The Experts, the Heroes, and the Indigenous People.
The Story of the ICBG-Maya Bioprospecting Project in
Chiapas, Mexico
Lauren Naville July 2004
M. Sc. Development Studies NORAGRIC/NLH
The Centre for International Environment and Development Studies, Noragric, is the international gateway for the Agricultural University of Norway’s (NLH) twelve departments, associated research institutions and the Norwegian College of Veterinary Medicine in Oslo.
Established in 1986, Noragric’s contribution to international development lies in the interface between research, education (Master and PhD programs) and assignments.
The Noragric Master theses are the final theses submitted by students in order to fulfill the requirements under the Noragric Master program “Management of Natural Resources and Sustainable Agriculture” (MNRSA), Development Studies and other Master programs.
The findings in this thesis do not necessarily reflect the views of Noragric. Extracts from this publication may only be reproduced after prior consultation with the author and on condition that the source is indicated. For rights of reproduction or translation contact Norargric.
© Lauren Naville, July 2004 [email protected] Noragric
Agricultural University of Norway P.O. Box 5003
N-1432 Ås Norway
Tel.: +47 64 94 99 50 Fax: +47 64 94 07 60
Internet: http://www.nlh.no/noragric
Photo credits: Poul Wisborg, Ian Bryceson, Jens B. Aune Cover design: Spekter Reklamebyrå as, Ås.
Declaration of Originality
I hereby declare that the content of this work has not been submitted to any other university than NLH for any type of academic degree. Except where specifically acknowledged, it is all the work of the Author.
Acknowledgment
First and foremost I need to greatly thank all my respondents without whom this work would not have been possible. They dedicated precious time to answer my questions and were patient with my Spanish. Secondly, I am deeply grateful to my supervisors who provided me not only with support, but also with inspiration, insight, advice, and motivation. Thereby I am indebted to Mariel Aguilar Støen, Prof. Shivcharn S. Dhillion, Prof. Trygve Berg without whom this project could have not been achieved as such. I would also like to thank Cassandra Bergstøm for reading through my draft and giving me advice. I need to express a special thanks to Mariel Aguilar Støen and Prof. Shivcharn S. Dhillion for suggesting this topic and case study and thereby allowing me to discover a fascinating subject matter and region of this world. In order to be able to accomplish the writing of this thesis successfully I was generously supported technically and academically by the Centre for Development and the Environment (SUM) from the University of Oslo (UIO) under the framework of the project:
‘Towards sustainability and equity protocols in bioprospecting: Stakeholders, institutions, legislative framework and environmental consideration’. I thus express my deep appreciation to all the people of SUM who not only welcomed me to their centre but also greatly facilitated my work. Similarly, I would like to thank the administrative and academic staff from the Centre for International Environment and Development Studies (NORAGRIC) at Agricultural University of Norway (NLH) for their advice and support.
As far as the fieldwork is concerned I express my profound gratitude to my local supervisor Gerardo González Figueroa who provided me with guidance, information, contacts, and inspiring discussions – along with delicious local organic coffee. As for local technical and informational support I am greatly thankful to the Colegio de la Frontera Sur (ECOSUR) for their generosity. My appreciations also go to my local friends and local hosts both in San Cristóbal de las Casas and in Mexico City who made my stay particularly comfortable and enjoyable and created a home away from home. I must also acknowledge and thank the Norwegian students part of the Supergruppe who provided me with important contact information and advice prior to my trip.
Last but not least I need to thank my family and friends in Norway, back home in Switzerland, from SUM and NLH who kindly answered my questions, provided me with advice, read through my draft, and offered me moral, technical, and academic support. If I happen to have forgotten anyone I beg for their forgiveness and will simply blame it on my own work which currently occupies too much space in my thoughts. It is strange how you actually do not realize how many people have contributed to this work until your write this page. Hence, the accomplishment of this thesis can be seen as teamwork.
Abstract
This study discusses the ICBG-Maya bioprospecting case through an actor-oriented approach and a discourse analysis framework. Bioprospecting projects are seen by some as ‘win-win’
development and conservation schemes. As a result, they fit well into the objectives of the Convention on Biological Diversity which advocates for sustainable development types of ventures. These projects, which search for commercially valuable substances occurring in wild species, face numerous problems involving issues such as access and ownership of plants used in herbal medicine and associated traditional knowledge, recognition of indigenous people’s rights, and equitable benefit sharing. This work focuses on a particular case from Chiapas, Mexico where the Zapatista movement brought the harsh reality of this region to the eyes of the world. Even though this area is rich in biological and cultural diversity along with environmental destruction and poverty, the bioprospecting project planned here was never fully conducted. This study argues that a better understanding of what was seen by many as a very surprising outcome of the ICBG-Maya project can be better understood once the two main discourses found in this case are analyzed. Conflicting interests of the two main groups of social actors and their different perceptions and claims shed light on the reasons for the cancellation of this bioprospecting venture.
This thesis starts by introducing the reader to the special context of Chiapas and the different social actors involved in the case, it continues by discussing common themes brought up in bioprospecting endeavors, and it analyzes the two narratives while studying the discourses through an analytical framework. It finishes by drawing conclusions on the role of discourse analysis and the actor oriented approach in the planning and implementation of sustainable development projects.
Abstracto
Este estudio discute sobre el caso del proyecto ICBG-Maya de bioprospección a través de un enfoque centrado en el actor y del análisis de discurso. Los proyectos de bioprospección son considerados por algunos como situaciones de doble ventaja para el desarrollo y la conservación. Por consiguiente, son congruentes con los objetivos del Convenio sobre la Biodiversidad. Estos proyectos que buscan especies con valor comercial confrontan numerosos problemas involucrando asuntos como el acceso sobre y la propriedad de las especies de plantas utilizadas como medicinas y el conocimiento tradicional asociado con
ellas, el reconocimiento de los derechos de los pueblos indígenas, y el repartimiento equitativo de los beneficios. Este trabajo se enfoca en un caso particular en Chiapas, México donde el movimiento Zapatistas desnudó la dura realidad de esta región al resto del mundo.
Aunque esta área es rica en diversidad biológica y cultural, el proyecto de bioprospección contemplado aquí nunca fue terminado. Este estudio argumenta que una mejor comprensión de lo que muchas personas pensaban era un resultado muy sorprendente del proyecto ICBG- Maya puede entenderse mejor una vez que los dos discursos encontrados en este caso son analizados. El conflicto de intereses entre los dos principales grupos de actores sociales y sus diferentes percepciones y pretensiones iluminan las razones de la cancelación de este proyecto de bioprospección.
