CHAPTER VII
PLANT BIODIVERSITY,
HERBAL MEDICINE,
INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY RIGHTS
AND INDUSTRIALLY DEVELOPING COUNTRIES:
Socio-economic, Ethical and Legal Implications
IVAN ADDAE-MENSAH
1Some 40 percent of the world’s market economy is based on biological products and processes.
In the rural communities of Africa, Asia and Latin America where the majority of the world’s people live, the dependence on biomaterials can run to over 90 percent of human survival requirements. In an increasingly urbanized world, it is difficult for those of us inside city gates to remember that more than half of the food humanity consumes is bred and produced by the people who eat it, and that eight out of ten members of the human family turn to community healers and medicinal plants for protection from illness.
2
WORLD HEALTH ORGANIZATION PROGRAM
About ten years ago, the World Health Organization launched its program of ‘Health for all by the year 2000.’ Right from the outset of the program, WHO realized that any program adopted in any of the minimally industrialized countries would have no impact if it did not take into consideration the development and integration of traditional medicine into the primary health care programs of these countries.
WHO has estimated conservatively that between 60 and 90 percent of the population of the non-industrialized countries rely on medicinal plants to meet their health care needs, either totally or partially. With the scarcity of doctors and paucity of hospitals and clinics, the large majorities of these populations have to rely on sources other than allopathic medicine for their health care. For example, in Ghana there is one traditional doctor for approximately every 400 people, while the ratio of allopathic doctors to patients is 1 for 12,000.
3Various reports from the United Nations (UNCTAD and GATT) have indicated that 33 percent of drug products in the highly industrialized countries are derived directly from higher plants; most of these are tropical plants growing in equatorial countries. Lower plants and microbes produce another 27 percent of drugs found on the market.
4 Indeed, more than 67 percent of the world’s plant species — at least 35,000 of which have potential medicinal value — originate in non-industrialized countries of the ‘South’.5 The market for plant-based drugs is growing every year throughout the world. These drugs now account for over $US 50 billion of the total worldwide drug market now totaling over $US 173 billion.The estimated manufacturer’s price value of medicinal materials derived from plants obtained from the developing countries of the South is expected to reach between 35 and 47 billion US dollars by the year 2000.
6 Of the total world pharmaceutical sales of $US 172.56 billion, as of 1989, Africa accounted for only 2.1 billion US dollars. In fact, the highly industrialized countries — which constitute only 20 percent of the total world population of now over 5 billion — consume 80 percent of all pharmaceuticals produced in the world. So, how do Africa’s 500 million people, for instance, take care of their health if their total share in world pharmaceutical consumption is only 1.2 percent (US$ 2.142 billion)? Indeed, the total for all developing countries is only 15 percent of worldwide pharmaceutical purchasing. Whatever means or method used by this section of the world’s population ought to be fully recognized in any formulation of health policies or programs aimed at ‘health for all’ by the year 2000.7 The international community has a clear duty to ensure the full conservation of whatever alternative sources of health care are currently available to the remaining 80 percent of the world’s population normally classified as belonging to the ‘South’.Right from the beginning of the WHO’s program, the organization recognized the peculiar circumstances that obtain in less industrialized countries with respect to traditional medicine and health care delivery. Both WHO and UNICEF recognized that in view of the widespread use and acceptability of traditional medical practice, no impact will be made on Africa’s overall health care status without due recognition, development and integration of traditional medicine into the primary health care delivery system of each country or region. This recognition led to the WHO/UNICEF 1978 conference in Alma Ata, USSR, at which the participants resolved and specifically urged member states to:
(i) initiate comprehensive programs for the identification, evaluation, cultivation and conservation of medicinal plants used in traditional medicine;
(ii) ensure quality control of drugs developed from traditional plant remedies by using modern techniques and applying suitable standards and good manufacturing practices.
This conference was followed in 1988 by another in Thailand, at which the Chiang Mai declaration to ‘save plants that save lives’ was made. This declaration formally brought the rational and sustainable use and conservation of medicinal plants into the arena of public health policy.
