FacebookTwitterGoogle+RedditEmail

Bush Opens National Parks to Bio-Prospecting

by MICHAEL COLBY

We interrupt this election season to remind you who really has control of the government, the land and our lives: U.S. corporations. So while the two parties put on their best seductive dance for prospective voters in November, the merry corporations just keep rolling along, seemingly carefree about which political party will “win” the opportunity to continue meeting their corporate demands.

Consider, for example, the election-season news that the National Park Service is moving forward with its plans to allow private corporations to “bioprospect” for microorganisms in national parks like Yellowstone in exchange for a piece of the action. Bioprospecting, or bio-pirating in this case since it’s being taken from the public without our consent, is the act of mining for living organisms ­ anything from microorganisms to plant and animal genes — in the pursuit of science and/or profit.

And whom should the corporate bioprospectors thank for this unprecedented gift of access to the public’s natural resources? Well, both political parties and the various federal agencies they’ve ruled over, of course. Because it was the Clinton-led Park Service that first hatched this idea and now it’s the Bush-led Park Service that is seeing it through. Yep, bipartisanship seems to work best when corporate interests are involved.

The bipartisan path to commercial bioprospecting in our beloved national parks began in 1997 when the Bruce Babbitt-led Park Service announced on the 125th anniversary of Yellowstone National Park that they had reached an agreement with the multinational Diversa Corporation to allow them to bioprospect in Yellowstone as long as the Park Service would be allowed some of the future loot that might accrue from its findings. But before Babbitt could wipe the grin off his face and Diversa could get their extraction machines in place, three public interest groups cried foul and filed suit against the Park Service to negate the agreement.

The groups, the Edmonds Institute, the Alliance for the Wild Rockies and the International Center for Technology Assessment, objected to the agreement for a number of reasons, most notably because this precedent-setting agreement amounted to the “commercialization of the commons” and there was little to no public input from we, the people who are supposedly the stewards of those commons. And they won a partial victory when a U.S. District judge ruled in 1999 that the Park Service had to provide an assessment of the possible environmental impacts of commercial bioprospecting in the parks.

“Basically, the Park Service got caught making a deal without consulting the owners,” said Beth Burrows, president of the Edmonds Institute, one of the three plaintiffs in the case. “But the courts put a screeching halt to their plans, forcing them to at least bring this process out of their backrooms and into the light of day.”

Now, seven years later, in late September of this year, the Park Service finally released its court-ordered environmental impact statement (EIS) seeking to formalize its plan to share the economic bounty with corporations that bioprospect in our nation’s 400-plus national parks. The Park Service’s EIS, entitled “Benefits-Sharing,” is, as its very title suggests, more of a promotion for its plans to allow commercial bioprospecting than a true environmental assessment of this theft of the commons. And while the Park Service took its sweet time ­ seven years ­ to prepare the EIS, it’s giving the public a mere ninety days to respond to it (comment period ends on December 15th, visit www.ParksNotForSale.org for more information on how to submit an online comment).

Specifically, the Park Service outlines three possible plans for action in its corporate bioprospecting assessment: A) To take no action, thus allowing continued bioprospecting without the so-called benefit-sharing agreements; B) To allow commercial bioprospecting but require benefits-sharing agreements and potentially some degree of public disclosure of those agreements; and C) To prohibit commercial bioprospecting, only allowing noncommercial or public interest research and development of national park resources.

The Park Service calls “option B” its “preferred” option. But the public interest groups who forced them to produce this assessment are campaigning hard for “option C,” a ban on corporate, for-profit raids on the living organisms found in our National Parks.

“It’s not hard to see the setup being engineered: once the commercial potential of the national parks is demonstrated, it becomes easy to call for cutbacks on federal support for the parks and new commercial exploitation to make up the difference,” writes David Bollier of OnTheCommons.org and the author of Brand Name Bullies: The Quest to Own and Control Culture. “After all, why should taxpayers be burdened when the parks could be made ‘self-sustaining’ through market activity? This is part of a classic impulse in politics to warp the language: War is peace, freedom is slavery, and commercial exploitation is preservation.”

Bioprospecting for pure science and the public’s interest is certainly a noble cause, especially when the genetic material being mined for is on the public’s land. It’s quite another thing, however, to allow private corporations to mine in any or all of our 400 National Parks for the purpose of patenting, privatizing, cloning and/or profiting from the extracted living material that is supposed to belong to us all.

“The public needs to remember that Yellowstone and the other national parks were designated as parks to protect them from exploitation,” said Michael Garrity, executive director of the Alliance for the Wild Rockies. “We don’t want to turn back the clock by exploiting them now.”

As the demand for bioprospecting has grown, so have the places from which the bioprospecting corporations have sought to extract organisms, including Yellowstone National Park. Yellowstone Park scientists have discovered, for example, that the Park’s thermal features contain a microbial community with a biological diversity similar in degree to tropical rainforests.

