People's Democracy
(Weekly Organ of the Communist Party of India (Marxist)
No. 40
October 07, 2012
|
Vol. XXXVI
No. 40 October 07, 2012 |
Biodiversity for Human Survival
Amit Sengupta
THE divide between
poor and rich
countries in the world can also be roughly mapped into another
kind of division
– that between gene or biodiversity rich countries and patent
rich countries. A
major part of the earth’s biological diversity – in the form
of different kinds
of naturally occurring plants, animals and micro-organisms –
are present in the
poorer countries of Asia, Africa and
CONVENTION ON
BIOLOGICAL DIVERSITY
This divide
underpins the history of
the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD). The convention
was launched in
1992 at the Earth Summit in
The CBD has three
principal aims: a)
conservation of biological diversity; b) sustainable use of
the biological
resources of the planet; and c) equity in benefit sharing
arising from the
technological exploitation of biological resources.
The convention was
hailed as an
important step towards conservation of the planet’s ecology as
it was the first
occasion, under international law, when it was recognised that
biological
diversity is a common global heritage and its conservation is
a common concern
of humankind. The convention is based on the understanding
that the biological
resources of the planet are finite and are being depleted very
rapidly. This is
a cause for real concern because every species of plants or
animals that gets
extinct, erases millions of years of evolutionary history. The
very large
variety of plants and animals that we see around us sustain
the entire ecology
of the planet. As more and more species die out, the
ecological system of the
globe becomes more and more fragile, till a situation is
reached where the
entire eco-system is destroyed. In spite of the enormous
scientific and
technological progress that we have made, we still do not have
means to
replenish biological diversity through artificial means. When
a species is
lost, it stays lost!
THE CONTRADICTION
BETWEEN MAN &NATURE
Human beings, like
other plants and
animals, are able to satisfy their needs through the
utilisation of the
resources available. But unlike other living organisms on this
planet, human beings
are also the first species that not only draws resources from
nature but also
has the ability to irreversibly change nature in a manner that
it desires.
There is thus a contradiction between human beings and nature,
which has
existed since the dawn of human civilization. This
contradiction had limited
consequences in the early days of human civilization, as
nature was so
bountiful that it was able to absorb the effect of human
intervention, and
continue to replenish its biological diversity. However, with
growth and
development, especially under Capitalism, the ability of
nature to continue to
maintain its large biodiversity is under sustained threat.
While human
intervention shapes
nature in a certain way, human beings are still inextricably
dependant on
nature for its needs. Thus if the contradiction between human
beings and nature
reaches a tipping point, it would not only lead to an
irreversible depletion of
diversity, but would then also threaten the very existence of
human
civilization. The CBD is a recognition that we are fast
reaching that tipping
point! Not just that – it is only recently that we have woken
up to the
possibility that a catastrophe awaits us. The term
biodiversity itself is a
very recent coinage, dating back to the 1980s.
We still
have limited
data to be able to say how much has been irreversibly lost. We
should remember
that mass extinction of species have happened several times in
the past. Under
normal conditions, species do become extinct as a result of
evolutionary
processes – this is called the ‘background rate’ of
extinction. When the rate
of extinction of species is double that of this rate, it is
assumed that ‘mass
extinction’ is underway. It is believed that there have been
at least five
occasions in the last 600 million years when mass extinction
has taken place.
All these have been in situations when naturally occurring
cataclysmic climate
events have led to a drastic change in the earth’s
environment. For example it
is hypothesised that the mass extinction of dinosaurs – that
ruled earth for
millions of years (in contrast human beings have been on earth
for less than
1,00,000 years) – took place due to one such cataclysmic
change, perhaps
brought about by earth’s collision with a large asteroid.
What is
frightening is that
we may be headed for another mass extinction – this time
brought on by the
consequences of unsustainable exploitation of nature by human
beings. Some
estimates predict that we could soon see a situation where
hundreds of species
become extinct ever day – millions of times higher than the
background rate. It
is even being predicted that more species may become extinct
in our lifetime
than were lost in the mass extinction that caused the
dinosaurs to disappear
about 65 million years ago.
The
projected acceleration
in the loss of biodiversity is, of course, linked to the rapid
change in global
temperatures and the consequent changes in climate.
Biodiversity loss and
climate change are very closely linked. For example, the loss
of tropical
rainforests indicate a loss of tens of thousands of species,
and also mean less
‘sinks’ that can absorb carbon dioxide from the atmosphere and
lower global
temperatures. On the other hand, rapid warming of the planet
makes the
environment unsuitable for the survival of a large number of
species, leading
to their extinction.
