigenous knowledge, which is rich in
medicine, art, crafts, music, literature, etc. has been steadily
marginalized, simply because it has to do with the collective rights of a
people and because it does not have a known author or creator. This legal
vacuum could be looked upon as the continuation of an unending genocide
inflicted on indigenous peoples from time immemorial. One might think that
our culture had been intended solely to give mankind its folklore image, to
the extent of being catalogued as the heritage of that same mankind, with no
recognition of its true origin.
We are living through a period of wholesale plundering or pirating of
indigenous knowledge and products without any related benefits for our
peoples. For instance, until quite recently the involvement of indigenous
botanists and medicine men was considered retrograde in medicine, while
today many of medicine’s transnational pharmaceutical companies are
investing large or smaller amounts of money to gain control of traditional
indigenous medicine, and even registering sacred plants as if they have been
developed in a laboratory. At the same time indigenous designs are
gradually gaining a foothold in fashion and on the runways, but with alien
labels or marks that have nothing to do with our peoples.
Finally, persons who have no connection with our peoples write, record and
sell songs, legends and tales for commercial purposes with no concern for
the copyright of the peoples affected. As a first step it is urgently
necessary to put an end to this appropriation, which is virtually legalized
in many countries, and for the governing body of intellectual property,
namely WIPO itself, to introduce an international legal standard for the
preservation of indigenous knowledge.
At the indigenous level, it was not until the eighth decade of this century
that the subject began to be discussed and became a matter for concern, and
only in very recent years that it has been subjected to analysis in various
international forums and institutions. This in turn has led to a situation
where we indigenous peoples do not agree on concepts, and it has been
difficult to conform to the already firmly established precepts of WIPO,
owing to the fact that our collective rights are denied us, or are a subject
still unknown to us. This being the situation within the United Nations
system in recent years, special attention has been given to the subject in
such areas as the United Nations Development Programme (Conserving
Indigenous Knowledge: Integrating two Systems of Innovation; study
conducted by Rural Advancement Foundation International (RAFI) for the UNDP,
1994), the UN Commission on Human Rights (report by Erica-Irene Daes,
“Protection of the Heritage of Indigenous Peoples,” E/CN.4/sub.2/1995/26),
UNESCO (Model Provisions for National Laws on the Protection of Expressions
of Folklore Against Illicit Exploitation and Other Prejudicial Actions), the
implementation of Article 8(j) and related articles of the Convention on
Biological Diversity (CBD) and finally WIPO itself, summing up the debate on
these matters, not to mention the interest also shown by the World Trade
Organization (WTO). To my way of thinking, however, all appear still to
have their own agendas, which is why we are not likely to move forward or to
help indigenous communities unless we join forces and hold an international
conference under the auspices of WIPO.
This is also a sign that our demands are being heeded, and it remains only
for all interested parties sit round the same negotiating table and look for
the best options for doing justice to indigenous peoples. We have to put
our grievances and complaints to one side and involve ourselves in the
search for solutions.
To do that it is important that we start by studying national legislation,
which, if we look at it in detail, will at best afford us some leads or
legal expedients for the protection of indigenous knowledge, whereupon we
can evaluate the international indigenous steps that have already been taken
in this field, including the following:
“Map of the Lands of Indigenous PeoplesKari-Oca Declaration” (Part
5,
Cultura, Ciencia y Propiedad Intelectual, Rio de Janeiro, May 1992);
Mataatua Declaration “On the Intellectual and Cultural Rights of
Indigenous Peoples” (Aotearoa, June 1993);
Declaration of Santa Cruz de la Sierra, Bolivia, Regional Meeting on
Intellectual Property and Indigenous Peoples (September 1994);
Declaration by the Indigenous Peoples of the Western Hemisphere on
the
Human Genome Diversity Project (Phoenix, Arizona, 1995);
Ukupseni Declaration, Indigenous Workshop Meeting on the Human
Genome
Diversity Project (Kuna Yala, Panama, November, 1997).
In the light of the foregoing, we are extremely pleased to see that WIPO has
shown an interest and has created a Division of Global Intellectual Property
Issues, whose 1998-1999 work plan includes the sub-program “Intellectual
Property Rights for New Beneficiaries,” which has brought us together today.
At this time it is important to proceed with a study of the system already
established within WIPO in order that we may demand our rights.
