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.
III
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.
IV
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.
IV
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
V
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.
VI
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
VII
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
VIII
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 ICBG DRY 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.
IX
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
X
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
1
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
2
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.
3
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.
4
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.
5
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,
6
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.
7
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.
8
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
9
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.
10
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.
11
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
12
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.
13
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.
14
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.
15
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).
16
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.
17
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.
18
is common in any development type of project, but there are also people involved at very
different levels throughout the world. For example, the following social actors could participate
in bioprospecting projects: universities and research institutes in the North and South, private
laboratories (biotechnology companies), governmental authorities (environmental ministries,
environmental advisors), civil society organizations (Non Governmental Organizations (NGOs),
Community Based Organizations (CSOs), Environmental Non Governmental Organizations
(ENGOs)), and local people (indigenous communities). The interaction between these different
actors who share very different and sometimes contradictory interests makes bioprospecting a
very interesting and multifaceted subject of analysis.
In conclusion, a bioprospecting project may seem like a conventional scientific activity;
nevertheless, a whole range of issues and concerns revolve around this practice such as power
relations20, globalization processes, capitalist ideologies, biodiversity access regulations,
intellectual property laws and ethics, development and environment ideas. Because of all of its
implications, bioprospecting has become increasingly more controversial leading to the
cancellation of some of these ventures such as the one that will be used as a case study in this
thesis. Bioprospecting detractors developed the concept of biopiracy21 and identify
bioprospectors as pirates22. These social actors perceive biopirates as perpetrating another \
colonizing activity from the North by stealing biological richness from the poor Southern
countries uniquely for their own benefit and at the detriment of the farmers and indigenous
people who lose access to their traditional plants and medicines through the application of IPRs.
Larson et al. (Draft) define biopiracy as “the appropriation of genetic resources through non-
inventive patents, without the prior informed consent of the owners of the resource or knowledge
involved, and without effective distribution of contractually agreed benefit sharing” (p. 5). It is
interesting to directly contrast this definition with their definition of bioprospecting which they
argue “may be composed of a superficially similar set of actions, but it declares its intention, it
registers patents with clear inventive steps, claims, and industrial applications, and it seeks and
obtains previous informed consent and proposes specific schemes for benefit sharing” (Ibid.).
These definitions or different perceptions of bioprospecting highlight the role of the CBD in
20 For example, according to Brand & Görg (2003), the valorization of nature that is implied in bioprospecting leads to a definition of who is able to control some forms of resources and knowledge and who benefits from their use. 21 This term was coined by Pat Mooney from RAFI (now ETC). 22 Biopiracy still refers to bioprospecting but represents a specific perception of this activity.
19
bioprospecting by arguing that such activity conducted without following its guidelines
represents biopiracy.
2.3.1 Bioprospecting and Sustainable Development As mentioned previously, bioprospecting contracts were influenced by the ratification of the
CBD. Bioprospecting also exemplifies the concept of sustainable development which is
associated with the CBD. Sustainable development is widely used by actors in the environmental
and development fields as the objective of their work; nevertheless, there is no clear and widely
accepted definition of this concept. One of its most famous definitions is found in the Bruntland
Report (i.e. Report from the World Commission on Environment and Development, Our
Common Future). This declaration defines sustainable development as meeting “the needs of the
present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs”
(Bruntland, 1987, p. 8). Sustainable development also entails the following: “a process of change
in which the exploitation of resources, the direction of investments, the orientation of
technological development, and institutional change are all in harmony and enhance both current
and future potential to meet human needs and aspirations” (Bruntland, 1987, p. 46).23 Because of
the vagueness of this concept and no consensus over its definition, Dryzek (1997) claims that
different actors define the term in a way that is favorable for them and their goals; in other words,
that sustainable development is a discourse.24 Escobar (1996) argues that the concept of
sustainable development has emerged from a concern for the survival of the whole world and a
new way of viewing the relation between humans and nature since this discourse attempts to
“reconcile two old enemies – economic growth and the preservation of the environment – without
any significant adjustments in the market system” (1996, p. 328). He thereby claims that nature is
seen as being manageable which implies that it can be capitalized and commoditized. He further
claims that this discourse has reinvented nature as “environment so that capital, not nature and
culture, may be sustained” (Escobar, 1996, p. 328).25
23 Ecotourism is another activity and concept that is promoted under the banner of sustainable development and which shares a few common ideals with bioprospecting. However, it has been under fire by numerous critiques in the past few years. 24 Sustainable development is not an accomplished fact – proven and demonstrated – it is only an environmental discourse since it is only asserted (Ibid.). 25 Please refer back to Table 1 to see how environmental organizations notably fit into the sustainable development discourse.
20
Conclusively, the sustainable development discourse links biodiversity use and bioprospecting as
this activity is seen as a means to perpetrate development wile preserving biodiversity. Escobar
(1996) argues that the biodiversity discourse sees nature and local people “as the source and
creators of value – not merely as labor or raw material” (Escobar, 1996, p. 334). The genetic
value of species is recognized and increased through bioprospecting projects. At the same time,
local communities are “recognized as the owners of their territories… , but only to the extent that
they accept viewing and treating territory and themselves as reservoirs of capital” (Escobar, 1996,
p. 335). Hence, their role as stewards of biodiversity is considered as their own responsibility and
an issue in world economy (Ibid.).
21
Chapter 3: Context and Main Social Actors
In the first part of this chapter I provide information on the study site in order to get a better
picture of the context of the case study. The chapter starts by presenting the environmental
context of Chiapas and explains the presence of strategic resources. It is followed by a brief
history of the indigenous people of Chiapas who are some of the main social actors of the ICBG-
Maya project. A demographic look at Chiapas is then provided presenting its population
structure, cultural and social aspects, and traditional medical practices all in relation to and with a
focus on indigenous people. A discussion of human rights issues logically leads to a presentation
of the Zapatista movement and the militarization of Chiapas. Focus is put on the Highlands area
of Chiapas where the ICBG-Maya project was planned. This information is important to mention
since it will be shown later on how the particular cultural, political, social, and economic context
of Chiapas impacted this case study and its outcome. The important presence of NGOs in the
Chiapas town of San Cristóbal de las Casas and the opposition towards projects such as the
creation of a biosphere reserve called Montes Azules and the development of an industrial area
(Plan Pueblo Panamá) give an idea of the contested and unstable environment of Chiapas.
The second part of this chapter focuses on the case study in question. I start by presenting the
presence of bioprospecting in Mexico followed by its national legal framework. I then go on
briefly presenting the social actors that were directly involved in the project and who I will refer
to extensively in Chapter 5.
22
3.1 Environmental and Geographical Context
Figure 1: The municipalities of the Highlands of Chiapas (Sarabia, 2000b)
This case study took place in Chiapas, Mexico and more specifically in the Highlands area (Los
Altos). This mountainous and volcanic area is located between 1’500 and 2’800 meters abovesea
level and covers an area of 11’000 km². It has a sub-humid temperate climate with an annual
average temperature between 13-17 degrees Celsius. The political and commercial centre of this
area is the town of San Cristóbal de las Casas founded in 1528 and is where I was based.
This area has been inhabited since the pre-Hispanic times and is now occupied by a large
population of indigenous people of mainly three different language groups: the Tzotzil, Tzeltal,
and Cho’l (over 420’000 people representing 82.8% of the total population of Los Altos (94/95))
(CIESAS ISTMO, 2003). These people have lived in a much dispersed fashion in small areas
depending on the surrounding forested areas for their agriculture and their wood and construction
necessities (González-Espinosa and Ramírez-Marcial, In press). The land of the Highlands is
23
favourable to coffee and extensive cattle production. Subsistence agriculture and possibilities for
horticulture, floriculture, and fruit-culture are also found in this area (CIESAS ISTMO, 2003).
For the past 25 years, the traditional subsistence system of the local people has been confronted
with serious limitations leading to a deterioration of their resource base.26 Furthermore, over the
past few years, the environmental deterioration has worsened due to socio-economic factors such
as changes in federal legislation on the use of forests and land ownership and the Zapatistas
uprising (González-Espinosa and Ramírez-Marcial, In press).27
Mexico is considered as one of the most biologically diverse countries in the world containing
between 8 and 12 % (Casifop/ETC 2000 in Delgado, 2002) of all the species of the world ranking
it between fourth and fifth in terms of biodiversity worldwide (Mittermeier and al., 1998 in
Delgado, 2002). It is also important to note that Mexico as part of the Mesoamerican region is a
fundamental place for the domestication of certain food species such as maize. Chiapas hosts 18
distinct types of natural vegetation with approximately 12’000 plant species (CIESAS ISTMO,
2003) of which 3624 are endemic to Mexico (Groombridge, 1992 in Støen and Dhillion, 2002).
Mittermeier and Goettsch (1992) explain that this important biodiversity is partly due to the
geographic location of this state at the crossing of the Nearctic and Neotropical biogeographic
regions. Chiapas along with the states of Oaxaca and Veracruz are the three most biologically
rich states. For this reason, Chiapas is host to an important biosphere reserve called Montes
Azules. The government of Mexico has created 11 protected areas in Chiapas covering about
10% of the territory of the state (Ceceña and Barreda, 1995).28
The rich biodiversity of Chiapas can be seen as a strategic resource along with oil29 and water30.
These primary materials are essential for Mexico’s development and Chiapas has been used as an
exploitation ground for basic resources (wood, tobacco, rubber, etc) since the colonization era. In
26 This environmental destruction is caused by the following factors: high population density; the proliferation of small settlements; the reduction or elimination of fallow periods, creation of natural carbon, bad agricultural planning, etc (CIESAS ISTMO, 2003; González-Espinosa and Ramírez-Marcial, In press). 27 See Figure 3 in the Appendix for a map of the vegetation of the Highlands area. 28 See Figure 4 in the Appendix for a map of Natural Protected Areas. 29 81.2% of Mexico’s exportations of crude oil, 68.2% of its exportations of oil derivatives, and 90.6% of its petrochemicals are from this state. Along with oil resources, Chiapas is host to important gas sources (Ceceña and Barreda, 1995). 30 Chiapas produces (as of 2001) about 55% of all the hydroelectricity in Mexico (Fundació Solidaritat, Accessed 2004a) representing 35% of Mexico’s electricity (Comisión Nacional para el Desarrollo de los Pueblos Indígenas, 2003a). The production of this resource still has the possibility to increase through the construction of new dams. Chiapas hosts 25% of the superficial water sources in Mexico (CIESAS ISTMO, 2003).
24
terms of geo-economics, due to its neighbouring location with the US and the Caribbean region
Mexico is able to engage in important trade agreements such as NAFTA and ALCA (Ceceña and
Barreda, 1995). On the other hand, Chiapas also encounters problems related to its strategic
location and resources such as the co-ownership of the oil resources, the building of dams
displacing people, and the population pressure and loss of jobs due to Guatemalan immigrants.
The biological richness of Chiapas can also be thought of as a strategic resource that may have
important capital value. Crosby (1973 in Brand and Görg, 2003) explains that “the appropriation
of biodiversity has taken place at the local level over thousands of years and, with the colonial
conquest and neo-colonial exploitation, became part of capitalist development”. Nowadays,
genetic engineering companies need primary material which can be found in great quantities in
Chiapas for biotechnological developments. Thus, they engage in the collection of species for
databases and the creation of national parks to conserve this diversity. As briefly mentioned
above Mexico is an important centre for the domestication of biological species used in
agriculture such as maize and tomato (Groombridge, 1992 in Støen and Dhillion, 2002). Other
resources apart from these strategic ones mentioned above are also found in Chiapas such as
agricultural products (coffee, cattle, beans) wood, and artisan work. Despite this environmental
and potential economic richness the indigenous people of Mexico suffer from poverty. A look at
the history of the indigenous people will clarify this paradox.
3.2 Historical Context In order to better understand the context in which the ICBG-Maya project was planned, it is
important to have some knowledge about the historical background of the indigenous people of
Chiapas.
3.2.1 History of the Indigenous People of Chiapas According to some authors, the Mayas arrived to Chiapas from the North and from the Golf
Coast. During the next thousand of years several groups separated themselves from the original
one to form the multiplicity of different peoples we now find in Chiapas (CIESAS ISTMO,
2003). Around year 1000, the Maya civilization was at its peak in Southern Mexico and Central
America before it suffered from Spanish colonization in the 1500s. These ethnic groups were able
to maintain their original identities under Spanish colonization even though they were given an
25
‘extra’ identity by the colonizers. They were usually assigned different laws and rules
marginalizing them and making them inferior to the ‘white’ people (Montes, 1999).
Through the capitalist development of the land, indigenous people were stripped from their
territories and chased into marginal areas. Large exploitations were then created such as
haciendas on previously indigenous territories and indigenous people were used as servants.
Caste wars which culminated in the Revolution of 1910 were a result of the conflict created by
this mistreatment of the indigenous people. The new constitution of 1917 (article 27) recognized
the land rights of the original occupants of these territories and their customary land tenure
system and created a new land rights system called ejido. However, ethnic groups are not
recognized by this constitution as legal persons. In search for a national unity, an assimilation
program started around 1918 and 1930 which attempted to integrate the indigenous people into
the national culture through education (boarding schools), health, and economic participation.
These assimilation attempts were based on the belief that indigenous people suffered from
poverty and marginalization due to their lifestyles and cultural traditions, a belief that is still held
nowadays (Montes, 1999). Harvey (2001) adds that the leading political party at that time (PRI)
promoted the homogeneity of the Mexican population through a model called ‘corporate
citizenship’.
During Cárdenas’ presidency (1934-40) land distribution took place, but resulted mainly in the
expansion of private property. Local farmers were only provided with low quality land (CIESAS
ISTMO, 2003). Nevertheless, the multi-ethnic character of Mexico was claimed by indigenous
organizations (Harvey, 2001) and the first indigenous congress in Chiapas was held in 1974. In
the same period, the indigenous people were being increasingly more recognized through e.g. the
recognition of the value of bilingual education and study centres on social and indigenous issues.
Moreover, in 1940 the National Indigenous Institute (Instituto Nacional Indigenista, INI) was
created to help the indigenous people. From the 1980s on the agrarian reform of Chiapas had to
be included in political programs because of the rise of indigenous farmers organizations
(CIESAS ISTMO, 2003). At the same time NGOs appeared to provide help in rural areas (De
Walt and Rees, 1994 in Instituto de Ecología, Accessed 2003). However, the redistribution of
land created conflicts between the previous and new owners and demands for land are still going
on and were e.g. illustrated by the Zapatista uprising (CIESAS ISTMO, 2003).
26
From the 1990s on, indigenous movements became more visible and started promoting legal
reforms. In 1992, the constitution was changed to incorporate a new article (4) that reflects the
multiculturalism of the country after the indigenous peoples’ demands for this recognition (De
Walt and Rees 1994 in Instituto de Ecología, Accessed 2003). After the 1994 Zapatista uprising,
which marked a turning point in the history of Mexico and especially in relation to the indigenous
people, the opportunities and initiatives to create an interaction between the indigenous people
and the government increased enabling them to participate in the reforms regarding indigenous
rights (Montes, 1999). However, Harvey (2001) explains that the State still plays a centralist and
paternalistic role with regard to indigenous people and continues in the path of ‘corporatist
citizenship’ helping the private enterprises to access valuable resources located on lands
significantly inhabited by indigenous people.
3.3 Demographic Context Demographic information is now provided in order to better understand the people targeted in
this project. These next paragraphs will focus on indigenous people in Chiapas and when possible
more specifically on the Highlands area of the state.
3.3.1 Population Ten percent of the total population of Mexico is considered as indigenous people divided into 59
distinct ‘peoples’ (Montes, 1999). The biological diversity of Chiapas is associated with its
cultural diversity as e.g., 55-60% of all of Mexico’s germplasm is located in areas occupied by
indigenous people (Delgado, 2002). Based on a 1995 census, indigenous people, along with
indigenous Guatemalan immigrants, represent 27% of the population of the state above the age of
5, which makes up for 13.6% of the total population of Mexico speaking an indigenous
language31 (Comisión Nacional para el Desarrollo de los Pueblos Indígenas, 2003c). It is
important to understand that the indigenous people of Chiapas do not constitute a homogenous
group. Nigh (2002) informs us that the Chiapas area is inhabited by indigenous people practicing
29 different, but related languages and cultures comprising one of the most important indigenous
31 It is difficult to provide accurate data on the indigenous people as these are only considered indigenous through their use of an indigenous language. Moreover 2708 localities were excluded from the 1995 census since they are Zapatista localities and given that these areas are heavily occupied by indigenous people, the real numbers must be different (Ibid.).
27
regions of the world. The concept of a Maya community32 is often contested as it is believed to
be an imposition from the exterior and not necessarily a natural concept making its use
questionable (Ibid.).
The main indigenous groups living in Chiapas are the Tzotzil, Tzeltal, Cho’l, Tojolabal, Zoque,
Kanjobal, and Mame, a classification based on languages. The indigenous and non-indigenous
population of Chiapas has increased during this century further expanding its traditional
territory.33 However, displacements have also occurred due to among other factors
overpopulation, immigration, and the Zapatista rebellion. (Comisión Nacional para el Desarrollo
de los Pueblos Indígenas, 2003c). The Highlands area, one of the most populated regions of
Chiapas, was always believed to be poor in resources and thus, escaped exploitation and was
available to the indigenous populations. Nevertheless, commercial production was still controlled
by the Mexicans of Spanish origin and the indigenous people were used as cheap labour.
(Comisión Nacional para el Desarrollo de los Pueblos Indígenas, 2003c).
32 The definition of a community and its understanding is an essential concept when one engages in bioprospecting projects especially in terms of prior informed consent (PIC) and benefit sharing. 33 This demographic increase is partly due to immigration from neighbouring states and Guatemala (Ibid.).
28
Figure 2: Location of the indigenous people in Chiapas (municipalities with >30% of indigenous people; � = the Highlands area) (INI, 1993)
3.3.2 Social Organization The social and governmental organization of indigenous communities has been marked by three
periods: colonization, the republic, and the period after the Revolution of 1910. The different
indigenous communities of Chiapas do not all have the same social organization (CIESAS
ISTMO, 2003). During colonization, the indigenous people of Chiapas were organized into new
villages and were imposed political and religious institutions. Duties (cargos) were created which
were supposed to help the priest in his work.34 Following independence, new local forms of
governance were implemented; however, in communities with a majority of indigenous people
no legally recognized authorities were brought in and they were left with their old form of civil-
religious governance system. In 1937, municipalities were formed along with community
commissaries acting as intermediaries between the indigenous farmers and the agricultural
authorities creating a power duality. Nowadays, the indigenous groups of the Highlands are 34 These cargos construct the community’s identity and direct local life through rights and obligations. Each adult (usually male) in the community must fulfil a political or religious duty once in his/her life in order to serve his/her community (Comisión Nacional para el Desarrollo de los Pueblos Indígenas, 2003a). By performing these duties, links with the community are reinforced, as well as a sense of solidarity and cohesion (Carlsen, 1999).
29
organized into communities called barrios with their own social and cultural unity and
boundaries. They have a very complex political and religious organization, with the coexistence
of pre-colonial and colonial types, in comparison with other indigenous communities of Chiapas.
The authority is held by a political and religious hierarchy composed of the municipality, the
regional town hall, and principals who have performed duties (INI in Comisión Nacional para el
Desarrollo de los Pueblos Indígenas, 2003c). The highest collective authority is the community
assembly in which most people have participated in some context or another. These assemblies
are seen as collections of opinions and as givers of orders. This authority makes the basic
decisions for the community and even though deliberations may last a long time, a consensus is
eventually reached within and in between the communities (Carlsen, 1999).
3.3.3 Land Ownership and Employment As INI (in Comisión Nacional para el Desarrollo de los Pueblos Indígenas, 2003c) explains, the
lands the indigenous people live on and cultivate are communal lands locally managed (ejidos),
commonly held, and usually inherited through the paternal line. Land rights are granted by the
highest communal authority, the community assembly, which also decides on the users of the
natural resources. Each family owns small parcels covering different agro-ecological zones which
are used for different activities. The communal lands are occupied by dispersed settlements called
parajes (Comisión Nacional para el Desarrollo de los Pueblos Indígenas, 2003c).
During the Mexican Revolution of 1917 a land reform was created through Article 27 of the
Constitution which redistributed land to the farmers by breaking up large land holdings. Land
was attributed to ejidos35 and communities, but not to individuals. (Land Research Action
Network, 2003). In 1992, this Article was amended as part of neo-liberal reforms resulting in the
privatization of these communal lands and their opening up to foreign investors (Ibid.), which
according to Nigh (2002) led in Chiapas to an armed uprising on the part of the indigenous
people. Land distribution was behind in Chiapas, farmers were still in need of land when the
amendment took place creating an important opposition (Land Research Action Network, 2003).
The following consequences of the amendment were noticed: loss of access to land by poor
farmers, less access to credit, lowering of subsidies leading to poorer agricultural productivity,
35 Ejidos represent public land attached to a community which may be parceled for communitarian use or for individual use by members of the community (ejidatarios).
30
environmental deterioration, decline in rural livelihood quality, displacement resulting in urban
growth, and so on (Ibid.).
