Bioprospecting or Biopiracy? A Controversy Study of Motives, Practices, and Ecologies

Governing Bioprospecting

Bioprospecting, since it inherently exists as a multi-national practice, must require some type of governance to regulate its existence. After the term was coined in 1989, and then took off as a legitimate form of conservation promotion, it became readily apparent that there would have to be an international governance agency or set of standards around the practice. The Convention on Biological Diversity occurred in 1992 and established standards for the conservation of biological diversity, the sustainable use of its components and the fair and equitable sharing of the benefits arising out of the utilization of genetic resources' (Scholz 195). The Convention promoted new, sustainable ways that developing countries could capitalize on their biological diversity without falling into colonialist relationships with the research organizations.

The CBD gave a voice to the Southern countries, as they posited the power and importance of their biological diversity. As stated in Article 19 of the Convention, "Each Contracting Party shall take legislative, administrative or policy measures, as appropriate, to provide for the effective participation in biotechnological research activities by those Contracting Parties, especially developing countries, which provide the genetic resources for such research, and where feasible in such Contracting Parties" (CBD website). The Convention gave Southern countries more sovereignty over their natural resources; for any institution to acquire biological materials, they must have a permit and negotiate with the host country to establish equitable bonds.

However, these are the ideal situations, when the CBD is operating at its best, and with the participating institutions enforcing its regulations. When this is not the case, activists have deemed it "biopiracy". For more information on the articles and exact protocol of the CBD, visit its website: http://www.biodiv.org/default.shtml

Why Study These Cases?
    The theoretical approach to bioprospecting is rather vague without looking at individual case studies. The following three studies seek to be examples of three main methods and models for bioprospecting, biopiracy, and a middle ground between the two. When reading through the case studies, and pursuing the links for each organization, it is important to keep in mind the differences and similarities between the cases.
       Consider the types of governance involved: is it in the public domain, or run by private interests? Who are the parties involved: is it mostly corporate interest, or are local people incorporated into decision making processes? How does the media function: is discourse contained on the internet, or are there academic sources about it? Has there been opposition to the projects, and if so, is it coming from academics or local people? Where is economic profit going to: local communities or to the corporate research institute?
       Clearly, these are rather dichotomous relationships, which is why the case study in Tanzania is a good counterpoint. There is a good middle ground in this example, showing how even good intentions can become victim to poor decisions, miscommunications, and complications with commitments. The importance of knowledge and rights in each case study deeply affect the outcome and resistance of local people, and these sentiments can affect how successful a project is. Also, while reading, keep in mind whether or not the successful model is appropriate on a larger scale, and if it can be duplicated successfully. If not, is there any applicable way that bioprospecting can occur equitably?
    Finally, if these case studies spark some interest, please visit the links to more information, and voice your opinion. Citizen involvement really shapes whether or not these projects can happen, like in the Chiapas example to follow, the project only came to an end because of citizen outcry.