Brief Analysis of the Situation in Central America
In the Central American context we can see how the countries of the region
have been pressing ahead with the adoption of laws on intellectual property
and copyright, some of them forced into it by the United States of America
and others, as they do not wish to be kept out of those business activities
which, at the international level, require respect for copyright.
However, there is no sign, in these preliminary drafts or laws, of parts
dedicated to the protection of the copyright or intellectual property rights
of indigenous peoples, or, if there is, they take the form of a mere mention
in certain chapters without the development that they deserve. In this way
the legislators have endeavored to disregard one of the features that
Governments try to exploit the most in order to attract tourists or exalt
nationhood. We regard this as being due to a lack of understanding or even
a disregard for indigenous culture, not wanting to call it racism.
In 1970 and thereafter Guatemala, El Salvador, Honduras, Nicaragua and Costa
Rica signed the Central American Convention for the Protection of Industrial
Property, which came into force in 1975. Its approval had been a
prerequisite of progress in the attainment of the objectives of the Central
American economic integration program. The Convention contains provisions
on use and on collective trademarks. It also covers the lapse of trademark
ownership, the protection of trade names and advertising slogans or signs,
unfair competition, indications of source, appellations of origin and
matters concerning industrial registration. At present there is growing
interest within the Central American Parliament in the establishment of a
new Convention to encompass more countries, but there seems to be no
political will to expedite such discussions, and the Convention will not
come into being unless there is due consultation of the actual peoples
concerned.
In Honduras the laws on the subject date back to 1919, one of them a patent
law and the other a law on manufacturing trademarks. They were revised in
1936 to accommodate the copyright concept. Provisions on the subject were
introduced in Costa Rica in 1896, when industrial property, in the form of
trademarks, trade names, advertising slogans and inventions, was protected
in the same way as copyright. In El Salvador the most recent law was passed
on July 14, 1993, and is known as the Law on the Promotion and Protection of
Intellectual Property. In Guatemala the legislation dates back to 1954, the
protection for industrial creation being currently provided by the Law on
Patents, Utility Models and Industrial Designs, approved in 1986.
As we said at the beginning, the countries of Central America have been
under pressure from the United States of America, as they do not wish to be
excluded from the commercial dealings taking place at the international
level, such as the free-trade treaties, or the protection for North American
videos, which circulate freely in the area without the authorization of the
producers or legitimate distributors.
If one considers other related laws, there is ILO Convention 169, which only
Costa Rica and Guatemala have ratified, while in other countries, notably
Panama, it is a highly controversial subject, to such an extent that it has
become a campaign banner for indigenous peoples. The Convention on
Biological Diversity is suffering the same fate, especially its Article
8(j), which is going to be delayed for some more time yet. The priority for
Governments is the sale of package holidays in industrialized countries, or
the declaration of free-trade areas, which give precedence to foreign
authors’ rights, as a result of which there are few or no laws that protect
indigenous knowledge.
Intellectual Property Legislation in Panama
Panama has many local industries that are in fact subsidiaries of innovative
transnational or multinational companies, and because of that has laws that
promote innovation by controlling the copying of inventions, identification
symbols and creative expressions. Those laws encompass four characteristic
and separate types of intangible property, namely patents, registered
trademarks, copyright and manufacturing secrets, in other words what we call
“intellectual property.”
There is not one single law on the protection of the collective rights or
the knowledge of indigenous peoples, in spite of the fact that the 1983
Constitution, the one currently in force, still has the following in its
Articles 77 and 86:
“Article 77. National culture is made up of the artistic, philosophical and
scientific manifestations produced by the people of Panama throughout the
ages. The State shall promote, develop and safeguard that heritage.”
“Article 86. The State recognizes and respects the ethnic identity of
indigenous national communities, shall implement programs for the
development of the specific material, social and spiritual values of their
individual cultures and shall create an institution for the study,
preservation and disclosure of those cultures and their languages and for
the promotion of the comprehensive development of the said groups of
people.”
Each of these constitutional provisions has remained a dead letter since the
time of its implementation, in such a way that it has proved necessary to
resort to other laws for the protection of indigenous knowledge; they
include the following:
1. Law No. 41 of July 13, 1995, “Approving the Paris Convention for the
Protection of Industrial Property of March 20, 1883, as revised at Brussels
on December 14, 1990, Washington on June 2, 1911, the Hague on November 6,
1925, London on June 2, 1934, Lisbon on October 31, 1958, and Stockholm on
July 14, 1967.”