The Alma Ata declaration of 1978 was followed subsequently by various policy decisions of the Inter-African Committee on Medicinal Plants and African Traditional Medicines of the Organization of African Unity (OAU). These policy decisions were aimed at implementing WHO’s recommendations. Several African countries including Ghana have initiated programs aimed at maximizing the contribution of herbal medicine to their primary health care delivery nationwide. These programs have raised some very pertinent questions and problems of considerable importance for Africa particularly, and for the ‘Third World’ in general. These include questions that are socioeconomic, ethical, legal and environmental.
Development of medicinal plants relies very heavily on the knowledge carried by indigenous peoples and rural societies. In recent times this has raised concerns about equitable sharing of the benefits of such knowledge and the intellectual property (‘IP’) rights of these indigenous rural communities. Securing such rights and protections entails specific dilemmas and policy implications, which I will examine throughout the rest of this essay.
Socioeconomic Considerations
World trade in medicinal plants accounts for about 30 percent of the total drug market. This percentage excludes plants used as raw material sources for the essential oils required to manufacture cosmetics, food additives and for other non-medicinal purposes. Most of these medicinal plants come from less industrialized countries that supply them as cheap raw materials to the multinational pharmaceutical manufacturers in the more industrialized countries. Of 76 compounds obtained from higher plants that are present in US prescriptions, only 7 percent are commercially produced by total synthesis.
8 In 1976, imports of medicinal plants worldwide were estimated to be $US 355 million. This rose to $US 551 million by 1980 — an increase of over 60 percent within four years.9 But when these medicinal plants are processed into suitable dosage forms as safe and efficacious drugs, they are sold to the public at prices far beyond the affordable range for the majority of people in the relatively poor countries. Yet it is the botanic resources of these same countries that make possible the manufacture of these drugs for commercial markets.A typical example is the Madagascar rosy periwinkle Catharanthus Roseus, a plant indigenous to Africa that has been used for several years in East Africa for the treatment of cancer and diabetes. Research on this plant yielded two very important anti-cancer drugs: vinblastine and vincristine. Although the plant is native to Madagascar, it was the US pharmaceutical firm Eli Lilly that commercialized the drugs from germplasm obtained from the Philippines and Jamaica.
10 Vincristine is now the drug of choice for the treatment of childhood leukemia, and it has an annual retail value of over $US 150 million. Vinblastine is used for treating Hodgkin’s disease, a serious ailment of unknown origin resulting in enlarged lymph glands, increased numbers of lymphoid tissue cells (hyperplasia) in the spleen, liver and other organs, as well as anemia. Before the discovery of vincristine, the survival rate of children with leukemia was about 20 percent. Now the success rate for this drug is over 80 percent. But a 5mg ampoule of vincristine sulfate injection costs about $US 80, making the drug virtually inaccessible to most leukemia children outside the industrialized world.11Maytansine belongs to a class of compounds called the ANSA Macrolides, first discovered from microbes and now found to occur in higher plants. It was first isolated by Kupchan in the US from the plant Maytenus serrata obtained from Ethiopia. Maytansine showed promising clinical results as a potential antileukemic drug, but died of cancer before his work could be published. Later, higher yields of the compound were found in a Kenyan species, Maytenus buchananii, and a South African plant Putterlickia verrucosa. The compound is active against various strains of lymphocytic leukemia and melanoma, and has been on clinical trials for some time. It is interesting to note that one of the Maytenus species has been in popular use for almost 50 years in a South African herbal mixture for carcinoma and sarcoma. But alas, as in the case with vincristine, if maytansine finally gets on the market neither Ethiopia, Kenya nor South Africa will get the millions of dollars accruing from its sales. (Nor is it likely that an average citizen needing the drug in any of these source countries will be able to afford it). Plants are not patentable; but synthetic routes or isolation methods are.
12 Similar examples abound.Unfortunately, even though our herbalists can continue to provide some relief for cancer patients by administering the crude plant extracts of Maytenus and Catharanthus, their knowledge, which originally led to the discovery of the landmark drugs just described, cannot be rewarded in the same way as multinational drug companies get their rewards and profits. This means that the non-industrialized countries are not deriving any economic benefit from the exploitation of their nations’ medicinal plant resources. Moreover, as noted already, the approach adopted by the Western world for production and distribution of drugs from plants is far from satisfactory for the majorities living where these essential resources exist. Therefore, in formulating policies for the exploitation of our medicinal plants, policy makers will have to consider how best to manage our natural resources for the full benefit of our citizenry.