Esta tesis inicia con la presentación del contexto especial de Chiapas y de los diferentes actores sociales involucrados en el caso y continua con la discusión de temas que habitualmente se encuentran en proyectos de bioprospección. Luego, la tesis analiza las dos narrativas analizando los discursos encontrados. El trabajo termina con las conclusiones sobre el papel de la análisis de discursos y del método centrado en el actor en el planeamiento y la implementación de proyectos de desarrollo sustentables.
ACKNOWLEDGMENT III
ABSTRACT IV
ABSTRACTO IV
CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION 1
1.1 OBJECTIVE OF THE STUDY 3
1.1.1 RESEARCH QUESTIONS 3
1.2 RATIONALE 3
1.3 STRUCTURE OF CONTENT 4
CHAPTER 2: THEMATIC BACKGROUND 5
2.1 BIODIVERSITY 5
2.2 POLICY FRAMEWORKS REGARDING BIODIVERSITY 11
2.2.1 THE CONVENTION ON BIOLOGICAL DIVERSITY (CBD) 11
2.2.2 THE CBD AND BIOPROSPECTING 12
2.2.3 AGREEMENT ON TRADE-RELATED ASPECTS OF INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY RIGHTS (TRIPS) 13
2.3 BIOPROSPECTING 15
2.3.1 BIOPROSPECTING AND SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT 19
CHAPTER 3: CONTEXT AND MAIN SOCIAL ACTORS 21
3.1 ENVIRONMENTAL AND GEOGRAPHICAL CONTEXT 22
3.2 HISTORICAL CONTEXT 24
3.2.1 HISTORY OF THE INDIGENOUS PEOPLE OF CHIAPAS 24
3.3 DEMOGRAPHIC CONTEXT 26
3.3.1 POPULATION 26
3.3.2 SOCIAL ORGANIZATION 28
3.3.3 LAND OWNERSHIP AND EMPLOYMENT 29
3.3.4 DEVELOPMENT AND LIVING STANDARDS 31
3.3.5 INDIGENOUS RELIGION, CULTURAL BELIEFS, AND TRADITIONAL MEDICINE 32
3.3.6 INDIGENOUS PEOPLES’ RIGHTS 34
3.4 THE ZAPATISTA MOVEMENT AND THE MILITARIZATION OF CHIAPAS 36
3.5 BIOPROSPECTING IN MEXICO 39
3.5.1 MEXICAN LEGISLATION ON BIOPROSPECTING 40
3.6 MAIN SOCIAL ACTORS IN THE ICBG-MAYA CASE 41
3.6.1 THE BERLINS 41
3.6.2 THE INTERNATIONAL COOPERATIVE BIODIVERSITY GROUPS (ICBG) 41
3.6.3 THE UNIVERSITY OF GEORGIA (UGA) 42
3.6.4 EL COLEGIO DE LA FRONTERA SUR (ECOSUR) 42
3.6.5 MOLECULAR NATURE LIMITED (MNL) 43
3.6.6 ORGANIZACIÓN DE MÉDICOS INDÍGENAS DEL ESTADO DE CHIAPAS/ ORGANIZATION OF
INDIGENOUS DOCTORS OF THE STATE OF CHIAPAS (OMIECH) 44 3.6.7 CONSEJO DE ORGANIZACIONES DE MÉDICOS Y PARTERAS INDÍGENAS TRADICIONALES DE
CHIAPAS/ COUNCIL OF TRADITIONAL INDIGENOUS DOCTORS AND MIDWIVES FROM CHIAPAS
(COMPITCH) 45
3.6.8 RURAL ADVANCEMENT FOUNDATION INTERNATIONAL (RAFI) NOW THE ACTION GROUP ON
EROSION, TECHNOLOGY AND CONCENTRATION (ETC) 45
3.6.9 TARGETED COMMUNITIES 46
CHAPTER 4: THEORY AND METHODS 47 4.1 SOCIAL CONSTRUCTIVISM AND POST-STRUCTURALISM 47
4.2 ACTOR-ORIENTED APPROACH 49
4.3 DISCOURSE ANALYSIS 50
4.4 HERMENEUTICS 52
4.5 QUALITATIVE RESEARCH 53
4.6 CHOICE OF A CASE STUDY 54
4.7 SELECTION OF RESPONDENTS 56
4.8 DATA COLLECTION 57
4.8.1 PRIMARY SOURCES: INTERVIEWS 57
4.8.2 SECONDARY SOURCES: LITERATURE AND ELECTRONIC DOCUMENTS 58
4.9 DATA ANALYSIS 58
4.9.1 APPLIED ACTOR-ORIENTED APPROACH 59
4.9.2 APPLIED DISCOURSE ANALYSIS AND HERMENEUTICS 60
4.9.3 GLOBAL/LOCAL LINKS 61
4.9.4 ANALYTICAL FRAMEWORK 63
4.10 FIELDWORK EXPERIENCE 65
CHAPTER 5: FINDINGS AND DISCUSSION 67
5.1 THE ICBG-MAYA CASE 68
5.2 THE NARRATIVE OF THE WELL-INTENTIONED EXPERTS 69 5.3 THE NARRATIVE OF THE INDIGENOUS PEOPLE’S GUARDIANS 73
5.4 THE PROPONENTS’ DISCOURSE ANALYSIS 74
5.4.1 THE EXPERTS 75
5.4.2 THE ENEMIES 77
5.4.3 THE INDIGENOUS PEOPLE 78
5.4.4 CAPITALISM AND PATENTS 81
5.4.5 THE MEXICAN LEGAL CONTEXT 82
5.4.6 DEVELOPMENT AND BIODIVERSITY CONSERVATION 83
5.4.7 CONCLUDING REMARKS 84
5.5 THE OPPONENTS’ DISCOURSE ANALYSIS 85
5.5.1 THE HEROES 85
5.5.2 THE PIRATES 88
5.5.3 THE INDIGENOUS PEOPLE 91
5.5.4 IMPERIALISM AND GLOBALIZATION 93
5.5.5 PATENTS AND CAPITALISM 94
5.5.6 DEVELOPMENT AND BIODIVERSITY CONSERVATION 96
5.5.7 CONCLUDING REMARKS 98
5.6 DISCOURSES VIEWED THROUGH THE ANALYTICAL FRAMEWORK 99
5.6.1 CONSTRUCTION OF DISCOURSES 101
5.6.2 SPREAD OF DISCOURSES 106
5.6.3 IMPACTS OF DISCOURSES 108
5.6.4 CONCLUDING REMARKS 112
CHAPTER 6: FINAL DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS 115
6.1 PRIOR INFORMED CONSENT 115
6.2 PROPERTY RIGHTS AND LEGISLATION 116
6.3 BENEFIT SHARING 118
6.4 GLOBAL/LOCAL CONNECTIONS 119
6.5 COMMUNICATION PROBLEMS? 121
6.6 FINAL REFLECTIONS AND FUTURE THOUGHTS 122
INTERVIEWS 125
REFERENCES 127
APPENDIX 137
A.1 ENVIRONMENTAL MAPS OF CHIAPAS 137
A.2 BIOPROSPECTING CASES IN MEXICO 139
A.2.1 THE UNAM-DIVERSA 139
A.2.2 THE UZACHI-SANDOZ (NOVARTIS) BIOLEAD PROJECT 139
A.2.3 THE ICBGDRY ZONES PROJECT 140
A.3 INTERVIEW QUESTIONS 141
A.3.1 INTERVIEW QUESTIONS FOR INTERNAL ACTORS 141
A.3.2 INTERVIEW QUESTIONS FOR EXTERNAL ACTORS (BY EMAIL) 142
A.4 TIMELINE OF THE ICBG-MAYA CASE 144
A.5 PICTURES FROM FIELDWORK 152
TABLES
Table 1: Different views on biodiversity 8
Table 2: Main social actors referred to and their organizations or institutes and positions* 67 Table 3: Analysis of the experts’ and heroes’ discourses in the ICBG-Maya case 100
