Abstract
The values of the plant genetic resources (PGR) described in the previous chapters are multiple and cannot be overstated. These biological resources and the heritage they represent are being dissected by science and technology, and by laws, both multilateral and national, and rights are being claimed over them at various levels and on different grounds, individually and collectively, privately and as public goods. The main argument in this contribution is that natural and cultural heritage, biological resources, and intellectual property are legal concepts that should be grounded deeply in a human rights perspective, in particular on economic, social and cultural rights. A legal perspective provides context to the complex innovation and appropriation strategies that are taking place, by industrially oriented life sciences and technologies, but also by small rural producers and their associations, by social movements, by public research institutions, and by municipalities, states and nation states. From seeds as public goods and heritage of mankind to registered plant varieties and patented genes, many things have changed over the last three decades in the regulation of PGR. For better or for worse, legal developments have taken place, and they have impact on the conservation, research, documentation, and use of biological and genetic resources. The more or less recent multilateral legal frameworks reviewed include two conventions on world heritage, a convention on biological diversity, a treaty on PGR for food and agriculture, a convention on industrial property, the intellectual property rights obligations of a multilateral trade agreement, and a union with a binding act on plant breeder’s rights. In heritage, cultivated plants, plant breeder’s rights and geographical indications, we provide a quantitative panorama for this region in which we consider all continental countries from Canada to Colombia in a comparative approach that provides a wider context that is useful in framing the issues at various levels. The fact that PGR are essential for the future of humankind is recognized by all. How to best keep them diverse, and available to communities, is another question. The role of formal “protection,” “registration,” or “documentation” as heritage, as national resources, or as private intellectual property rights in these processes has been in debate for decades. Beyond research or debate, things are happening in many areas, the enclosures of the mind advance, which may have long lasting biological, cultural, and socioeconomic effects. However, it is the outcomes of social and legal action, public and private, individual and collective, that will define what PGR are inherited to the next generations.
Keywords
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution.
Buying options
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Learn about institutional subscriptionsNotes
- 1.
- 2.
This legal background represents the current state of affairs in terms of legal instruments available to countries in cultural or natural heritage, plant genetic resources and intellectual property in a context of domesticated and food plants. It is described as of late 2013 and the first semester of 2014.
- 3.
Coordinating body of indigenous organizations of the amazon basin.
- 4.
- 5.
This site includes the Kluane, Wrangell-St. Elias, Glacier Bay and Tatshenshini-Alsek specific areas.
- 6.
Wild Rockies Networker. The Quarterly Journal of Alliance for the Wild Rockies. Vol. 1. No. 1. Winter of 1998 in http://www.wildrockiesalliance.org
- 7.
Consejo Nacional para la cultura y las artes. Patrimonio cultural y turismo. Cuadernos, Consejo Nacional para la Cultura y las Artes (CONACULTA).
- 8.
Consejo Nacional para la cultura y las artes. Patrimonio cultural y turismo. Cuadernos 10. Pueblo del maíz. La cocina ancestral de México. México, D.F.: El expediente ante la UNESCO, Consejo Nacional para la Cultura y las Artes (CONACULTA); 2005.
- 9.
Interview to Gloria López Morales by Alberto Nájar in BBC Mundo, September 25, 2009. Cocina mexicana, El patrimonio cultural?. In www.bbc.co.uk
- 10.
- 11.
Annex I to CBD includes (1) Ecosystems and habitats: containing high diversity, large numbers of endemic or threatened species, or wilderness; required by migratory species; of social, economic, cultural or scientific importance; or, which are representative, unique or associated with key evolutionary or other biological processes; (2) Species and communities which are: threatened; wild relatives of domesticated or cultivated species; of medicinal, agricultural or other economic value; or social, scientific, or cultural importance; or importance for research into the conservation and sustainable use of biological diversity, such as indicator species; and (3) Described genomes and genes of social, scientific, or economic importance.
- 12.
- 13.
As reference in other regions, there are 658 applications in China; 1031 in Chile; 3251 Brazil; 7033 South Africa; 13,695 Argentina; 27,722 in Japan; 31,620 in Germany; 39,299 USA; 48,831 Netherlands; and 53,765 France.
- 14.
- 15.
References
UDHR, the Universal Declaration on Human Rights. December 10, 1948.
ICESC, International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights. December 16, 1966.
WNCH, Convention concerning the Protection of the World Cultural and Natural Heritage. November 23, 1972.
ICH, Convention for the Safeguarding of the Intangible Cultural Heritage. November 3, 2003.
CBD, Convention on Biological Diversity. June 5, 1992.
ITPGRFA, International Treaty on Plant Genetic Resources for Food and Agriculture. November 3, 2001.
PARIS, Paris Convention for the Protection of Industrial Property. Amend September 28, 1979.
UPOV, International Convention for the Protection of New Plant Varieties. Amend March 19, 1991.
TRIPS, Agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights. March 15, 1994.
The Crucible Group. People, Plants and Patents. The Impact of Intellectual Property on Biodiversity, Conservation, Trade and Rural Society. Ottawa: International Development Research Centre (IDRC); 1994.
Narotzky S. New directions in economic anthropology. London: Pluto Press; 1997.
Florescano E. El patrimonio nacional. Valores, Uso, Estudio y Difusión. In: Florescano E, Cord. In Florescano E, Cord. El patrimonio nacional de México, primer tomo. México: Consejo Nacional para la Cultura y las Artes (CONACULTA), Fondo de Cultura Económica (FCE); 1997. pp. 15–27
García N. El patrimonio cultural de México y la construcción imaginaria de lo nacional. In: Florescano E, cord.; 1997: pp. 57–86. Op. cit (12).