Ethical Questions: Intellectual Property Rights of
Indigenous Peoples
The ethical issues involved in medicinal plant research and utilization can be divided into two main categories, namely:
(i) The relationship between the researchers based in highly industrialized countries and the host countries whence the raw materials are obtained;
(ii) The relationship between research and development personnel and commercial concerns.
With every passing day large quantities of raw materials are exported to industrialized countries, either for research aimed at producing new drugs or for direct production of drugs for sale. At the time of the 1994 Earth Summit in Rio de Janeiro, the US National Institute of Health and USAID launched a ‘drug discovery’ project in the less-industrialized countries of the South. The strategy involved making use of the "wealth of knowledge held by traditional countries".
13 Through its departments of Chemistry and Botany, the University of Ghana has been part of this project over the past five years, in collaboration with the National Cancer Institute (NCI) and the Missouri Botanical Gardens. I shall describe our experiences with this project in due course.Similarly, the Shaman Pharmaceuticals Company has pioneered new approaches to working with rural communities that seem to be bearing commercial fruit. For example, a cooperative agreement has been made with the Consejo Aguaruna y Huambisa in Peru. About half of the 400 species collected through this agreement have shown some medicinal potential, and two drugs are now in clinical trials. By working with community innovators, the researchers’ efficiency in screening plants for medicinal properties has improved considerably — by more than 400 percent.
14Notwithstanding what transpired at the Rio Earth Summit, it appears that now the crucial contribution of indigenous and rural communities to innovations in the conservation of the world’s biodiversity has finally been recognized, but is yet to be fully understood. As observed by the ‘Crucible Group’, the fact that "indigenous peoples inhabit the most diverse fields and forests of the world is sometimes viewed as both coincidental and unfortunate. That a correlation could exist between the uses made by people of biological diversity and the availability of that diversity is seldom considered".
15Many new drugs discovered from plants have originated from information obtained from a local informant about the traditional or ethnobotanical use of the plant. But once the drug is commercialized, the source of this original piece of information gets neither benefit nor financial compensation for sharing his knowledge and expertise. There is no protection of the individual’s intellectual property, however rudimentary such protection might be. This raises not only ethical, but also legal questions which I shall deal with later. Moreover, if the particular plant is successfully commercialized, the country that is the main source of the plant will find itself exploited as a supplier of cheap raw materials. A typical example is the case of pilocarpine, an alkaloid from the Brazilian Pilocarpus species, used for treating glaucoma. In 1989 the USA sold $28 million worth of pilocarpine. Yet the Brazilian producer was paid only 28 cents per kilogram of Pilocarpus. In 1962, 808 tons of this plant were exported from Brazil at a price of 22 cents ($US 0.22) per kilogram, while 1,290 tons were exported in 1970 at 36 cents per kilogram.
16The question arises: is it ethically or morally right for research agencies from ‘developed’ countries to go to ‘developing’ countries, obtain valuable information crucial for research and manufacture of a precious drug that is likely to be inaccessible to the populations of the ‘developing’ countries, without the latter receiving any meaningful economic benefits for originally providing the knowledge that led to the discovery or development of that drug? As a corollary: will it be ethically or morally justified for ‘developing’ countries to protect their traditional herbal heritages by placing a total embargo on the exploitation of these medicinal plants?
The Organization for African Unity (OAU) has regulations that forbid export of medicinal plants in commercial quantities without the explicit permission of the host government. Research cooperation is likewise supposed to be regulated and monitored. But except for a few countries, these regulations are totally ignored. For example, several tons of Voacanga africana, a plant that serves as a raw material source for anticancer drugs, are exported yearly to the USA for pharmaceutical industries there. There is a plant called Thaumatococcus danielli that contains a sweetener believed to be about 4,000 times sweeter than sugar. In fact it is supposed to be the world’s sweetest natural substance: one kilogram is as sweet as four tons of sugar. Moreover, being a protein, it does not pose the same high calorie problems that sucrose poses. Tate and Lyle of Britain have shipped literally tons and tons of this plant out of Ghana and Nigeria, and developed it into the sweetener ‘Talim’ that is suitable for diabetics. What benefit is Ghana or Nigeria gaining from all this enterprise? Correlatively, would it have been prudent or ethical for Ghana to place an embargo on the exportation of this plant, thus potentially impeding its development for the general good of mankind? A US-based company [name withheld], in collaboration with a Swedish firm [name withheld], is currently working on methods for producing another protein-based sweetener from another plant, Synsepalum dulficicum (the sweet berry), again using material obtained from Ghana. This plant also occurs in many other African countries. So there arises the ethical question of how to determine which country should be the beneficiary as the original source of the raw material, in the event that any compensation is eventually awarded by these two companies.
