|
Considering the many many privatization threats to National Parks, I find it curious (thought not surprising) that the bioprospecting threat has generated so much public ire relative to other less-sexy threats. While I agree that bioprospecting is part of the "Everything's for Sale" issue, I offer that bioprospecting in the parks represents minimal threat to parks. It represents a significant threat to park management, but in that regard, it is little different than corporate sponsorships, advertising in parks, public-private partnerships, pay-to-play and the myriad of other schemes which make park managers increasingly dependent upon interest groups seeking private gain from public resources.
Pasted below is a recent article on this topic. While it raises many excellent points, it makes too much of the biopiracy / "privatization of life" theme. Bioprospecting in the parks in not primarily a biopiracy issue -- or so I have stated in numerous posts on this topic.
If you'd like to read another take on the bioprospecting issue, please check out this posting I made in 2002 when this issue was first attracting public attention . To learn still more, search the Wild Wilderness website for the term "bioprospecting"... or contact me directly for the rest of the story.
Scott
--- begin quoted ---
Nov 24 2006
Everything's for sale: National Parks Service considers opening parks to 'bioprospecting'
by Geov Parrish
In a season when crowds are rioting over $600 video game consoles, and
O.J. Simpson could sign a deal for millions with the Murdoch empire to
reenact the "hypothetical" murder of his wife and her friend, it may
seem like absolutely everything is now for sale in our mercenary
culture. And that far too many people are buying. (Though, mercifully,
not in O.J.'s case.)
The latest evidence of this comes from, of all places, one of the most
trusted and admired of federal agencies. The National Park Service
(NPS) is quietly taking public comment through December 15 on a
proposal to allow private companies to "bioprospect" in our national
parks: to commercially mine, not the mineral riches of a park, but the
genetic resources of plants, animals, and microorganisms in territories
specifically set aside for stewardship in the public trust.
The proposal is contained in a September 15, 2006 court-ordered
Environmental Impact Statement (EIS), an outgrowth of a lawsuit over a
similar 1997 proposal at Yellowstone National Park during the Clinton
administration. Steady privatization has been underway at the Park
Service for more than 20 years, but the requirement that the NPS
actually study the effects of bioprospecting seemed to shelve this
particular bad idea.
And then, magically, seven years later, the EIS appears, laying out
three options that would cover not just Yellowstone but all parks. The
document, subtly entitled "Benefits-Sharing," reads less like an
environmental study and more like a sales pitch for its preferred
choice, "option B," to allow commercial bioprospecting but require
"benefits-sharing" agreements and potentially some degree of public
disclosure of those agreements. (Or, potentially, not.) The other two
choices the public is to comment on are option A, to do nothing -- thus
allowing bioprospecting without so-called benefit-sharing; and option
C, which is to only allow this genetic mining for "noncommercial or
public interest research." Not exploiting our parks' genetic treasures
at all is not even listed as an option in the document.
In the Global South, home to much of the world's genetic diversity,
this battle has already been underway for decades. In a process
reminiscent of Columbus, transnational corporations have been using
Western courts and laws to patent genetic codes and plant and animal
life that existed long before any humans were around to "discover" them
or own their "rights." The struggle against such legal chicanery has
often been led by indigenous peoples who've relied upon the riches of
their environments for millennia without the assistance of lawyers or
scientists (or shareholders). Suddenly, they've been told they no
longer have the right to use those riches -- or, worse, they can use
them, for a price, paid to distant companies with no truly legitimate
claim to their use.
This, in the South, is referred to as "biopiracy," and it seems like an
appropriate term to start using in America as well. National Parks,
beginning with Yellowstone (whose geothermal features were instrumental
in both the park's original founding and the commercial appeal of
"bioprospecting"), were set aside as lands to be owned and used by the
public. The lands' early stewardship, beginning with Yellowstone, was
specifically intended by Congress to exclude high-value heritage lands
from the rapacious development of much of the surrounding West. We are
the owners of these lands -- but their resources are now apparently for
sale, in ways large and small, without the permission or even knowledge
of the rightful owners. That's piracy.
An even scarier aspect of the NPS proposal is the precedent it sets,
and the question of where that precedent stops. Can any life form or
portion thereof existing in the parks be given away (or
"benefit-shared," if the public agency gets a cut)? In any public
lands? Using eminent domain, anywhere at all? What's to stop the
government, using existing law and schemes such as this, from deciding
by regulatory fiat that your genome should be "benefit-shared" by some
state agency? It's an awfully slippery slope, one in which, thanks to
two decades' worth of privatization of public resources, we're already
well downhill of the crest.
The Park Service will, and has, argued that in a time of scarce public
funding, commercial opportunities such as this can bring in valuable
revenue to help preserve the park system. But what's the point of
preserving a public park system whose parts can all be privately
claimed? More to the point, these resources are not the federal
government's to sell: they belong to all of us. And most especially to
the point, there are some things that simply shouldn't be for sale.
Life is an obvious one. It's one thing to sell chickens; it's another
to sell the exclusive rights to Gallus gallus. The only difference here
is size.
Only a few weeks remain for public comment on the NPS proposal. Take
some time to weigh in. Otherwise, some big corporation -- let's call it
Helixco -- will be using tweezers, small but lucrative ones, for its
Christmas stocking this year.
Public comment deadline is December 15, 2006. For more information on
bioprospecting in national parks, visit: parksnotforsale.org or
edmonds-institute.org/yellowstone.html.
About author Geov Parrish is a Seattle-based columnist and reporter for
Seattle Weekly, In These Times and Eat the State! He writes the daily
Straight Shot for WorkingForChange. He can be reached by email at
This e-mail address is being protected from spam bots, you need JavaScript enabled to view it
-- please indicate whether your comments may be
used on WorkingForChange in an upcoming "letters" column.
|
- Privatization 