Table 4: List of interviews conducted 125
Table 5: Timeline of ICBG-Maya and relevant side-events 144
FIGURES
Figure 1: The municipalities of the Highlands of Chiapas 22
Figure 2: Location of the indigenous people in Chiapas 28
Figure 3: The vegetation of the Highlands of Chiapas as of 2000 137
Figure 4: The Natural Protected Areas of Chiapas 138
PICTURES*
Picture 1: Wax representation of an indigenous doctor praying at OMIECH’s museum of traditional
medicine 34
Picture 2: OMIECH orchard with medicinal plants 44
Picture 3: View of San Cristóbal de las Casas 152
Picture 4: OMIECH museum of traditional medicine 152
Picture 5: Maya cross in Chamula Picture 6: Indigenous people and Chamula church153 Picture 7: Biodiversity and globalization at market in San Cristóbal de las Casas 153
* All pictures were taken by the researcher.
Acronyms
ABS Access and Benefit Sharing
BS Benefit Sharing
CBD Convention on Biological Diversity CI Conservation International
CIEPAC Centro de Investigaciones Económicas y Políticas de Acción Comunitaria de Chiapas (Research Center for Economics and Politics of Communitarian Action) CIESAS Centro de Investigaciones y Estudios Superiores en Antropología Social (Centre of
Research and Superior Studies in Social Anthropology COMPITCH
(previously CEOMPTCH)
Consejo Estatal de Organizaciones de Médicos y Parteras Tradicionales de Chiapas (State Council of Organizations of Traditional Doctors and Midwives of Chiapas).
CONABIO Comisión Nacional para el conocimiento y uso de la biodiversidad (National Commission for the knowledge and use of biodiversity)
CSO Civil Society Organization
ETC Action group on Erosion, Technology, and Concentration ECOSUR El Colegio de la Frontera Sur
EZLN Ejército Zapatista de Liberación Nacional (Zapatista Army of National Liberation) GMO Genetically Modified Organism
ICBG International Cooperative Biodiversity Groups ILO International Labour Organization
IMF International Monetary Fund
IMSS Instituto Mexicano de Securidad Social (Mexican Institute of Social Security) INE Instituto Nacional de Ecología (National Institute of Ecology)
INI (now CPI)
Instituto Nacional Indigenista (National Indigenous Institute) now Comisión Para el Desarrollo de los Pueblos Indígenas (Commission for the Development of the Indigenous People).
IPR Intellectual Property Rights
ISE International Society of Ethnobiology IUCN The World Conservation Union
MAT Mutual Agreed Terms
MTA Material Transfer Agreement
NAFTA North American Free Trade Agreement
NGO Non Governmental Organization NIH National Institute of Health (USA)
ODEMITCH Organización para la Defensa de la Medicina Indígena Tradicional de Chiapas (Organization for the Defense of the Traditional Indigenous Medicine of Chiapas) OMIECH Organización de Médicos Indígenas del Estado de Chiapas (Organization of
Indigenous Doctors of the State of Chiapas) PIC Prior Informed Consent
PPP Plan Pueblo Panamá
PROMAYA Promotion of Intellectual Property Rights of the Highland Maya of Chiapas, Mexico
RAFI (now ETC)
Rural Advancement Foundation International
SEMARNAP Secretaría de Medio Ambiente y de Recursos Naturales (Secretariat of Environment and Natural Resources, now SEMARNAT)
SIPAZ Servicio Internacional Para la Paz (International Service for Peace)
TK Traditional knowledge
TM Traditional Medicine
TRIPS Agreement on Trade Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights UGA University of Georgia
WB World Bank
WHO World Health Organization
WIPO World Intellectual Property Organization WTO World Trade Organization
Chapter 1: Introduction
The cancellation of the ICBG-Maya bioprospecting project reveals problems regarding access to and use of biodiversity for commercial purposes and issues of intellectual property rights related to traditional knowledge and medicine. Conflicting perspectives and interests from different actors can be identified thanks to an actor-oriented approach and studied through a discourse analysis in order to uncover the reasons for this particular outcome. The use of a case study enables us to focus on contextual factors and analyze their role in this case.
Chiapas, a Southern state of Mexico, became ‘popular’ after the Zapatista uprising in 1994. This rebellion shed light on issues of inequality faced by indigenous people and denounced the globalization phenomenon. Chiapas and Mexico are also well-known for their important biological and cultural diversity. Nevertheless, environmental destruction and poverty are common problems encountered especially in Chiapas. For all these reasons, Chiapas is home to several environmental and development projects and has a strong presence of civil society actors which make it an interesting and complex study area.