Land shortage due to overpopulation, caused by large indigenous families and increased
immigration from Guatemala, is a problem that was mentioned by some respondents (see e.g.
Pages (personal communication, 2003)). Nigh (2002) adds that the communal land ownership of
the indigenous people faces the challenge of population growth rate and global social influences
forcing it to adapt to these changes. Ostrom (1990 in Nigh, 2002) claims that in order for
communal land ownership to be successful clearly defined boundaries must be identified, as well
as which users are included in this system.36 The rules under this system are clearly established
by the assembly with regard to the natural resources within the land under question (Nigh, 2002).
As it will be discussed later, indigenous rights such as recognition of this communal system of
land ownership are violated by the government. Moreover, neo-liberal policies do not favour this
system (Ibid.) through e.g. the privatization of resources.37 Conclusively, one of the main
problems in Chiapas and the cause of indigenous people’s uprisings are land ownership conflicts.
The majority (83%) of the indigenous population of Chiapas works in the agricultural sector
(Fundació Solidaritat, Accessed 2004a) and make a fundamental contribution to the production of
agricultural foods and products38. However, agricultural production faces problems of land
ownership fractioning, dependence on the climate39, and a lack of technical assistance and
training (CIESAS ISTMO, 2003). Brand and Görg (2003) remark that “there remain today small
farmers and subsistence agriculture… Here the Green Revolution never arrived and practices
were hardly changed” (p. 230). According to a 1980 census, 80% of the working population is
earning less than two minimum salaries40 and 34% of the indigenous population does not declare
any income. Due to a situation of overpopulation, a high growth rate and thus, a disproportionate
number of jobs, a lot of indigenous people are forced to migrate (Pages, personal communication,
2003).
36 By issuing certificates of use for ejido land the PROCEDE program attempts to determine land ownership boundaries which nevertheless often leads to disputes. The Chiapas armed conflict also hampers PROCEDE’s work (Land Research Action Network, 2003). 37 Most of the cultivated land in Chiapas is private property (CIESAS ISTMO, 2003). 38 Main cultivations: maize, coffee, beans (Ibid.). 39 Less than 1% of the cultivable land is irrigated (Comisión Nacional para el Desarrollo de los Pueblos Indígenas, 2003c). 40 The minimum wage is approximately 4 US dollars (Mexico Child Link, 2003).
31
3.3.4 Development and Living Standards In the 1970s, a local development program with the support of international agencies put in place
projects aimed at improving the livelihoods of the indigenous people of the Highlands through
the construction of schools, roads, the provision of electricity through the creation of
hydroelectric dams, etc. A bilingual educational program was also promoted by INI in Chiapas
through training and financial support (Comisión Nacional para el Desarrollo de los Pueblos
Indígenas, 2003b). Nevertheless, a high rate of illiteracy for people over the age of 15 (30%
compared to 12.6% nationally) is still present in these communities (especially among women)
and the bilingual program is weak lacking teachers and material. In the Highlands area the
situation is even worse with 56% of illiteracy in 11 out of its 15 municipalities – almost 20% of
the illiterates are found in the Highlands region. About 50% of the children over the age of 15
have not received any schooling in the Highlands compared to approximately 30% in Chiapas.
Strictly within the indigenous population of/over the age of 15 living in Chiapas, 54% are
illiterate compared to a national average of 41%. This situation, partially due to the fact that most
indigenous people live in rural areas far from educational facilities located in urban centres,
further increases their marginality (Ibid.). As we will discuss later, the Zapatistas refuse any help
from the government and thus, want to create their own development projects. Luis (personal
communication, 2003) argues that this creates tensions in the communities between the
Zapatistas and non-Zapatistas who depend on government projects and accept economic support.
Inputs brought through development programs also led to the adoption of unsustainable
agricultural practices. Furthermore, conflicts over resources lead to political and religious
tensions in the communities (Comisión Nacional para el Desarrollo de los Pueblos Indígenas,
2003c).
Medical care in the Highlands communities is relatively poor since the government fails to
provide the basic health care services. Nevertheless, herbalists and healers provide the
communities with alternative TM and work on the improvement of people’s nutrition. Chiapas is
also the state with the highest number of infant mortality and malnutrition (67.7%) with a higher
level in the indigenous communities (80%) (CONAPO 1996 in Comisión Nacional para el
Desarrollo de los Pueblos Indígenas, 2003c). Marginalization, submission, poverty, and
disrespect for the culture of the indigenous people are still prevalent today and governmental
programs do not seem to lessen this regrettable condition. Poverty is a phenomenon that is clearly
32
associated with the indigenous people as e.g. the National institute of statistics, geography and
informatics tells us that in the municipalities that are classified as extremely poor, 90% or more
of their population is indigenous. Other signs of poverty such as malnutrition, illiteracy,
displacement, lack of running water are found in indigenous communities (Montes, 1999).
3.3.5 Indigenous Religion, Cultural Beliefs, and Traditional Medicine Most of the inhabitants of the Highlands are catholic (61.5%) even though this percentage was
greatly reduced between 1970 and 1990 as people turned to Protestantism (22.6%). The symbolic
system of the indigenous people of Chiapas is embodied in a Mesoamerican cosmovision
characterized by a cyclical conception of time and a cult of solar and lunar divinities, and rain
gods. This shared Maya symbolism and belief has maintained its coherence despite external
political and religious influences. Their symbolical beliefs are expressed in their festivals and
ceremonies through rituals which strengthen their group cohesion (Comisión Nacional para el
Desarrollo de los Pueblos Indígenas, 2003c). The indigenous agricultural system is closely linked
to their belief system41 creating a type of respectful behaviour towards nature.
Indigenous people see themselves as separate from the other people occupying their lands and
they want to transmit their cultural practices to their descendants in order to maintain their
culturally unique identity. Their feeling of belonging to a people is fundamental to their
livelihoods and one that they live for and defend vigorously (Montes, 1999). Carlsen (1999) also
explains that indigenous people want to conserve their own norms and identity expressed in a
constant rejection of and resistance to foreign forms. Nevertheless, as it was explained earlier the
government of Mexico made policies to integrate the indigenous people further denying their
separate identity. Carlsen (1999) cites an indigenous person defining an indigenous community
as having a territorial space, a common history, a separate language, an organization that defines
all aspects of life (cultural, social, economic), and a communitarian judicial system.
An important aspect of Maya culture is the system of traditional medicine (TM) that provides an
interesting alternative health service for the indigenous communities. The TM practiced in the
indigenous communities is often related to their cosmovision, to habits, and religious and social
obligations. The indigenous medical practices are a mixture of medieval, pre-Hispanic, and
41 Nigh (2002) explains that the Maya believe in a spirited landscape which might punish a disrespectful attitude.
33
contemporary customs (Comisión Nacional para el Desarrollo de los Pueblos Indígenas, 2003c).
The World Health Organization (WHO) (2002) defines TM as “including diverse health
practices, approaches, knowledge and beliefs incorporating plant, animal, and/or mineral based
medicines, spiritual therapies, manual techniques and exercises applied singularly or in
combination to maintain well-being, as well as to treat, diagnose or prevent illnesses” (p. 7).
They further explain that the broad use of TM in the South is due to its affordability and
accessibility which is clearly the case in the Highlands of Chiapas. This type of medicine is
mostly based on the use of plants and spiritual ceremonies usually performed by shamans.
According to COMPITCH all the plants are sacred and people communicate with them which is
why they can be used as cures (in SEMARNAP, 2000a). The traditional indigenous medical
system is comprised of midwifes, bone healers (hueseros), herbalists (yerbateros), and shamans
(curanderos) who are believed to have obtained a gift from God to cure people through their
supernatural forces. This gift, according to Luis (personal communication, 2003) is transmitted
through generations. He explains though that not all knowledge and power is in the blood but that
some is learnt, herbolary e.g., from observation. A distinction is also made between natural
diseases and psychological ones, the former being cured by empirical knowledge and the latter
through connection with the spiritual world (Instituto de Ecología, Accessed 2003). The ill are
believed to be in such a state because of their situation of imbalance within society and nature.
An inaccurate behaviour may also be the cause of their sufferance and thus, the shaman attempts
to cure the ill by recreating a harmonious relationship with nature. As Nigh (2002) explains, a
harmony between the physical and the metaphysical world is sought. This proximity to and
connection with the spiritual world brings the Mayans closer to the natural world, as well as it
creates a respectful attitude which is hard to reach in a world influenced by Western beliefs of
dichotomy between humans and gods or humans and nature. The traditional doctors connect with
the spiritual world through prayers and candles.42
42 Some of this information was obtained while visiting the OMIECH museum on traditional medicine in San Cristóbal de las Casas.
34
Picture 1: Wax representation of an indigenous doctor praying at OMIECH’s museum of traditional medicine
According to Berlin et al. (1999), the indigenous people of Chiapas have a complex ethnomedical
understanding of anatomy, physiology, and the symptomatology of approximately 250 individual
health conditions. During the Berlins’ research in Chiapas, these anthropologists identified about
1,800 medicinal species that treat approximately 250 conditions. Berlin et al. (1999) broadly
define ethnomedical knowledge as “general shared knowledge among large numbers of
individuals in the community” (Ibid., p. 128).
This traditional medical system is threatened by governmental measures and a lack of formal
recognition. As a result, several NGOs have appeared to fight for the recovery and conservation
of this knowledge (Instituto de Ecología, Accessed 2003) such as the Organization of Indigenous
Doctors of the State of Chiapas (OMIECH) who were deeply involved in this case study. Another
threat to TM is the influence of Protestantism. Limón (personal communication, 2003) argues
that people with an Evangelist or non-catholic religion do not go to their traditional community
doctor in case of illness, but rather to a Western medical centre. Luis (personal communication,
2003), a traditional doctor, also explains that external factors such as chemical substances and
transgenics that enter the communities negatively affect their mental capacities and health which
makes them lose their medical knowledge. He also adds that the medicinal plants are threatened
by chemical inputs affecting their medicinal properties.
3.3.6 Indigenous Peoples’ Rights The Mexican constitution has been modified to increasingly recognize the identity of indigenous
people. In 1992, the multi-ethnic composition found in Mexico was recognized by adding article
35
4 to the Constitution which acknowledges this diversity and article 27 which protects indigenous
peoples’ lands. However, the government does not recognize a community as a legal entity that
could associate as a group, defend its interests, and organize itself to receive benefits (Comisión
Nacional para el Desarrollo de los Pueblos Indígenas, 2003c). In 1989, the Mexican government
ratified the International Labour Organization’s (ILO) convention 169 (Ibid.) which recognizes
and protects the rights of indigenous people and among other things their right to their traditional
lands and territories. Article 15 of this convention asserts the right of indigenous people to use,
manage, and conserve the natural resources found on their lands. If the government wants to
exploit resources located on their territories an agreement must be obtained from the indigenous
people (ILO, 1989).
Rights violation in Chiapas revolves essentially around agrarian issues as indigenous people had
their lands taken away from them. These agrarian problems result mainly in conflicts and the
displacement of indigenous people by governmental forces. Towards the end of the 1990s, an
increase in indigenous rights violations has been recorded and a new type of violation introduced,
collective executions (Fundació Solidaritat, Accessed 2004b).The most well-known case is that
of the town of Acteal in Chiapas where 45 people, mostly women and children, were massacred
by paramilitary forces called the “Red Masks”. The International Federation of Human Rights
declared in 1998 that one of the zones of Chiapas where the human rights’ situation was the most
critical was the Highlands due to paramilitary violence. Irregularities were also found in the
judicial system and religious rights violations were identified. Discrimination against women is
also a problem in Chiapas through sexual violence, assaults, homicides, etc. Violations are also
brought against NGO activists through threats and accusations (Fundació Solidaritat, Accessed
2004b).43
When presenting indigenous peoples’ rights issues in Mexico it is essential to mention the
Accords of San Andres which were signed in 1996 and enabled the formation of autonomous
municipalities. The indigenous people see their rights as essentially collective (Montes, 1999)
and demand a constitutional recognition of them (Harvey, 2001). These accords are the result of
nearly a year of peace talks between the Zapatista National Liberation Army (EZLN) and the
government and are concerned with indigenous rights and culture. The accords would among
43 For more information about human rights violations please refer to the next section.
36
other things recognize indigenous peoples’ right to self-determination and autonomy, a new
relationship between the indigenous people and the government, the legal recognition of
municipalities and their organizational and ruling system, increase in political participation and
representation, full access to justice, knowledge and respect of their culture (Bermudez-Ballin,
1996). These accords were never implemented though, but a weaker version, the COCOPA law,
entered into effect in 2001 and the government amended article 2 of the Constitution in 2001
recognizing the right of indigenous peoples and communities to autonomy and the requirement of
governmental authorities to support their development (Larson-Guerra et al., Draft). Montes
(1999) explains that the indigenous peoples’ demand for autonomy reflects a need for more
liberty in order to control, possess, and manage their territories, regulate their political, economic,
social, and cultural livelihoods, and in order to participate in the national decisions that affect
them. Montes (1999) further lists the basic rights demanded by the indigenous people:
• Recognition as a people or the right to difference
• Autonomy
• Indigenous lands and territories
• Recognition of their own judicial systems
• Own vision of development
(Montes, 1999. Trans. Researcher)
Since these accords were never implemented by the government indigenous peoples’ rights are
still not recognized and the Zapatista movement is still present.
3.4 The Zapatista Movement and the Militarization of Chiapas The Zapatista movement originated with farmers’ organizations of the 70s who organized
themselves to fight for agrarian demands and defend human rights (Moguel, 1995). The
movement’s name comes from Emiliano Zapata who was a revolutionary hero and started an
armed rebellion in the state of Morelos in 1911 fighting for land and freedom. The armed group
associated with this movement (Ejercito Zapatista de Liberación Nacional, EZLN) was founded
37
in 1983 for self-defence44 and is composed of thousands of soldiers backed by numerous
communities in Chiapas45 and supported by several civil society organizations worldwide. Its
front figure is a charismatic educated philosopher from the capital called Subcomandante Marcos.
The cause of the rebellion led by the Zapatistas is believed by some authors to be due to several
factors such as the ecological crisis, the lack of productive land, the exhaustion of non-
agricultural sources of income, the political and religious reorganization of the indigenous
communities since the 1960s, and the rearticulating of ethnic identities (Harvey, 2000). After the
uprising in 1994, the Mexican army was sent into Chiapas in order to repress the EZLN resulting
in numerous human rights’ abuses internationally decried. As a result, the national government
was forced to enter into a dialogue with the armed movement. The Zapatistas have had a very
strong impact at the local, national, and international levels (Pages, personal communication,
2003) and were the first to bring to the conscience of the Mexicans notably the miserable
situation of the indigenous people which deliberately tried to be ignored.
According to Harvey (2000), the Zapatista rebellion expresses a search for a new type of
democracy and citizenship in Mexico. The Zapatistas brought the four following issues to the
table during the Accords of San Andres: indigenous culture and rights, democracy and justice,
development46 and well-being, and women’s rights. Pages (personal communication, 2003)
explains that the Zapatista communities question everything (economic model, interdependency,
comparative advantages which are at the base of liberalism47) and in comparison to the non-
indigenous communities in Chiapas they want projects that will be valuable in the long term and
that will help future generations as well. The Zapatistas do not accept any help such as
development projects from the government since the dialogue between both actors is broken.
Because of their disconnection from the government the Zapatistas want to take into their own
hands the challenge of their own development and improvement of their livelihoods. In other
44 Marcos explains that the EZLN was born out of a meeting between three indigenous people and three mestizos including himself. They wanted to defend themselves against violent displacements of farmers that were taking place (Harvey, 2000). 45 It is also important to note that the Zapatista movement is supported by women since they were taken into account in the EZLN’s agenda (Harvey, 2000). 46 This movement also established the theme of development creating a public discussion on the neo-liberal model and its alternatives (Pages, personal communication, 2003). 47 The day of the uprising (January 1st, 1994) corresponded with the implementation date of the NAFTA treaty.
38
words, they want to assume the government’s task which is lacking in Chiapas. This movement
focuses a lot on organizational strategies and the importance of working in a communitarian way,
owning resources and sharing benefits in common (e.g. cooperatives) (Pages, personal
communication, 2003). The important social organizations’ support for the Zapatistas expresses a
common goal of reaching democracy in Mexico (Harvey, 2000). The submission of the Zapatista
army to the civilians of Chiapas is one of their characteristics along with their idea of changing
the world without using violence and taking over the power. Even though the Zapatistas oppose
the phenomenon of globalization they take part in it through the use of Internet to communicate
their ideas and mobilize the rest of the world. The Zapatista movement has gained a lot of support
from different organizations worldwide from which they want recognition and support of their
political ideas and projects (Pages, personal communication, 2003).
The Zapatistas are fighting for a new world with a new democratic political system that listens to
the majority (Moreno, 1994) and a world which respects the dignity of every human being.48 One
of the claims of this movement is called mandar obedeciendo which means to listen to the
majority, to act according to what the majority decides, to consult the people, the demands of the
reached consensus; in other words, it represents a model of direct democracy. This idea is also
reflected in the indigenous political system where, as discussed above, consensus on
communitarian issues and decisions are taken at the communitarian assembly level after long
periods of deliberation. As the EZLN declare they want: “A political force that can organize the
demands and proposals of the citizens so that the one who commands, commands obeying”
(EZLN, 1996 in Harvey, 2000, p. 29. Trans. Researcher). Another idea and claim brought up by
the Zapatistas is to create a world in which everyone can live, a world where there is room for all
different worlds – un mundo donde todos mundos quepan. Through this idea the Zapatistas
demand for the recognition of all differences – social, gender, racial – and they want to speak for
the marginalized people (Pages, personal communication, 2003). Conclusively, they express the
voice of the indigenous people and the visions of a new world:
48A particularity of the Zapatistas is that they do not show one unique human face such as that of the indigenous people. They wear black mountain masks in order to express that they represent no one and everyone at the same time; that they are fighting in the name of all human beings worldwide. They claim that they are not a ‘them’, but an ‘us’ and that “within ourselves, we are you” (Holloway, 2000).
39
“it is hope that obliges the political fight to find new forms of fighting, in other words,
new ways of being politicians, to do politics. New politics, a new political moral, a new
political ethic is not only a desire, it is the only way to advance, to hop to the other side.”
(Sucomandante Marcos in Holloway, 2000, p. 46. Trans. Researcher).
The militarization of Chiapas, through the military occupation of the state and the insurgency of
the army and other public security instances, has led to a violation of the constitutional rights of
mostly indigenous people and farmers and to an atmosphere of insecurity and a social breakdown
of the communities (Fundació Solidaritat, Accessed 2004b).49 According to Pages (personal
communication, 2003) a lot of factors justify this intense military presence such as the border
with Guatemala (immigrants and drug trafficking), weapon trafficking, closeness with the United
States (especially after September 11th 2001), presence of strategic resources such as oil and
water, and the existence of an armed movement (the EZLN). This militarization is often called a
war of low intensity50; nevertheless, it has generated an important displacement of people within
the state51 forcing them to abandon their lands and live in dreadful conditions and further
destroying the social tissue of the communities (Fundació Solidaritat, Accessed 2004b).
3.5 Bioprospecting in Mexico Since Mexico is considered as one of the most biodiverse areas in the world it is a very attractive
place to implement bioprospecting projects. Furthermore, thanks to its proximity to the United
States and its participation in the NAFTA treaty access to Mexico is facilitated (Brand and Görg,
2003). However, such projects face strong opposition mostly from civil society organizations
who fight against the privatization of resources, the globalization phenomenon that they see as
commercializing everything (even nature), and biotechnology with its ‘threatening’ power. As a
result, two out of four bioprospecting projects have been cancelled in Mexico over the last few
years and the others have not gone unnoticed. It is important to keep in mind that “The public
debate about biodiversity issues gained importance in 1999 when Greenpeace Mexico started a
49 Due to military presence communities suffer from problems such as prostitution, drugs, alcohol, STDs, and the promotion of divisions. The presence of paramilitary forces creates conflicts in the communities notably between members of the PRI – generally enjoying more social advantages and protected by the army – and their opponents (Pages, personal communication, 2003). 50 For example, the following acts are perpetrated: interrogatories, sexual castigations of women, occupation of schools, accusations of indigenous people of military actions, destruction of houses, preferential economic support (Fundació Solidaritat, Accessed 2004b). 51 In 1998, 18’000 indigenous people were displaced as a direct consequence of the conflict (Ibid.).
40
campaign against genetically modified seeds and food. At the same time a debate started about
different existing agreements and bioprospecting” (Brand and Görg, 2003, p. 229). The
denunciations and polarization of the debate over bioprospecting in Mexico started with the
UNAM-Diversa case which was denounced by the press and some academic actors. The
UZACHI-Sandoz case then took place and did not come under attack during its implementation,
but in retrospect (Baruffol, 2003). The case that concerns us here had to be cancelled before its
end. Finally, the ICBG Zonas Aridas project is still taking place. These three other
bioprospecting projects are briefly presented in the Appendix. As Brand and Görg (2003) argue,
because of Mexico’s competitive national policies and position towards attracting foreign capital
“state politics are focused on the creation of a stable framework to appropriate genetic
resources…” (p. 226). We thus turn to the current legislation for bioprospecting projects.
