Å®ÉúСÊÓƵ

In his first major commitment on global environmental issues as President,
Bill Clinton has overturned decisions made by his predecessor George Bush
at the Earth Summit in Rio de Janeiro last June. Last week Clinton pledged
that the US will now set specific targets for reducing greenhouse gas emissions
and sign the treaty aimed at conserving the world’s plants and animals –
the Biodiversity Convention. Bush refused to agree to either of these measures.

Clinton couched his announcements in language meant to reassure American
industry that these commitments would be good for the US economy as well
as for the environment. He asserted his faith that the US could simultaneously
‘out-conserve and out-compete anyone else on Earth’.

Environmental groups were quick to applaud Clinton. ‘Rio was a debacle,’
says Scott Hajorst of the Environmental Defense Fund. ‘This speech marks
a clear departure from the Bush administration policies, and the intention
to signal global leadership on environmental issues.’ By agreeing to reduce
emissions of greenhouse gases to their 1990 levels by the turn of the century,
Clinton brought the US in line with other developed countries that signed
the Climate Change Convention at the summit. He also ordered up a government
plan to ‘continue the trend of reduced emission’.

In his speech, which was delivered to environmental groups at the US
Botanical Gardens in Washington DC, Clinton acknowledged that the Biodiversity
Convention ‘had some flaws, and we all knew that. But instead of fixing
them, the United States walked away from the treaty.’ In an attempt to fix
these perceived flaws, representatives from the pharmaceuticals industry
and environmental groups began meeting in January to advise the White House
on a statement that would clarify some of the ambiguous language in the
treaty. The group comprised three environmental organisations, plus pharmaceuticals
giant Merck, biotechnology leader Genentech, and Shaman Pharmaceuticals,
a small California firm devoted to developing medicines used by indigenous
peoples.

The group’s statement reassured biotechnology companies that their intellectual
property rights would be respected and that ‘facilitating technology transfer’
did not mean that they would have to give away patent licences to developing
countries that provided them with the genetic resources for new drugs. Genentech
and other biotechnology and pharmaceuticals companies originally opposed
the treaty but now praise Clinton’s decision. According to Lisa Conte, founder
of Shaman Pharmaceuticals, which supported the treaty even in Rio, the new
interpretation ‘gave those companies the confidence that if they are working
in these countries they will have patent protection’.

Encouraged by the ability of the industry and environmental groups to
work out a common interpretation, Clinton officials went on to write their
own interpretation of the treaty which has not been made public. Last week,
copies were circulated to European countries in the hope that they would
endorse its views.

Not all conservationists are happy with every aspect of the interpretation
drawn up by the industry and environment group. A coalition of radical groups
including Greenpeace and Jeremy Rifkin’s Foundation on Economic Trends objected
strenuously. ‘This statement gives carte blanche for the exploitation of
resources by US companies,’ said Andrew Kimbrell, a lawyer with Rifkin’s
group. ‘And now we’re taking this watered-down treaty and forcing it down
the throats of other countries.’

Even some mainstream green groups took issue with the interpretation.
‘The draft I saw gives too much to industry. It assumes that the US view
of patent law must prevail in the rest of the world,’ said Barbara Bramble,
director of international programmes for the National Wildlife Federation.
‘I am not interested in somehow crippling US industry. I just think we need
to recognise that international negotiations require compromise.