Bioprospecting is understood as “the search for potential pharmaceutical, agricultural and industrial uses of the genetic resources in the diversity of non-human life on the planet”
(Rosenthal, 1996). In this study the focus is on the commercial value of these resources in the pharmaceutical industry, i.e. as potential drugs. As in this case, this prospecting endeavour can be guided by indigenous people and their traditional knowledge (TK) since they use medicinal plants as part of their alternative medical system. Bioprospecting projects are currently being undertaken on a worldwide basis and have become more popular in the last years partly thanks to progress in biotechnology.
An important issue that is often discussed is the relationship between bioprospecting and biodiversity conservation. Some people argue that bioprospecting can lead to sustainable development and thus, they claim that it should be further promoted. The conservation of biodiversity is believed to be achievable by creating incentives through its commercial and medical valuation. Bioprospecting projects often plan to invest as well part of the royalties from
the commercial drug into local conservation and development projects. Nevertheless, success in finding a drug is rare and thus, income generation is poor. The role of the CBD is directly related to bioprospecting and must be well understood and analyzed when dealing with this issue. By ratifying the CBD member parties are committed to implement legislation regarding generally the access and use of biodiversity and the equitable sharing of derived benefits.
When the CBD came into force, bioprospecting became increasingly more complicated and controversial. Issues of fair compensation, intellectual property rights, and sustainable use of biological resources all lead to problems and in some cases to the cancellation of bioprospecting ventures. This occurred in the case study under investigation in this thesis which started in 1998 and took place in Chiapas, Mexico. At that time, a group of investigators from El Colegio de la Frontera Sur (ECOSUR) in Mexico were invited to participate with the University of Georgia (UGA) and a small research laboratory in Great Britain (Molecular Nature Ltd.) in a five year long research project based on traditional medicine (TM) and the development of alternative uses and medicinal products. The project was approved in 1998 by The International Collaborative Biodiversity Group (ICBG) and given a grant of US$ 2.5 million dollars. ECOSUR invited a local organization of traditional doctors (OMIECH) to participate in it, but they showed some reticence and asked for another organization’s opinion, the Council of Traditional Indigenous Doctors and Midwives from Chiapas (COMPITCH). The project named “Drug Discovery and Biodiversity among the Maya in Mexico” started making plant collections in 1999. However, the same year COMPITCH asked for the project to be stopped. In 2000 the collection permit for bioprospecting submitted by ECOSUR to the Secretariat of Environment and Natural Resources (SEMARNAP) was denied. Despite beliefs by some that the project was based on high quality science, a very participatory framework, heavy investments in technology transfer, local institutes, and local intellectual and biological resources the project was halted by fear from some of ‘biopiracy’1. Nevertheless, one could say that the main reason for the cancellation of this project are the conflicting views and interests of the different actors due to several factors that need to be identified and analyzed from an actor’s perspective and through a discourse analysis.
1 This term is used by certain actors who oppose bioprospecting projects as they perceive it as a piracy in the sense that resources are being robbed.
1.1 Objective of the study
The purpose of this study is to discuss common issues brought up in bioprospecting projects while focusing on a range of social actors and through the analysis of their discourses. An emphasis is also put on the particular context while also discussing global/local links.
1.1.1 Research Questions
The following research questions were used to develop the interview questions and are discussed in this study adopting an actor-oriented approach and conducting a discourse analysis:
• How did conflicting views on the ICBG-Maya bioprospecting project lead to its cancellation?
• How were these views influenced by social, economical, cultural, and historical factors?
• What were the roles of institutes, organizations, and network mechanisms?
• What do the different actors think is a workable and acceptable solution?
1.2 Rationale
The cancellation of the ICBG-Maya project was quite surprising to numerous people and has the potential of revealing a lot of interesting information that could be useful for future similar projects. Bioprospecting is quite unique as it deals with numerous fields and interdisciplinary issues. Dhillion and Svarstad (2000) explain that bioprospecting raises social and political issues for different actors such as policy makers, development NGOs, private companies, and researchers. Nevertheless, one must not forget that local people where the prospecting is being conducted must also be taken into consideration. In the context of bioprospecting it is expected that all the different social actors will have very dissimilar views and conflicting opinions.
Confrontation and attempted reconciliation of divergent and contradictory views is common when development projects are designed or implemented. It is thus important to understand the reasons for each actor’s view within a particular context, the way this view is manifested, and its impacts. The relationships between the different actors, the communication between them, and the institutional2 and other external factors that influence these relations at the local and global level must also be looked at. Therefore, links between global and local bioprospecting narratives are looked at along with the influence of the historical and current situation in this particular
2 Institutional relations or institutions are understood here as “the rules of the game in society or, more formally, are the humanly devised constraints that shape human interaction” North (1990) in (Ellis, 2000). When used by other authors in this thesis this term may have another meaning.
region of Mexico on the actors’ perspectives. Consequently, an actor-oriented approach and a discourse analysis are used in order to shed light on the complexity of bioprospecting and the interrelatedness of all the issues it involves basing itself on this particular case and hence within a given context.
1.3 Structure of Content
The structure of this thesis is as follows:
Chapter 2: This chapter provides the reader with a thematic background for the study including a brief presentation and discussion of biodiversity and its policy frameworks and of bioprospecting and its relationship with sustainable development.
Chapter 3: This chapter provides an overview of the historical and demographic context of Chiapas and especially regarding its indigenous people. A special focus is also placed on the Zapatista movement and its uprising. Bioprospecting as it is undertaken in Mexico is looked at along with its relevant legal framework. The chapter ends with a brief presentation of the main social actors involved in the ICBG-Maya case.
Chapter 4: In order to analyze the data collected during the fieldwork some theoretical background and an analytical framework are provided. The second part of this chapter presents and discusses the methods used in this thesis to analyze and collect data. Issues of reliability, validity, and generalization are then discussed followed by remarks and reflections on the fieldwork experience.
Chapter 5: The analysis chapter presents the results found during this research by analyzing the discourses and the actors through the methods mentioned above. The chapter starts by presenting the case study namely the ICBG-Maya followed by two narratives told by the two main groups of social actors identified in this case. The two main discourses are then analyzed based on their view of other actors and certain issues or themes regarding bioprospecting and the context. The chapter ends with the application of the analytical framework to the two discourses.