3.5.1 Mexican Legislation on Bioprospecting
In 1996, the Mexican government created articles 87 and 87bis in the General Law for the
Protection of the Environment (LGEEPA) in order to comply with article 15 of the CBD (Bellot,
2001). Article 87 regulates access to biological resources – understood as genetic resources –
under the provisions of the CBD solely for scientific purposes which demand the consent of the
land owner of where the resource is found, a specific permit for scientific purposes only –issued
by SEMARNAP –, and an obligation to disclose the results of the research. On the other hand,
article 87bis defines the rules for access and use of biological resources for commercial interests
and declares that an authorization to exploit biodiversity for such ends “shall only be granted
with the previous, express and informed consent of the owner or legitimate holder of the land
where the biological resource is located” (Article 87bis of LGEEPA). Moreover, this law states
that the owner of the resource should receive a fair and equitable share of the benefits that may
arise from the commercialization of the resource. Thus, this law meets the provisions of the CBD
for PIC and ABS. Article 87bis is the only place in the national law where bioprospecting is
regulated (Larson-Guerra et al., Draft).52 Conclusively, Mexico fulfills the requirements of the
CBD; however, the implementation of the national legislation is unclear and results in legal gaps
which were pointed out by the various social actors of the case study.
52 See Chapter 5 for more discussion of the Mexican law.
41
3.6 Main Social Actors in the ICBG-Maya Case The following social actors were directly involved in the ICBG-Maya case. Other social actors
are also important in this case, but they do not play a direct role and will only be presented at the
beginning of Chapter 5. This presentation of social actors provides the reader with a good
example of the mixture of participants or actors who become involved in bioprospecting projects
or cases.
3.6.1 The Berlins
Brent and his wife Elois Ann Berlin have been conducting ethnobiological research among the
Tzeltal and Tzotzil Maya in Chiapas for the past 40 years (Berlin, Accessed 2004). Dr. Berlin, a
professor of anthropology at the University of Georgia (UGA), was the director of the ICBG-
Maya project. The Berlins have published an ethnomedical manual on the use of medicinal plants
in the Highlands of Chiapas in 2000. At the beginning of 1999 they started leading a team of
researchers from UGA in the ICBG-Maya project.
3.6.2 The International Cooperative Biodiversity Groups
(ICBG)
This program integrates conservation and development by working on issues
of biodiversity conservation53, sustained economic growth, and human
health related to the discovery of drugs used worldwide. Its major focus is
the bio-inventory of terrestrial plants through which it aims to provide the source country with a
database of its biodiversity for diverse uses. Its work focuses on collection, cataloguing, and
screening of the biodiversity found in developing countries in order to test for potential activity
against certain diseases which is then followed by the identification and modification of these
active compounds. To date only one patent application has been finalized (Rosenthal and Katz,
Draft). The program is funded by the National Institute of Health (NIH), the National Science
Foundation (NSF), and the US Agency for International Development (USAID). Each project
sponsored by the ICBG program is a cooperative agreement with the government of the US
(Grifo, 1996). During the ten first years of the program, 8 projects were supported in 12
developing countries 11 of which are considered among the world’s 25 biodiversity hotspots –
53 This is done through training, conservation projects, environmental education, etc. Local commercial use of biodiversity is also promoted (Rosenthal and Katz, Draft).
42
regions with important biodiversity under anthropogenic threats. The ICBG sees as its major
achievement the development of models of unconventional partnerships with different institutes
for collaborative work (Rosenthal and Katz, Draft).54
3.6.3 The University of Georgia (UGA) The UGA is a public university located in Athens, Georgia (US) and was founded in 1785 (UGA,
Accessed 2004b). This university was one of the 4 partners in the ICBG-Maya project meaning
that the research department at UGA would have received 25% of the earnings. A team of UGA
researchers from the departments of anthropology, biochemistry, botany, horticulture,
physiology, and pharmacology was led by the Berlins (Duncan, 2000). The ICBG-Maya project
would have mainly involved, as an academic partner, the ethnobiology laboratories of UGA
which has already been conducting anthropological research on Highland Maya Nutrition (UGA,
Accessed 2004a).
3.6.4 El Colegio de la Frontera Sur (ECOSUR)
Several researchers from this public research institute participated in the ICBG-
Maya project. ECOSUR is a federal institute for research and higher education
with a 30 year old experience in problems in South-eastern Mexico. One of its
goals is to strengthen productive and social development, processes of
decentralization, and higher education through scientific and technological means. In other
words, it attempts to solve local problems through applied research in order to reach sustainable
development. ECOSUR is comprised of 5 institutes spread out throughout four states in the
Southern border of Mexico (Fernández-Ugalde, García-Barrios, and González-Espinosa,
Accessed 2003, Sergio and Bernardo, personal communications 2003). This institute harbours the
following attributes:
54 Please refer to the following article for more information: Grifo, F. T. 1996. Chemical Prospecting: An Overview of the International Cooperative Biodiversity Groups Program. Biodiversity, biotechnology, and sustainable development in health and agriculture: Emerging connections. Scientific Publication.
43
• Multidisciplinary research on regional problems
• Ample diffusion of results
• Participation of local indigenous communities
• Formation of researchers who are sensitive to regional problems
• Development of regional biological databases for a wide range of users
• Ability to compete for donors
(Fernández-Ugalde, García-Barrios, and González-Espinosa, Accessed 2003).
This institute was notably chosen because of its experience in the study area, the Highlands of
Chiapas, and its previous collaboration with Dr. Berlin. ECOSUR would have participated in the
laboratory work by preparing the extracts during the early stage of the isolation work (Berlin et
al., 1999). Research for communitarian projects by ECOSUR would have been undertaken with
the possible monetary benefits (25%) of the project (ECOSUR, Accessed 2003). ECOSUR would
have also benefited from technology transfer and know-how from the project (e.g. a laboratory).55
3.6.5 Molecular Nature Limited (MNL) This small (25 employees) British laboratory located in Wales and founded in 1999 (ECOSUR,
Accessed 2003) was contracted to perform bioassays along with other phytochemical analyses. It
was chosen for its expertise in plant natural products chemistry, biochemistry, botany, and
business development (Berlin et al., 1999).
Molecular Nature Limited works on discovering drugs from natural products. This laboratory is
currently isolating pure, novel, and active compounds from plants as leads for drugs. It also offers
databases of these compounds to pharmaceutical partners. Finally, the laboratory runs its own
discovery program (Molecular Nature, 2001).56 MNL was supposed to receive 25% of the
earnings from the possible drug discovery; nevertheless, it had committed itself to giving 50% of
its income to the local communities (Nash, 2004).
55 For more information on ECOSUR please refer to their website: http://www.ecosur.mx/ or to know more about their role in the ICBG-Maya project: (Fernández-Ugalde, García-Barrios, and González-Espinosa, Accessed 2003) 56 Please refer to their webpage for more information: http://www.molecularnature.com
44
3.6.6 Organización de Médicos Indígenas del Estado de Chiapas/ Organization of Indigenous Doctors of the State of Chiapas (OMIECH) OMIECH is a civil association located in the outskirts of San Cristóbal
de las Casas and was invited by ECOSUR to participate in the ICBG-
Maya project. The origins of the organization date back to 1978 and
include the participation of 800 people from 30 communities (OMIECH, 2000). The main
objectives of OMIECH are to recover, spread, defend, and develop indigenous medicine through
the training of different social groups – indigenous and non-indigenous – on issues of TM
(Felipe, personal communication, 2003). Their focus is on the wide aspect of TM and not just
medicinal plants (OMIECH, 2000). The training is done in areas such as herbolary and midwifes
and through the museum57, schools, universities, etc. They also hold workshops in communities
to promote and defend natural resources by informing communities about issues such as
biodiversity and the Plan Pueblo Panamá (Felipe, personal communication, 2003). Finally, they
process and sell medicinal plants to communities and people who come to buy them, but they
maintain a small production in order to keep it sustainable (OMIECH, 2000).
Picture 2: OMIECH orchard with medicinal plants
57 OMIECH developed a museum on indigenous medicine and holds a garden with plants that are used as natural medicine (See Picture 2).
45
3.6.7 Consejo de Organizaciones de Médicos y Parteras Indígenas Tradicionales de Chiapas/ Council of Traditional Indigenous Doctors and Midwives from Chiapas (COMPITCH) COMPITCH, located in San Cristóbal de las Casas, Chiapas, was
formed in 1994 by 12 organizations. According to an advisor of
COMPITCH, this council now reunites 19 indigenous organizations in
Chiapas (Luisa, personal communication, 2003) representing 1’100
members (COMPITCH, Accessed 2004). It attempts to coordinate the
efforts of these different organizations to recuperate and re-establish
TM in order to provide communities with an alternative health system
(Comisión, Accessed 2003). Moreover, COMPITCH seeks to unite in order to defend all types of
natural resources and rights (COMPITCH, 2002). COMPITCH is also part of a larger council of
indigenous doctors with 43 other organizations (COMPITCH, Accessed 2004). Its work focuses
on community health, herbolary, midwifes, bone healers (hueseros), and shamans who play an
integral role in the health of indigenous people (Luisa, personal communication, 2003). This
organization played a major role in denouncing the project and leading to its cancellation. It had
not been approached by the project team, but was contacted by OMIECH for advice.
3.6.8 Rural Advancement Foundation International (RAFI) now the Action Group on Erosion, Technology and Concentration (ETC) RAFI is an international NGO with its headquarters in Canada and
branches in different countries (e.g. in Mexico). Its work focuses on
“the conservation and sustainable advancement of cultural and
ecological diversity and human rights” by supporting “socially
responsible developments of technologies useful to the poor and marginalized” and addressing
“international governance issues and corporate power” (ETC, Accessed 2004). This group works
in partnership with e.g. local CSOs by providing them with support (Ibid.). In the ICBG-Maya
case, RAFI supported COMPITCH and OMIECH by publishing their fight in their web-based
newsletters and providing them with information. RAFI focuses particularly on issues of
46
biotechnology and biological diversity (Ibid.). For example, they have denounced genetically
modified maize contamination in Mexico.58
3.6.9 Targeted Communities The people whose land was planned to be prospected is occupied by the indigenous communities
of the Highlands of Chiapas. These people are believed to have an old and substantial knowledge
of the plans that surround them and that they use for medical purposes. 28 municipalities of this
area of Chiapas covering 25,000 km² and representing a third of the state were targeted by the
program. 47 communities were approached during the initiation of the project (Berlin and Berlin,
2003). These communities would have benefited from 25% of the royalties from the possible
product development that would be administered through a trust fund called PROMAYA.
58 For more information on ETC please go to their website at: www.etcgroup.org where you can also find articles they published about the ICBG-Maya case.
47
Chapter 4: Theory and Methods
In the first part of this chapter some theories are discussed in order to provide an analytical
background for the study. A special emphasis within the different theories is placed on
environmental and developmental issues whenever deemed particularly interesting for the goal of
this research. These different theories are somewhat interrelated and possess recurrent themes.
Hence, they are presented in what seemed to be the most logical order starting with a brief
presentation of philosophical ideas from post-structuralism and social constructivism. I then
briefly present the actor-oriented approach and from there go on to explain discourse analysis.
This first part of the chapter ends with a description of hermeneutics and its use in discourse
analysis.
The second part of this chapter starts by looking at how the respondents were selected as
informants. I then present the methods used to collect the data during the fieldwork. Following
this section I discuss what methods are used in Chapter 5 to analyze the collected data. I therefore
go back to theories presented in the first part of this chapter and look at how they can be used as
analytical methods for the next chapter. Finally, the field research experience is discussed in
order to identify possible influences on the data collected and potential improvements.
4.1 Social Constructivism and Post-Structuralism Social constructivism59 shares many resemblances with post-structuralism. Grassie (1997)
explains that post-structuralists argue that “reality is in some significant sense hidden from direct
observation and common sense” (p. 86). Hence, a problem of objectivity arises if one adopts a
philosophy of post-structuralism since reality is always in some way or another mediated and
thus, cannot be apprehended in a ‘pure’ and direct way. Even though all scientific knowledge can
be said to be constructed in the sense that it is interpreted by us, social constructivism emphasizes
the role played by culture and the context in that interpretation of society, or of the environment, 59 Even though social constructivism and social constructionism are used interchangeably by many authors, Franklin and Nurius (1998) make a distinction between these two metatheories. They explain that constructivists emphasize the role played by cognitive features in the expression of someone’s construction of reality (e.g. neural feedback) whereas constructionists focus on the importance of narratives, language, and cultural and sociological factors in enabling us to understand someone’s constructions (Ibid.). Nevertheless, social constructivism will be referred to here as this is the word used by most authors mentioned.
48
based on which knowledge is then constructed. In other words, we create meanings by interacting
with other people and our environment (Kim, 2001). Similarly, Steins and Edwards (1999)
remark that a particularity of contemporary social constructivism is that it studies the interactions
between social actors and “nonhuman entities” (p. 544). As a result of our different personal
experiences, several views and interpretations of reality will appear creating diverse meanings
and personal truths, or ‘multiple realities’.60 In other words, post-structuralism argues that no
single truth or reality exists, but rather “different ‘realities’ constructed by different social groups
from different ‘standpoints’, and knowable by different methods” (O'Meara, 2001, p. 32).
In order to apply social constructionist theory to research, Franklin and Nurius (1998) explain
that the most common approach, ‘contextual’ constructionism, is first to analyze the structural
way people describe a problem or narrate an event while at the same time making assumptions
about the objective social reality in which that event is contextualized. By focusing on the
objective social factors, the event can be situated in a specific context (Ibid.) which might enable
us to more accurately understand the interpretation of the event by the social actor and the event
itself. Thus, this version of social constructivism believes in the presence of a physical world, but
it claims that there are different perceptions of this reality due to various interpretations of it; in
other words, these interpretations are “’meanings’ rather than truths” (Milton, 1996 in Jones
2002, p. 248). Steins and Edwards (1999) also highlight social constructivism’s emphasis on
contextual factors as they argue that “both internal and contextual factors” influence social actors
(p. 541). Moreover, post-structuralism studies how assertions (i.e. narratives) are related to the
interests of different social actors and how the outcome (and impact) of these assertions are
affected by power relations (Jones, 2002). Therefore, by deconstructing the different discourses,
assumptions are uncovered along with the interests of the social actor. Finally, as Steins and
Edwards (1999) point out, social constructivism does not focus on presenting the outcome of an
event as a success or a failure, but rather analyzes “the factors contributing to the process that
leads to the specific outcome” (p. 552).
60 We will come back to the idea of ‘multiple realities while discussing the actor-oriented approach.
49
Consequently, by deconstructing the causation of world views and assumptions about reality,
post-modernism61 questions the foundations of truth claims (Grassie, 1997) which unveils power
and knowledge relationships. This deconstruction process is performed through discourse
analysis and hermeneutics based on the belief that different social actors perceive reality in
various ways and that their perceptions are affected by internal and external factors. Based on
their perceptions social actors will act in different ways resulting in particular outcomes. Since
social constructivism emphasizes human agency by studying how humans interact with their
social environment (Franklin and Nurius, 1998) an actor-oriented approach is useful for such type
of research.
4.2 Actor-oriented Approach The actor-oriented approach, as defined by Long and used in this thesis, started gaining
popularity in the 1960s-1970s and attempts to understand social change from an anthropological
or sociological perspective (Long, 1992b). Long (2001) defines an actor-oriented approach as an
understanding that “stresses the interplay and mutual determination of ‘internal’ and ‘external’
factors and relationships, and which recognizes the central role played by human action and
consciousness”(p. 13). This approach uses a method that analyses and expresses the voices,
experiences, and practices of all the relevant actors in a specific event (Ibid. 2002) with the
further goal to try to reveal how “people’s perceptions of the actions and agency of others shape
their own behaviour” (Long, 2000, p. 190). When discussing an actor-oriented approach it is
important to understand that what is implied as a social actor could be an individual or an
organization, an institute, or a group of people. In other words, a social actor is socially
constructed (Long, 1992b). Hence, an actor-oriented approach can be undertaken to see how
people, groups, organizations, and institutes belong to networks and are linked to others No
specific focus is put on the individual person interviewed, but rather this person is seen as
representing a group of people, an organization, or an institute. A social actor in an actor-oriented
approach is seen as very active. Nevertheless, agency can only be achieved and become
successful through the use of social relations and networks of other individuals who become
involved in the social actor’s endeavours (Long, 1992b). Thus, agency is described by Verschoor
(in Steins and Edwards 1997, p. 544) as “the capacity to make decisions based on social
61 Post-modernism is seen by many as very similar to post-structuralism. However, some people distinguish between both philosophies.
50
experience combined with the capacity to manipulate social relations and to enroll others into his
or her projects”.
Consequently, the actor-oriented approach emphasizes the dynamics of social change, the
interaction and relationship between internal and external influences, and gives freedom to the
individual as a conscious actor as opposed to being determined. Nevertheless, because of the
actor-oriented approach’s emphasis on the importance of the context and the possibilities and
constraints available to the social actors, it does not completely ignore the importance and
relevance of structural elements (Long, 1992b) as found in post-structuralism theory. Thus,
interfaces – situations in which different actors’ interests, values, and understandings are being
confronted (Long, 2002) – should not only be studied at the level of a specific situation, but
should also attempt to explain how they fit within a larger network of institutional and power
relations (Arce and Long, 1992), which is why a look at global-local links is also an important
part of this study. This approach can then help create strategies and plans that are better adapted
to the local social context since it takes into account the complexity of the social practices,
negotiations, and different level struggles that take place among the actors. It also enables us to
study power relations between different actors and their possibility for agency.
4.3 Discourse Analysis There are several understandings of what constitutes a discourse. In this thesis, a discourse is
widely understood as “a combination of both practice and the thoughts, ideas, and assumptions
that shape such practice” (Crewe and Harrison, 1998, p. 17), which is an understanding based on
Foucault’s ideas. Discourse analysis is then based on the belief that values, meanings and moral
characteristics that people give to things are not created by the individual him or herself, but are
created in common through means of communication and social acts (Talja, 1999). According to
Foucault (1972 in Talja, 1999), statements – assumptions or “unspoken theories about the nature
of things” – form the basis of discourses and thus, shape the way we talk about something. As a
result, it is essential to identify the assumptions underlying someone’s discourse in order to
recognize the origins of the problem, the conflict of assumptions, and try to seek a solution. Talja
(1999) explains that different discourses emerge depending on what factual statements are seen as
legitimate by the social actor and what meanings are not included. This explains why different
narratives of one event in real life may be told. Indeed, this is due to a difference in considering
51
what is important, desirable, or valuable (Ibid.). Since discourses express one’s view of reality,
one’s experience of an event, in a sense these discourses construct reality at least reality lived and
experienced by the social actor adhering to that discourse. By constructing peoples’ realities these
discourses shape the social actions of the different actors; nevertheless, the actors may not be
completely aware of their assumptions. Adger et al. (2000) define discourses in a broad sense as
“truth regimes and are related to specific social phenomena and practices” (p. 3). These authors
further identify three characteristics of discourse analyses, namely:
• “Analysis of regularities in expressions to identify discourses;
• Analysis of the actors producing , reproducing and transforming discourses; and
• Social impacts and policy outcomes of discourses” (Ibid.).
Discourses are usually associated with narratives which can be understood as stories in the sense
that they have a chronological order and identify different actors.62 Indeed, as Dryzek (1997)
explains, “discourses enable stories to be told” (p. 15); thus, discourses are also revealed through
narratives. These narratives are based on ‘received wisdom’ which in the environmental field can
be understood as “common assumptions that are made about ecological changes” (Naville, 2002,
p. 1) or as “an idea or a set of ideas held to be ‘correct’ by social consensus, or the
‘establishment’” (Leach and Mearns, 1996 in Naville, 2002,. p. 2). This ‘received wisdom’ is
used e.g. to support environmental policies and when it is transformed into a ‘story’ with a
specific message it is called a narrative (Naville, 2002). As Svarstad (2003) explains narratives
“provide descriptions not so much about what should happen, but about what inevitably will
happen” (p. 28), which explains how social actors make assumptions about reality which
represent their own truth. Furthermore, the power of narratives is associated with its discursive
nature which consists of “a body of thought and writing that is united by having a common object
of study, a common methodology, and/or a set of common terms and ideas” (Foucault Rev., 2001
in Naville, 2002, p. 2). Therefore, narratives are seen as discursive expressions with a particular
power because of their homogeneity. Similarly, Adger et al. (2000) explain that the expressions
conveyed in a discourse “share a certain knowledge and perception of the phenomenon in
question, and there may also be shared beliefs concerning causes of problems and appropriate
62 However, please refer to the methods section for the distinction between narratives and stories as used in this study.
52
responses” (p. 4). Consequently, we can describe narratives as “legitimized discourses that are
supported by ‘received wisdom’ which is itself backed up by ‘associated metaphors, labels and
symbols of scientific authority’”(Keeley and Scoones, 1999 in Naville 2002, p. 2).