SUSTAINABLE EXPLOITATION
OF NATURE
The CBD
is also premised
on an understanding that human beings will need to continue
drawing on the
planet’s biological resources. It thus argues for sustainable
methods of doing
so – where human needs are balanced with the need to sustain
biodiversity.
While such a balance would seem perfectly reasonable, in
practical terms it is
not easy to implement. Sustainable exploitation of the
planet’s biological
diversity is impacted upon by the division between rich and
poor countries in
the globe. The rich countries are those who consume more, but
it is the poor
countries that are home to a bulk of the world’s biological
diversity. Just as
we have in the climate change debate, the terrain of
biodiversity conservation
is a struggle between the rich and the poor countries. The
rich do not want to
reduce their consumption, but wish to put the burden of
conservation on to the
poor countries. The poor countries, on the other hand, demand
that they be
compensated for the cost of such conservation through
financial support and
through access to technologies that are controlled by the rich
countries.
EQUITABLE BENEFIT SHARING
AND
The reflection of
the rich versus
poor divide in international relations is most clearly seen in
the third remit
of the CBD – equitable benefit sharing. As we have discussed
earlier, a bulk of
the world’s biological resources are located in the poor
countries. Rich
countries and their multinational corporations need access to
these resources
for their expansion and for generation of profits. Biological
resources
continue to be the key raw materials necessary for new
medicines, for better
agricultural products, and for a variety of engineering
applications. This form
of global inequity produces the phenomenon of ‘bio-piracy’
where corporations
from rich countries prospect for biological resources from
poor countries
(called bio-prospecting), which they then exploit to make new
products. Many of
these products are sold at profits of billions of dollars,
little or none of
which is shared with countries from which these resources are
taken from.
Bio-piracy extends not just to the actual biological resources
in the form of
plants and animals, but also to knowledge that local peoples
and communities
hold. This is knowledge that people have nurtured and
developed over thousands
of years, but which may be stolen by transnational
corporations instantly for
their benefit and profits. This is why the CBD incorporates
the notion of
‘benefit sharing’ meaning that benefits accruing from the
utilisation of
biological resources in one country (or by a community in a
country) should be
shared with that country or community.
Benefit sharing
requirements need to
cover not just plants and animals, but micro-organisms
(bacteria and viruses)
as well. In 2006,
Benefit sharing
mechanisms become
even more difficult to structure when it involves the use of
knowledge held by
local communities – traditional knowledge – for the
development of products
such as new medicines, and new plant varieties. For long,
corporations have
stolen such knowledge to develop their products and to
generate huge products
for themselves, while not sharing any of this with those who
developed and kept
this knowledge alive.
The Nagoya
Protocol on Access to
Genetic Resources and the Fair and Equitable Sharing of
Benefits Arising from
their Utilisation to the Convention on Biological Diversity aims at sharing
the benefits arising
from the utilisation of biological resources in a fair and
equitable way,
including by appropriate access to genetic resources and by
appropriate
transfer of relevant technologies, taking into account all
rights over those
resources and to technologies, and by appropriate funding,
thereby contributing
to the conservation of biological diversity and the
sustainable use of its
components. It was adopted in October 2010 in
THE
PROTOCOL
Another area of
contention within the
remit of the convention is the issue of genetically modified
organisms. Today, a
very large portion of knowledge and intellectual property
rights related to
technologies that are based on modifying living organisms in
the laboratory
(and thereby producing new genetically modified organisms
(GMOs) with possible
benefits – viz. pest resistant plant varieties) is held by
private
corporations. There is also a debate within and outside the
scientific
community regarding precautions that need to be put in place
when such GMOs are
allowed in agriculture and other industries. The Cartagena
Protocol on Biosafety to
the Convention on Biological Diversity is
an international agreement which aims to ensure the safe
handling, transport
and use of living modified organisms (LMOs) resulting from
modern biotechnology
that may have adverse effects on biological diversity,
taking also into account
risks to human health. It was adopted in January 2000 and
entered into force on
September 11, 2003.
GLOBAL MEET OF BIODIVERSITY
CONVENTION IN
We have outlined some
of the major elements of
the discussions in the Convention of Biodiversity. The convention's
governing body is
the Conference of the Parties (COP), consisting of all
governments (and
regional economic integration organisations) that have
ratified the treaty. It
reviews progress under the convention, identifies new
priorities, and sets work
plans for members.