Chapter 6: This final chapter contains concluding remarks by referring back to main themes found in bioprospecting projects and reflects on the role of discourse analysis in studying these types of ventures.
Chapter 2: Thematic Background
In this chapter I present a few concepts as essential background information for understanding the conceptual context within which this case study is framed. I start by exploring the idea of biodiversity and the different views on it since biodiversity is the starting point of bioprospecting ventures. Moreover, Mexico is considered as very rich in biological diversity placing it in the group of the 12 most biodiverse nations which together host 70% of the world’s biodiversity (SEMARNAP, Accessed 2004). I then go on to look at policy frameworks regarding biodiversity and bioprospecting notably the Convention on Biological Diversity and the Agreement on Trade Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights including a brief discussion of patents related to genetic resources. This chapter ends with a basic presentation and discussion of bioprospecting including its relationship with sustainable development.
2.1 Biodiversity
Wilson (1986) defines biodiversity as follows:
"Biodiversity is defined as all hereditarily based variation at all levels of organization, from the genes within a single local population, to the species composing all or part of a local community, and finally to the communities themselves that compose the living parts of the multifarious ecosystems of the world".
The Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) also provides us with a definition of the concept of biodiversity:
“Biological diversity means the variability among living organisms from all sources including, inter alia, terrestrial, marine and other aquatic ecosystems and the ecological complexes of which they are part; this includes diversity within species, between species and of ecosystems (Article 2 of the CBD).
Biodiversity became a major preoccupation after the 1992 Rio Summit when the CBD was created. However, the threat to biodiversity was already brought up in the 1972 Stockholm Conference on the Human Environment in which environmental protection was seen as fundamental to human well-being. Escobar (1998) explains that the concept of biodiversity first appeared in the science of conservation biology expressing a need to conserve nature. Therefore,
this concept became popular as the fear of losing species increased, mostly as a result of, or at least accelerated by, anthropogenic activities.
Biological diversity, which can also be understood as genetic diversity3 and is especially relevant in the context of bioprospecting, was considered in the past as common heritage of mankind and freely accessible for appropriation and use. Nevertheless, after the CBD was ratified and put into action in 1993, access to these resources became more restricted and nations’ sovereignty reaffirmed through the requirements of national legislation.4 National governments now have to be consulted before genetic resources can be taken out of their country. As it will be discussed in the section on Chiapas’ strategic resources, biodiversity figures as one of them, exemplifying the economic, social, and political importance of this resource. In the past, expeditions were undertaken in order to collect various biological species with the goal of increasing the quantity and diversity of a country’s resources strengthening its economic basis. Biodiversity is also a way of ensuring a nation’s sustainability. As Wilson (1993 in Escobar, 1998, p. 54) claims,
“biological diversity is the key to the maintenance of the world as we know it.” Ecological equilibrium requires a certain degree of biological diversity to create resistance to external effects; hence, biodiversity conservation is an essential means to reach sustainable development.
As it will be illustrated in the next chapter, biological diversity is claimed to be related to cultural diversity within the Chiapas area of Mexico. The connection between these two concepts is widely argued and is related to the romantic vision of indigenous people as environmental stewards. Indeed, it is often claimed that since biodiversity has been preserved in areas with important indigenous populations, the latter are believed to perform traditional practices that are respectful of the environment and thus, adopt a sustainable lifestyle. Their traditional ecological knowledge (TEK) is believed to help them live in harmony with nature; therefore, this knowledge – part of cultural diversity – must be preserved along with biodiversity.
Nowadays, the importance of biodiversity takes on a new significance through the development of biotechnologies. Genetic diversity is needed in order to create new traits for existing species (through biotechnology) and it has gained an important commercial value. The economic value of
3 There are three basic types of biodiversity: habitat (ecosystems), species, and genetic diversity. These are all linked together.
4 See the following section on international treaties and regulations.
biodiversity can be measured by the global market for genetic resources and derived products and is estimated to be between 500 and 800 billion US dollars (WIPO, 2003).5 Therefore, the diversity found in nature has become a major source of income notably for Northern countries that have the technology to undertake such research. Through the process of patenting, which is being increasingly more applied to natural compounds, biological or genetic diversity becomes a source of information which can be patented as intellectual property by the person or institute that is able to isolate such genetic information and show its novelty and usefulness for society.
Biodiversity is both a scientific and a political concept and its definition varies depending on the social actor defining it. As Escobar (1998) argues, the concept of biodiversity could be seen as a discursive construction created by several different actors. These social actors belonging to a network all have different bio-cultural views and political interests (Ibid.). Therefore, the concept of biodiversity could be seen as a narrative created by different actors, faced by counter- narratives and constantly changing (Escobar, 1998). Table 1 highlights the idea that different social actors have differing views of biodiversity. Actors assume that different issues or problems threaten or are linked to biodiversity which they understand as representing either resources, habitats, or species. As a result they adhere to different discourses and promote diverse actions as solutions. Following Escobar’s idea it is possible to identify four different views of biodiversity and accompanying narratives in which some of the main social actors of the ICBG-Maya case can be placed.
5 According to (Koziell and Swingland, 2002), biodiversity is extremely valuable for human development as approximately 40% of the world’s economy depends on goods and services it offers.
Table 1: Different views on biodiversity
Views Issues/Problems Biodiversity Solutions Actors
1 Habitat destruction Poverty
Species and habitat diversity
Resources
Management activities (e.g. protected areas) Sustainable
development CBD
International environmental organizations: WWF, IUCN, CI
2 Unequal distribution of benefits from genetic resources
Genetic resources International instruments to ensure equal and fair benefit sharing (e.g. CBD)
Southern governments:
SEMARNAP, CONABIO, INE (in Mexico)
3 Control over resources Resources Local control of
resources
Indigenous people’s rights recognition, autonomy
Southern civil society:
COMPITCH OMIECH RAFI
4 Habitat loss Poverty
Underdevelopment
Resources Capital and technology flow
Markets
Research institutes:
ECOSUR, UGA, ICBG
It is important to note that these different views and elements are hard to define and draw boundaries around since groups of social actors are not homogenous. Let us now look at these different views a little bit more in detail along with some actors found in this case.
