Saliem Fakir
South Africa, because of its rich biodiversity, is now attracting international companies in search of plant material that has horticultural or medicinal value.
Traditional healers in this country have used various plants — about 3 000 different species — for the cure or remediation of various ailments. With new developments in chemical analysis, this knowledge can generate millions for pharmaceutical companies. This international trend has become known as
We also have a rich farming history that has not yet been incorporated into modern agriculture. Now agricultural scientists are beginning to record this knowledge and search for ways to prevent it from being lost.
The use of Nguni cattle provides a good example. This species was once perceived to be inferior to breeds imported from overseas, their motley colours seen by white settlers as a sign of impurity. Only today are agriculturists and extension workers recognising that these indigenous breeds, developed through generations of farming practice, are finely suited to the climatic and ecological conditions of South Africa.
But ethical questions are raised by this new contact between local culture and modern science. Who really benefits? Who ultimately owns the intellectual property that has been developed by local people over the centuries? Can a formal system of intellectual rights, dominated by modern legislative frameworks, create mechanisms that will protect an informal, collective body of knowledge that now has commercial value?
These are some of the issues that pervade a fierce international debate around biodiversity and the use of genetic resources that is now beginning to be heard in South Africa.
Most people in this country still take our rich store of wild resources for granted. Our biodiversity has for many decades been perceived to be a “free resource” even though it has several values. We rely on plants and animals to provide food, material for construction, medicines, and ingredients for cultural and religious
Yet there is a worlwide and local threat to biodiversity because of the expansion of cities and industries and the destruction of indigenous forests and wildlife areas for agriculture. This is accompanied by a threat to traditional life and knowledge.
It is in this context that the International Convention on Biodiversity arose — an attempt to ensure the protection of natural resources and to share the benefits that these can produce between developed and developing countries.
The convention recognises the need to find mechanisms that will support and protect intellectual innovation by local people. The North has the technological ability to exploit global genetic resources and can also protect them through patents and a sophisticated regime of intellectual property rights.
Southern countries where this knowledge often originates then have to pay huge amounts to access knowledge and products that have been patented in this way. The convention attempts to shift this imbalance by giving all nations a sovereign right over their genetic resources — a substantial shift from an earlier paradigm which considered biological resources to be a common heritage.
South Africa has always had an open access system and there are no laws or regulations in force at present that govern the way in which our genetic resources are researched and used. This is in contrast to developments in other parts of the South.
The Philippines, for instance, has set up a statutory body that oversees all aspects of research and utilisation of that country’s natural species. This body keeps an inventory of all species that are taken out of the country and grants both research and commercial rights for the exploitation of the country’s biological resources.
The Philippines government also attempts to ensure long-term benefits for the host country through joint ventures between local and overseas companies involved in developing and patenting new products that derive from bioprospecting initiatives.
South Africans now have an onus to ensure that the vast riches that lie hidden in our natural resources, and in the way they have been used by local people for centuries, are protected. Academic insitutions and commercial companies must negotiate equitable contracts with traditional healers before using their skills. We should move away from a temptation to sell our raw material and intellectual heritage for easy and quick profit.
We have the expertise and resource base to add maximum value to the products we derive from our biological riches. The Department of Environment Affairs is presently engaged in discussions about the International Convention on Biodiversity and this can be used to generate a concrete strategy to protect South Africa’s genetic resources and the country’s traditional store of knowledge about how these can be
Ultimately a legal and regulatory system that can protect our country from exploitative forms of genetic engineering can only grow if we abandon age-old prejudices fostered by modern science and education. In this sense, the preservation of our country’s natural riches — the ability to prevent the prospecting of our biological resources from becoming stripmining — relies on a willingness to accept the right of people to practise alternative cultures and forms of
Saliem Fakir heads a natural resource management programme at the Land and Agricultural Policy Centre in