Legal Questions: Patent Laws and Intellectual Property Rights
In every country, there are certain legal requirements that govern all prescription drugs — their manufacture, wholesale and retail distribution, dispensing procedures and usage. However, when it comes to phytopharmaceuticals, certain peculiar legal problems arise. This is especially so in most African countries where there is no official legal framework for the incorporation of traditional medicines into the health care delivery program.
In the European Community (EC) countries generally, all phytopharmaceuticals are subject to general drug regulations. Like synthetic drugs, all phytopharmaceuticals must comply with criteria of quality, safety and efficacy. Their pharmacological, toxicological and clinical profiles have to be scientifically established through standardized tests and deposited with the appropriate licensing committee before permission can be granted for the drug’s distribution and sale. For example, according to French law only the pharmacist is licensed to retail herbal medicines, with few exceptions.
There are specific legal definitions of what constitutes a vegetable drug.
17 In the EC, a medicine is defined as any substance or combination of substances presented for treating or preventing disease in human beings or animals, with a view to making a medical diagnosis or to restoring, correcting or modifying physiological functions in human beings or in animals.An herbal drug will therefore be considered as a medicinal product if it is:
(i) presented for treating or preventing disease in human beings or animals;
(ii) administered with a view to restoring, correcting or modifying physiological functions in human beings or animals.
Hence, for use as drugs, herbal preparations are legally required to be tested for contamination by foreign materials, pesticides, foreign plants, parasites and bacteria. To get a license for marketing in the EC, a drug must meet the basic standards of quality, safety and efficacy.
18 But in Africa very few countries have put in place any legal framework to regulate the production of herbal drugs and the practice of herbal medicine. Zimbabwe does have a comprehensive law. Ghana is only just about to submit a draft law to Parliament for approval. Meanwhile, Ghana has set up a unit within the Ministry of Health that acts as a quasi-regulatory authority for the practice of herbal medicine. But this unit is yet to be given appropriate legal backing to enforce its regulatory and safety measures.One of the difficulties bedeviling any attempt at integrating traditional medicine into primary health care has been the secrecy with which each herbalist guards his own preparations for any particular ailment. I have already mentioned that many new drugs developed from a plant source originate initially from the folkloric knowledge of the local herbalist. This was the case for aspirin, quinine, vincristine, physostigmine, pilocarpine, morphine, codeine, atropine and other essential drugs. Now, the problem is that there are no patent laws regarding such knowledge. Normally one cannot patent a plant. One can only patent a particular formulation, or a substance isolated from a given plant. Suppose an herbalist tells a scientist about a plant used for treatment of, say, hypertension. If the scientist is then able to isolate the active ingredient or to formulate even a crude herbal preparation that is thoroughly tested and accepted, then he, the scientist, can patent the drug or the preparation. But the herbalist cannot patent the plant material, because this is considered to be ‘God’s universal property.’ Moreover, that same plant may exist in so many different countries and may have been used for years for the same purpose by many people independently. So the herbalist has no other alternative but to keep his knowledge close to his bosom. This has serious implications. Suppose a policy is formulated compelling the herbalist to subject every preparation to scientific quality control, to test it for efficacy, toxicity, and so on — as is the norm in Europe and America, and increasingly now in African countries. Then the herbalist will be compelled by law to reveal the name of the plant, the source, his mode of preparation and so on, to the licensing authority. The protocol of secrecy exists even in highly industrialized countries, but only during the time that a drug is being developed by a pharmaceutical firm. Once patenting is completed and the legal protection is secured, all the information about a drug can become public knowledge and can even be published in professional journals without threatening the credit and benefits due its discoverer. So the question remains of how to resolve this thorny problem of effectively protecting the intellectual property of our local herbalists, whose knowledge and expertise have been handed over from one generation to the next in accordance with established traditional norms.