1. International environmental organizations’ perspective: This perspective focuses on the importance of habitat and species diversity to maintain a steady environmental balance.
The threats to biodiversity are seen as habitat loss which can be caused by global warming, urbanization, pollution, poverty, etc. These actors suggest management strategies for protecting habitats and resource diversity such as the creation of protected
areas, threatened species assessment (e.g. IUCN Red List), ecosystem restoration. They work on different levels to combat poverty which they see as a threat to biodiversity; for example, they are in favour of bioprospecting, they encourage bio-business initiatives, and they promote community empowerment. Finally, they work within the mandate of the CBD6 and promote sustainable development (see IUCN, 2003). Some of the largest and most influential international environmental organizations are WWF, IUCN, and CI which work on biodiversity issues and are present in Chiapas.
2. Southern governments’ perspective: These governments perceive biodiversity as an important resource which they are blessed to possess since most biodiversity is found in the South. However, they realize that biodiversity is being threatened mostly by Northern policies from whom compensation should be sought. The focus of these social actors is therefore to develop, implement, and monitor environmental laws that enable the CBD guidelines to be met. In other words, they create local laws based on international conventions to regulate access to genetic resources for their conservation.7 In this case study, this perspective is held by governmental authorities or advisors such as the environmental ministry, SEMARNAP, and environmental advisors to the government, CONABIO and INE. These actors are all working on a legal framework to regulate access to genetic resources both at the national and international levels.8
3. Southern civil society’s perspective: The civil society movement in the South uses the issue of environmental degradation and the work of international environmental organizations to denounce a new form of colonialism and imperialism. They accuse the North of destroying their environment, but they do not agree with Northern environmental organizations’ way of working by creating e.g. protected areas from which indigenous people are displaced. They argue for a local control of resources and decision-making power for local people. They realize that genetic resources have monetary value, but they reject IPRs, biotechnology, and all forms of commercialization of nature. Finally, they
6 For example, in terms of bioprospecting “IUCN is actively promoting the development of legal and policy frameworks on bioprospecting that follow the CBD provisions… and it participates in policy discussions” (Oviedo, personal communication, 2004).
7 They also try to influence decisions taken in international negotiations on biodiversity such as the meetings following the ratification of the CBD (the COP meetings).
8 Please refer to the section on Mexican law and to Chapter 5 for more information on Mexico’s official position on biodiversity.
link cultural and biological diversity and fight for both as a single entity to ensure the survival of indigenous people and their social system. In the ICBG-Maya case, COMPITCH, OMIECH, RAFI9, and CIEPAC are the main actors that adopt this view on biodiversity.
4. Research institutes’ perspective: These actors see biodiversity as a resource because of its environmental services and its monetary value. They dedicate their work to developing and implementing strategies that will lead to sustainable development by e.g.
commercializing biodiversity. They try to eliminate habitat loss, poverty, and other problems linked with underdevelopment and that threaten biodiversity. They believe in partnerships with private enterprises such as pharmaceutical companies and they encourage technology transfer and know-how as a development strategy. These actors try to implement the CBD guidelines by ensuring fair and equitable benefit sharing when e.g.
bioprospecting is conducted. Therefore, they can be seen as arms of the national environmental authorities which try to implement the CBD provisions at the local level.
For the purpose of this study, ECOSUR, UGA, and the ICBG mainly play that role by working in partnership with a pharmaceutical company (MNL).
As a concept, biodiversity interconnects political opinions, ecological preoccupations, power relations, economic considerations, cultural constructions, and development and environmental views making it a complex research topic. Escobar (1998) expresses this idea as he views
“biodiversity as a construction constituting a powerful interface between nature and culture and originating a vast network of sites and actors through which concepts, policies, and ultimately cultures and ecologies are contested and negotiated” (Escobar, 1998, p. 75). Biodiversity is a relevant issue when one deals with bioprospecting since it is the main source of this activity. As it will be argued later on in this thesis, the conflicts between different social actors and their views of biodiversity and related issues are what are believed to be the causes for the cancellation of the ICBG-Maya project. Moreover, the involvement of certain politically oriented social actors in this case led to the politicization of the issue of biodiversity. In order to understand the connection between biodiversity use and bioprospecting a brief presentation of the legal
9 Even though RAFI is a Northern NGO it makes similar assumptions as NGOs working in the South.
frameworks and policies dealing with biodiversity is first needed before turning to a presentation of bioprospecting.
2.2 Policy Frameworks Regarding Biodiversity
This section looks at the two main policy frameworks that deal with biodiversity and
bioprospecting namely the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) and the Agreement on Trade-related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPS). While discussing the CBD the focus is put on the specific effects the implementation of this convention has on bioprospecting.
The TRIPS agreement is discussed based on its regulation of Intellectual Property Rights (IPRs) which might be applied on a drug discovered through a bioprospecting project. A short
presentation of the Bonn Guidelines for access to genetic resources and benefit sharing is also provided.
2.2.1 The Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD)
The major international agreement that is of relevance when discussing bioprospecting is the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) opened for signature at the Rio de Janeiro UN Conference on Environment and Development in 1992 and entered into force on December 29, 1993 (ratified the same year by Mexico). Briefly, the CBD defines guiding principles for a fair and equitable access to and sharing of genetic resources. Its three main objectives are to conserve biodiversity, promote a sustainable use of biodiversity, and ensure fair and equitable sharing of benefits arising from genetic resources. Once ratified, each member party then agrees to enact national laws that will ensure that these regulations are met. When the CBD was put into action, bioprospecting took on a completely different meaning. Article 15.7 defines measures to fairly and equitably share the benefits from commercial and other utilization of genetic resources by companies undertaking e.g. bioprospecting with the source country. Before bioprospecting ventures can take place there must be prior informed consent (PIC) from the source country and the project can only be started on mutually agreed terms (MAT). MATs represent the conditions of the exchange of material that have been agreed on by the source country (provider) and the researcher (receiver). A major advantage of MATs, especially in bioprospecting projects, is that the receiver must specify in the contract with the provider what the use of the material will be (Bellot, 2001), either for purely scientific purposes or for commercial ends. Article 8J specifically states that indigenous knowledge should be respected, preserved, and maintained, as well as its
innovations and practices in relation to biodiversity conservation and equitable sharing of the benefits derived from the use of such knowledge and practices (UNEP, 2002). Consequently, some people argue that through the CBD access to biodiversity is better regulated. Moreover, benefit sharing mechanisms seek compensation from Northern countries for the poor but biologically rich Southern nations. Brush (1999) explains that “’Bioprospecting’ offers an approach that aims to return benefits to the stewards of biological resources” through bioprospecting contracts required by the CBD between the source country and the country undertaking research. In reality it is not that straightforward and successful. The benefit sharing agreements related to access to genetic resources need to be regulated by laws at the national level in each country who is a party to the CBD. However, national laws may also be difficult to implement based on unclear and insufficient guidelines. The Bonn Guidelines are thus intended to help countries implement the CBD demands. Finally, Rosendal (1995) points out that the least developed countries especially might have problems enacting and enforcing such regulations due to a lack of resources.