According to Dryzek (1997) environmental, or social, problems are viewed in several different
ways because of their inherent complexity and multi-dimensionality making any view of them
difficult to prove as incorrect. He thus argues for the usefulness of analyzing discourses which he
explains “rest[s] on assumptions, judgments, and contentions that provide the basic terms for
analysis, debates, agreements, and disagreements, in the environmental area no less than
elsewhere” (p. 8). Thus, discourse analysis enables us to understand how actors perceive reality
and then construct environmental problems or social issues. Not only are environmental problems
discursively defined, but development issues as well, as Arce (2000) argues that “the language of
development frames our understanding of contemporary ‘problems’” (p. 33).
Going back to Adger et al.’s idea of ‘truth regimes’ and Leach and Mearn’s concept of ‘received
wisdom’ discourses can be seen as having different levels of power. For example, some
discourses may be more powerful than others depending on several factors such as if they are
supported by authoritative people, if they are widely accepted, if they use powerful words and
refer to strongly and widely held ideologies, and if they appeal to moral stances. Nevertheless,
Dryzek (1997) rejects Foucault’s argument that discourses are hegemonic tools meaning that
within a specific time and space, one discourse dominates the dispute. In other words, Dryzek
(1997) sees diversity in the existence of discourses rather than hegemony, a view that is also
shared in this study.
4.4 Hermeneutics According to Koch (1998), hermeneutics represents a qualitative research method that includes
“understanding, reconstruction, advocacy, and activism” (p. 1189). Thus, hermeneutics is used to
search for a meaning in the use and selection of words (the text) which is interpreted by the
researcher the reader/the interpreter and reveals assumptions contained in a discourse (Ibid.).
Hermeneutics is thus the discipline whereby discourses and their expressed narratives are
interpreted. This method is somewhat complementary to discourse analysis as it requires us to
analyze what people say by interpreting their discourses. Grassie (1997) explains that since “the
53
text is radically influenced by the author’s intentional construction of the work” (p. 86)
hermeneutics allows us to understand his/her intentions. Nevertheless, the text is also
independent of the author as it may express an idea that is not meant by the author (Ibid.). Indeed,
the reader may interpret the meaning in a different way than the one meant by the author due to
contextual factors and personal experiences.
Dobrosavljev (2002) explains that hermeneutical research can be divided into understanding,
interpretation, and application. He then claims that interpretation and understanding cannot be
separated since understanding always implies interpretation. In other words, in order to
understand a text, a narrative told by someone, one must interpret what is said. When translation
is also needed, then the closeness between interpretation and understanding is even narrower.63
Adaptation is understood as implying the concept of a situation in which knowledge of an event
e.g. can never be objective and thus, understanding is seen as a historical event and as a type of
experience (Ibid.). Grassie (1997) points out a similar critique by arguing that the reader also
operates from within a context and thus, his/her understanding of a text is conditioned by his/her
background. Thus, Grassie (1997) identifies here a problem of circularity in which “prejudgment
directs explanation, which determines understanding, which defines prejudgment again” (p. 87).
However, this author further explains that the cultural biases of the interpreter are not necessarily
bad since they will create new interpretations of views which will then provide new insights and
will lead to an evolving rather than just a circular spiral. Nevertheless, a precondition for this
possibility is for the interpreter to be aware of his/her own biases which suggests a prior self-
reflection.
4.5 Qualitative Research This study uses qualitative methods based on interviews and the analysis of relevant publications.
The main fieldwork for this thesis was undertaken in Mexico from October 12, 2003 to
December 16, 2003 first in San Cristóbal de las Casas in Chiapas (until December 3rd) and then in
Mexico City. Another secondary part of the fieldwork was undertaken in Norway (Oslo) and
Switzerland (Gland, Bern, and Geneva) between December 17th and January 8, 2004.
63 See the next section on experience from the fieldwork for more on translation issues.
54
The main aim of this research was to investigate peoples’ views on the ICBG-Maya case and on
bioprospecting in general and see how they fit into a particular socio-cultural context. Thanks to
qualitative research a deep type of inquiry is possible by researching the source of a problem in
peoples’ minds and beliefs (Salkind, 2003). In other words, people’s personal experience of the
ICBG-Maya was investigated through interviews with social actors and people’s understanding
and view on bioprospecting mostly was also researched through external actors and articles.
External actors or outsiders are defined here as social actors who may reside in the study area but
who did not play a decisive role in the negotiations and did not affect to a significant extent the
outcome of the case. The boundary between internal and external actors is somewhat hard to
define as some actors may have played a more important role than expected but were maybe less
visible to outside viewers. However, since social actors are seen as speaking in the name of their
social group (e.g. organization, institute) unless otherwise specified, the focus should be placed
on the role of that social group rather than at the individual level. The distinction between these
two types of social actors as used in this study will hopefully become clearer in the analysis
chapter.
Interviews were one of the main methods used to collect data. As it will be mentioned later, some
interview questions had to be modified during the research process and spontaneous questions
were also used. Moreover, the choice of respondents was an on-going process during the
fieldwork period. Thanks to this flexibility the intended goals of the research could be better
reached. While conducting the fieldwork new information enabled me to guide my research in
order to obtain my objective by e.g. identifying new actors or gaining a better understanding of
the context. Printed material (i.e. secondary data) was also collected before, during, and after the
fieldwork.
4.6 Choice of a Case Study This thesis is based on a case study type of research meaning that it looks in detail at a specific
bounded system that is of interest (Stake, 2000), in this case the ICBG-Maya bioprospecting case.
A distinguishing characteristic of case study research as opposed to social surveys and
experiments is that case studies usually focus on one case and research it in great depth
(Hammersley and Gomm, 2000). This research process is called interpretive or causal realism as
55
case studies allow the researcher to enter peoples’ inner lives, to study social interfaces, and to
discover what is at the basis of people’s behavior (Hammersley et al., 2000)..
As Hammersley et al. (2000) explain, case study analysis focuses on the details of a specific
event and tries to identify and explain its distinctive features. In the case of the ICBG-Maya one
of the reasons why it was selected for research is that it was seen as a surprising development of a
bioprospecting project due to several reasons. Even more unique though, was the particular socio-
political context it was set in as presented in Chapter 3. Thus, purposive sampling was used as the
case study was specifically selected because of its contextual elements. Yin (2003) argues that a
case study research method would be chosen over another because the researcher deliberately
wants to include the contextual background in his/her research because he/she believes that the
context might be especially relevant for the subject of the study.64 If the context is clearly stated
and emphasized the particularity of the event is highlighted and the reader can see how the
general principles exposed in the study are expressed in an altered way due to the specific
external factors (Mitchell, 2000). Once the effect of the context has been identified the findings
of the case study may be extended to other contexts in order to see if similar phenomena can be
discovered. For example, if a causal effect is found between the role of civil society organizations
and the design of policies within a particular context, the same causal effect could be used at the
start of another research project in which the causation could be studied within another context.
Depending on the results, conclusions could be made on the effect of contextual variables.
Hammersley et al. (2000) further argue that case study research often involves the description of
the sequence of events leading to the subject of the research. Thus, a chronological timeline of
events taking into account relevant side-events is briefly presented in the next chapter and
included in Table 5 of the Appendix. Apart from focusing on the details and particularities of a
specific case, such type of research also emphasizes the unity and wholeness of the object of the
study (Mitchell, 2000) which supports the idea of focusing on social relationships and looking at
global/local linkages.
64 As seen in the presentation of social constructivism contextual factors are seen as fundamental elements to be analyzed.
56
4.7 Selection of Respondents The selection of respondents was based on purposive rather than random sampling since these
social actors were intentionally selected because of their knowledge of the case or the context.
Sampling and contact with the respondents started prior to the fieldwork and took place via
Email. Contact information had been obtained through other researchers who had conducted
similar fieldwork in Mexico and through articles and Internet documents on this case study.
Some respondents were also identified while in Mexico either through more research or thanks to
information from interviewed informants. Most of the respondents who were considered as
‘crucial’ informants were interviewed65 along with respondents who were considered as ‘less
crucial’ due to their external position in the case. The selection of respondents followed the logic
of obtaining a wide range of views on this specific case and on the issue of bioprospecting in
general in order to be able to undertake a more complete discourse analysis. The respondents who
were considered as ‘crucial’ were involved in the negotiations which as Long (2001) explains
“are sometimes carried out by individuals who represent particular constituencies, groups or
organizations” (p. 69). In other words, the respondents were selected on the basis of their
knowledge of the issue, implication in and/or influence on the case, and knowledge of the context
or of bioprospecting in general.66 Focus was put on information provided from actors who were
directly involved in the case since only their discourses were analyzed due to the limited scope of
this work. The external actors’ responses were mostly used to measure the impact of the
discourse or obtain external views of the event and of actors (e.g. to understand their
relationships).
The informants that were considered as the main social actors were identified in Chapter 2 and
represent organizations or institutes, as well as individuals. In order to receive information from
an institute e.g., members of that social construction were interviewed; nevertheless, a unique
voice was not always encountered revealing interesting contradictions and conflicts within that
institute. It is important to note that for several reasons anonymity was provided to the
respondents who were directly and to a significant level involved in the case. Indeed, because of
the still tense atmosphere surrounding the controversial ICBG-Maya project and as a form of
65 However, two ‘crucial’ respondents were not interviewed because of their unavailability. 66 Please refer to Table 4 with the list of interviews and respondents at the end of this thesis.
57
respect to my respondents, I decided to provide key respondents with pseudonyms. Nevertheless,
I will discuss their comments and opinions as representatives of an organization, institute, or
group of people which is the intent of my study.67 One main actor’s real name will be used
because he has not been interviewed and his comments are considered public.
4.8 Data collection Data collection started prior to the fieldwork period through the collection of articles on the case
and on the theoretical background required for the following analysis. As mentioned above,
through this literature review certain respondents were identified and contacted. As soon as I was
in the field (Mexico) interviews were undertaken. At the same time, the analysis of articles
continued along with the collection of local documents. A local supervisor was also used as a
contact person, as a guide in my search for information, and as an advisor.
4.8.1 Primary Sources: Interviews
The interviews used open-ended questions in order to obtain elaborated answers that shed more
light on the issue in question. Nevertheless, these questions followed a certain structure that was
established prior to the fieldwork in order to be able to better focus on the study’s research
questions and the objective. Questions based on hypothetical situations were also used in order
mostly to project the respondent into the future and imagine other situations and possibilities. The
questions were slightly modified depending on who was being interviewed and based on
experience and information collected from previous interviews. For example, people who had
little or no knowledge of the case were also interviewed in order to get their view on
bioprospecting or on the context of the case, such as socio-political issues in Chiapas. In some
cases the number of questions had to be reduced due to a lack of time. The questions basically
asked the informant to tell me what happened in the ICBG-Maya case, to mention relevant
current issues in Chiapas, to discuss questions of access to and regulation of biological diversity,
to share opinions about bioprospecting, to identify and discuss the different actors involved in the
ICBG-Maya case, and to give their view on the relations between bioprospecting and biodiversity
conservation and development. (Please refer to the Appendix for the research questions).
67 Table 2 at the beginning of the next chapter presents the main respondents, their pseudonyms, and their affiliation to an institute or an organization.
58
Some people were contacted via email if they were not present in the fieldwork location. Most of
these people were external actors whose opinion I wanted to record. Thus, somewhat modified
interview questions were sent to them. Altogether, 19 ‘face-to-face’ interviews and two email
interviews were undertaken either in Spanish, English, or French. All interviews were tape-
recorded and then transcribed and translated into English. All of the respondents were
interviewed alone and in their chosen location and only after having presented myself, explained
the purpose of my research, and asked permission to record.
Based on the selection of respondents and the use of similar questions, triangulation of the
information from various sources was possible. By comparing different responses to similar
questions I was able to obtain peoples’ different perspectives of the same social event which was
very important for the objective of my work. Moreover, through the use of printed information I
could also compare and contrast different statements. Finally, it is important to note that when
my respondents are quoted in this study most of the time I have translated them, but I attempted
to be the closest possible to what they said and thus I feel that the use of quotation marks is
appropriate.
4.8.2 Secondary Sources: Literature and Electronic Documents
As mentioned earlier, during the entire research process, which started prior to the field work
period, articles were collected in libraries, via the Internet, and from individuals working for
organizations or institutes. These consisted of: written articles for journals, newspapers, and
Internet websites; press declarations and publications from research institutes; personal
communications between different social actors; minutes of meetings; governmental documents;
organizational flyers and newsletters; theses and post-doctoral works; books; and drafts.
Electronic data on the geographical context was also obtained from a local (Chiapas) research
institute.
4.9 Data Analysis The data collected during fieldwork and through the reading of articles during the research period
are analyzed following an actor-oriented method using discourse analysis and hermeneutics,
theories which were discussed in the previous chapter, but which will now be briefly described in
terms of their applicability as research tools. Articles used for the background and context
59
chapters also provided necessary information for a better understanding of the case study. A
review of newspaper articles that came out at the time of the controversy was also looked into.
4.9.1 Applied Actor-oriented Approach
In the context of this study, different actors were identified and their perspectives explained with
regard to external influences such as governmental institutions and policies or relationships with
other actors and with regard to internal factors such as their interests, values, knowledge, and
intentions. As Long (2002) explains these social actors have diverse livelihood strategies, cultural
interests, and political paths all forming ‘multiple social realities’. As a result, livelihood,
cultural, and political issues need to be identified and discussed in relation to the different social
actors. It is important to note though, as mentioned previously, that for the specific purpose of
this research, social actors are, for the most part, understood as representatives of a certain social
institute or organization and thus, not as personal individuals in which case a more ethnographic
study of the actors and their individual life histories would have been necessary. Therefore, social
actors are only identified here based on their association with an organization or institute which is
briefly described in Chapter 3.
Long (2001) provides some methodological guidelines for an actor-oriented type of study, some
of which are important to highlight because of their relevancy for this research. As a point of
departure, Long (2001) suggests an issue or critical event defined by different actors which is
clearly the case here. Next society should be seen as heterogeneous and peoples’ different views
of reality, ‘multiple realities’, and different reactions to the same event should be taken into
account. This was widely documented in the written documents by the various actors and was
recorded during the interviews. Attention must also be paid to the different social networks and
linkages between the various actors and how they influence each other. In this study, the linkages
between the different NGOs are especially important to point out. Finally, investigation of the
critical social interfaces where different perceptions and opinions come into conflict and how
each actor’s knowledge and power is constructed is particularly relevant for this case study, but
can only be studied based on comments made by internal and external actors and documents such
as minutes of meetings.
60
Conclusively, the actor-oriented approach that is used in this study provides, according to Long
(2002), a methodological and conceptual framework to understand how social processes are
created, changed, and/or confirmed in the daily lives of the identified actors and how they lead, in
this specific case, to the cancellation of a bioprospecting project. Given the actor-oriented
approach adopted in this research, focus is put on the social actor him/herself. Nevertheless, in
order to better understand the different perceptions of the various actors two other methods are
necessary.
4.9.2 Applied Discourse Analysis and Hermeneutics Based on the objective of the research, I adopted what Rubin and Rubin (1995) call an
“interpretive approach” in which the researcher is interested in discovering “how people
understand their worlds and how they create meanings about their lives” (p. 34). Hence, my
emphasis was on “the complexity of human life. Time and context are important and social life is
seen as constantly changing” (Ibid. p. 35). As Rubin and Rubin (1995) explain, “the interpretive
social researcher examines meanings that have been socially constructed and consequently
accepts that values and views differ from place to place and group to group” (p. 35). In order to
analyze the conflicting discourses different stories and narratives will be identified. The type of
discourse analysis that will be constructed here can be understood as what Talja (1999) calls the
specimen perspective in which the respondents’ answers from the interviews are analyzed not
only in terms of their meaning and content, but also in terms of their role in constructing different
realities. In this case respondents do not need to be trusted and their answers categorized as true
or false, but simply as their view of reality (e.g. of an event). In other words, the same event will
be perceived in different ways by the various social actors and reflected in their narratives due to
diverse interests, backgrounds, motivations, and assumptions. As Talja (1999, p. 8) explains:
“Research data do not describe reality; rather, they are specimens of interpretative practices”.
Hence, in a discourse analysis approach the problem of generalization is not based on describing
how things are, but rather on revealing how an event can be perceived and interpreted (Ibid.Talja,
1999). As Talja (1999) explains, discourse analysis must be differentiated from hermeneutics
since the intentions of the people interviewed are not taken into consideration. Nevertheless, for
the purpose of this study the intentions of the various social actors are taken into account to
explain the type of claims they make depending on their view of the problem and motivations;
thus, hermeneutics will also be used to analyze the collected data.
61
Based on her literature review, Svarstad (2003) makes a distinction between three different
concepts: a narrative, a story, and a meta-narrative. For the purpose of this study we will only be
presenting and analyzing stories and narratives. Svarstad (Ibid.) explains that both concepts have
a chronological order and comprise different social actors and are constructed based on concrete
events, which in this case is the ICBG-Maya. However, stories are constructed outside the
discourse whereas the narrative explains the discourse (Ibid.). In the next chapter, the story of the
ICBG-Maya case will be told followed by each version of it from both groups of social actors,
i.e. their narratives, which will then be analyzed allowing a deconstruction of their discourses.
When doing research based on discourse analysis it is important to emphasize the issue of
objectivity. As Long (1992a) explains, the concept of discourse is not tangible nor can it be
measured in an objective way. Thus, it can only be described based on what our respondents tell
us about their goals, intentions, actions, and based on our observations or recollections from the
negotiation processes. In this case, ‘objective truth’ was contested since when asked the same
question about a specific event, respondents provided me with different answers expressing
different perspectives of reality. However, based on the analytical tools used in this study no
empirical data is researched; what people say and write about the ICBG-Maya and bioprospecting
is what is researched, not bioprospecting per se. However, I still paid some attention to contextual
facts in order to place the data collected within a certain situation and improve its analysis.
4.9.3 Global/Local Links Links between the global and the local context will be discussed in the next chapter for several
reasons. First, the phenomenon of globalization is particularly relevant for this case study. This
phenomenon can be looked at in terms of the social movements it creates. Indeed, Long (2000, p.
188) argues that “globalization processes generate a whole new range of conditions and socio-
political responses at national, regional and local levels” (p. 188) and further on that these
“processes entail the emergence of new identifications, alliances and struggles for space and
power within specific arenas” (p. 189). When studying global/local relationships we need to pay
special attention to the rise of NGOs along with the globalization movement. These social actors
act on different levels (local, national, international) and are capable of communicating with each
other and reaching their goals thanks to modern communication means. In this case study,
62
networks between local and global NGOs will be looked at in terms of their power and resulting
effects. Moreover, comparisons will be made with the Zapatista movement which uses a powerful
communication tool, the Internet, to spread its anti-globalization message.68 Secondly, if
global/local links are discussed, the concept of modernity must also be mentioned. If modernity is
understood on an institutional level, we can see how these institutions interact with our personal
lives and influence these (Giddens, 1991). Nevertheless, Giddens (Ibid.) points out that
individuals are active actors who also shape society with global consequences and determine their
own identity. Therefore, this idea agrees with the actor-oriented approach discussed earlier. In
terms of development issues, Arce (2000) explains that “not only global decision-makers and
development activists, but also local actors reposition themselves vis-à-vis the state, markets,
international policies, nature and culture” (p. 33) which is clearly seen in this case.
The idea of global-local links has also been emphasized in the last few years and is particularly
relevant for this research because of the rise of the issue of biodiversity69 as Dumoulin (2003)
remarks. Indeed, environmental problems have increasingly been seen as global problems that
can only be solved through the cooperative efforts of different countries and through the creation
of international conventions such as the CBD. The concept of sustainable development, and its
associated discourse, is a case in point as it tries to deal with global environmental problems by
searching and adopting solutions at the local level through national legal implementation of CBD
guidelines as it will be illustrated in this case. Similarly, Arce (2000) explains that global/local
links must be investigated in order to understand the importance of the development discourse as
he claims that “we must look at both the complicity and activities of international institutions as
well as how local actors contribute to the elaboration of global modernities” (p. 49). As discussed
earlier, the actor-oriented approach enables us to identify what strategies social actors adopt in
order to solve their problems according to what resources they possess and the social space that is
available to them to negotiate which is influenced and partially determined by other social actors.
This idea is also found in political ecology as Stonich (1993) argues that: “The political-
economic analysis examines the interacting roles that social institutions (international, national,
regional, and local) play in providing constraints and possibilities that affect human decisions that
68 Please refer back to Chapter 3. 69 This worldwide concern for the environment does not only regard biodiversity loss, but also global phenomena such as deforestation, global warming, and desertification.
63
in turn affect those institutions as well as the natural environment” (p. 25 in Dodds, 1998, p. 84).
The relationship between political ecology and discourse analysis is emphasized by Nesbitt and
Weiner (2001) as they argue that political ecology is useful for placing discourses, society,
nature, and development within a specific context. Moreover, the link between global and local in
terms of influences is also pointed out in political ecology as local problems regarding the
environment are linked to more global processes such as capitalist markets which exploit natural
resources often at the detriment of poor people who become marginalized. Therefore, political
ecology could be seen as an interesting theory when looking at discourses especially regarding an
event which intertwines environmental and political issues. However, this is beyond the scope of
this research, but political ecology was simply mentioned here to highlight the idea of
global/local links.