In the case of Panama there has been a great deal of delay in the
ratification of the Paris Convention and, as far as indigenous peoples in
general are concerned, it does not in any way afford protection to
indigenous knowledge, indeed it actually protects the individual rights of
creators or inventors, and therefore not collective rights. For that reason
we consider it inappropriate to look on this international instrument in
expectation of immediate benefits for indigenous peoples until such time as
it is brought up to date.
2. Law No. 15 of August 8, 1994, “Approving the Law on Copyright and
Neighboring Rights and enacting other provisions.” This Law has been
introduced against a background characterized by the majority of Central
American countries speeding up the preparation of preliminary draft
legislation on intellectual property and copyright in recent years, for fear
of being left out of the most important developments in international trade.
The area’s obsolete regulations did not win the blessing of the United
States of America, which is the party with the greatest interest in respect
for the intellectual property rights of its businesses and industry,
regardless of whether or not the Central American countries protect the same
rights of their own nationals, not to mention those of their indigenous
peoples.
>From its very first Article, it gives indigenous peoples no opportunity to
claim collective rights in their art, science or musical compositions, which
however the present Law is supposed to protect for the benefit of the
country’s nationals.
According to its Article 1(11) , “‘Expressions of folklore’ means
productions of characteristic elements of the traditional cultural heritage,
constituted by the whole store of literary and artistic works created on the
national territory by unknown or unidentified authors presumed to be
nationals or to belong to the country’s ethnic communities, and which are
handed down from generation to generation and reflect the traditional
artistic or literary aspirations of a community.”
This is the only part that speaks of “ethnic communities”; it is not found
anywhere else, which is a reflection of the lack of interest in legislating
in favor of indigenous peoples, and a reflection also of the fact that there
was never any consultation of those peoples.
Another of the Law’s adverse aspects with regard to the protection of the
collective rights of indigenous peoples is the part concerned with “Term and
Limitations” (Articles 42 and 43).
“Article 42. Economic rights shall subsist for the life of the author and
50 years following his death and shall be transferred mortis causa in
accordance with the provisions of the Civil Code. In the case of a work of
joint authorship, the term shall be calculated from the death of the last
surviving co-author.
“Article 43. In the case of anonymous and pseudonymous works, the term
shall be 50 years from the year of the disclosure thereof, except where the
author reveals his identity before the said term expires, in which case the
provisions of the foregoing Article shall be applicable.”
Apart from that Panamanian legislation provides solely that words, letters
or signs “used” by indigenous groups may not be registered as trademarks or
trade names. There is no mention of the groups’ ownership, but only of use
or mere possession, with the result that the art and the medicinal products
or knowledge of indigenous peoples continue to be exposed to the risk of
patenting by companies and persons alien to the community. Neither is it
specified, when “groups” are spoken of, whether the reference is to
communities, villages or regions, “indigenous groups” being likened to mere
religious groups or non-profit associations. In other words, as in all
Panamanian law, indigenous peoples do not themselves have legal capacity,
which can be a limiting factor for the registration of their own knowledge
or products by means of the legal machinery provided by Law No. 35 of March
10, 1996.
In order to deal with this, the Ministry of Commerce and Industries, acting
through the Directorate General of the Industrial Property Registry, has
made it known to the indigenous Kuna tribe that it has frozen all
registrations of trademarks and patents that are detrimental to the
interests or heritage of the Kuna people, giving priority to applications
for the registration as trademarks of indigenous subject matter by the
indigenous peoples themselves, thereby giving indigenous products the
cultural, ethnic and commercial value that they deserve. In that case we
would be speaking of collective and guarantee marks and the registration of
indications of source and appellations of origin.
This indicates to us that, if an analysis were made and if the
non-indigenous authorities competent in the field were asked for a
pronouncement or explanation on the laws already existing in relation to the
basic principles of WIPO, we might find certain legal provisions that could
benefit us, without perhaps satisfying us completely, but nevertheless
affording a window through which we could enter the complex world of
intellectual property.
Finally, we hope that this Roundtable will not be just the first or the
last, but rather that it will be the beginning of an exercise that will
eventually satisfy the demands of our peoples by implementing a Convention
dedicated to protecting the collective intellectual property rights of the
indigenous peoples of the world.
_________________________________________________________
ABOUT THIS LISTSERVER -- BIO-IPR is an irregular listserver put out by
Genetic Resources Action International (GRAIN). Its purpose is to circulate
information about recent developments in the field of intellectual property
rights related to biodiversity & associated knowledge. BIO-IPR is a strictly
non-commercial and educational service for nonprofit organisations and
individuals active in the struggle against IPRs on life.