2.2.2 The CBD and Bioprospecting
Since the CBD regulations have been created bioprospecting became increasingly controversial and complicated. Until the CBD was ratified, countries engaging in bioprospecting had no obligation towards countries from where biological material was collected and thus, it occurred in an open access regime. However, under article 15 of the CBD the sovereign rights of nations party to the convention over their genetic resources are reaffirmed restricting free access to these resources. Companies undertaking bioprospecting must now share benefits and transfer
The Bonn Guidelines on Access to Genetic Resources and Fair and Equitable Sharing of the Benefits Arising out of their Utilization
The Bonn Guidelines were launched in April 2002 and basically include the following elements:
general provisions (voluntary nature, flexibility, practicality, etc), roles and responsibilities in access and benefit-sharing pursuant to article 15 of the CBD (national focal point, competent national authorities, responsibility of providers, etc), participation of social actors (involvement of relevant social actors, provision of information, etc), steps in the access and benefit-sharing process (PIC, specification of use, MATs, types of benefits, etc), and other provisions (incentives, accountability, national monitoring and reporting, etc) (Secretariat on the Convention on Biological Diversity, 2002). In other words, these are guidelines and refer to legal factors that should be taken into account when access policies and regulations are formulated (WIPO, 2003). Unfortunately, these guidelines did not exist when the ICBG-Maya case took place.
technology and know-how to the source countries. On the other hand, bioprospecting fits well into the CBD since it is seen as a mechanism to provide commercial value to nature (as will discussed later on) and this convention uses economic tools to value biodiversity through benefit- sharing mechanisms. As McAfee (1999) argues the “global environmental-economic paradigm”10 is exemplified in bioprospecting and the CBD.
An important issue often discussed is the relationship between bioprospecting and biodiversity conservation. Dutfield (2000) argues that by ruling out the previous perception that genetic resources were a common heritage the CBD increased the value of these resources. The contracts demanded by the CBD are also believed by some to lead to stricter property rules and incentives for local people to protect their valuable genetic resources (Mulholland and Wilman, 1997).
Thus, bioprospecting fits into the sustainable development model promoted by the CBD by creating incentives to protect biodiversity. However, these assumptions need to be debated and looked into more carefully as they often prove to be wrong.11
Issues of fair compensation, intellectual property rights, and sustainable use of biological resources may lead to problems and in some cases to the cancellation of bioprospecting ventures as with the ICBG-Maya project. Regulation over genetic resources such as the CBD also faces difficulties due to the particular characteristics of these resources. Indeed, genetic resources are at the same time physical and thus tangible, but intellectual as well and hence, intangible. The occurrence of these resources does not respect political boundaries either since the same resource can be found in different communities, regions, and even countries and its origin may be hard to determine. As a result, access to such resources and compensation to the source country from royalties may become difficult and controversial.
2.2.3 Agreement on Trade-related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPS)
This agreement under the World Trade Organization (WTO) was created in 1994 and entered into force on January 1st 1995. It requires its members to match their intellectual property systems (e.g. existence, scope and use of IPRs, enforcements measures) (WIPO, 2001). Brand and Görg (2003) remark that Mexico implemented this treaty “long before it was legally required by the
10 This paradigm “tries to encompass environmental issues in a neoclassical economic framework, imputing commodity-like characteristics to all elements of nature” (Ibid., p. 42).
11 See the next section for more discussion of this topic.
agreement itself” (p. 228).12 This treaty is quite controversial as it is a tool of free trade and is often believed to be detrimental to developing countries. Brand and Görg (2003) argue that TRIPS “is in the field of intellectual property rights much more a mechanism of neoliberal politics and in favour of neoliberal forces” (p. 226). Nijar (1996) claims that TRIPS ensures ownership rights on products developed by Northern countries, but obtained from TK from the South. These ‘inventors’ from the South are thus denied recognition of their knowledge. The traditional communal system of knowledge ownership found in certain Southern communities is not recognized either in this treaty. Knowledge related to genetic resources is considered as public and thus, of free access.
Patents first appeared in the 15th century in England as a mechanism to reward inventors’
creativity notably through the exclusion of third parties from using or selling an invention without compensation to the inventor. The latter must disclose information about his/her invention in order to continue the process of innovation (WIPO, 2003). IPRs are often criticized and are an important factor in the cancellation of bioprospecting projects. They are perceived to benefit the North to the detriment of the South through the privatization and commercialization of TM and TK. Even though indigenous people are also free to patent inventions such as drugs derived from their medical plants, they are often financially limited and lack the adequate information and contacts to engage in such procedures. Since TK is often seen as being “robbed”
by the North from indigenous people in the South through patenting, it has been argued that access and use of TK also need to be regulated (like genetic resources), nevertheless through another system than IPRs.13
Conclusively, the role of the CBD is directly related to bioprospecting. By economically valuing nature and promoting its conservation bioprospecting could represent a typical sustainable development project which is under the framework provided by the CBD. Before looking more into this particular idea of conserving nature by placing it on the global market and allowing development to take place without destroying nature, we first need to better understand what bioprospecting is and present some of its pros and cons.
12 They also point out that “the NAFTA agreement has strong IPR provisions…” (Ibid.).
13 Ruiz (2003) explains that a positive protection system could be used which could basically imply, depending on the scope of the protection, compensating indigenous people for the use of their knowledge, creating a right that enables them to exclude people from using their TK (like a patent), conserving TK through the development of a registry system, or controlling its use.