“In a lot of ways the Park Service did us a favor by including a ban on commercial bioprospecting in its list of options for bioprospecting in the parks,” said Burrows of the Edmonds Institute. “Because it highlights the very clear distinction between public interest research of public resources and corporate raiding and privatizing of those same resources. Now the public has to sound off and make sure this is the chosen.”

A broad coalition of groups has organized under the ParksNotForSale.org banner to educate and activate the public on this bipartisan corporate giveaway. The courts have forced the Park Service to listen. Now it’s the public’s turn to speak up.

MICHAEL COLBY is a Vermont-based freelance writer and campaign coordinator for the Edmonds Institute. He can be reached at: mcolby@broadsides.org

For more information and to find out how to take action, go to: www.ParksNotForSale.org

 

 

 

 

More articles by:
June 30, 2016
Richard Moser
Clinton and Trump, Fear and Fascism
Pepe Escobar
The Three Harpies are Back!
Ramzy Baroud
Searching for a ‘Responsible Adult’: ‘Is Brexit Good for Israel?’
Dave Lindorff
What is Bernie Up To?
Thomas Barker
Saving Labour From Blairism: the Dangers of Confining the Debate to Existing Members
Jan Oberg
Why is NATO So Irrational Today?
John Stauber
The Debate We Need: Gary Johnson vs Jill Stein
Steve Horn
Obama Administration Approved Over 1,500 Offshore Fracking Permits
Rob Hager
Supreme Court Legalizes Influence Peddling: McDonnell v. United States
Norman Pollack
Economic Nationalism vs. Globalization: Janus-Faced Monopoly Capital
Binoy Kampmark
Railroaded by the Supreme Court: the US Problem with Immigration
Howard Lisnoff
Of Kiddie Crusades and Disregarding the First Amendment in a Public Space
Vijay Prashad
Economic Liberalization Ignores India’s Rural Misery
Caroline Hurley
We Are All Syrians
June 29, 2016
Diana Johnstone
European Unification Divides Europeans: How Forcing People Together Tears Them Apart
Andrew Smolski
To My Less-Evilism Haters: A Rejoinder to Halle and Chomsky
Jeffrey St. Clair
Noam Chomsky, John Halle and a Confederacy of Lampreys: a Note on Lesser Evil Voting
David Rosen
Birth-Control Wars: Two Centuries of Struggle
Sheldon Richman
Brexit: What Kind of Dependence Now?
Yves Engler
“Canadian” Corporate Capitalism
Lawrence Davidson
Return to the Gilded Age: Paul Ryan’s Deregulated Dystopia
Priti Gulati Cox
All That Glitters is Feardom: Whatever Happens, Don’t Blame Jill Stein
Franklin Lamb
About the Accusation that Syrian and Russian Troops are Looting Palmyra
Binoy Kampmark
Texas, Abortion and the US Supreme Court
Anhvinh Doanvo
Justice Thomas’s Abortion Dissent Tolerates Discrimination
Victor Grossman
Brexit Pro and Con: the View From Germany
Manuel E. Yepe
Brazil: the Southern Giant Will Have to Fight
Rivera Sun
The Nonviolent History of American Independence
Adjoa Agyeiwaa
Is Western Aid Destroying Nigeria’s Future?
Jesse Jackson
What Clinton Should Learn From Brexit
Mel Gurtov
Is Brexit the End of the World?
June 28, 2016
Jonathan Cook
The Neoliberal Prison: Brexit Hysteria and the Liberal Mind
Paul Street
Bernie, Bakken, and Electoral Delusion: Letting Rich Guys Ruin Iowa and the World
Anthony DiMaggio
Fatally Flawed: the Bi-Partisan Travesty of American Health Care Reform
Mike King
The “Free State of Jones” in Trump’s America: Freedom Beyond White Imagination
Antonis Vradis
Stop Shedding Tears for the EU Monster: Brexit, the View From the Peloponnese
Omar Kassem
The End of the Atlantic Project: Slamming the Brakes on the Neoliberal Order
Binoy Kampmark
Brexit and the Neoliberal Revolt Against Jeremy Corbyn
Doug Johnson Hatlem
Alabama Democratic Primary Proves New York Times’ Nate Cohn Wrong about Exit Polling
Ruth Hopkins
Save Bear Butte: Mecca of the Lakota
Celestino Gusmao
Time to End Impunity for Suharto’’s Crimes in Indonesia and Timor-Leste
Thomas Knapp
SCOTUS: Amply Serving Law Enforcement’s Interests versus Society’s
Manuel E. Yepe
Capitalism is the Opposite of Democracy
Winslow Myers
Up Against the Wall
Chris Ernesto
Bernie’s “Political Revolution” = Vote for Clinton and the Neocons
FacebookTwitterGoogle+RedditEmail