HOW TO PARTICIPATE -- To get on the mailing list, send the word
"subscribe" (no quotes) as the subject of an email message to
<bio-ipr-request@cuenet.com>. To get off the list, send the word
"unsubscribe" instead. To submit material to the list, address your message
to <bio-ipr@cuenet.com>. A note with further details about BIO-IPR is sent
to all subscribers.
ABOUT GRAIN -- For general information about GRAIN, you may visit our
wwwsite http://www.grain.org or send an email to <grain@bcn.servicom.es>.
Subject:
Resent-Date: Sat, 10 Oct 1998 09:24:09 -0700
Date: Sun, 11 Oct 1998 00:25:42 +0800
From: GRAIN Los Banos <grain@baylink.mozcom.com>
To: bio-ipr@cuenet.com
Resent-Message-ID: <"P6yWj.A.TZF.po4H2"@oolaa>
Resent-From: bio-ipr@cuenet.com
X-Mailing-List: <bio-ipr@cuenet.com> archive/latest/24
X-Loop: bio-ipr@cuenet.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: bio-ipr-request@cuenet.com
Subject: [BIO-IPR] India: updates on basmati patent
Resent-Bcc:
BIO-IPR docserver
________________________________________________________
TITLE: India not to hurry with appeal on basmati patenting
AUTHOR: T S Vishwanath
DATE: 11 September 1998
---
TITLE: One-upmanship over basmati
AUTHOR: Nidhi Nath Srinivas
DATE: 19 September 1998
PUBLICATION: The Economic Times (The Times of India)
URL: http://www.economictimes.com
________________________________________________________
The Economic Times
11 September 1998
INDIA NOT TO HURRY WITH APPEAL ON BASMATI PATENTING
by T S Vishwanath
INDIA is in no hurry to appeal against the Ricetec patent for basmati at the
US patent office despite Pakistan's decision to go ahead with its appeal
soon.
Pakistan has decided to independently file an appeal against the Ricetec
patent at the US Patent office in the next couple of days.
"We will, however, do our research completely before appealing against the
Ricetec Patent. The appeal will be filed soon and the Pakistan move to hurry
with its appeal does not hamper our position," said an official in New
Delhi.
"The idea is to prove that basmati is grown in this region and Ricetec
cannot be given a patent for basmati," he said, adding, ``While it would
have been better for the two countries to file the appeal together, the
Pakistani move does not hurt India's position in any way."
The BJP-led government has set up an inter-ministerial committee to decide
on the strategy for countering the threat to basmati. At the same time,
scientific evidence is being collected by several institutions
simultaneously to prove that basmati is a generic Indian produce.
India has been, for the last few months, compiling evidence to prove that
the long-grain rice developed by RiceTec does not have the characteristics
of traditional basmati.
Also, the country has been collecting evidence to prove that only long grain
aromatic rice grown in the foothills of the Himalayas can be called the real
basmati. Pakistan, however, believes that authentic basmati is grown in
Punjab.
Earlier, India had protested against the French authorities' decision to
allow a French company use the term 'basmati' in its trade mark.
The Indian government filed a protest with the French trademarks office
against granting the French foods company, Establissements Haudecoeur La
Courneuve, the permission to use two new trade marks , 'Riz Long Basmati'
and 'Riz Long Basmati Riz Du Monde' to sell long-grain aromatic rice in the
continent.
India's contention has been that even though these foreign companies can
sell rice virtually identical in aroma and taste, it cannot use the
traditional Indian name 'basmati' because it is used for the rice grown in a
specific geographic area.
The Times of India © Bennett, Coleman & Co. Ltd. 1997.
------------------------------------------------------------
The Economic Times
19 September 1998
ONE-UPMANSHIP OVER BASMATI
by Nidhi Nath Srinivas
Pakistan's decision to fight RiceTec's patent independently in the United
States is yet another move in the endless and futile game of one-upmanship
between the two countries, where short-term political gains are being sought
at the expense of long-term business advantage.
Pakistan believes that becoming the first to challenge the patent would give
it unprecedented leverage in this landmark case on protecting geographic
appellations in south Asia, where hitherto it had been relegated to a
secondary role. But this decision to distance itself from India can be only
superficially to its advantage because the basmati trade of both countries
is complementary and any threat to one necessarily spills over to the other.
