Thailand Law Journal 2009 Spring Issue 1 Volume 12

In addition, developing countries are recognised as having most of the world’s base crop collections,7 particularly, in plant genetic resources that might contain undiscovered useful compounds for medicine. Those resources may well occur only in specific geographical areas, for instance, in the rainforest areas or tropical countries.8

The genetic resources of developing countries have contributed to the production of large-scale agricultural commodities in developed countries. Naomi Roht-Arriaza cites that:

Indigenous and local farming communities have contributed significantly to the quality and diversity of the germplasm that forms the Western countries crop production. Genes for fifteen major crops that first grew in the fields of developing countries now contribute more than $ 50,000,000 in annual sales in the United States alone. Community-based innovation systems develop and maintain this crucial genetic diversity because indigenous farmers breed varieties suited to their specific local needs and microenvironments.9

It is now widely accepted that traditional knowledge, indigenous resources and genetic resources are crucial issues, particularly in the agricultural and medicinal sectors. The following topic will address how genetic resources from developing countries flow to developed countries and how their protection has become a matter of debate since the end of twentieth century.

B The Flow of Genetic Resources from Developing countries to Developed Countries
There are three main significant causes for the flow of genetic resources from developing countries to developed countries. Firstly, the extinction of genetic resources in developing countries, secondly, the concept of ‘plant genetic resources being the common heritage of mankind’ and thirdly, the concept of ‘intellectual property rights on living resources’.

1 The Extinction of Genetic Resources
In the early twentieth century, the extinctions of both plant and animal species were acknowledged.10 Academics such as Klaus Bosselmann state that:

Estimate of the number of species that exist today vary from ten to hundred million, up to twenty-five percent of which may currently be at risk. Of this number, approximately 1.4 million species have been named by science. (Paul R. Ehrlich and Edward O. Wilson, 1991) At current rates, one-quarter of all the Earth’s species could be lost by the end of the next century. Fifty species of plants and animals become extinct every day. … As a result, an estimated fifty percent of the world’s species are found in tropical forests, including 100,000 of the planet’s 250,000 species of higher plants. Less than one-sixth of these species are known to be classified in any way, and only one percent of tropical rainforest species have been surveyed for potential useful benefits. (Eric Christensen, 1987)11

For agricultural protection measures, crop scientists and agricultural developers have prepared for this exigency by assembling large collections of genetic resources in gene banks and making them available for crop improvement.12 In 1970, an international framework for collection, conservation, utilisation, and exchange of genetic resources was established. These include the International Board for Plant Genetic Resources Institute (IPGRI),13 the world collections of principal crops at International Agricultural Research Centres, (such as the International Rice Research Institute), and national collections, (such as those of the National Seed Storage Laboratory in Fort Collins, Colorado).14

In the meantime, the situations of extinction of genetic resources and the increasing world population, particularly in third world countries, created a need to preserve genetic resources in whatever way.15 Large amounts of genetic resources were transferred from the third world to developed countries without awareness and compensation.



7. Graham Dutfield above n 9 of Part I, 4.

8. Michael Hassemer, above n 56 of Part I, 156.

9. Naomi Roht-Arriaza, ‘Article: of Seeds and Shamans: The Appropriation of the Scientific and Technical Knowledge of Indigenous and Local Communities’ (1996) 17 Michigan Journal of International Law 919, 931.

10. Klaus Bosselmann, above n 2 of Part I, 112.

11. Ibid. 113-4. For more details please read ‘Loss of Biodiversity’, K.V. Krishnamurthy, above n 1, 81-105.

12. Stephen B. Brush, ‘Biodiversity, Biotechnology, and the Legal Protection of Traditional Knowledge: Protecting Traditional Agricultural knowledge’ (2005) 17 Washington University Journal of Law & Policy 59, 105.

13. The International Board for Plant Genetic Resources Institute (IPGRI) is now operated under the name Bioversity is the world's largest international research organization dedicated solely to the conservation and use of biodiversity. It is non-profit, non-religious and independently operated. Headquarters at Rome, Italy; (www.bioversityinternational.org) See Bioversity International, <www.bioversityinternational.org/About_Us/Inde.asp> at 22 January 2007.

14. Stephen B. Brush, above n 12, 105.

15. Read more details in Klaus Bosselmann, above n 2 of Part I, 113., See also W. Krishnamurthy, ‘Loss of Biodiversity’, ‘Conservation of Biodiversity’ and ‘Management of Plant Biodiversity’ 81-175.


This article is published with the kind permission of Panumas Kudngaongarm, Professor, Ph.D. Candidate, School of Law, the University of New England, Australia. (Lecturer, School of Law, Sukhothai Thammathirat Open University, Thailand.). This article was presented at the Inaugural Conference of the Asian Society of International law: International Law in Asia-Past, Present and Future.

 

© Copyright Thailand Law Forum, All Rights Reserved
(except where the work is the individual works of the authors as noted)