Tony Bennett, Differing diversities - Council of Europe

Differing diversitiesensuring economic access; and, that gender perspectives must be integrated into thedevelopment of appropriate technology transfers and the information disseminationprocess if agriculture is to serve as an instrument of income and livelihood opportunity.The site is linked to videos of “experts” espousing the importance of traditional andtribal peoples and their knowledge in preserving biodiversity and to a set of “fieldvideos” that take web visitors to sacred groves whose genetic diversity is maintained bytribal peoples as places of worship, to an interview with a local farmer, and to local peoplesengaged in traditional methods of seed storage. From the site, web surfers may“visit” tribal communities in the Indian states of Tamil Nadu, Kerala, and AndhraPradesh, where they will gain information on the social customs, agricultural practices,and knowledge of medicinal and other useful plants held by tribal peoples. Such information,however, is described in general rather than disclosed in specificity.More specific information is provided for Orissa, a centre of origin for traditionally cultivatedvarieties (landraces) of rice assumed to contain many valuable genes particularlyfor resistance/ tolerance to various biotic and abiotic stresses and thus to holdpromise for utilisation in future plant-breeding programmes. The multimedia databasecontains details on the morphological and agronomical characters of the rice variety, thedonor farmers’ name and the community, and location and date of collection for landracesfrom five areas inhabited by tribal peoples who continue to grow these varieties.Visitors will find pictures of the individual who cultivated the variety, his or her tribalaffiliation, and the location of the gene bank in which the landrace has been deposited.More problematic, from the perspective of preserving cultural diversity, are the Orissasite’s detailed descriptions of the sacred groves located in tribal areas. Not only does thesite name and locate these, it describes the species found there, and the particular taboosthat local peoples observe. To what extent does such a practice operate as an invitationto those who would appropriate local knowledge about species which, by virtue, oflocal cultural prohibitions, are likely to have unique genetic properties? What protectionhas been afforded to these peoples against biopiracy? Is cultural diversity maintainedby practices that expose local belief systems to such international and indiscriminatescrutiny?42. As I have argued previously: “because the law [of patents] encourages secrecy and theprivatisation of knowledge until its potential commercial application becomes clear,Third World innovators cannot share knowledge with others who may desperately needit, nor can they seek to attract investors who may be able to transform it into a bettersource of revenue for local communities. A group like the Honeybee Network is thereforein a difficult position. Prior to the publication of knowledge in the newsletter, thenetwork must attempt to aid either the community or the individual in establishing alegal right. In most cases, however, the innovation will not have reached the point ofpatentability because the capacity for industrial application remains to be ascertained,and there is little investment capital available to explore the possibility. In the meantime,the knowledge may be valuable in alleviating poverty amongst other indigenousand local peoples and enriching their livelihoods. Third World networks and networksof indigenous peoples face an untenable choice between not publishing in order tomaintain the potential for future patent benefits, in which case they withhold usefulinformation from those in dire need of it, or publishing it with the knowledge that inassisting others, one risks forfeiting the fruit of one’s labours. Such a choice violateshuman rights norms that encourage the sharing of benefits, the flow of information, theright to share in progress in the arts and sciences, cross cultural exchange, and the rightto sustainable development and a healthy environment.” (Coombe, 1998: 113)43. See (30.07.00).194