Uncertainty increases over convention terms
A SERIES of international meetings is attempting to sort out the confusion surrounding the implementation of the biodiversity convention, signed at the Rio Summit amidst much fanfare last June.
Increasing scrutiny of the text, whose wording cannot be changed, is proving that the contents are dangerously vague. Key questions have not been resolved, including issues of patenting, safety of genetically modified organisms (more than 500 field releases have already occurred), and funding.
Much of the impact of the convention will depend on the formulation of protocols on specific issues, some of which are as hotly debated now as they were before Rio, even though answers have to be evolved before the first conference of convention signatories, scheduled in September.
Four specialist panels, set up by the UN Environment Programme (UNEP) met recently in Nairobi for their second session. Their third, to be held this month, will be followed by a Norwegian-sponsored conference in May. More than 300 participants will evaluate the work of the panels and submit their findings to the September conference.
Before the panels met in Nairobi, a conference organised by the African Centre for Technology Studies (ACTS) discussed such questions as intellectual property rights and terms of access to genetic resources. Participants also looked at the need for development of Southern technology, fair evaluation of the economic benefits of biological diversity and recognition of the concept of farmers' rights -- the last not mentioned in the convention but developed by the UN Food and Agriculture Organisation to protect small farmers geographically and culturally far removed from patent offices.
The ACTS meeting, however, did not tackle two of the hottest issues: the safety of the biotechnology industry and the patenting of "living inventions", such as the mouse bred specially for cancer research in the US (Down To Earth, June 30, 1992). Most participants felt the US position marked out at the subsequent UNEP panel discussions, contending that biotechnology poses few risks and patents are paramount, could have serious consequences for convention implementation, particularly with respect to sharing the benefits of biodiversity.
Brute force Some of the outstanding questions are likely to be settled by brute force, rather than compromise. Many countries believe that although Washington refused to sign the Rio convention, on the grounds that it was bad for business, its signature is necessary for the agreement to have bite. But the US has made it clear that it will not sign unless all participating countries agree to respect the increasingly stringent global system of intellectual property rights.
Such pressure in the next few months could erode the section in the text stating that intellectual property rights should not "run counter to the effects of the convention".
Big money is at stake: The world market in biotechnology products, for example, exceeds US $150 billion. Meanwhile, six countries have ratified the convention; 30 ratifications are needed to bring it into force.
Simone Bilderbeek specialises in biodiversity issues for the Netherlands office of the World Conservation Union.