Consequently, a combination of discourse analysis, hermeneutics, and an actor-oriented approach
was selected as the analysis methods for the following reasons. The first method allows us to
deconstruct the varying discourses and highlight their underlining assumptions about reality
which eventually led to an unsolvable conflict and to the cancellation of the project. Secondly,
hermeneutics allows us to interpret these discourses and identify social actors’ intentions.
Thirdly, an actor-oriented approach by focusing on the social actor facilitates the general
understanding of why certain actors are identified as such in particular discourses, what roles they
adopt as participants in a social network, and how they are influenced and influence other social
actors. Finally, looking at global/local links enables us to study the impacts of the discourses,
widen the understanding of their construction, and place the social actors and their discourses
within a specific context.
4.9.4 Analytical Framework In order to analyze the discourses presented in the following chapter, an analytical framework
will be used. This framework is loosely based on the discourse analysis system used by Dryzek
(1997) to analyze environmental discourses and presented here.
This author (1997) identifies four elements of environmental discourses:70
70 These four elements can also be found when analyzing social issues such as development projects.
64
• “Different discourses see different things in the world” (p. 16) – understood as the
concept of ‘multiple realities’ – and which can be either constructed or recognized.
• These discourses have different assumptions about the natural quality of relationships
between the different entities.
• Social actors may be identified, interpreted, and represented differently in each discourse
and expressed in their narratives.
• Most discourses use metaphors or other rhetorical devices to convince the audience of a certain idea.
It is important to understand that the goal of discourse analysis is not only to identify and
interpret different discourses, but also to show how these have an important influence in society
by e.g. influencing policies as it will be seen in this case. Discourse analysis is also useful in the
environment and development fields as it enables us to identify what assumptions underlie
certain policies and it allows us to modify them so that they are better adapted to the local
situation and can accomplish their intended goals. Dryzek (1997) argues that the following
elements could be identified and evaluated in a discourse analysis:
• The political implications of the discourse
• The consequence on government policies
• The impact on institutions
• The arguments used by critiques of a discourse
• The defects in the discourse that can be exposed by providing evidence and arguments.
The framework used in the next chapter analyzes the following aspects of the discourses:
• Construction elements of the discourses further divided into the motivations, the claims,
and the assumptions of the social actors
• Diffusion elements which consist of the strategies or methods used to spread the
discourses or make them available to external actors
• The impacts of both discourses on institutions, policies, social actors, and similar projects.
Each analytical part is separated between the two different discourses identified except the
impacts which are seen as resulting from a combination of both discourses.
65
4.10 Fieldwork Experience As far as the interview process is concerned the following experiences encountered in the field
should be mentioned. Due to my poor interviewing experience, even though the guiding
questions were specifically designed not to be leading questions, as an interviewer I might have
become a little bit too engaged in the interviews by e.g. supporting and agreeing to the answers of
certain respondents. Nevertheless, I do not believe that this has influenced the answers and may
have actually induced them into providing even more information. However, my neutrality
should have still been aimed for. A real limitation of some of the interviews though was the lack
of time, which was either due to a tight schedule of the respondent or a feeling on my part that
he/she was becoming annoyed by the length of the interview. In these cases not all questions
could be asked and hence, not all desired information may have been obtained. However, these
shortened interviews were quite rare and the main social actors at least could be interviewed at
full length. On the other hand, I felt that during some interviews the respondent was somewhat
suspicious of my intentions, by asking a lot of questions about my research, due to the
controversial nature of the case and the media attention. As a result, he/she may have withheld or
transformed some information intentionally. Nevertheless, this suspicion is a source of
information as well. Finally, the success of the interviews that took place via email was less than
expected. The answers to these interviews were much shorter than in the oral interviews probably
due to a lack of time on behalf of the respondents and the time required to type answers. The
response rate was also quite low. Nevertheless, some interesting information was obtained from
these web-based interviews who besides did not represent key informants.
As mentioned earlier, even though most people targeted as informants were interviewed, at least
two important social actors did not undergo any type interviewing for different reasons. The
opinions of these respondents were then analyzed through written documents and statements and
the impossibility to interview one of the social actors actually provided me with relevant
information.
The fact that most of the interviews were conducted in Spanish which is not my mother tongue
proved to be a slight limitation for two reasons. First, I did not always have the self-confidence
necessary, especially during the first interviews, to improvise questions that were not written up
66
prior to the interview which would have maybe provided me with more information. However, I
rapidly gained enough insurance to surpass this problem. Secondly, the translation from Spanish
to English may have missed some of the meaning that was intended by the informant or that
meaning may have been hard to transcribe into English. Thus, misunderstanding and
misinterpretations of the meaning given by the person in Spanish may have slightly reduced the
accuracy of the research.
An important issue that was previously mentioned needs to be briefly pointed out again before
the findings are to be analyzed and which in some cases may be a limitation to the study:
objectivity. The reality and information I express are influenced by my personal prior knowledge,
views, and feelings; hence interpretation of the studied event will be unique since the findings
will be seen from my individual perspective. Moreover, when interviews were conducted, due to
my prior information of the respondent and the impression made by him/her71 I reacted
differently to the respondents’ views wanting to discredit those that were seen as ‘wrong’ in my
view and accepting those that matched my perspective of reality. However, since the object of the
study was not the ICBG-Maya case per se and I did not try to discover what really happened and
who was lying or not, I did not categorize the interviews as correct or incorrect depending if they
matched my view of the case. On the other hand, I attempted to understand the meaning behind
the respondents’ statements and analyze their narratives.
Finally, a more practical limitation to this study is the time allocated for the field work which was
very limited, 2 months, in which case only a certain number of interviews were managed.
Fortunately, most relevant actors were available during this time period except two important
ones. Nevertheless, I wish I had more time for receiving input on the manuscript from the
respondents in order to increase the value, completeness, and extent of my analysis.
Unfortunately, this is beyond the scope of my work. Let us now turn to these narratives that I
gathered from the field and that I will now try to analyze.
71 For example, some of my respondents criticized people from the North and large pharmaceutical companies which affected me personally due to my background as coming from Switzerland where numerous pharmaceutical giants are located.
67
Chapter 5: Findings and Discussion
In this chapter I present results from my research which I discuss and analyze at the same time. In
order to be able to discuss issues that were raised in this case study, I first need to provide a
summary of the case followed by the narratives of the two groups of main social actors. In the
next part of the chapter, I analyze the discourses of these two groups referring to the different
social actors and themes and issues identified in their discourses. In the last section I discuss the
analytical framework presented in Chapter 4 and look more in depth and from a larger
perspective at the discourses in order to show how they were constructed, how they were spread,
and what impacts they have had. Since the focus is on social actors the following table provides a
list of the main actors referred to and their institute or organization.72
Table 2: Main social actors referred to and their organizations or institutes and positions* Actors Organization, institute and position Bellot CONABIO (program coordinator)
Berlin UGA (professor, researcher, and ICBG-Maya director)
Bernardo ECOSUR (researcher)
Berti CAPICE (biodiversity program coordinator)
Felipe OMIECH (advisor)
Francisco ECOSUR (researcher)
Hernandez CIEPAC (indigenous person)
Nigh CIESAS (anthropologist)
Larson CONABIO (program coordinator)
Limón ECOSUR (researcher)
Luis ODEMICH (indigenous person)
Luisa COMPITCH (advisor)
Oviedo IUCN (senior social policy advisor)
Pages SIPAZ (local team coordinator)
Rosenthal NIH (program director) and ICBG (program manager)
72 Please remember that pseudonyms are used for certain social actors (italicized) and refer to the list of acronyms for help.
68
Actors Organization, institute and position Sergio ECOSUR (researcher)
Rodrigo OMIECH (indigenous person)
*The occupation/position of certain actors may no longer be current or exact due to anonymity requirements; nevertheless, for the purpose of this research these associations will be taken into account.
5.1 The ICBG-Maya Case The ICBG-Maya bioprospecting project proposed by Dr. Berlin of the University of Georgia
came to life in 1998 when it received a grant of 2.5 million US dollars from the International
Cooperative Biodiversity Groups (ICBG) in its second round of application.73 The ICBG-Maya
project called ‘Drug Discovery and Biodiversity among the Maya of Mexico’ had three main
objectives which were distributed into different programs: the bioprospection of phytochemical
compounds with pharmacological activity; medical ethnobiology and an ethnobotanical and
floristic inventory of the Highlands of Chiapas; conservation, sustainable harvest and regional
economic development (Fernández-Ugalde, García-Barrios, and González-Espinosa, Accessed
2003). The 5 year long ICBG-Maya project involved the University of Georgia (UGA),
ECOSUR (a Chiapas based public research institute), and a pharmaceutical laboratory.74 In
January of 1998, OMIECH was invited by ECOSUR to take part in the project. OMIECH
contacted COMPITCH who further got in touch with RAFI (now ETC) for advice and
information. The project team started performing some scientific herbarium collections towards
the beginning of 1999 (Larson-Guerra et al., Draft).
After the signing of an agreement on IPRs and the planning of a trust fund administrator in the
name of the indigenous communities (PROMAYA), local and international CSOs and NGOs
(mainly COMPITCH and RAFI) started denouncing the project in the media. This upsurge of
objections to the project led to a series of meetings between different actors some of which were
mediated by SEMARNAP (Secretaría de Medio Ambiente, Recursos Naturales, y Pesca/
Secretary of the Environment, Natural Resources and Fish). These meetings which took place
between March and August of 2000 figure in Table 5 of the Appendix and are very important as
73 During the first application financing had not been granted because of a lack of a commercial partner and tough competition from other projects. 74 After changing laboratory partners a small laboratory in Wales (Molecular Nature Ltd.) was incorporated into the project in 1999.
69
they show that exchanges of information and discussions did indeed take place between the
different parties. During these meetings each party was able to express its opinion and concerns
and request information, clarifications, and documents from the other party.75 However, the role
of SEMARNAP as a mediator at these meetings was not well seen by either party since its
neutrality was very questionable.
ECOSUR applied to SEMARNAP for a permit to do collections for bioprospecting with
commercial ends (biotechnological applications), but it was denied because of the lack of certain
information. SEMARNAP gave 10 days to ECOSUR to provide them with the lacking
information to obtain the collection permit (SEMARNAP, 2000c).76 More negotiations took
place including the presence of SEMARNAP as a mediator until it decided to pull out of the
debate after being under attack by COMPITCH. Similarly, due to pressure from the CSOs and
NGOs who led a very efficient public campaign against the project and due to the short deadline
to fulfil the conditions for the permit, ECOSUR decided to declare a moratorium on the project,
and thus, to suspend it. After an attempt to modify the project, ECOSUR finally decided to pull
out of the ICBG-Maya in October of 2000. The US government confirmed that the project was
cancelled in November of the same year (RAFI, 2001).77
5.2 The Narrative of the Well-Intentioned Experts Experts have pointed out that cultural diversity and biological diversity are somehow linked since
biodiverse areas correspond to places occupied by indigenous communities. Unfortunately, a
vicious cycle is taking place: these people live in increasing poverty due to several factors
including a deteriorating resource base while at the same time their poverty is taking a toll on the
environment since poor people are forced to degrade the only resources available to them to
survive. Therefore, a solution needs to be found that will enable these people to not only preserve
their environment, but also their culture while at the same time improving their living standards.
This sustainable type of development can be promoted thanks to the possible monetary income
offered by bioprospecting projects, and associated development and conservation programs,
75 At these meetings, both parties proposed modifications to the project in order for it to be able to take place. 76 The following information was requested by SEMARNAP: the person representing ECOSUR, a clarification on what the correct name of the project was, documents proving that PIC was effectively obtained, the way in which the benefits will be equally shared, etc (see SEMARNAP 2000b). 77 For a timeline of the ICBG-Maya events and related side events, please refer to Table 5 in the Appendix.
70
along with the knowledge and expertise of scientists from the North in collaboration with local
researchers. As Sergio (personal communication, 2003) explains, they engaged in this project
“because there was experience on resources in Chiapas and a feeling that if we only tackle the
easy questions, the hard issues would never be resolved”. Thanks to these ventures, which
highlight the value of biodiversity and associated TK, indigenous people who live in
“unacceptable conditions of poverty” (Francisco, personal communication, 2003) will be able to
obtain all kinds of benefits (illustrated below) while at the same time preserving their rich
diversity of natural resources and conserving their TK.
By engaging in the ICBG-Maya the experts explain that they wanted to contribute to the rural
development of Chiapas:
“The ICBG program appeared to offer an opportunity for us to use the considerable
knowledge, skills, and experience that we possessed, incorporating them with the global
realities of industry and commerce to work shoulder-to-shoulder with our Maya
colleagues in developing economic alternatives to subsistence farming” (Berlin and
Berlin, 2001).
Bernardo (personal communication, 2003) adds that bioprospecting is a motor of development
since it is capable of aggregating economic value from resources that are currently undervalued.
Bioprospecting could also provide easy but well paid manual labor that would enable the
communities to dedicate more time and resources to other activities further improving their lives.
In order to achieve the conservation and development objectives of their bioprospecting project,
the ICBG-Maya team outlined the following four goals:
1. To discover through screening valuable properties of plants and micro-organisms found in
Chiapas that could be developed into drugs for the international market. Part of the royalties
from this commercial drug would then be administered through the PROMAYA78 trust fund
for local development projects.
78 PROMAYA’s Board of Trustees would be composed of representatives elected from the most Maya communities possible and scientific, educational, religious, and business experts along with NGOs promoting cultural and biological diversity in this state. Moreover, an Advisory Committee would be created with recognized Mexicans working on issues of conservation of human and ecological diversity along with the protection of human rights (ECOSUR, Accessed 2003; UGA, Accessed 2004c).
71
2. The discoveries made thanks to the first associated program would also be used for local
health problems and for sustainable agriculture. For example, species would be tested for
their usefulness as pest controllers (ECOSUR, Accessed 2003). On the other hand, soft
remedies would be developed in the hope that the national health system would use
traditional remedies as a cheaper substitution to regular medicine (Sergio, personal
communication, 2003).
3. The biodiversity and TK of the area would be surveyed and inventoried to discover its
usefulness and promote its value. Medical plant gardens and information79 would be provided
(ECOSUR, Accessed 2003).
4. Technology transfer and training80 would be provided for the benefit of the local research
institute (ECOSUR) and the “Maya collaborators”. Project employees were committed to
train the “Maya collaborators” so that they could then participate in the development of their
communities (Berlin et al., 1999; UGA, Accessed 2004c). Technology transfer was also
planned by providing ECOSUR with a laboratory e.g. so that part of the research could be
conducted locally.
All these objectives would be reached thanks to three associated programs: drug discovery and
pharmaceutical development; medical ethnobiology and biodiversity inventory; conservation,
sustained harvest, and economic growth (Berlin et al., 1999). These programs would enable the
local people to improve their living conditions through various benefits brought along with the
project. Side-projects would also be devised to specifically protect the environment.
To guide the project team in their work, Sergio (personal communication, 2003) explains that
they followed the CBD guidelines and the Mexican law. They devised a benefit-sharing
mechanism “that is democratic, transparent, and just” (Berlin and Berlin, 1999, p. 4) to help the
poor indigenous people of Chiapas. They were aware that problems could arise with patents so
they set up a pioneering system of co-ownership of IPRs (Sergio, personal communication,
2003). In a similar way, they were a little skeptical about working with a pharmaceutical 79 For example, the Berlins published a book on Maya medicine in indigenous languages for the benefit of the local communities (The Berlins in SEMARNAP 2000a). 80 Sergio (personal communication, 2003) explains that the project proposed in the second round had a wider scope since it integrated some agro-ecological work and a larger training outreach.
72
company (Berlin and Berlin, 2001) and thus, they chose to collaborate with a micro-company so
that “it was not a combination of giants with dwarfs” (Francisco, personal communication, 2003).
The PIC process undertaken in this project was seen by many as quite revolutionary, extensive,
and expensive81. They started by organizing a national forum open to the public on Mexico’s past
experience with bioprospecting and the lessons it had learned from those projects (Rosenthal,
Draft). They used the paraje as representing a community and from which the PIC had to be
obtained.82 To inform the indigenous communities about the project, the ICBG-Maya team
conducted a theatrical play in the local indigenous languages, they held workshops, conducted
visits of ECOSUR, produced printed and visual informational material, and so on (Bernardo and
Sergio, personal communications, 2003). After the play, the authorities in the indigenous
communities were asked if they wanted to participate in the project in which case they could sign
an act expressing their consent (Berlin and Berlin, 2003). Hence, as Rosenthal (Draft) declares,
“the transparency of the project to the global community could not have been seriously faulted by
anyone” (p. 15). Finally, in order to follow the Mexican legislation and be transparent in their
project they applied for a bioprospecting permit (unlike other projects)83 (Bernardo, personal
communication, 2003).
To conclude the following quote sums up the project quite well:
“The project wanted to mark a different way of doing bioprospecting, honestly different,
and this was a strength. The actual projects don’t have that strength. There was a genuine
interest in a scheme of action of the social actors to participate in such a way that there
were more negotiations, more transparency, consideration of ethical questions, equal
distribution of benefits, a series of things. This is contrary to biopiracy and traditional or
conventional bioprospecting.” (Bernardo, personal communication, 2003).
81 Sergio (personal communication, 2003) explains that a lot of money (from NIH) was spent on obtaining the PIC. 82 The paraje is traditionally considered by the Maya and the government as the social unit that can elect its own political representatives (Berlin and Berlin, 2003). 83 ”[T]he Maya ICBG set a historical precedent in Mexico by being the first (and to date only) project to apply for legally recognized permits for this type of plant collections” (Duncan 2000, p. 2).
73
5.3 The Narrative of the Indigenous People’s Guardians Local CSOs in Chiapas (OMIECH and COMPITCH) who opposed the ICBG-Maya project work
with traditional indigenous doctors in order to recover, re-establish, and maintain TM for the
indigenous people to be able to survive from an alternative health system (Felipe, Rodrigo, Luisa,
personal communications, 2003).84 For example, OMIECH creates orchards in the communities
so that people have close access to their medical plants and so that the TM does not disappear
(Rodrigo, personal communication, 2003). Luisa (personal communication, 2003) emphasizes
that thanks to the public character of natural resources in the communities and rules of solidarity
between the indigenous people these communities have maintained health and provided food in
the whole world – also through the development of major crops such as maize.
Rodrigo (personal communication, 2003) explains that if projects are planned for indigenous
people, the organizations (members of COMPITCH) need to ask for the word of their group and
thus, these organizations represent the indigenous people. The project must be approved by all
the communities in the Highlands for it to take place since the medicinal plants and the TK are
shared, owned in a communal way and found in several communities. Therefore, according to
OMIECH and COMPITCH a consultation process should be conducted after information has
been provided to everyone (Felipe, personal communication, 2003). By interviewing indigenous
people in the communities about the project the CSOs realized that the communities had only
been informed through the theater so they decided to provide them with the information they had
gathered. They explained to them that the project was not for their own benefit, but for people
from the North and at their expense since their medicinal plants and knowledge would be robbed
from them (see Rodrigo, personal communication, 2003). The local CSOs were transparent and
provided information to the communities. It was the first project that was divulgated to the public
at large and that shed light on biopiracy (Luisa, personal communication, 2003).
Rodrigo (personal communication, 2003) explains that the ICBG-Maya team devised a plan that
was not beneficial for the indigenous people. First of all, the indigenous people are not
financially capable to afford the drugs that would be developed through the project. The same can
be said for the publication of information (e.g. on the use of medicinal plants) since the
84 Please refer back to Chapter 3 for the description of these organizations.
74
indigenous people usually cannot read Spanish or English and they cannot afford books (Felipe,
personal communication, 2003). Secondly, the indigenous people do not have the skills necessary
to negotiate with businessmen – “they put you to negotiate with a good businessman who is
better than you” (Ibid.). Therefore, the indigenous people will be discriminated when it comes to
negotiating benefits from the project. Finally, monetary benefits or training of indigenous people
so that they are just about able to collect plants are not what will enable indigenous people to
develop (Ibid.).
Consequently, the CSOs refused to negotiate – in the name of the indigenous people – and thus,
“after four months of talking we reached no agreements” (Felipe, personal communication,
2003). The local CSOs fulfilled the rights of the indigenous communities to say “no!” to a
bioprospecting project affecting them, a right that Felipe (Ibid.) argues they should have. They
imposed a moratorium on all bioprospecting projects in Mexico until a clear legal framework is
created through forums and consultations with the population (Felipe, personal communication
2003, Alarcón, 2003).
Adger et al. (2000) identify an environmental discourse which is especially relevant to this study,
namely the discourse on biodiversity use. As discussed in Chapter 2, bioprospecting is
characterized by two main discourses: the bioprospecting advocates’ discourse and the
bioprospecting detractors’ discourse who view this practice as ‘biopiracy’. Adger et al. (2000)
explain that these discourses are rooted in narratives that are based on specific case studies in
which heroes and villains are defined and characterized by the main proponents of each
discursive expression. Thus, in the following sections I will look at a specific case study, the
ICBG-Maya, and I will identify ‘the good and the bad guys’ which are given nicknames in both
discourses: the ‘win-win’ discourse and the biopiracy discourse as identified by Adger et al.