2.3 Bioprospecting
The search for the useful use of natural resources found in the wild and the appropriation and exploitation of these resources and associated traditional ecological knowledge have always been main preoccupations and goals of humans throughout history and were linked to commercial endeavors. The application of biotechnology to improve the outcomes, financial and health wise, of this search has mostly been a recent activity termed bioprospecting. Some argue that bioprospecting became more popular in the last years due to biotechnological advances and the CBD which provides a framework for engaging in bioprospecting (see e.g. Mulholland and Wilman, 1997). Bioprospecting projects are currently being undertaken on a worldwide basis and it is estimated that out of the total sale of prescription drugs worldwide of over $330 billion 53%
of the top 150 of these drugs “contain active ingredients that are pure natural products, synthetic derivatives or chemical analogs of natural products” (Grifo et al., 1997 in Artuso, 2002).14 Bioprospecting can be defined as
“the search for novel products from biological species and its application to the conservation and sustainable use of this biological diversity” (Eisner 1991 in Chapela, 1997, p. 1), or as “the purposeful evaluation of wild biological material in search of valuable new products…” (Artuso, 2002, p. 1355).
This activity encompasses the collection of biological material, the screening of the collected samples in laboratories and the isolation and identification of biologically active compounds that might be useful for the development of agricultural, industrial, or pharmaceutical products. If the genetic material of part of a sample is found to be valuable, it can be synthesized and further produced for commercial purposes. In such cases, which are very rare, the identified commercially valuable compound is likely to be patented by the institute that identified and isolated that compound if all patent requirements are met. For the purpose of this thesis, focus will be on bioprospecting for pharmaceutical purposes, i.e. for the discovery of a potential medical drug which is the most common objective of bioprospecting ventures. A clear and unique definition of bioprospecting is however not available. Bioprospecting could also be understood as the identification and classification of genetic resources (taxonomy) which is
14 Three quarters of prescription drugs of plant origin were discovered thanks to their prior use in indigenous medicine (Ribeiro 2002 in Alarcón 2003).
practiced by indigenous people or researchers in which case it is considered a scientific endeavor.
There is a lot of discussion around what should be considered as bioprospecting and if scientific bioprospecting should be defined and regulated differently from commercial bioprospecting.15 The potential economic value found in nature through bioprospecting has been termed by some
‘Green Gold’ and involves a new practice of commercialization of nature and knowledge.
Knowledge, more specifically ethnobotanical knowledge, held by indigenous communities is sometimes used by collectors to guide them towards potentially useful plants. Considering that the potential value, as itself or as a source of information, of all species and their genetic components is not known at present, it is argued that this diversity in biological species should be conserved for future potential sources of new drugs or other useful products for humanity.16 Bioprospecting can then enhance the value of biological diversity by stressing the fact that yet undiscovered medicinal plants are out there and need to be preserved (Amundsen and Dhillion, 2000). Hence, nature gains value through bioprospecting leading to biodiversity conservation.
Bioprospecting may also create an incentive for local populations and their governments to conserve their biological and genetic resources if they realize that these could lead to sources of income for themselves. Such types of projects often involve compensation to the source country in terms of monetary benefits that could be deposited in a fund for conservation projects such as in the INBio bioprospecting case in Costa Rica. Bioprospecting could then be termed as ‘selling nature to save it’ (Castree, 2002). Bioprospecting is often promoted by Northern countries through the ‘win-win’ discourse as a means to compensate the stewards of biological resources (see Brush, 1999), the farmers who have experimented with these resources for centuries working to improve species, through the sharing of benefits from bioprospecting. Consequently, bioprospecting is seen by some as ‘green developmentalism’ as it may lead to conservation, development, and equitable benefit sharing (Castree, 2002).
As briefly mentioned earlier, use of TK for drug development leads to controversial issues of intellectual property rights on products developed thanks to this knowledge. The concept of commercializing nature and privatizing its use through the application of patents also leads to
15 This issue was brought up in the ICBG-Maya case surrounding the different permits that are required in Mexico to conduct either scientific or commercial collections of genetic material.
16 Eisner (1989, 1994 in Garrity and Hunter-Cevera 1999) argues that there is a link between biological and chemical impoverishment and that many of the compounds that are lost unknowingly may have important social and economic value.
debates around access to nature that was previously thought of as common heritage. Biodiversity, which was considered and managed as a common public resource/potential source of benefit, is now regarded and treated as private. Moreover, bioprospecting projects face strong opposition as they are accused of unethical practices and of enacting a new form of colonialism through the exploitation of Southern genetic resources and TK for the benefit of the North. The balance that should be reestablished between the providers, the South, and the users of genetic resources, the North, via bioprospecting contracts (Brush, 1999) appears to some as unrealistic. This may be due to the unequal political and economic power relations between both countries or to the difficulty in defining how the source country could be equitably compensated. There is also a lot of suspicion regarding the real benefits bioprospecting may create for conservation.17 First of all, the chances of finding a commercially viable product18 are very meager and the creation of sizable monetary benefits may take a long time (around 20 years). Secondly, some argue that the valuation of a genetic resource could possibly lead to its extinction through over-exploitation (e.g. the Cat Claw herb in Peru (Oviedo, personal communication, 2004)). Equitable benefit sharing is another widely debated concept that questions the identification of the beneficiaries, the sharing of benefits, and the type of benefits (e.g. monetary benefits, technology transfer, and know-how). Finally, the creation of a contract representing an agreement between the bioprospectors and the nation on whose territory the genetic resources are found is highly controversial involving issues of prior informed consent (PIC) which may perhaps never be solved. Part of this skepticism regarding the success of bioprospecting as a form of sustainable development is due to the lack of a clear and enforceable legal framework for these types of projects.19 All these issues were central to the ICBG-Maya case and will thus be discussed in more detail later on.
An interesting aspect of bioprospecting and one which also makes these ventures somewhat problematic and complex is the diverse range of actors who take part in it. As we will see in this case study, not only is an interaction created between Northern and Southern social actors, which
17 On the other hand, there is doubt regarding the future of bioprospecting as a research system as e.g. Bhatti (personal communication, 2004) explains that “The industry is saying that they are doing more with molecular modeling…”.
18 Eisner (1989, 1994 in (Garrity and Hunter-Cevera, 1999) argues that there is an overall success rate to reach a final product of approximately one in four million.
19 Baruffol (2003) also points out that PIC is a new concept in terms of its use in bioprospecting as it was only previously used in the medical field to inform the patient about special treatments and for trans-boundary transports of hazardous waste.