BIODIVERSITY AND INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY
In recent times, various organizations have tried to draw the attention of the international community to the need for formal recognition and protection of the intellectual property rights of indigenous peoples, particularly the rights of farmers, herbalists and custodians of a nation’s plant genetic resources. In highlighting this need, these organizations have not lost sight of the interdependence of all regions of the world in accessing some of the most important foods and medicines of the biosphere. Governments and industries have recognized this need and have shown concern in the protection of intellectual property associated with biomaterials. This international concern has resulted in several conferences, meetings and workshops that have eventually led to the production and signing of various conventions and agreements. Perhaps the most important and far-reaching of these efforts is the ‘Biodiversity Convention.’
The Convention on Biological Diversity, popularly known as the ‘Biodiversity Convention,’ came into force on December 29, 1993, having been drawn up and tabled at the United Nations in 1992. This Convention is a broad and legally binding writ that is probably the most important initiative yet taken to set the world on a course towards environmentally sustainable development. The Convention also supports natural sovereignty, the right of countries to benefit from their bioresources, and the right of countries to have access to technologies that could assist in the conservation and exploitation of their biological resources.
19Various international conferences and workshops have also addressed the difficulties of patenting biological materials. In these various fora, many alternatives such as the option dubbed ‘Fast GATT’, the ‘Patent Option,’ the ‘Union for the Protection of New Varieties of Plants (UPOV)’, sui generis possibilities and the role of international biodiversity centers, have been formulated and extensively debated.
20 However, despite the good intentions of the Biodiversity Convention, this covenant has several weaknesses that in the long run may make it difficult to implement in the interest of the less-industrialized countries. For example, genebank and botanic-garden materials collected before the coming into force of the Convention are unprotected by it, and so they are now beyond the reach of countries in the ‘South’ who initially were the major donors of these materials to conservation centers in the ‘North’. With the recent spate of attempts by various firms to patent biological materials originally collected from the ‘South’ and improved through genetic engineering, the ‘South’ may in the long run be the loser. In its report entitled "People, Plants and Patents," the Crucible Group had this to say about the Convention:
21The Convention only applies to that material that we do not know to exist and that will probably not be commercialized in the foreseeable future. Unless otherwise established through agreed interpretations to the Convention, this new legal covenant, for the first time, acknowledges the right of governments and corporations that obtained the South’s germplasm before the convention to declare this material their own and to control access to it and benefit from it. If this is the case, some members (of the Crucible Group) contend that the Biodiversity Convention of 1992 could become the biggest "rip-off" of indigenous peoples and of their knowledge and materials since 1492.
Incidentally, 1492 marks the first major European settlement in Africa, through the construction of a castle in El Mina, Ghana (then The Gold Coast), by the Portuguese. This settlement marked the beginning of European trade in Africa, first in gold and ivory, then later — more ominously — in slaves. El Mina, and to a large extent Goree Island in Senegal, remained the biggest and most notorious slave trade center in the whole of Africa for a very long time.
According to the Crucible Group, the range of feasible options for protecting the intellectual property of farmers and indigenous peoples has not yet been fully explored. The Group has suggested that the FAO, UNESCO, UPOV, WIPO (and perhaps WHO) ought to be asked to convene an international meeting of experts to explore this issue in conjunction with industry, NGOs and farmers’ organizations. Since whatever conclusions are derived can only be enforced through strong government backing, I believe that governments should also be involved in the organization of such meetings of experts. It is a fact that none of the current Intellectual Property Conventions acknowledges fully the intellectual contribution of informal innovators such as herbalists and farmers. Hence, the incomparable expertise of these people — most of whom are citizens of ‘developing’ countries — is grossly undervalued. It is the absence of such recognition and acknowledgement that has led to the unquestioned and unchallenged appropriation of the innovations of rural communities.
22
INITIATIVES OF VARIOUS ORGANIZATIONS
In the absence of a comprehensive and fair policy on intellectual properties of indigenous peoples, various organizations have gone into bilateral contract arrangements with partners in the developing world, to take care of these shortcomings — despite the associated risks of such bilateral arrangements.
