What is Biopiracy? Why is it a Problem?
According to Pat Mooney, president of the Rural Advancement Foundation International (RAFI, now the ETC Group), the definition of biopiracy is ‘’…the use of intellectual property systems to legitimize the exclusive ownership and control of biological resources and knowledge, without recognition, compensation or protection for contributions from indigenous and rural communities…” (as cited in Delgado, 2002, p. 299). Due to international intellectual property rights laws under the Trade Related Intellectual Property Rights Agreement, pharmaceutical corporations are able to patent any compounds that are of use to them as their own invention, and this prevents the home country of the plant from legally claiming royalties from the sale of the drug (Zakrzewski, 2002). According to Samath, while it could be argued that these countries should patent drugs made from their indigenous plants, they usually neither possess the equipment nor the capital to do so (as cited in Zakrzewski, 2002). The profits which pharmaceutical corporations make from herbal plants from the global South are not insignificant, either. According to Butler, the drugs created from herbal plants in the United States alone have an estimated value of over 30 billion USD annually (as cited in Zakrzewski, 2002).
A possible way of ensuring that developing countries get their share of profits generated by the manufacturing of drugs would be for them to use the unspecific language of TRIPS to their advantage. Since, according to TRIPS, developing countries are forced to either patent or create an ‘effective’ sui generis system, the meaning of ‘effective’ can be defined by these countries themselves. According to Kaur Plahe and Nyland, this sui generis system could even be modeled after Article 7 of the TRIPS Agreement which states that biotechnology should be ‘to the mutual advantage of producers and users of technology and in a manner conducive to social and economic welfare’ (2003), further legitimizing it. I highly doubt that this kind of system would actually work, however, while legally pharmaceutical companies may be made to give fair compensation under a system such as this, some may not do so, and it is unlikely that they will get punished for not doing so. This is because, as stated earlier, developed countries have more of a say in the World Trade Organization than developing countries. In addition to this, equally exemplary of the power that the global North has in international agreements such as this, European and North American member states may form an alliance to vote to change TRIPS. These changes could include making the language of the Trade Related Intellectual Property Rights Agreement more specific, therefore allowing the global South even less independence in assuring that they are not exploited. Further, these solutions would occur within the framework of capitalism, and would not really equal the playing field, or ensure that the biodiversity is protected. Biotechnology in itself threatens biodiversity.
The Monopolization of Drugs by Pharmaceutical Corporations
In addition to globalized intellectual property rights laws allowing multinational pharmaceutical companies to legally steal from rural and/or indigenous areas of the global South, they also allow pharmaceutical companies to have a monopoly over their finished products, therefore restricting the poorest from accessing drugs which may mean the difference between life, and death. For example, the AIDS medication Azidothymidine (AZT) is usually used along with one or more other drugs as a standard way of ensuring that an AIDS patient can extend their life expectancy (Gewertz and Amado, 2004). The issue with this medication, however, is that a pharmaceutical corporation called GlaxoSmithKline owns the patent over it, and is able to change the price of it when they see fit (Gewertz and Amado, 2004). Due to this monopoly in which GlaxoSmithKline holds over AZT, most people suffering with AIDS cannot afford it. According to the African Development Forum, if in sub-Saharan Africa 50% of those diagnosed with AIDS were given AZT therapy, it would cost over 80 billion dollars, while anti-retroviral therapy would cost over 50% of the GDP of many nations in the area (as cited in Gewertz and Amado, 2004). Pharmaceutical companies have reduced the price of anti-HIV medications, yet most AIDS patients can still not afford them (Gewertz and Amado, 2004). What else can be done to force the pharmaceutical industry to change its ways?
Although these corporations may argue that they will not be able to stay in business if they are to lower the prices of their drugs too much, something has to be done so as to make sure that those who need medications most are able to access them. If local governments and/or global health organizations were to provide more subsidies to the pharmaceutical corporations, the price of drugs would theoretically decrease (Gewertz and Amado, 2004). Also, pharmaceutical corporations need to assume greater moral responsibility and allow the licensing of patented drugs to occur at reduced or even better, marginal costs (Gewertz and Amado, 2004). Even if these strategies were to be practiced globally, however, they are not radical enough to create unlikely structural changes which will make medications affordable for everyone. The status quo will likely continue since the poorest nations do not have much of a chance to voice their concerns in the international sphere, and because the middle class has become so accustomed to the consumer goods in which capitalism provides. Due to this, it is unlikely that they will want to have an uprising which will put life as they know it in jeopardy.
The Threat to Biodiversity Posed by Intellectual Property Right Laws