How to use bio-resources

The New Delhi meet of the 17 gene-rich countries, including India, China and Brazil""on issues related to access to biological resources and sharing the benefits arising from their use""is crucial for several reasons.

An accord on this subject has been elusive despite it being discussed at several global fora.

The group formed by these countries, called the like minded mega-diverse countries (LMMC), has already earned global recognition as a voice of the developing countries on such issues.

As such, the common approach agreed upon in this meeting will help the group to project its views with greater force at the global level.

Importantly, the question of the sovereign rights of countries over their native resources has been resolved.

The ambiguity over the interpretation of the term "free access" to resources has also been removed, thanks to the clear understanding emerging internationally that "free access" does not mean "free of cost access".

Significantly, the developed countries which have the capability to capitalise on biodiversity are generally poor in indigenous genetic wealth, and the developing nations which possess the bulk of genetic resources lack the capacity to gainfully use them.

This has made an early agreement on access and benefit sharing vital for both rich and poor nations. But, as should be expected, the outlook of these two blocs is divergent.

While the developed countries are interested chiefly in exploiting the commercial aspect of these resources for agriculture, industry and other sectors, the poor nations view them as a potential resource for poverty alleviation.

For, traditionally, poor communities and tribal peoples have been protecting these genetic resources, for want of access to modern crop varieties.

The developing countries, therefore, want the commercial gains derived from these resources to be shared even with tribals and local communities.

The main problem lies with the inherently contradictory provisions in the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) and the agreement on trade-related intellectual property rights (TRIPs), on access and benefit-sharing issues.

The CBD, while providing for benefit sharing, envisages that access to genetic resources and realisation of benefits are subject to national legislation.

But TRIPs allows patenting products according to domestic challenge and other provisions. Article 29 of TRIPs, dealing with disclosures in patent application, is vague.

India and the other LMMC members are strongly advocating that this Article should be amended to provide for mandatory disclosure in patent applications, of the origin of biological resources and traditional knowledge used in the development of the patented products.

Fortunately, India has made major advances in not only the preservation of bio-resources but also in providing them legal protection though various laws.

It enacted the Biological Diversity Act in 2002 and framed its rules in 2004. Besides, laws are in place for protecting farmers' and plant breeders' rights.

But the real financial gains of all these measures will start accruing only after globally agreed norms on access and benefit sharing are agreed on.

The New Delhi meet has been a step in that direction.