The Merck/In Bio Initiative. In recognition of the value of biodiversity to industry, Merck (in collaboration with the NGO, In Bio) has set up a project in Costa Rica, funding it with $US 1.135 million, for 10,000 extracts from medicinal plants collected by parataxonomists. They have also agreed on a royalty-sharing system if any of the materials are commercialized.
23Various viewpoints have been expressed about this agreement. Some consider it as nothing but exploitation. They argue that whereas Merck’s sales in 1991 were $US 8.6 billion, and their research budget was $1 billion, the total GNP of Costa Rica for that year was $5.2 billion — less than Merck’s total sales. So what is a mere $US 1.135 million to Merck for 10,000 extracts? Others argue that this is an encouraging beginning in an area of partnership where nothing previously has existed. Yet another view is that for the exploitation of biodiversity, all options should be kept open to see which initiatives will stand the test of time.
24 But can industrially developing countries afford such expensive experiments with their natural resource endowments and merely hope for some pay-off that may never materialize?
US National Cancer Institute/Missouri Botanical Gardens/University of Ghana. The National Cancer Institute and the Missouri Botanical Gardens, along with a number of African countries, have jointly established plant collection and screening programs. The first was set up in Madagascar, followed by programs in Cameroon and Tanzania. The latest is the one instituted about five years ago with the Botany and Chemistry Departments of the University of Ghana.
In the absence of adequate patent laws, the agreement for this particular project provides for:
(i) capacity-building and strengthening in the research programs of the University through staff exchange, material and equipment support;
(ii) royalty sharing if any material is commercialized.
Through this project, the Missouri Botanical Gardens in collaboration with the Botany Department of the University of Ghana has collected a large number of plants from Ghana for screening by the National Cancer Institute (NCI) for potential anti-cancer and anti-AIDS drugs. There has been some staff exchange, and pure compounds isolated by the Chemistry Department have been tested using the facilities of the NCI. The three institutions are in constant discussion to improve the workings of the project within the framework of the original agreement. So far the only major area that has raised some concern is the capacity-building and institutional-strengthening aspect of the project with regard to the University of Ghana; this is currently under discussion.
The Shaman Partnership. Shaman Pharmaceuticals has announced its intention to return a percentage of profits back to all countries and communities that it has worked with after any and every product is commercialized. Compensation will be funneled through the Healing Forest Conservancy, a non-profit organization founded by Shaman for the conservation of biodiversity and for the protection of indigenous knowledge.
Shaman’s research has already led to patent claims, with full acceptance and recognition of the contribution of the communities from which it has received medicinal plants. The company has developed contracts with some indigenous communities in Latin America, but it will take some time before one can tell whether this arrangement has benefited the communities involved.
26
WIPO MODEL PROVISIONS FOR FOLKLORE
In 1985 The World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO) and UNESCO published "Model Provision on Folklore." This model has three unique elements that seek to protect biological products and processes, including herbal preparations. The provisions are as follows:
(i) Communities, rather than individuals, can be legally registered innovators and can either act on their behalf or be represented by the State.
(ii) Community innovators are not necessarily fixed and finalized, but can be ongoing or evolutionary yet still protected by IP Law.
(iii) Beyond standard patent or even copyright provisions, communities retain exclusive control over their folklore innovations for as long as the community continues to innovate.
26
One major weakness of these provisions is that they totally exclude scientific inventions. Therefore it is difficult to see how the IP of an indigenous people can be effectively protected under these provisions if a scientific invention, or discovery of a drug, or a new variety of a crop is made by a scientific laboratory. After all, most local healers do not have the same knowledge as that of a chemist regarding the active compounds derived from a plant which are patented as medicine. So they will never know whether a particular drug put on the market emanated from germplasm collected from their own community or from folkloric information obtained from some member of their own community. A typical example is the current controversy raging over a compound, Michelamine — discovered in a West African plant Ancistrocladus corupensis, from the rain forest of Cameroon and believed to be one of the most encouraging discoveries yet made in the search for a cure for AIDS. But for the international hue and cry raised by other scientists from Africa, it is doubtful whether the indigenous peoples of Cameroon would ever have become aware of this discovery; indeed, I doubt that even now they are aware of it.
