Written by Isaac Rojas

COECOCeiba-AT

This e-mail address is being protected from spam bots, you need JavaScript enabled to view it

The Inbio: what is it and what does it do?

The National Biodiversity Institute (Inbio) in Costa Rica is “a private institute with staff appointed outside the Costa Rican State, but with sufficient representation to be able to influence ministers, legislators, university authorities and other high-ranking officials from the governing class”[1]. The name it uses makes most people think it is a public institution, but in fact it is not so, in actual fact it is a private entity that has benefited from national patrimony.

In February 1989, representatives from 16 public institutions and NGOs met in San José to formalize plans under discussion to create an institute for biodiversity. They suggested collecting and building up a biodiversity inventory, bringing together a collection within one entity, centralizing information on biodiversity and putting this information at the service of the country. At this meeting a planning commission that would draw up a proposal was formed; the commission was legalized through a decree issued by the then president Oscar Arias. In October 1989 the Inbio was created as a not-for-profit private association, with strong links to the governing class, and declared to be of public service.

At the time, international consultants made the following comments:

“The Inbio cannot be adapted and assimilated to a governmental organizational structure as it would hamper the achievement of the very purposes for which it was set up. (…) The aims of the Inbio are “to protect, understand and use our biological diversity” and its strategy must be aimed at achieving this efficiently. The wishes expressed by donors, who support the institution economically, and the urgent time period for natural factors, oblige the Inbio to look for flexibility and achievement in its strategies.”[1]

In this way, Inbio was born with the blessing of scientific and political sectors. It acquired significance with the transfer of the Neotropic Foundation’s database, and the same happened with the hundred-year old collection of the National Museum, due to it being engaged in construction works. They also obtained funds from the cancellation of debt for nature, tax exemption, land for its premises (this was returned) and vehicles. Moreover they started the biodiversity inventory and sold samples to the pharmaceutical company Merck. Later they were to win prizes and international recognition, for which their reputation grew. The training of parataxónomos and its socio-environmental discourse also carry weight.

The contract with the pharmaceutical company Merck in 1991 positioned the Inbio as an international business player, receiving prizes, funding and a strong publicity campaign. It is important to point out that, despite being the main actor according to his functions and considering the sale of natural resources belonging to the State that was agreed, the Environment Minister was never present in this negotiation.

A million dollars were paid in advance to Inbio through their contract with Merck: $100,000 was granted to the Ministry for Environment and Energy which it would dedicate to the consolidation of the system for protected areas and possible new contracts and subcontracts. Important subjects for the country like “number of contracted samples, percentage of possible royalties, patent ownership, consequences of patenting on local communities, possibility of erosion of sovereignty”[2] were never mentioned.

The mission of Inbio is “to promote greater awareness around the value of biodiversity, to achieve its conservation and improve the quality of life of the human being. (…) The Inbio has organized five programmes or interrelated processes: inventory, bioprospection, conservation for development, information management and social management”[3]. Among the products emphasized by the Inbio are the “identification of new species for science, the most complete database on Costa Rican biodiversity available to the public, support to the National System of Conservation Areas, a boost to the country’s ecotourism sector, infrastructure development (Inbio-Park), products (books, games, educational material etc.) for knowledge transfer (“bio-literacy”), and the development of experiences in the search for sustainable use of biodiversity, are just some of what Inbio will contribute to the country.”[4]

Since the contract with Merck, the Inbio conceives itself as a partner rather than a supplier, as it adds a value of information and processing of samples collected. It defined as prerequisites “the commitment of the partner in covering all in-country research costs, to provide support equivalent to 10% of the budget destined to the state’s protected wild areas, to make monetary compensation in the form of royalties for products that reach the market, and in this way contribute to technology transfer, training of Costa Rican scientists, and in many cases, donate the necessary equipment and infrastructure needed to develop research”[5]. Up to the present day, the Inbio has signed almost 30 commercial agreements. Some of these prerequisites, which are also presented as benefits for the country, are logical in the framework of a commercial negotiation. For example, that the partner finances the research budget is logical, taking into account its financial capacity and interest in the business. Monetary compensation is not certain due to the fact that a commercial product is not always obtained, and finally, the remaining prerequisites would have to be studied to understand their compliance, for example in the light of scientific equipment used by the partner in its premises and that transferred to the country.

