THE UNIVERSITY OF LEIPZIG

learn that in practice, the definition of property rights on which the benefit sharing contracts
are based, is not well defined. 66 Morris et al. make another observation, but in form of an
intricate question: How can the contribution of poor communities to biodiversity preservation
be assessed if classification of species takes centuries? This submission is strengthened by
Laid one of the leading scholars on the subject of bio-prospecting contracts. She notes that
Biodiversity Prospecting Contracts (BPCs) are the most common and most frequently used
tools in the establishment of formal and legally binding relationships between providers and
users of genetic resources at the local level. Such agreements take different forms and shapes.
These agreements may be formally concluded in written documents or acknowledged by a
shake of hands. These contracts may take varying forms including contracts for the sale of
raw materials, Material Transfer Agreements (MTA), Licensing Regimes (LR), and
Memorandums of Understanding (MOU). 67 Indigenous people may use agreements over
traditional knowledge as a means to exercise control over biological resources considered to
be of national patrimony. But observers such as Tobin note that, BPCs are merely a tool for
bio-piracy, simply providing a cloak of respectability to arrangements viewed as inherently
inequitable. This is due to the disappropriate negotiating strength of Multinational
Corporations (MNCs).
Furthermore, MNCs use these BPCs as a tool for misappropriation and monopolization of
common goods through utilization of intellectual property rights regimes. At the national
level, BPCs can also act as a disincentive to legislators in developing national Access and
Benefit Sharing Measures (ABSM). However, the negotiations of highly visible BPCs have
tended to raise public concerns on issues surrounding biodiversity prospecting. For example,
research on biodiversity and traditional knowledge is funded by northern partner agencies and
channeled through northern partner institutions. This sometimes breeds inequitable
relationships with the owners of traditional local knowledge. The inequitable participation of
local communities in such agreements has led to renewed discontency towards research in
traditional knowledge. 68 On the other hand, it has also led to increased activity, public interest
and national debate. In Kenya for instance, interest and concerns about the activities of the
National Institute of Biodiversity (inBio) helped to format a participatory national debate that
culminated into the adoption of a comprehensive National Biodiversity Strategy and Action
Plan in 2000. It also helped in enlisting the importance of biodiversity in the current Forest
Act. The strategic plan puts it clearly that Kenya has a considerable volume of indigenous
systems and knowledge relevant to biodiversity. However, what is disappointing is that little
of this knowledge has been documented or integrated within national programs or institutions.
66
Cracraft, J and F.T, Grifo. 1999. The living Planet in a Crisis: Biodiversity and Science and Policy. New
York: Colombia University Press.
67
Laird, S. 2002. Biodiversity and Traditional Knowledge: Equitable Partnerships in Practice. London: Earth
scan Publishers Limited.
68
Tobin, B. 1997. Biodiversity Prospecting Contracts: The search for Equitable Partnerships. London: Earth
scan Publishers Limited.
17