I have tried in this essay to examine various issues concerning the intellectual property rights of indigenous peoples of the less-industrialized world, especially as they apply to traditional medicines. The issues are even wider and more complex when it comes to food and agriculture. Biodiversity and conservation will certainly be one of the major issues of the twenty-first century, perhaps second only to information technology expansion and utilization. The time to examine these issues and protect the rights and interests of the less privileged societies who constitute the majority of the world’s population is now.
NOTES
1. R.M. Gadbow and T.J. Richards, (eds.) Intellectual Property Rights — Global Consensus, Global Conflict? (Boulder, Colorado: Westview Press, 1990).
2. C. Joyce, "Western Medicine Men Return to the Field," Bioscience, 1992, 42.5, p. 399.
3. G.L. Boye and Oku Ampofo, "The Role of Traditional Medicine in Primary Health Care in Ghana," in Use of Herbal Medicines in Primary Health Care; Proceedings of a Meeting of C.M.C., Lome, Togo, Amonoo-Lartson, R. (ed.) (Geneva: World Council of Churches Medical Commission, 1987).
4. I. Addae-Mensah, Towards a Rational Scientific Basis for Herbal Medicine (Accra: Ghana Universities Press, 1991).
5. C. Quiambao, "Good Medicine, Bitter Pill?" UNESCO Newsletter of the Regional Network for the Chemistry of Natural Products in Southeast Asia, 1992, 16.2.
6. United Nations Environmental Program (UNEP), Saving Our Planet: Challenges and Hopes Nairobi (Kenya: UNEP, 1992).
7. I. Addae-Mensah, Keynote Address: "The Scope and Prospects of Traditional Medicine in Modern Health Care and Economic Development," in Traditional Medicine and Modern Health Care: Partnership for the Future; A Report on the Two-day National Consensus Building Symposium on the Policies on Traditional Medicine in Ghana, March 15-16, 1995 (Accra: The Traditional Medicine Directorate, Ministry of Health, 1995).
8. R. Farnsworth, "Screening Plants for New Medicines," in Biodiversity, Part II (Washington DC: Academy Press, 1989), pp. 83-97.
9. P.P. Principe, "The Economics and Significance of Plants and their Constituents as Drugs," in Economic and Medicinal Plant Research, H. Wagner, H. Hikino and N.R. Farnsworth (eds.) (New York: Academic Press, 1989).
10. A.B. Cunninghan, Ethics, Ethnobiological Research, and Biodiversity (Washington DC: Worldwide Fund for Nature, 1993)
11. I. Addae-Mensah, Towards a Rational Scientific Basis for Herbal Medicine.
12. Ibid.
13. The Crucible Group, People, Plants and Patents. The Impact of Intellectual Property on Biodiversity, Conservation, Trade and Rural Society (Ottawa, Canada: International Development Research Center [IDRC], 1994). 14. E-I.A. Daes, Study of the Protection of the Cultural and Intellectual Property of Indigenous People (New York: UN Commission on Human Rights, 1993), E/CN.4/Sub.2/1993/28.
15. The Crucible Group, People, Plants and Patents. The Impact of Intellectual Property on Biodiversity, Conservation, Trade and Rural Society.
16. IBGE, Anuario Estatistico do Brasil, Publicaçoês do Instituto Brasiliero de Geografia e Estatistica (1985).
17. A. Artiges, "What are the Legal Requirements for the Use of Phytopharmaceutical Drugs in France?" Journal of Ethnopharmacology, 1991, 32, Special Issue: L. River and K. Anton (eds.) Proceedings of the First International Congress on Ethnopharmacology, Strasbourg, France, June 5-9, 1990 (Ireland: Elsevier Scientific Publishers Ltd.).
18. Ibid.
19. People, Plants and Patents. The Impact of Intellectual Property on Biodiversity, Conservation, Trade and Rural Society.
20. Ibid.
21. Ibid., p. 32.
22. Ibid., pp. 54-55.
23. W.V. Reid, Biodiversity Prospecting: Using genetic resources for sustainable development (Washington DC: World Resources Institute, 1993).
24. People, Plants and Patents. The Impact of Intellectual Property on Biodiversity, Conservation, Trade and Rural Society, pp. 90-92.
25. Ibid., p. 11
26. United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization, UNESCO/WIPO Model Provisions for National Laws for the Protection of Expressions of Folklore Against Illicit Exploitation and Other Prejudicial Actions (Paris: UNESCO, 1985).