(2000) . As it will be explained later on, the ‘win-win’ discourse corresponds to the proponents’
discourse whereas the biopiracy one corresponds to the opponents’ discourse.
5.4 The Proponents’ Discourse Analysis Through this discourse analysis it is possible to identify different social actors, their motivations,
and other elements such as contextual factors. Based on claims made by the project proponents
they will be called from now on ‘the experts’. The ICBG-Maya case will be referred to as a battle
75
or a battlefield since Sergio (personal communication, 2003) uses this image to describe the fight
he and his teammates lead against the project opponents thereafter named their ‘enemies’. The
third group of social actors is the ‘indigenous people’ who were targeted by this project. Finally,
the setting of this battle is Chiapas viewed mostly from a recent history perspective and more
broadly Mexico with a focus on its unclear environmental law system.
5.4.1 The Experts These actors portray themselves as socially concerned scientific researchers. They claim to be
experts of the Highlands area thanks to several years of prior local work and a multi-disciplinary
team. Based on this knowledge, experience, and a genuine desire to help the local indigenous
people and their environment, Sergio (personal communication, 2003) explains that they decided
to go along with this sustainable development type of project despite their awareness of the
difficult social context. The experts believe that the way they had devised the project would
enable them to implement it in a democratic fashion, which in their view could be achieved
thanks to its participative characteristics. For example, they made the effort and took time to
conduct an informative play in the communities and in their own indigenous languages to obtain
PIC85. They also sought to integrate the indigenous people as much as possible by creating their
own representative entity, PROMAYA. Moreover, the Berlins (2001) clarify that botanical
gardens were created in the communities in collaboration with the indigenous people and at their
request. Similarly, the experts argue that training should be provided by the global community
“with specific indigenous groups that express clear interest in receiving this kind of support”
(Rosenthal, Draft, p. 23). In other words, democracy for the experts signifies informing the
targeted people, enabling them to represent their interests and needs, and integrating them in the
project.
After praising their own expertise the experts show an innocent face and portray themselves as
victims. First, Francisco (personal communication, 2003) claims that they were completely
surprised when their enemies led a fierce “battle” against their project and Sergio (personal
communication, 2003) admits that they had underestimated the effects of their enemies.
Secondly, they argue that they were “naïve” about the consequences of their actions. Bernardo
85 During the interviews these social actors also tried to demonstrate their expertise at PIC issues and their extensive reflection on it.
76
(personal communication, 2003) claims e.g. that he “had not reflected enough on cultural issues
regarding indigenous people”86 and that ECOSUR did not have much experience with socio-
economic problems linked to benefit sharing. He thus believes that the project was planned from
a mistaken vision which was one of its weaknesses. Thirdly, the experts depict themselves as
sincere but vulnerable by recognizing some errors they committed. For example, Berlin (in
SEMARNAP, 2000a) admits that the plants sent to UGA prior to the ICBG-Maya project created
confusion and decreased the trust between both parties. He offered to clear up the situation by
sending people to check the plants at UGA to prove that they were not being used for
bioprospecting research. ECOSUR also agreed to stop any type of collections (Sergio, personal
communication, 2003). Fourthly, by trying to solve the conflict by engaging in discussions or
negotiation processes87 the experts portray themselves as democratic, open-minded, and well-
intentioned. Fifthly, the experts claim honesty and transparency, qualities which unfortunately
turned against them. As Sergio (personal communication, 2003) claims “Brent [Berlin] wanted to
be trialed formally because he honestly didn’t think that he had done anything wrong”. He also
explains that they “hate” to be accused of stealing plants from Chiapas (Ibid.). Finally, they assert
transparency and openness with their information88 – “there had been an outreach on all fronts”
(Sergio, personal communication, 2003) – and at a meeting with their enemies they emphasized
the importance of sharing information in order to work as allies for the same cause (see
SEMARNAP, 2000a).
Through their narrative, the experts clearly demonstrate that they are on the side of the
indigenous people who, as Bernardo (personal communication, 2003) explains, are the most
important actors in this case and whose needs they understand. The benefits were thus devised
accordingly. Indeed, the project wanted to “train” local indigenous people and provide ECOSUR
with technology so that this research institute could fully participate in the project and represent
the interests of Mexico and not only work as a maquiladora for the US (ECOSUR in
86 He claims that he had a mistaken appreciation of the importance of the symbolic relations indigenous people from Chiapas maintain with their resources. 87As part of their negotiation intentions, the experts (in SEMARNAP 2000a) suggested creating a benefit-sharing scheme in conjunction with both parties since their enemies were against the way benefits were being shared. 88 For example, the Berlins (2001) emphasize that the herbarium at ECOSUR was open to the public along with its information.
77
SEMARNAP, 2000a).89 In other words, the experts assume that technology transfer will enable
them to maintain their sovereignty and engage in a democratic process in which every social
actor’s right is ensured. Finally, by promoting training the experts believe that they are aware of
the needs of the indigenous people and that training enables participation of the locals.
5.4.2 The Enemies The experts portray their enemies as dishonest and sleazy actors, an image which strikingly
contrasts with their own. Sergio (personal communication, 2003) accuses their enemies e.g. of
spreading biased information which they denounce as propaganda90 and of not having faced
them. The Berlins (1999) add that RAFI was uncritical in its reporting and that they “deliberately
chose not to obtain full and complete information from us” or from researchers at ECOSUR.
Hence, the experts show how their enemies acted behind their backs in an untrustworthy way
since, as Sergio (personal communication, 2003) explains, accusations appeared in the press
without the CSOs and NGOs having contacted the team beforehand. Moreover, they assume that
their enemies did not want to collaborate with them on this project since according to Sergio
(Ibid.) COMPITCH had a lack of interest and will to engage in the ICBG-Maya and try to find an
agreement for it to continue. Bernardo (personal communication, 2003) believes that their
enemies had non-confessed and unserious reasons to oppose the project. They are thus pointing
out the lack of transparency and dishonesty of their enemies partially blaming them for the
outcome of the case. When the experts were accused by their enemies of not wanting to share
their information publicly by participating in a public debate ECOSUR explains that “we were
scared to go to a public battle because they will have a theater to kill us and we have no chance”
(Sergio, personal communication, 2003). Similarly, the Berlins (2001) believe that RAFI is
“embracing a strategy that ‘the end is justified by any means’”, thereby demonstrating how their
enemies used ridiculous and radical means to condemn the project.
The experts reject the validity of their enemies’ representation of the indigenous people. The
Berlins (2003) argue that “these NGOs … have usurped the rightful authority of local
89 Berlin (in SEMARNAP 2000a) also claims that ECOSUR wants to respect and ensure Mexican sovereignty, as well as the rights of the indigenous people through the controls and guarantees of ECOSUR and SEMARNAP. 90 Bernardo (personal communication, 2003) also accuses the CSOs and NGOs of influencing the indigenous people and the general public through the use of the media.
78
communities to act on their own behalf concerning the use of their own resources…” (p. 630) and
Sergio (personal communication, 2003) contends that COMPITCH is “ruled by advisors” and
that even though it “formally has a wider representation it does not have a structure that is
capable of capturing the opinion of the constituency and express their voice, which is something
very difficult conceptually… They [the indigenous people members of COMPITCH] are not
properly consulted”.91 In other words, the experts de-legitimize their enemies’ role, question their
intentions, and discredit their arguments.92 From the experts’ perspective, their enemies are not
adequate or legitimate representatives of the indigenous people who need to either form their own
representational entity or could alternatively be represented by PROMAYA set up by the experts.
By de-legitimizing their enemies the experts are enhancing their role and discrediting their
enemies’ accusations adopting a sort of self-defense tactic. Finally, by explaining that they do no
longer want to engage in such types of projects (Bernardo, personal communication, 2003) and
that their enemies have restricted ECOSUR researchers’ access to the communities because of
their propaganda (Sergio, personal communication, 2003) the experts perceive them as obstacles
to their development work. Therefore, the experts believe that their enemies opposed the project
based on what they believe are invalid objections and simply for personal interests which harm
the indigenous people.
5.4.3 The Indigenous People The experts’ discourse perceives Chiapas as a place where indigenous people are suffering from
underdevelopment due to social injustice and discrimination and that because of their dismal
condition the important biodiversity found in this area is being degraded. The experts assume a
clear separation between themselves and the indigenous people in terms of knowledge and
competencies. As a result of perceiving the indigenous people as being underdeveloped and
living in poverty, the experts devised their sustainable development project (see Berlin and
Berlin, 2001).
Based on how the project was planned it is possible to uncover some assumptions the experts
make about the indigenous people. The experts depict them as passive and powerless social
91 Bernardo (personal communication, 2003) also does not believe it is in the best interest of the indigenous people if OMIECH and COMPITCH manage the royalties from the drug sales as they had suggested. 92 The Berlins (2003) point out unpractical and illogical argumentation on the part of their enemies by claiming that control of IP should not only apply to the veto power of a single individual as they claim (see RAFI 1999).
79
actors in need of help from external experts by arguing that their project represented “one of the
few truly constructive chances that the Maya have to take their fate into their own hands and
stand on, if not an equal, at least more equalized economic and social footing in Chiapas” (Berlin
and Berlin, 2001). The experts further perceive the indigenous people as lacking agency and
being socially unorganized. When the experts tried to obtain PIC from the communities they
faced difficulties because of what they saw as a lack of a representative authority for the
indigenous people (Rosenthal, Draft).93 Moreover, ECOSUR claims that they will not apply for
another permit to conduct bioprospecting related collections until there exists such an authority to
enable the active participation of the indigenous people in the project (see Barrios and Espinosa,
2000). As a result of these difficulties, Bernardo (personal communication, 2003) argues that the
indigenous people need to organize themselves and elect representatives so that no representative
entity needs to be created by external actors. He also claims that the indigenous communities
need to reach agreements between themselves before any other project can be planned in
Chiapas. However, the indigenous communities do have their own organizational system94, but
since it does not fit into the experts’ vision and project plans they invalidate this representation
and suggest they create another ‘more convenient’ one in order for the indigenous people to be
able to participate in their bioprospecting projects. Indeed, since the experts wanted a fully
participatory and equal project they planned to create a representative entity for the indigenous
people called PROMAYA.95
By further looking into the project’s design, we realize how the experts assume that the
indigenous people are lacking training which is hindering their development process. Sergio
(personal communication, 2003) explains that the team “started training technicians from the
communities. They received training on ethnobotany, taxonomy, computing.” On a similar note,
the experts assume that the indigenous people are uneducated and would have trouble
understanding the complexity of their project. Indeed, Rosenthal (Draft) observes that issues of
IPRs and TK would have been very hard to explain to them. Therefore, the experts conducted a
theatrical play in order to clarify their project to them and how they would benefit from it. By
doing so, they are assuming that the indigenous people would not be interested in and capable of
93 The experts also blame the fact that the indigenous people live in a dispersed fashion for making the PIC more problematic (Ibid.). 94 The Berlins (2000) point out that communal ownership of resources is recognized in the San Andreas Accords. 95 This organization was strongly criticized and never saw the light of day.
80
reading documents and need to be explained things in a simplified and entertaining way in order
to arouse their interest and make the project appear like a fun and simple event.
When describing the indigenous people’s relationship with other social actors, the experts’
discourse further depicts these people as lacking agency. For example, Bernardo (personal
communication, 2003) explains that if the indigenous people are in a time of revalorizing their
culture, this movement is due to the influence of external actors. Thereby, the experts assume that
indigenous people would not be aware of the importance of their culture if activists, usually from
the North, did not show them this value and their need to re-establish and preserve it. They are
also once again depicting the indigenous people as easily influenced and as occupying a passive
and weak role in their relationship with other actors such as their enemies and themselves. By
recording the indigenous people’s TK, by publishing it in a book96, and by using it to guide their
search for a possible drug the experts are also trying to demonstrate to the indigenous people the
value of their TK and the need to protect it, which Sergio (personal communication, 2003) argues
could be accomplished through bioprospecting. Therefore, the experts are also trying to influence
the indigenous people and make them aware of things that these people are inherently familiar
with since this knowledge is part of their cultural heritage and daily life. The experts also assume
that the indigenous people do not take initiatives on their own, do not have access to the media,
and are thus rendered passive by external actors who over-power and misrepresent them. Indeed,
the Berlins (2003) criticize their enemies’ facilitated use of the media for silencing the indigenous
people as they claim that these social actors “often do not speak for local communities but their
ready access to the press and the Internet provides them with a platform that allows them to be
identified as the voice of the Indian peoples of the world” (p. 636).
Finally, the experts denounce the discrimination and lack of democracy found mostly in rural
areas and highlight their determination to improve this situation. By emphasizing the importance
of having a representative authority in the indigenous communities and of recognizing indigenous
96 This book in Spanish and Tzeltal is an ethnomedical manual that describes how to use certain medicinal plants as cures, it provides general information on the study area related to communitarian health, it presents the main illnesses, and it contains an ethnomedical-medical dictionary from Spanish to Tzeltal. See: Berlin, E. A., B. Berlin, J. Gnecco, and F. G. Sántiz. 2000. Manuel Etnomédico de Oxchuc. Guía Básica y Herbolaria. San Cristóbal de las Casas: ECOSUR.
81
people’s rights by e.g. giving them autonomy97 (Rosenthal, Draft) the experts are depicting the
indigenous people as victims of the Mexican government’s policies. ECOSUR also argues that
the issue of recognizing indigenous people’s rights is ambiguous and ambivalent and that it is a
process in construction that they are part of as well (González-Espinosa in SEMARNAP, 2000a).
5.4.4 Capitalism and Patents In the experts’ narrative patents are depicted in a negative way similarly to criticisms made
against these in the biopiracy discourse. They claim that they are against patents98 (Bernardo and
Sergio, personal communications, 2003) and that they are very well aware of the problems linked
to IPRs, but that issues of patents have not yet been sufficiently and openly discussed (Bernardo,
personal communication, 2003); as a result, they decided to devise a system of patent co-
ownership99. The experts also perceive patents as a threat to projects such as theirs since they
attract the attention of NGOs who denounce the monetary interests of the actors who engage in
bioprospecting. Bernardo (Ibid.) explains that financing institutes such as NIH have “interests,
policies, and ambitions that need to be conciliated and negotiated” and that for future projects to
be possible the pharmaceutical companies should lower their profile of interest in order to
“reduce the NGOs’ paranoia and suspicion”.
The experts depict themselves as separate from the pharmaceutical industry by making a
distinction between two groups of researchers: scientific researchers, such as themselves, and
industrial researchers, such as those working for the pharmaceutical industry (Bernardo, personal
communication, 2003). Similarly, Bernardo and Francisco (personal communications, 2003)
stress that they are not on the side of the ‘powerful giants’ of the pharmaceutical industry. As a
result, they differentiate their intentions which are not geared by money, but rather by academic
and philanthropic interests since they are working to help the indigenous people attain a better
life while the industrial researchers are mostly interested in financial benefits gained through
patents even though they are still contributing to improving people’s health. Finally, the experts
show their disinterest for money by arguing that patents are unlikely in this project. Sergio
(personal communication, 2003) claims that the chances of discovering and manufacturing a drug
97 Sergio (personal communication, 2003) explains that because the government does not legally recognize the communities, ownership of resources is complicated. 98 A position that Bernardo (personal communication, 2003) explains their enemies never understood. 99 Bernardo (personal communication, 2003) also suggests designing a different patent scheme that is “socially compatible”.
82
from the ICBG-Maya are like “hitting the jackpot” and thus that the project would be more useful
in developing instead an alternative source of health care.
5.4.5 The Mexican Legal Context The experts describe the situation in Mexico regarding environmental legislation as unclear
which Sergio (personal communication, 2003) argues represented a major drawback for their
project. They point out that the Mexican law is not clear about regulations needed to obtain a
collection permit for bioprospecting, making it subject to different understandings, and thus, they
had trouble obtaining one. ECOSUR expresses the need for a Mexican bioprospecting law by
arguing that they will not apply for any other bioprospecting collection permits until a clear
regulatory framework is created and implemented (in Barrios and Espinosa, 2000). However,
Francisco (personal communication, 2003) remarks that if a legal framework is developed for
bioprospecting, it should not be too restrictive otherwise biopiracy will take place. The experts
clearly express their discontent with the Mexican authorities’ laws – and even their actions to a
certain extent100 – emphasizing the lack of clear legal tools to allow the project to continue.
Therefore, these actors are depicting the Mexican legal system and governmental authorities as
faulty and in need of improvement in order for future bioprospecting projects to be able to take
place and in order for NGOs and CSOs not to be able to use the same arguments (i.e. that the
project was illegal) in their fights against such projects.
The experts criticize their enemies for having imposed a moratorium on bioprospecting since as
the Berlins (2003) argue this will not enable Mexico to advance with the creation of a better law.
On the other hand, these actors believe that laws made by the central government are not
necessarily well accepted in Chiapas and thus, that they need to be created in a socially legitimate
way. Bernardo (personal communication, 2003) realizes that legitimacy must be reached by
informing and consulting the public i.e. through a democratic process. As a result, democracy is
defined by these actors as a process in which justice is developed based on consultation with the
interested parties once these people have been fully informed.101 Bernardo (Ibid.) also explains
that before any other project can be planned in Chiapas, the armed conflict situation needs to be
solved in a positive way for both parties. Democracy is therefore perceived as a precondition for
100 Sergio (personal communication, 2003) suspects that SEMARNAP was not on their side and that they had decided quite early on to cancel the project. 101 As seen earlier, this vision of democracy corresponds to the way they argue to have conducted PIC.
83
legitimacy which is also necessary for conducting bioprospecting within a legal framework.
Conclusively, by depicting an inadequate legal system for bioprospecting and the need for
legitimately recognized and accepted laws, the experts assume that democracy is needed for
governmental decisions to be accepted as socially legitimate.
5.4.6 Development and Biodiversity Conservation The experts’ discourse on development confirms their assumption that the indigenous people live
in an inferior world, but that they can be brought closer to the experts’ world thanks to the ICBG-
Maya.102 Nevertheless, this discourse also reveals a contradiction. Bernardo (personal
communication, 2003) contends that the indigenous people should be the ones to decide how to
organize themselves and that they should generate their own development process in which they
may choose to integrate the experts. At the same time they argue that they will be there for the
indigenous people to help them. As Rosenthal (Draft) argues, they feel a responsibility to train
the indigenous people so that they adopt a correct development path for their own sake. This
argument supports the statement made earlier that the experts assume that the indigenous people
need their expertise to improve their lives. Similarly they suggest to the indigenous people what
they should do e.g. organize in order to participate in their development projects. The experts’
understanding of bottom-up development thus consists in training local people who will then go
train members of their community and enable development to take place. Sergio (personal
communication, 2003) explains that projects that “build a group of indigenous technicians and
professionals… [who then] come back with education and they help develop their own
communities; it is a long shot, but it is probably more strategic in the long run. It is a fight we
have to let happen”. Consequently, they seem to argue that the project recipients need to make
some changes in order for the project to be more successful while at the same time they claim
that the indigenous people should have full decision-making power and should suggest a project
themselves that they could conduct on their own or with the help from experts.
In terms of biodiversity conservation, the experts argue that bioprospecting projects allow people
to take advantage of the value of biodiversity for the benefit of society while conserving it at the
same time (Francisco, personal communication, 2003); or in other words, as a sustainable
102 For example, Bernardo (personal communication, 2003) argues that the indigenous people could engage in bioprospecting projects to make ‘easy and quick’ cash so that they would have more time for leisure type of activities like us.
84
development type of venture. The experts assume that nature has a commercial value which can
not only be beneficial to people, but to the environment as well, which is the typical argument
found in the ‘win-win’ discourse on bioprospecting. Despite their negative description of certain
actors’ financial monetary interests to participate in bioprospecting projects, the experts still
believe in the potential environmental and developmental benefits of a monetary valuation of
nature. On the other hand, even though the experts believe in bioprospecting projects’ capacity to
create an incentive to protect the environment (Francisco and Bernardo, personal
communications, 2003) they still decided to devise specific projects of biodiversity conservation
through the ICBG-Maya illustrating their commitment to conservation work and their assumption
that probably no royalties will be generated from a drug discovery.
5.4.7 Concluding Remarks The experts’ discourse reveals some assumptions about themselves, other key social actors, and
issues which explain the way they reasoned and further devised their project and battle against
their enemies. As we could see throughout the analysis this discourse also exposes some
inconsistencies. For example, they argue that they are on the side of the indigenous people whom
they seem to look up to because of their rich knowledge and valuable diversity that need to be
preserved while at the same time they claim that the indigenous people need to develop by first
educating themselves, better organizing their communities – forming representative bodies and
reaching consensus–, and creating ownership systems that would facilitate PIC by being similar
to those found in the experts’ societies. They realize that the world of the indigenous people is
different from theirs (e.g. the indigenous communities share their resources in a communal way),
but they still believe that thanks to their expertise of the area and their knowledge of what is
valuable, and what the indigenous people’s needs are they can help these people and their
environment with an all-in-one package deal. Therefore, these social actors would have not
engaged in this project and devised all these benefits if they had not perceived the world of the
indigenous people as different and inferior to theirs and hence, in need of development which
they could provide. However, they somewhat mask this belief by valuing the elements of the
indigenous peoples’ culture and society. Similarly, they claim that they “try not to be so full of
proposals” (Bernardo, personal communication, 2003) which supports their image as democratic
actors.