In fact, till May 5 this year, Pakistani rice traders were perfectly willing
to cooperate fully with the Indian trade in collecting evidence to prove
that basmati rice is peculiar to the Indian sub-continent and that the new
grain developed by RiceTec is similar to other long grain aromatic rice
grown in the sub-continent.
Pakistani traders visited Delhi and even promised to give India a legal
affidavit stating that it fully agrees with India's position that
historically basmati belongs to the sub-continent and that it supports the
scientific evidence collected by India to dispute the novelty of RiceTec's
patent.
Then the bomb exploded and diplomatic relations hit an unprecedented trough.
All subsequent attempts by India to get the affidavit quickly from Pakistan
met with complete silence, even as frenzied attempts were being made to beat
India in the race to the US patents office.
Of course, since both the Indian and Pakistani rice trades stand to gain
equally, it is immaterial who files the petition as long as the case is won
and the patent is revoked.
But political expediency is now compelling the two countries to file two
different sets of evidence where there need only have been one. The
avoidable confusion that this may create could well cost both nations the
case and a huge loss in trade terms. Any discrepancy between the evidence
filed by India and Pakistan can only work in RiceTec's favour.
India will now have to necessarily take into account the legal strategy, the
quality of scientific evidence, and the geographic appellation Pakistan may
have used to define basmati, before it can put forward its own petition.
For instance, Pakistan has compared the RiceTec grain with its own basmati
hybrid - Pak 385, and come to the conclusion that it does not have the
characteristics of real basmati. India, on the other hand, has adopted the
position that no such comparison is necessary because the product attributes
of a grain developed by another country can never be the eligibility
criteria for the rice to be called basmati as it is unique to our country.
Further, Pakistan has stated that the real basmati grows only in Punjab, and
holds no brief for the other states in India that also grow basmati. In
fact, the term it is taking pride in now using is `Pakistan basmati'. India,
on the other hand, has always maintained that apart from Punjab, basmati is
grown in the foothills of the Himalayas, western Uttar Pradesh, and Haryana.
It has also been scrupulously careful in referring to it as `basmati from
India and Pakistan'. By limiting the traditional area under basmati to only
Punjab, Pakistan is, thus, seriously jeopardising Indian interests.
With these glaringly differences in points of view, perhaps it is in India's
best interests not fall into the trap of one-upmanship and continue with its
original stance that basmati belongs to the entire sub-continent and that no
foreign company can grow a long grain aromatic variety in any other part of
the world and call it basmati.
This holistic approach may well limit any damage inflicted by Pakistan's
insistence on a Pakistani basmati.
It may also work to India's advantage if it is able to witness the fate of
Pakistan's evidence in the US patents office before filing its own
challenge. Fortunately, it still remains a win-win situation for the rice
trade in both countries, no matter who manages to fend off RiceTec. But the
next time round, in another case, in another sector, business may not get so
lucky. That's the scary bit.
The Times of India © Bennett, Coleman & Co. Ltd. 1997.
_________________________________________________________
ABOUT THIS LISTSERVER -- BIO-IPR is an irregular listserver put out by
Genetic Resources Action International (GRAIN). Its purpose is to circulate
information about recent developments in the field of intellectual property
rights related to biodiversity & associated knowledge. BIO-IPR is a strictly
non-commercial and educational service for nonprofit organisations and
individuals active in the struggle against IPRs on life.
HOW TO PARTICIPATE -- To get on the mailing list, send the word "subscribe"
(no quotes) as the subject of an email message to
<bio-ipr-request@cuenet.com>. To get off the list, send the word
"unsubscribe" instead. To submit material to the list, address your message
to <bio-ipr@cuenet.com>. A note with further details about BIO-IPR is sent
to all subscribers.
ABOUT GRAIN -- For general information about GRAIN, you may visit our
wwwsite http://www.grain.org or send an email to <grain@bcn.servicom.es>.
Subject: GE - news 10/9
Date: Wed, 14 Oct 1998 00:51:59 +0100
From: genetics <genetics@gn.apc.org>
To: genetics@mail.gn.apc.org
contents:
1) SRI LANKA: BIOPIRATES PATENT TRADITIONAL WISDOM
2) FOREIGN GMO TEST-GROUND AT PUKEKOHE
3) Truly the seeds of destruction
1) SRI LANKA: BIOPIRATES PATENT TRADITIONAL WISDOM
OTC 09.10.98 01:12
COLOMBO, (Oct. 8) IPS - Long before the arrival of Western drugs,
indigenous doctors pounded and prepared medicine
>from wild plants and flowers gathered from Sri Lanka's thick tropical
forests to treat a variety of illnesses.
