Genetic resource commercialisation is a burgeoning industry. Plant and animal resources are used in a wide range of products, from pharmaceuticals and cosmetics to teas and genetically engineered crops.
However, the use of genetic resources in these products is arguably neither novel nor innovative, as it is based on existing traditional knowledge of the natural world, which is commonly maintained by indigenous people and rural farmers. Traditional knowledge holders, on the other hand, are rarely paid for their role in developing and preserving the biodiversity that patent holders profit from.
Traditional knowledge was not used for commercial interests by indigenous peoples in tropical nations. As a result, they have been able to preserve their form of knowledge, without causing any environmental harm, over the generations. However, information has become one of the most valuable assets in the financial market, including biological and related sources. Even though there are numerous local and international legal frameworks in place to safeguard the environment, environmental crime has emerged as one of the world’s most serious environmental issues.
Biopiracy is defined as acquiring unauthorised access to biological material and using it for commercial goals, as well as gaining exclusive monopoly rights over biological material or indigenous knowledge that belongs to a community, region, or country. Pat Mooney, the founder of the ETC Group, an organisation that works to protect the world’s most vulnerable people from the socioeconomic and environmental impacts of new technologies, coined the term “biopiracy” in the early 1990s to describe the theft or misappropriation of genetic resources and traditional knowledge through the intellectual property system.
Let us explain biopiracy, with suitable examples:
According to Daniel F. Robinson, there are three types of biopiracy:
It is important to understand the impact of biopiracy on biodiversity, as well as on other social aspects. Biopiracy has had a significant influence on biodiversity on a worldwide scale, in recent years including:
The eradication of an endemic species from a certain ecosystem has hurt the environment’s proper balance. The disintegration of biological relationships has an unfavourable effect on long-term environmental stability in several respects.
Endangered species have become extinct as a result of the unauthorised export of living beings. For example, the Bulath Happaya (Puntius Nigrofasciatus) is an endemic freshwater fish species in Sri Lanka that is threatened by the ornamental fish industry’s illegal exports.
Biopiracy also has an impact on indigenous people’s cultural identity and traditional knowledge. Because of the loss of indigenous knowledge, traditional crop output in Asian countries has decreased by 70%. The development of genetically modified organisms has resulted in the extinction of indigenous species.
Biopiracy impacts a country’s biodiversity, as well as its economic and social components. It is a very profitable business. Because of the lucrative nature of biopiracy, most multinational corporations located in rich countries choose to exploit developing countries’ bio-resources and get patents for them.
In many ways, biopiracy’s current dominance in the modern world can be understood as a result of political and economic worldviews. The concept is intrinsically linked to the idea of intellectual property rights in biological inventions, which is fraught with controversy. Because there are so many international agreements involved, patenting biotechnology inventions is much more difficult. There has been no legislation to penalise biopiracy because it is a new category of crime that only emerged two decades ago. Another problem is that wealthy countries control key international accords and, as a result, dictate the norms.
Profile
Settings
Refer your friends
Sign out