85
Even though the experts show support for bioprospecting projects they perceive this activity as
prone to problems and objections and they demonstrate a certain amount of reflection –
especially after the case – on issues such as PIC, patents, and equitable benefit sharing. By
pointing out that they learned a lot from this case103 and that this experience can be used for
future projects, they show that even experts are willing to improve.104 As a result, they may be
now even better experts and more capable of handling another similar project. However, the
experts do not question their vision of things, their assumptions about social actors and events,
but rather blame other actors and contextual factors for the outcome of this project. Some of the
main actors blamed by the experts for the cancellation of this project are their enemies whose
discourse also needs to be analyzed to better understand their perspective.
5.5 The Opponents’ Discourse Analysis The discourse analyzed here enables us to identify different social actors and themes which better
explain the position held by the opponents of the ICBG-Maya. Since Felipe (personal
communication, 2003) explains that they contacted COMPITCH and decided to engage in a
“fight together”, and that they won their fight by managing to halt the project I decided to name
these social actors ‘the heroes’. These heroes mainly represent local CSOs (COMPITCH and
OMIECH) along with an international NGO (RAFI now ETC) and a researcher from ECOSUR
(Limón) who expressed harsh criticism against the project. As it will be seen in this section, the
heroes adopt a typical biopiracy discourse in which bioprospectors are portrayed as ‘pirates’,
which explains why the project proponents will be named as such. As in the experts’ narrative,
the heroes also include another group of actors ‘the indigenous people’. Based on their
knowledge of the area and of bioprospecting in general they also perceive and describe the
context and issues in a particular way as part of their discourse.
5.5.1 The Heroes The heroes portray themselves as powerful fighters against capitalist minded pirates in the name
of the indigenous people. Their fighting techniques consisted mostly of diffusing information
103 As mentioned earlier, Bernardo has now e.g. educated himself on cultural aspects of Chiapas and Sergio (personal communication, 2003) explains that the approach to these projects needs to be changed so that they advance very slowly and only based on years of experimentation. 104 They suggested using this case as an experience to develop a regulatory regime for bioprospecting (Sergio, personal communication, 2003). They also argue that the new law will need to consult the people and take into consideration all the issues raised in this project (Bernardo, personal communication, 2003).
86
through the media and thanks to their CSO and NGO networks. They started to search for
information by their own means, through the Internet, forums, other NGOs, due to what they
perceived as a lack of information diffusion from the project team as Luisa (personal
communication, 2003) argues e.g. that they asked ECOSUR for information, but they only
received a small summary of the project. By pressuring SEMARNAP105 and the team they were
finally able to obtain more documents (Luisa and Felipe, personal communications, 2003).
Thereby, they show how powerful and threatening they are to the point that even the government
authorities had to intervene. RAFI106 also greatly supported their fight by publishing newsletters
on their website and providing them with information to strengthen their accusations.
By accusing the pirates of having hidden information from them, but also from the public in
general and especially from the indigenous people, the heroes depict their fight as a noble
endeavor in which they enlightened the indigenous people and convinced them to renounce to the
project. As a result, Luisa (personal communication, 2003) claims that “the indigenous
communities were very impressed by this new information”. The experts argue that “we had
reasons and clear information, a discussion so that people understood our point of view and were
with us” (Felipe, personal communication, 2003). By being open and honest about their
intentions, the heroes contend that the indigenous people supported their stance rather than the
pirates’, illustrating the virtues of honesty. The heroes did not stop their spread of information at
the communities, though. They also created forums and workshops opening up a discussion that
crossed boundaries in which they informed themselves and analyzed bioprospecting projects and
related issues (see Luisa, personal communication, 2003). This demonstrates how democratic
they were in their fight by discussing the pros and cons of bioprospecting, generating knowledge
and a widespread discussion, rather than acting in a simple and radical way opposing the project
in an inflexible and irrational way.
As part of their image as fighters for justice and democracy - two common problem areas in
Mexico especially for the indigenous people – Alarcón (2003) explains that they asked for a
moratorium to be imposed on all bioprospecting projects in Mexico until a legal framework is
105 When SEMARNAP provided them with a lot of information Luisa (Ibid.) explains that they were surprised and thought it was a mistake. Thus, they believe that the government was against them. 106 I will return to RAFI’s role in the next section of this chapter.
87
devised through forums and consultations with the population.107 The heroes also describe their
fight as being for the benefit of the indigenous people. For example, by refusing to negotiate and
try to reach an agreement with the pirates, they demonstrate their loyalty to the indigenous
people. Furthermore, they argue that they do not represent all the doctors of Chiapas, the
communities, and the people of Mexico, and thus, that a public consultation is needed after “an
information campaign in all languages and by all communication means” (Luisa, personal
communication, 2003) is undertaken.108 The heroes also believe that the biodiversity theme
should be discussed by everyone through regional discussions since it affects all, but primarily
the farmers and the indigenous people (Ibid.). Rodrigo (personal communication, 2003)
demonstrates how democratic COMPITCH is since it meets with its 19 organizations on a regular
basis to listen to different opinions. On the basis of this democratic process, they believe that they
are the legitimate representatives of the indigenous people (Ibid.) and that their work as advisors
is essential for information diffusion. Nevertheless, the heroes express some contradiction in their
discourse which enables us to perceive a frustration. While they argue for a fully democratic
process in which everyone has an equal say, they would also like the opinion of the indigenous
people and the farmers to be weighed more (see Rodrigo, personal communication, 2003) and for
their opinion to be represented by the local CSOs. By assuming a cultural and philosophical
understanding of the indigenous people the heroes also weaken their argument that these people
should be able to decide on the use of their resources. Indeed, Luisa (personal communication,
2003) claims that since the indigenous people do not perceive themselves as ‘owners’ of
medicinal plants they cannot decide for them.
Based on the heroes’ opposition to the project their discourse is further revealed. Luisa and
Limón (personal communications, 2003) contend that the most important benefit for the
indigenous people would be to have their integral rights recognized so that they can develop their
TK and their culture. By making such a claim the heroes portray themselves as being opposed to
the project based on issues of social justice. Similarly, Limón (Ibid.) argues for the need for
107 According to CAPICE, this legal void is allowing veiled bioprospecting to take place since there is no legal basis for accusations (Berti, personal communication, 2003). 108 The heroes warn that if laws are not devised in this way, they will collide with local laws in the communities (Felipe, personal communication, 2003) an idea that Limón (personal communication, 2003) explains is brought up by the EZLN.
88
democracy by pointing out the non-recognition of indigenous people as ‘people’109 and thus, the
negation of their cultural diversity and the multicultural aspect of this nation. As part of their
fight for democracy and recognition of indigenous people’s rights, the local CSOs decided to
conduct their own PIC – after having opposed the pirates’ PIC – by informing the communities
and recording their decision which was negative (Felipe, personal communication, 2003). Since
“Unless all agree, some will have their rights violated” (RAFI, 1999b, p. 2) they argued that the
project could not take place. Therefore, in their view, PIC allows veto power of a single
individual and the need for a complete consensus. Due to a lack of consensus for the ICBG-Maya
they believe that the project should be terminated (Felipe, personal communication, 2003)
emphasizing their wish to see democracy flourish in the indigenous communities along with the
recognition of their rights. Similarly, Felipe (personal communication, 2003) claims that the
indigenous people should have the right to say “No!” which reminds us of the famous
denunciation made by the Zapatistas: “¡Ya Basta!” (Enough!). Finally, by arguing that the
project had to be cancelled because it was not for the benefit of the indigenous people (Rodrigo,
personal communication, 2003) the heroes assume that they know what the indigenous people
need, and thus, they pretend to be experts as well. Conclusively, democracy is understood by
these social actors as the recognition of everyone’s right, the freedom of information access and
diffusion, and consultation through a fair voting process; nevertheless, equality in decision
making is difficult for them to recognize as fair.
5.5.2 The Pirates As part of their discourse the heroes pretend to uncover the interests and reasons lying behind the
ICBG-Maya team members and denounce their way of operating. They depict the pirates as
dishonest, unlawful, and undemocratic social actors. For example, by accusing them of non-
transparency (as seen above) the heroes assume that the pirates actually had something to hide:
“if you have a project that is clear and good, that is going to benefit the indigenous people then
we should discuss it publicly” and that if they had been more open about their project they would
have been able to go further with it (Felipe, personal communication, 2003). COMPITCH (in
SEMARNAP, 2000a) also accuses the pirates of having violated each citizen’s right to be
informed and thus, of not having acted in a legal and democratic way. They claim that the
indigenous communities were left with no alternatives: “In any case they will take the natural 109 He clarifies that no law makes this recognition.
89
resources so you have to negotiate; it is better to negotiate than to be robbed” (Felipe, personal
communication, 2003).
The heroes further emphasize the pirates’ image as illegal wrong-doers by arguing that once they
had translated the project’s contract they realized that it contained “terrible things, that there were
fundamental violations of the Mexican law, that the project was illegal, that it had no legal
framework” (Luisa, personal communication, 2003). They also point out that Dr. Berlin had
conducted collections of plant material from Chiapas which were sent to UGA throughout the
time he has been working in this area (30 years) without ever having obtained a permit from
SEMARNAP110 thereby committing a “crime” (Alarcón, 2003). This image of criminals fits well
with the heroes’ definition of the project team as pirates along with the depiction of Dr. Berlin as
a devil. Indeed, he was nicknamed Pukuj which means devil in Tzotzil.111 After the discovery of
these past ‘illegal’ collections, COMPITCH (in SEMARNAP, 2000a) argues that the confidence
between both parties was broken. By blaming the pirates for having lost the trust of the CSOs and
at the same time of the indigenous people they demonstrate how the pirates killed their own
project. Similarly, they show how the pirates acted behind their backs and in a dishonest fashion
as Rodrigo and Felipe (personal communications, 2003) explain that when OMIECH discovered
that a contract had been signed without informing them they felt that they were not taken into
account and from then on they had no desire to engage in any type of negotiations or dialogue
with these pirates. The heroes point out that the pirates did not follow the Mexican law and the
CBD guidelines as they argue that the team did not consult the legitimate representatives of the
communities to obtain PIC (Luisa, personal communication, 2003). The heroes show thereby that
the pirates do not understand the social organization of the indigenous people and that their
procedures were undemocratic since “None of the ‘prior informed consent’ forms gathered by
ICBG Maya indicate the required level of agreement. To the contrary, some of the forms include
no more than 15 signatures, and these are from individuals, not representatives appointed by the
Assembly” (Rodriguez in RAFI, 2000, p. 6)”. Finally, the heroes accuse Dr. Berlin of having
110 Based on this belief COMPITCH (in RAFI 2000) argues that obtaining PIC was just a formality for the ICBG-Maya team. Hence, they believe that the pirates just pretended to abide the law. 111 See the following report: Soto, J. C. 2000. Pukuj - Biopiratería en Chiapas. RMALC, COMPITCH, A.C., CIEPAC.Report.
90
violated the International Society of Ethnobiology (ISE) Code of Ethics which he partially
developed himself (see Soto, 2000).
The heroes also depict a negative image of the pirates and their project by criticizing its benefits.
For example, Felipe and Luisa (personal communications, 2003) stress several times that
monetary benefits in form of royalties will take a long time to come – if ever – and that even
though this project was supposed to be more generous than other projects in terms of benefit-
sharing this was not the case.112 113 Felipe (personal communication, 2003) highlights that the
researchers from the team would be paid important monetary sums for their work which they
argue is unfair114 and thus, that these researchers became involved in the project only for
economic interests. Finally, the heroes criticize the fact that PROMAYA would not earn any
money itself, but would only be able to decide on its allocation. Therefore, the heroes depict the
pirates as being driven overwhelmingly by economic interests: “Money is so important that they
[the pirates] won’t take time to talk about ethics” (Luisa, personal communication, 2003); “after
all it’s business” (Felipe, personal communication, 2003). At the same time the heroes assume
that they know themselves what the indigenous people need (i.e. what are ‘good’ benefits).
The heroes further denounce the pirates and their project as being harmful to the indigenous
people by showing a contradiction in the pirates’ claims which they assume uncovers their
intentions. They explain that the pirates argued that the indigenous people did not know what
biotechnology was, while at the same time they claim to have obtained PIC from them. Thereby,
the heroes contend that the indigenous people could not have been sufficiently informed for PIC
to be valid and that it was acquired in “very tricky ways” (Luisa, personal communication, 2003).
They further add that the information the pirates provided was geared by their interests as they
were “much more interested in giving a biased perspective on supposed local benefits” (Bautista
in Valadez, 2000 .Trans. RAFI, 2000). The heroes thus believe that the pirates tried to trick the
112 Luisa (personal communication, 2003) criticizes the fact that the indigenous people would only receive agricultural tools. 113 The heroes also criticize the ‘win-win’ discourse held by bioprospecting proponents in which they wish to compensate the poor, but biologically rich countries for their bioprospecting value. Indeed, they denounce the fact that only communities with biological value will benefit from monetary compensations while other poor indigenous people living in biologically uninteresting areas will not obtain any benefits (Luisa, personal communication, 2003). 114 He would prefer that the money invested in the project be given to the indigenous people who are suffering from poverty and could be provided with clean water e.g.
91
indigenous people for their own interests. Rodrigo and Luisa (personal communications, 2003)
also point out that the pirates manipulated115 the indigenous people some of which were lured
into the project and agreed at first to participate in it because of monetary compensation and
misinformation.116 Similarly, Limón (personal communication, 2003) claims that during the
dialogue process the indigenous people were not treated fairly since their say was devaluated and
their capacity was seen as inferior due to their lack of information, knowledge, and a more
restrained vision of things. Hence, the heroes portray the pirates as treating the indigenous people
in an inferior way further denouncing undemocratic procedures. Furthermore, Limón (Ibid.)
accuses the pharmaceutical industry, institutes like ECOSUR, the Mexican government, and
development and modernization programs of treating most people with arrogance and seeing
themselves as superior in all aspects. Finally, the heroes depict the pirates and their actions as
threatening and damaging for the indigenous people by accusing them of worsening the social
problems in the communities. Luisa (personal communication, 2003) argues that controversies
and disputes may arise between the communities if a community agrees to participate in the
project while others do not. As a result of their assumptions and due to the fact that “They did not
understand the indigenous people because they are in the scientific world” (Luisa, personal
communication, 2003)117, the heroes assume that the pirates would not be capable of devising a
plan that would benefit and be accepted by the indigenous people.
5.5.3 The Indigenous People The heroes depict a romantic image of the indigenous people by praising their lifestyle. Luisa and
Berti (personal communications, 2003) argue e.g. that the indigenous people have a respectful
relationship with nature and are aware of their responsibility to protect it; in other words, they are
perceived as environmental stewards. Luisa and Rodrigo (personal communications, 2003)
highlight the religious and historical nature of TK when they explain that in the philosophy of the
indigenous people, plants are not owned, they are given to them by God and passed down from
one generation to the next. They are also depicting a world of the indigenous people in which all 115 According to RAFI (2000) COMPITCH believes that the indigenous people have been manipulated by the government and the project leaders. 116 Luisa (personal communication, 2003) explains that during a meeting at UGA the indigenous people present and on the side of the project team had been paid to be there and were being manipulated by Dr. Berlin who was giving them notes so that they said what he wanted. Thus, they were not free to talk and express their own opinion. 117 For example, the heroes argue that from the indigenous people’s perspective it makes no sense to separate medicinal plants and associated TK (Luisa, personal communication, 2003). However, bioprospectors often attempt to deal with both elements as separate entities.
92
they have is their knowledge and thus culture which is extremely valuable and enables them to
survive (e.g. through TM): “It means a lot for the indigenous people to keep that system of
medicine; this is what will keep them going, surviving; it represents the future for them” (Luisa,
personal communication, 2003).
On the other hand, the heroes assume the inferiority of the indigenous people by denouncing the
pirates’ actions and presenting their own. When the heroes denounce the problem of power
inequality in bioprospecting projects (see Felipe, personal communication, 2003) they are
emphasizing the poverty, powerlessness, and lack of business skills of the indigenous people
faced with the legal and monetary power of actors in the North. By denouncing the pirates’
undemocratic actions the heroes are also demonstrating that the indigenous people are easily
influenced and manipulated and that they are suffering from such poverty that they are willing to
do anything for money.118 Furthermore, by informing the communities about the ICBG-Maya the
heroes assume that the indigenous people would have not been capable of informing themselves
due to financial, technical, and educational limitations and thereby, that they need the ‘support’ of
the CSOs and NGOs. In a similar way, the heroes argue that if documents about the project were
only put in the library at ECOSUR they were not reachable to the indigenous people
(COMPITCH in SEMARNAP, 2000a). They assume then that the indigenous people would have
no interest in making an effort to go to the library to inform themselves since they are just
farmers; hence, the local CSOs need to inform them instead. The heroes also believe that the
indigenous people need to improve their condition and that technology could help them do so.
Therefore, the heroes want technology transfer and the project to be planned in a bottom-up
fashion which Felipe (personal communication, 2003) argues is needed for the indigenous people
to be able to understand the project and fully participate in it. Finally, the heroes depict an image
of the indigenous people as passive people affected by the globalization phenomenon and not
really capable of reacting in the absence of the heroes’ activism. Based on the same assumption,
the heroes condemn bioprospecting by contending that the commercialization that is entering
their communities by offering money for different goods is dividing the communities (Luisa,
personal communication, 2003); in other words, that the spread of capitalism is worsening the
118 Felipe (personal communication, 2003) also argues that even if the drugs found in the US would treat health problems faced by Mexicans, these people would not be able to afford them.
93
social breakdown already taking place in the communities and that such conflicts are extremely
dangerous for a community that is resisting (Berti, personal communication, 2003). Therefore,
the indigenous people appear in this narrative as poor victims of the evil actions of the pirates,
transnational companies, and the Mexican and US governments.
5.5.4 Imperialism and Globalization One of the main elements of the heroes’ discourse which fits well into their pro-democracy and
human rights’ claims is the violation of Mexico’s sovereignty by a project such as the ICBG-
Maya led by the US, who they stress did not sign the CBD (Luisa, personal communication,
2003). Felipe (personal communication, 2003) and RAFI (2000) point out e.g. that the indigenous
people will not be trained, but will only be used to collect plants and that ECOSUR will not be
able to choose what and how much technology it will receive making it work simply as a
maquiladora for the interests of the US. By using an image, which refers to a well-known
capitalistic enterprise that uses cheap Mexican labor for products developed by American
companies – further abusing human rights and the environment –, the heroes reinforce their
condemnation of Mexico’s loss of sovereignty to the US and transnational companies.119
Therefore, they view the project – at least the US part of it – as not empowering but only
manipulating the local indigenous people and the local research institute. At the same time, the
heroes link bioprospecting to neo-colonialism120, an image often used in the biopiracy
discourse.121
The heroes’ understanding of democracy is similar to the one found in the anti-globalization
discourse since they both perceive globalization (e.g. the spread of transnational companies) as a 119 Luisa (personal communication, 2003) contends that the ICBG-Maya was not legitimate since the communities were not consulted and Mexico was just pressured by US transnational companies. Felipe (personal communication, 2003) denounces the Mexican government for working excessively under the mandate of the World Bank instead of being on the side of the Mexicans. 120 Luisa (personal communication, 2003) argues that neo-liberalism is a new form of extreme colonialism. 121 See e.g. the following articles: Aoki, K. 1998. "Neocolonialism, Anticommons Property, and Biopiracy in the (Not-So-Brave) New World Order of International Intellectual Property Protection." Symposium - Sovereignty and the Globalization of Intellectual Property, 1998, pp. 40 Stud. 11. Banerjee, S. B. 2002. "Reinventing Colonialism: Biotechnology, Intellectual Property Rights and the New Economics of Sustainable Development." 9th Biennial Conference of the International Association for the Study of Common Property, Victoria Falls, Zimbabwe, 2002. Ceceña, A. E., and J. Giménez. Accessed 2003. "Hegemonía y bioprospección. El caso del International Cooperative Biodiversity Group". November 8, 2003. http://www.redcelsofurtado.edu.mx
94
threat for democracy as countries lose their sovereignty. Moreover, the heroes believe that a
democratic legislative process is needed for Mexico’s sovereignty to be ensured. Even though
they argue that the project was illegal since no legal framework existed and that the need for a
legal regulation is imperative, they explain that even if a law is created, the theft of genetic
resources will then just be legalized and that access to biodiversity will be open which is what the
other countries want and why Mexico is pressured to pass an ABS law (see Luisa, personal
communication, 2003).
Finally, by portraying the pirates as robbers the heroes perceive the ICBG-Maya as a capitalist
project which as Rodrigo (personal communication, 2003) argues will only benefit rich
Northerners through patenting.122 They assume that the ICBG-Maya is perpetrating American
imperialism since NIH which sponsored the project is American (see Luisa, personal
communication, 2003).123 In other words, they are depicting the ICBG-Maya as a selfish project
geared by Northern interests in which the poor Southerners are left at the margins of
development.124 Therefore, through the assumptions made in their discourses the heroes warn the
indigenous people against the project by portraying it as another globalization venture threatening
their region and people.
