Why Does Poverty Persist in Regions of High Biodiversity?: A Case for Indigenous Property Right System

The extent of rural poverty has been noted to be unusually high in the Vavilov centres of genetic diversity. Be it rice in Orissa, India or potato in Peru, the cultivator preserving genes for diversity are unable to benefit from newer technologies. The regions of specialized cultivation with mono crop or very low level of diversity and low risk conditions provide markets for mass consumption of external manufactured inputs. Paradoxically, this is possible precisely because genes for resistance to diseases/pests are available from high risk gene diverse environments. In view of the recent upsurge of global interest in indigenous knowledge system, it is necessary to analyse ethical, scientific, political, economic, ecological and cultural implications of extortion of surplus from biodiverse regions. Paper addresses following questions: (a)What are the institutional, organizational and public administration aspects of high deprivation among people managing high biodiversity? (b) If biodiversity is sustained through cultural diversity, is modem concept of state in a capitalistic society inherently unsuitable for cultural pluralism? (c) If cultural diversity implies different images of good life, how does one compensate a non-demanding, non-articulate but disadvantaged community maintaining biodiversity? (d)Should one do pediree analysis of major commercial hybrids and other seeds, trace the sites of genetic sources and attribute proportionate profits to these communities/societies? Should insistence of intellectual property right by western society be accepted by developing countries so that claim for indigenous property rights (IPR) could be exercised? (e) In what forms and through which fiscal and organizational instruments, the compensations be routed back to the preservers of biodiversity? (f) How should public resource transfer and budgetary mechanisms be designed so that people living in biodiverse regions have incentives to stay on instead of migrating out? (g)If biodiversity in perhaps majority of niches can be maintained only through (and not without) human interference (selection pressure, cultural or ritual compulsions for different types of tasks/cultivars), how should conservation policies be designed in a culturally compatible manner? (h) What are the ethical dilemma that scientists working on IPRs face while earning individual career and professional rewards and doing advocacy for the communities whose lifestyles continually deteriorate in the meanwhile? (i) What are the legal possibilities for codifying claims of different communities over IPRs and value adding recombinations of genes preserved through IPRs. The paper provides argument for changing the nature of discourse. The existing epistemology relies excessively on the language of such elites whose own record of sharing their rent with providers of knowledge is not very honourable? I argue that such a code of conduct should be developed which disqualifies such professionals/scientists from participating in the debate on IPRs who have not demonstrated some way of sharing rents with the providers of knowledge. I believe that valid and authentic institutions for protecting IPRs will emerge only if the nature and arena of discourse is radically altered. The paper is divided in six parts. In first part-I, I present discussion on diversiy and deprivation. Part-2 deals with Cultural diversity and rise of modern bureaucratic state. In part 3, I describe ways of compensating local communities and individual farmers for preserving diversity through breeding, selection and institutional development. In part-4, legal, organizational and fiscal instruments for routing compensation for preservers of bio-diversity are detailed. Part- 5 includes arguments on the need for redefining Indian position on intellectual property rights. In part-6, the ethical dilemma in conducting discourse on bio-diversity are mentioned and paper is summed up in the end.