As regards economic benefits, Nagod and Tverteraas[6] offer information (in US dollars, for the period 1991-1999) of $420,245 as contributions to the Ministry for Environment; $856,248 to Conservation Areas; $699,336 to public universities; and $740.882 to others. Guevara[7] maintains that the Inbio has provided “support to the conservation of protected wild areas, through direct payments to the Minae for an amount that in the year 2000 topped $512.148, product of 10% of the research budgets. (…) economic backup to specific projects in conservation areas, universities and other groups for a total sum of $2’256.259 between 1991 and 2000”. These figures show us that in 2000, public universities, conservation areas and others received a total of $40,207, as the total until 1999 was $2296,466. The MINAE obtained $91,903. That is, they obtained $132,110 in 2000, a figure that beats figures for 1998 and 1999, and is at least three times less than that of 1996 and 1997.

We can assert that the Inbio has consolidated itself as a model in the field of contracting and sale of biodiversity with various companies on a national and international level - this is in fact its greatest profit. It has benefited from its connections within governmental spheres, whatever the government to be found in office; it is in fact part of the elite that has controlled the Costa Rican state for the last ten years. It has made economic profit synonymous with benefits to the country, though its contribution in monetary terms has not been what was expected according to what was expressed in the agreement with Merck and for this reason we can say that it has sold off Costa Rica’s biodiversity on the cheap.

Bioprospection and biopiracy.

The issue of access to genetic and biochemical resources, and the fair and equal distribution of their derived benefits, goes in hand with the subject of bioprospection or biopiracy. The first is one of the objectives of the Convention on Biological Diversity, which takes it on as an obligation aiming to allow every country to facilitate access to its resources, according to each country’s sovereignty, acquiring in return diverse benefits as a product of access to and the transfer of technology. Up to now the world has not seen any greater distribution of benefits.[8]

The concept of bioprospection arose in response to two situations: the conservation and the commercialisation of biodiversity. In this way Eisner[9], along with the ideas of Janzen, suggest a system by which genetically rich countries with little development in scientific investigation can carry out biological sample taking and take the first steps in the chemical monitoring of the properties of these beings. Countries with strong scientific development would be in charge of the last stages of identification of the properties of these sampled beings. It was claimed that these activities were of low environmental impact, and thus very compatible with conservation. This fact is not true, as we have news of the destruction of ecosystems through such activities, as well as the creation of monocultures of determined plants to be able to build up a reserve of them to carry out biological prospection[10]. Furthermore, benefits related to technology and economic transfer would exist.

We could define bioprospection as “the systematic search, classification and research for commercial ends of new sources of chemical components, genes, proteins, micro-organisms and other products of current or potential economic value that are found in biodiversity”[11]. We can confirm that it is indeed a commercial activity. In the same vein we maintain that bioprospection is the legalized action of accessing genetic and biochemical resources, as well as facilitating fair and equal distribution of benefits; a situation which up until now has not happened. Furthermore, due to its legality, bioprospection cannot generate inequalities.

We can define biopiracy as the bioprospection that has been carried out up to now on our planet, that which has generated greater inequality, failed to respect the rights of communities and indigenous peoples, not benefited in any way the denominated suppliers (the economic side has not been significant) and failed to promote citizen participation at least in the determination of the terms of negotiations, among other aspects.

The ecological debt of the Inbio

The Inbio carries out biopiracy in accordance to what is written above. The economic benefits that it has provided cannot hide this fact and in any case have not come in the quantity that the country was expecting, thanks to the hopes created by Inbio itself. Even so, this is not an issue of money. In this way, the Inbio has been running up an ecological debt, that is to say a responsibility with the rest of Costa Rican society (and not just in Costa Rica, but with other societies that possess the same biodiversity) reflected in the following:

·       By carrying out its work through bilateral contracts, it has legitimated what in fact works like weapon on an international level, one that helps only deepen differences between contractual parties (usually the transnational company and the local community), bind existing inequalities to eternity, and promote social and environmental injustice;

·       The Inbio has in this same way legitimated a package associated to accessing genetic and biochemical resources, made up in general of intellectual property rights and the production of genetically modified organisms. This new package benefits only those who already hold power;

·       Has promoted the privatisation of what is collective;

·       Biopiracy carried out by Inbio has not promoted national discussion on the use of natural resources as it has merely appropriated them through various legal instruments. It has not benefited anyone other than the Inbio and the Costa Rican elite that is alternated in government every four years, and for this reason it is not a sustainable activity;

·       The Inbio was created by the same dominant class that has governed the country for the last 50 years, as a form of legitimating the commodification of nature;

·       Biopiracy goes against communal control of natural resources;

·       It is based on commercial and technocratic determinism[12]. It maintains that unless biodiversity shows that it can be valued, it is not worth anything: the “sell to save” principle. But to sell to whom, why, and with what cost? This leaves to one side other values, those that have sustained biological diversity on the planet: culture, religion, all of which go further than such mercantile simplicity.

The successful model of biopiracy that has been legitimated by the Inbio is full of unfulfilled promises that legitimate a development model distant from social needs.