Bonfil G. Nuestro patrimonio cultural: Un Laberinto de Significados. In: Florescano E, cord.; 1997: pp. 28–56. Op. cit (12).
Arizpe L. Le patrimoine culturel immatériel : diversité et cohérence. Museum international. 2004; Museum international.UNESCO. 221 and 222.
Maffi L, editor. On biocultural diversity: linking language, knowledge and the environment. Washington, DC: Smithsonian Institution Press; 2001.
Posey D. Biological and cultural biodiversity: the inextricable, Linked by languages and politics. In: Maffi L, editor. On biocultural diversity: linking language, knowledge, and the environment. Washington, DC: Smithsonian Institution Press; 2001. p. 379–96. Op. cit 16.
Brush S. Protector, prospector, and pirates on biological resources. In: Maffi L, editor. On biocultural diversity. Linking language, knowledge and the environment. Washington, DC: Smithsonian Institution Press; 2001. p. 517–30. Op. cit 16.
World Intellectual Property Organization Fact Finding Missions on Intellectual Property and Genetic Resources, Traditional Knowledge and Folclore. Geneva.
Wendland W. Intangible heritage and intellectual property: challenges and future prospects. Museum international. UNESCO; 2004.
Alcorn JB. Indigenous agroforestry systems in the Latin American tropics. In: Altieri MA, Hecht SB, editors. Agroecology and small farm development. Boca Raton: CRC Press; 1990.
Chapman AR. A human rights perspective on intellectual property, scientific progress and access to the benefits of science. Geneva: World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO); 1999.
United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples DRIPS. September 13, 2007.
Brock T. The value of basic research: discovery of Thermus aquaticus and other extreme Thermophiles. Genetics. 1997;146:1207–10.
Canada: Department of Natural Resources Act (S.C. 1994, c. 41). Current to July 22, 2014.
LGEEPA, Ley General del Equilibrio Ecológico y la Protección al Ambiente Mexico. January 28, 1988.
Costa Rica: LEY DE BIODIVERSIDAD 7788. 27 mayo 1998. Costa Rica ~ Ley 7788 Conservación y Uso de los Recursos Naturales, San José de Costa Rica, 23 de abril de 1998.
Colombia: Código Nacional de Recursos Naturales Renovables y de Protección al Medio Ambiente. Decree 2811, December 18, 1974.
Fuccillo D, Sears L, Stapletton P. Biodiversity in trust. Conservation and use of plant genetic resources in CGIAR centres. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press; 1997.
Biber-Klemm S, Cottier T, editors. Rights to plant genetic resources and traditional knowledge: basic issues and perspectives. Wallingford: CABI on behalf of the Swiss Agency for Development and Cooperation; 2006.
Perales H, Aguirre J. Biodiversidad humanizada. In: Capital Natural de México, Conocimiento actual de la biodiversidad. México. Vol. 1. México: Comisión Nacional para el Uso y Conocimiento de la Biodiversidad (CONABIO); 2008. pp. 565–603.
Aboites-Manrique G, Martínez GF. The intellectual property rights of plant varieties in México. Agrociencia. 2005;39:237–45.
Bérard L, Marie C, Marcel D, Louafi S, Marchenay P, Roussel B, Verdeaux F. editors. Biodiversity and Local Ecological Knowledge in France. Paris: INRA, CIRAD, IDDRI, IFB; 2005.
ten Kate K, Laird SA. The commercial use of biodiversity. London: Earthscan; 1999.
Rangnekar D. The Socioeconomics of Geographical Indications. Geneva: ICTSD; 2004.
Larson J. Relevance of geographical indications and designations of origin for the sustainable use of genetic resources. Rome: Global Facilitation Unit for Underutilized Species. FAO; 2007.
Barham E. Translating terroir: the global challenge of French AOC labeling. J Rural Studies. 2003;19:127–38.
Dutfield G. Protecting traditional knowledge and folklore: a review of progress in diplomacy and policy formulation. Issue Paper No. 1. ICTSD UNCTAD. International Trade and Sustainable Development Series. Intellectual Property Rights No. 4. 2003. ICTSD UNCTAD. Geneva. http://www.ictsd.org/iprsonline
Brush S, Meng E. Farmers’ valuation and conservation of crop genetic resources. Genet Resour Crop Evol. 1998;45:139–50.
Thomas M, Dawson J, Goldringer I, Bonneuil C. Seed exchanges, a key to analyze crop diversity dynamics in farmer-led on-farm conservation. Genet Resour Crop Evol. 2001;58:321–38.
Nabhan G. Cultures of habitat. Washington, DC: Counterpoint; 1997. p. 338.
Fowler C, Mooney P. Shattering: food, politics, and the loss of genetic diversity. Tucson: University of Arizona; 1990. p. 278.
INTERNET SITES (Latest access to www june, 2014)
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2016 Springer Science+Business Media New York
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Larson, J., Aguilar, C., González, F., Sánchez, D. (2016). A Human Rights Perspective on the Plant Genetic Resources of Mesoamerica: Heritage, Plant Breeder’s Rights, and Geographical Indications. In: Lira, R., Casas, A., Blancas, J. (eds) Ethnobotany of Mexico. Ethnobiology. Springer, New York, NY. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4614-6669-7_22
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4614-6669-7_22
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, New York, NY
Print ISBN: 978-1-4614-6668-0
Online ISBN: 978-1-4614-6669-7
eBook Packages: Biomedical and Life SciencesBiomedical and Life Sciences (R0)