The
ancient formulations of the "ayurveda" system of medicine were zealously
guarded and passed on from one generation to
the next in families that could trace back their ancestry for many
centuries.
In the northcentral town of Polonnaruwa an indigenous doctor treats
patients with heart problems who would otherwise
require bypass surgery for a fraction of the cost of surgery which is at
least $4,500 in hospitals in the country..
Now giant global pharmaceutical drug companies, aware of the therapeu tical
qualities of medicinal plants, are virtually
stealing this ancient wisdom by extracting chemicals from local plants and
patenting it abroad, particularly in the United
States.
Upali Pilapitiya, director of the Bandaranaike Memorial Ayurveda Research
Institute, says that the tremendous interest in
the West about natural Ayurvedic remedies, has led to a growing interest in
Asia's indigenous plant life.
Studies have revealed that more than 40 percent of western pharmaceutical
products contain
Asian plant extracts but these Asian countries including Sri Lanka have
earned very little in return.
Export of medicinal plants or their extracts is banned in Sri Lanka.
However bio-piracy is flourishing, quite often with the
assistance of Sri Lankans who have no qualms of selling indigenous
knowledge and innovation. Last month, a university
professor and another wealthy Sri Lankan, whose wife is a social activist,
were detained for bio-piracy by security
personnel.
"Loopholes in existing law s and other legal snags are robbing the country
of millions of dollars that is rightfully ours,"
asserts Sirimal Premakumara, a scientist at the Ceylon Institute of
Scientific and Industrial Research.
He said that since the country does not have the hi-tech scientific
equipment to analyze chemical components of indigenous
plants or the capacity to pay the international patent fee of $60,000,
wealthy countries are taking advantage.
For instance Salacil Reticulata, the scientific name for the loc ally grown
Kothalahimbutu plant, has been recognized abroad
for its ability to control diabetes. Ayurveda physicians in Sri Lanka have
always advised patients to drink water left
overnight in a hand-carved Kothalahimbutu mug or jug, whose production has
become a cottage industry in the island.
Newspapers here report that a Japanese drug company patented a product
based on this herb through the American
Chemical Society last year.
Many other patents, like from the plant Weniwalgeta -- used effec tively as
a herbal remedy for fever, coughs and colds --
have been registered by Japanese, European and U.S. pharmaceutical
manufacturers.
Environmental lawyer Jagath Gunawardene says, "although the law requires
that a patent can be obtained only if it is an
economically valuable invention created through a methodology, most
multinationals have somehow obtained patents for
products used in our country for thousands of years."
Scientists say that the normal ruse adopted by drug transnationals is
to befriend an indigenous doctor, learn the curative properties of plants
and sometimes offer him a trip abroad. The process
of extraction of the chemical and export of the product which is often in
the form of a powder, chemical solvent or the bark
of trees, follows.
The two recent cases of biopiracy last month involving a university
botanist and a wealthy Sri Lankan got wide publicity
and led to a sudden interest in the issue by environmentalists and
scientists here.
The botanist was interce pted by customs at Colombo airport trying to
smuggle some plant extracts in his suitcase. In the
same month, customs officials discovered a container load of Kothalahimbutu
-- 1,512 cups weighing some 4 tons -- being
shipped to Japan through a firm owned by the wealthy Sri Lankan.
Gunawardene feels that the laws should be strengthened to prevent the
smuggling of Sri Lanka's indigenous plants and
ayurvedic knowledge.
Normally, product patents are given only if they fulfill the criteria of
being=20 new, specify the process and must
necessarily have commercial value. If there are discrepancies in this
process, the patent can be contested in court.
Like in the case of the U.S patent for turmeric which was successfully
challenged by India on the grounds that its medicinal
properties are well known since ancient times.
However, because India has no worthwhile law to protect its rich
biodiversity or intellectual property rights another U.S
company earlier this year took out patents on long-grai n basmati rice
grown for centuries by farmers in India and Pakistan.
Developing countries, rich in indigenous resources, need to tighten
biodiversity laws to stop the usurpation of the resources
and knowledge of its people, Sri Lankan scientists say.
Copyright 1998
No comments:
Post a Comment