5.5.5 Patents and Capitalism In the heroes’ discourse patents are viewed as a technique used by the pirates to steal the valuable
resources of the indigenous people. For example, they assume that the pharmaceutical industry
would act in a selfish and dishonest way by excluding the poor and helpless indigenous people
from any benefits. Indeed, Felipe (personal communication, 2003) argues that the indigenous
people will not be able to check how their plants are being used and if any drug is discovered.
They also assume that the pharmaceutical industry would not inform the indigenous people if any
royalties were generated. Luisa (personal communication, 2003) uses the image of a bar code to
122 They argue that even if the book by Dr. Berlin in which the TK is recorded is translated into indigenous languages they will not be able to afford it (Rodrigo, personal communication, 2003), thus assuming that it will not be free and that the indigenous people are poor. 123 CAPICE also believes that the US government is interested in bioprospecting since it sees it as a strategic business venture in which they want to invest (Berti, personal communication, 2003). 124 Luisa (personal communication, 2003) claims that in order for these types of projects to be beneficial to the indigenous people, the current rules of global commerce (i.e. capitalism) need to change.
95
warn the indigenous people of the danger of patents as she argues that these will be placed on
their plants forcing them to pay for their use.
The heroes view IPRs as a concept from the Northern world which is diametrically opposed to
the world of the indigenous people. They argue that the commercialization and privatization of
plants and knowledge through bioprospecting and the imposition of IPRs does not fit into the
philosophy and moral stances of the indigenous: “there is no logical correspondence between the
Maya world and the IPR system; it doesn’t make sense to put property rights, owners on plants”
(Luisa, personal communication, 2003). Limón (personal communication, 2003) further explains
that whereas the indigenous people were managers of knowledge for centuries, the researchers
only wanted to have access to this TK and transfer it to another domain (ámbito) of the world
disarticulating it in the process. The heroes thereby demonstrate a contrast between the
exclusionary social system of the Western world which is opposed to the indigenous people’s
world in which the traditional doctors want to share their knowledge and their medicine
(Rodrigo, personal communication, 2003) and thus ownership in their society is organized in a
communitarian way.125 The heroes believe that this difference is creating an unsustainable system
which is further widening the gap between the rich and the poor who cannot take advantage of
technological changes and which threatens cultural diversity and the survival of people at the
margins of capitalistic development. Indeed, Felipe (personal communication, 2003) believes that
patents do not benefit poor indigenous people with knowledge from the South, but rather
transnational companies as part of the logic of capitalism. Alarcón (in RAFI 2000) further argues
that this cultural erosion due to the privatization of knowledge and threat of conflicts in the
communities is directly contradictory to the goal of the ICBG-Maya to preserve TK. In other
words, the heroes depict an idealized world of the indigenous people which is fundamentally
different to the Western world. In a similar way, Luisa (personal communication, 2003) argues
that “the knowledge associated with the plants will die in the commercialization process”.126
They thus associate capitalism with the disappearance of cultural diversity, a common
125 Luisa (personal communication, 2003) argues that thanks to the indigenous people, their knowledge, and their communitarian ownership system they have domesticated plants and maintained health and food for the world for generations. They further argue that the system of patents does not provide such exchange and guarantees. 126 Limón (personal communication, 2003) believes that ideological control from external influences also negatively affects the preservation of TK as the ‘knowledgeable’ members of the communities are depreciated by other members.
96
denunciation of the anti-globalization movement. Finally, the following images clearly illustrate
the heroes’ argument and show the type of assumptions they make: “[The project] represented a
collision between the heart of money [the US] and the communitarian heart of the indigenous
people” (Luisa, personal communication, 2003) or as CAPICE argues, the patents represent the
“sale of common heritage resources” (Berti, personal communication, 2003). Due to the fact that
these two worlds are opposed, the heroes assume that the indigenous people do not want to enter
into this logic of business and privatization (Felipe, personal communication, 2003); hence, that
they do not want to participate in the globalization movement and be part of the capitalistic
system ruling the world. As a result of this dichotomy, Limón (personal communication, 2003)
believes that “the ICBG [-Maya] was a conflict between the logic of development and the control
of resources and the alternative ways of living this world”.
Even though the heroes criticize the commercial and capitalistic aspects of bioprospecting as e.g.
Luisa (personal communication, 2003) believes that bioprospecting similarly to ecotourism is just
“a big enterprise” the heroes do recognize the commercial value of medicinal plants which
reveals a contradiction in their discourse. Indeed, OMIECH engages in the sale of medicinal
plants and recognizes the importance of scientific research for such an enterprise as Nigh
(personal communication, 2003) points out. Even though it is a locally based commercial
endeavor it nevertheless brings medicinal plants and TK into the capitalist domain.127
5.5.6 Development and Biodiversity Conservation Development in the heroes’ discourse is described as a democratic process as they claim that the
indigenous people should be able to choose their own development path, that such projects need
to involve the equal participation of all the actors (Limón, personal communication, 2003), and
that to a certain extent development is already taking place. For example, CIEPAC explains that
alternatives are being sought in the communities in order to protect biodiversity against
bioprospecting and biotechnology (Hernandez, personal communication, 2003). COMPITCH
adds that “the development proposals are being lived in the communities every day” (Luisa,
personal communication, 2003) – and thus, that their work is only to support such projects by e.g.
127 A member of ODEMITCH criticizes this type of commercialization as he argues that the plants should first be provided to members of the communities, then to other communities, and only after they could maybe be sold in more urban areas (Luis, personal communication, 2003).
97
training the communities to protect and take care of their natural resources (Rodrigo, personal
communication, 2003).128 In a similar way, Luisa and Felipe (personal communications, 2003)
believe that bioprospecting as it is practiced by the indigenous people, i.e. the discovery and
development of more plant varieties, would be more successful at conserving biodiversity than
commercial bioprospecting. Therefore, the heroes show how they are already undertaking
development projects in the Highlands communities and thus, that no external help is needed (i.e.
alternative programs are possible), but that nevertheless the indigenous people need some
financial, material, and educational support in order to develop. As a result, the heroes view
development as possible through training and the spread of information, tasks they are
undertaking (see Felipe, personal communication, 2003). However, they also contend that the
government should support their development projects and those undertaken by the indigenous
people, with their own culture and autonomy, and that as long as the communities can maintain
their own development system biodiversity will be conserved (Berti, Luisa, and Hernandez,
personal communications, 2003). Therefore, they assume that the indigenous people want to be
part of development, but a development scheme that is culturally sensitive129 since they own
values that should be preserved. Based on their assumption that indigenous people need help to
develop and evolve and that they know how this could be accomplished they suggest helping the
indigenous people by reviving their culture through the recovery and reactivation of the use of
medicinal plants in indigenous communities, a fundamental task that CIEPAC explains
COMPITCH and OMIECH are already undertaking (Hernandez, personal communication, 2003).
However, in the heroes’ view indigenous people’s rights first need to be recognized and
guaranteed before any development can take place through training e.g. which they are
undertaking further assuming that they are respecting indigenous people’s rights. Conclusively,
the heroes praise the indigenous people’s social system and culture which they want to re-
establish130 while at the same time they criticize the fact that they are put aside the development
path.
128 Felipe (personal communication, 2003) explains that OMIECH has been creating botanical gardens in communities for the past 15 years. 129 For example, CAPICE believes that TK should be dealt with very carefully as it represents the culture and identity of people (Berti, personal communication, 2003). Luisa and Felipe (personal communications, 2003) explain that the indigenous people are aware that they need to evolve, change, but that they should maintain the ‘good’ elements of their culture (e.g. medicinal plants). 130 For example, CIEPAC argues for the regeneration of the exchange system in which food items and goods are used instead of money (Hernandez, personal communication, 2003) and CAPICE suggests a program allowing an
98
5.5.7 Concluding Remarks The heroes clearly depict themselves as the protectors of and fighters for the human rights and
values of the indigenous people and democracy. At the same time, they portray the indigenous
people as needing development since they represent them as innocent, poor, and helpless,
uneducated victims of a scam, namely the ICBG-Maya. By praising the importance of fighting
for indigenous people’s rights and helping them preserve their culture and natural resources, the
heroes are actually assuming the underdevelopment and inferiority of the indigenous people
while demonstrating the importance of their work. On the other hand, by opposing any aspect of
the project and the pirate’s actions and declarations, they reveal contradictions in their own
discourse or interests. Indeed, even though they oppose the project on moral grounds they still
criticize the financial inequalities in benefit sharing which reveals an inconsistency in their
interests as they do show a certain concern for money. Finally, the strategy used by the heroes in
their discourse is based on exposing what they see as the pirates’ hidden interests in order to
unveil their motivations. As a result, the supposedly good intentions of the pirates were
discredited forcing ECOSUR to pull out due to a loss of credibility according to Berti (personal
communication, 2003).
As seen in this section and as it will be seen in the next, the heroes make strong accusations
against bioprospecting by attacking it in all possible ways while at the same time they contend to
have analyzed the pros and cons of bioprospecting and the need for these ventures to be more
legitimately accepted. Thus, they are pretending not to make unfounded claims and assumptions
to avoid such criticism131 and show that their arguments are actually well-supported and thought
out. It is now interesting to look at how these two discourses were constructed, what techniques
and strategies were used to spread them, and finally to analyze their impact.
exchange and dialogue between TK and Western science which would strengthen the communities (Berti, personal communication, 2003). 131 Their discourse is somewhat contradictory though as they first claim that they would not recommend any bioprospecting project to take place in Chiapas since it is only robbing the resources (Luisa, personal communication, 2003) while at the same time they claim that depending on whom the benefits are for and if there is a legal framework bioprospecting is not necessarily bad (Felipe, personal communication, 2003).
99
5.6 Discourses Viewed Through the Analytical Framework Based on the two preceding discourse analyses we can perceive what assumptions the different
actors make and their perception of other actors, contextual elements, and themes. We also need
to look at how these discourses were constructed, how they were spread, and what impact they
had. As seen in preceding sections and chapters it is argued that there are two main discourses on
bioprospecting: the ‘win-win’ discourse and the biopiracy discourse. Since the two discourses
analyzed here fit quite well into these two categories we will refer to the experts’ discourse as the
‘win-win’ discourse and to the heroes’ discourse as the biopiracy one. The general ‘win-win’
discourse promotes technology transfer, equal benefit sharing, access laws, conservation
programs, monetary valuation of TK and biodiversity through bioprospecting all of which are
elements found in the experts’ discourse. On the other hand, the common biopiracy discourse
identifies bioprospectors as pirates who steal the natural and cultural richness of the poor
indigenous people for their own benefits thus engaging in a new form of colonization, a narrative
that was clearly part of the heroes’ discourse. Contextual elements involved in the discourses will
be highlighted in order to emphasize the case-based nature of these narratives. Finally, by
deconstructing these discourses social actors’ assumptions and interests can be uncovered.
If we start by looking at how the two groups of social actors construct their narratives we can
then focus on how their claims were spread and their resulting impact. The deconstruction of
their discourses will enable us to understand their impact and the means to diffuse their narratives
will allow us to comprehend the reach of their voice. Thus, we need to first identify the links
found in the discourses, the rhetorical devices used, the tone of the statements, and the
commonalities between both discourses. The following table will guide our analysis and will be
referred to throughout this section.
100
Table 3: Analysis of the experts’ and heroes’ discourses in the ICBG-Maya case Experts’ discourse Heroes’ discourse Construction elements:
Motivations
• Sustainable development • Re-establish moral and social values of
indigenous people’s culture • Democracy • Democracy • Conduct a novel bioprospecting project • Denounce projects such as the ICBG-Maya
that are against indigenous people’s interests
Claims
• Economical development for the indigenous people, biodiversity conservation
• Recognition and respect of indigenous people’s rights
• Expertise and interest in indigenous people’s needs and desires
• Expertise and interest in indigenous people’s needs and desires
• Criticize marginalization of indigenous people, poor health conditions, low educational level, etc
• Criticize Mexican and US governments’ actions, TNC’s actions, environmental organizations’ projects (loss of sovereignty, impacts of ecotourism, etc)
• Warn against loss of valuable species through environmental destruction
• Link to anti-globalization and biotechnology issues (threat of GMOs, loss of cultural diversity, commercialization of nature, etc)
• Sympathy towards the Zapatista movement • Sympathy towards the Zapatista movement • Reference to common bioprospecting
issues (PIC, ABS, etc) and show adherence to the CBD and Mexican laws
• Construction of apocalyptic scenarios and spread of suspicion (threat of patents, GMOs)
• Defensive strategy based on attacks • Attacking strategy • Metaphors: battle, show, kill, propaganda,
activists • Metaphors: bar codes, robbery, crime, devil,
financial empire, maquiladora, fantasy
Assumptions
• Indigenous people are underdeveloped, ignorant, easily influenced, and uneducated
• Indigenous people are suffering, easily manipulated, and need to be trained and shown how to care for their environment
• Monetary value of indigenous people’s culture
• Indigenous culture and society is worth revitalizing
• Expertise in indigenous people’s needs and desires
• Expertise in indigenous people’s needs and desires
• Indigenous people are passive, powerless, and silent (no access to the media)
• Indigenous people need the CSOs to speak in their name
• Indigenous people are insufficiently organized for bioprospecting projects (need representatives and consensus)
• The pirates are stealing the indigenous people’s plants and are more powerful actors
• Medicinal plants and associated TK are disappearing and need to be preserved for the benefit of humanity
• TM and medicinal plants are valuable for the indigenous people and need to be rescued (create orchards)
• PIC and access to genetic resources represent economic value
• As long as projects are created by external actors they will fail
• Legitimacy and legality are inseparable • Legitimacy and legality are inseparable
101
5.6.1 Construction of Discourses When first looking at discourses it is important to clearly identify and present the main elements
of each discourse which can be defined by looking at the problem pointed out and the solution
proposed. The experts adhere to a typical sustainable development discourse in which they view
the problems of the indigenous people as being mostly poverty and related environmental
destruction to which they suggest as a solution the implementation of a participative, innovative,
and fair bioprospecting project with associated development and conservation projects. On the
other hand, the heroes view the sufferance and marginalization of the indigenous people to be due
to the lack of legal recognition of their rights and the spread of Northern imperialism through
capitalism and globalization. To remedy this problem they suggest recognizing and re-
establishing the cultural, historical, and social values of the indigenous people such as TM. Both
groups of social actors also point out the lack of democracy encountered in rural areas with which
they contrast their democratic procedures. In other words, these are the motivations and some of
the claims found in both discourses.
Diffusion elements
• Academic journals • National and local newspapers
• Publications from institutes • NGO websites and newsletters
• Networking between institutes (UGA-ECOSUR)
• NGO/ CSO networking
Impacts
• Push for national and international legal reforms for biodiversity access and use
• Cancellation of the ICBG-Maya
• Negative impact on ECOSUR’s work (debated)
• Increased division within ECOSUR and UGA
• Impact on future similar projects
• Questioning of the role of research
• Discussion of bioprospecting issues (use of TK in research, PIC, equitable benefit sharing)
102
In order to sustain their discourse, alert people and get them over to their side and against any
such types of projects the heroes assume any negative outcomes of the ICBG-Maya and imagine
appalling acts from the pirates which they express in drama narratives. The heroes narrate
apocalyptic scenarios warning people to be suspicious of the team’s plans and statements. For
example, they believe that, even though the pirates specifically argued that they would not
develop GMOs, a specific component from the collected plants “might be used in a
pharmaceutical product that may eventually turn out to be transgenic” (RAFI, 2000, p. 5).132 By
spreading suspicion on the pirates’ acts133 the heroes are not only denouncing their evil
intentions, but they are also warning people about the threat of future projects so that they stay on
alert. They believe that pirates will or are continuing their work in another form since “They are
going to do what they have to, to get the resources” (Luisa, personal communication, 2003) and
that they are undertaking bioprospecting in disguised ways (Felipe, personal communication,
2003) through e.g. ecotourism or other conservation projects.134 At the same time, they assume
that their fight is not over since the threat of biodiversity theft is permanent. In order to be sure to
condemn any type of bioprospecting project, RAFI (1999b) contends that “Even the best-
intentioned projects seem to be destined to devolve into biopiracy” (p. 1). Finally, it should be
pointed out that the heroes use, more than the experts, a tactic of compare and contrast between
the pirates and themselves in order to emphasize who the ‘good and the bad guys’ are.
The heroes’ imagination capacities illustrated in their narratives are reinforced by their search for
information and powerful networking possibilities (see impact section as well). As a result they
were able to build stronger arguments by referring to other bioprospecting projects which they
had informed themselves about. The biopiracy discourse also contains ‘far-fetched’ links to
sustain its claims and obtain more adherents by e.g. referring to global issues of neo-colonialism,
neo-liberalism (e.g. through NAFTA), imperialism, and so on. Consequently, these actors’
132 RAFI (2000) also argues that the ICBG-Maya indirectly involves transnational companies since they claim that MNL works with such companies and that once commercially viable components are identified by the project team they could more easily be patented by other companies. 133 Luisa (personal communication, 2003) mentions another example of suspicion regarding a representative from the US embassy who came down to try to convince them to take part in the project and whose pen they believe was a disguised recorder. 134 When Dr. Berlin created a new organization (OCOMITCH) to continue bioprospecting work, ODEMITCH (ODEMITCH, Received 2003) believes it was formed maliciously and in a manipulative way without them consciously realizing that Dr. Berlin and ECOSUR were trying to show that the organization was supported by traditional doctors of Chiapas.
103
discourse shares elements with the anti-globalization movement’s discourse which is very
popular in Chiapas.135 In order to provide more strength and substance to their arguments and
their fight, the heroes expose several problems encountered in Chiapas such as land rights136 and
the militarization of the area which they link to the ICBG-Maya project. They also associate their
fight with other battles that are currently being fought out in Chiapas such as against the Plan
Pueblo Panamá (PPP) and the Montes Azules biosphere reserve.137 Furthermore, their discourse
includes an appeal for human rights which fits well into the corresponding current movement in
Latin America for indigenous people’s rights. Therefore, the heroes use the difficult social and
political context of Chiapas in their favor as a reinforcement to their discourse by e.g. pointing
out the fact that it was a US financed project and as Brown (personal communication, 2003)
explains “US policies in other areas have contributed substantially to the economic conditions
that led to the EZLN uprising”. This link to other contextual issues and the politicization of the
project is also recognized by Dumoulin (2003) who claims that “the advocacy networks clearly
used the protection of biodiversity-related knowledge in order to take part in the wave of political
mobilization, as much in the specific context of Chiapas and Mexico…” (p. 602). Brand and
Görg (2003) also remark that the Zapatista uprising “’facilitated’ the politicization of the issue
because the social organizations were politicized” (p. 230). This was clearly seen in the way
SIPAZ and CIEPAC, two local NGOS, who normally work with civil rights and peace issues
added this case to their working agenda. By comparing bioprospecting with ecotourism the
heroes are also extending their discourse and gaining more supporters as ecotourism faces
widespread criticism and is a popular subject of objection for CSOs and NGOs in Chiapas.
Finally, by arguing that the project does not fit into the indigenous people’s philosophies and
worldviews and thus that it threatens their culture, the heroes demonstrate the dangerous extent of
the project as they claim that it even affects cultural and moral issues. It should be pointed out
that this biopiracy discourse presents similar arguments found in the anti-biotech discourse since
135 Larson (personal communication, 2003) argues that globalophobia was invented in Chiapas. 136 Luisa (personal communication, 2003) argues that bioprospecting is part of the reordering of the territory (i.e. land reform and privatization). 137 For example, a leaflet found at the OMIECH museum on TM was denouncing the threat to medicinal plants due to the ICBG-Maya project and the PPP (see: Received 2003. Minacciata la Medicina Maya a causa della biopiraterìa e del Plan Pueblo Panama. OMIECH leaflet.). Another flyer denouncing the biosphere reserve was given to me by a member of ODEMITCH while we were meeting to specifically discuss the ICBG-Maya case (see: Maderas del Pueblo del Sureste, A. C. 2002. Breve Historia de la Llamada 'Comunidad Lacandona').
104
they both e.g. refer to the destruction of cultural diversity and the farmers’ or indigenous people’s
dependence on the global market.138 Therefore, based on these examples, it is quite clear how the
heroes’ discourse incorporates contextual elements which make it unique and reinforce its local
character even though some of its claims are found at a global level and in the general biopiracy
discourse.
Apart from referring to the ideals found in the global sustainable development discourse, the
experts also refer to common issues specifically related to bioprospecting and to a lesser extent to
the context of Chiapas (and Mexico). Indeed, they allude to common problems encountered in
bioprospecting projects and note how they were also present in this case such as PIC. The Berlins
(2003) identify the problem of defining what ‘trustful information’ is and Francisco (personal
communication, 2003) remarks that skepticism was raised regarding the information provided
about the project to the indigenous people which might be biased to serve the project team and
informants’ interests. Francisco and Bernardo (personal communications, 2003) explain that
because of a lack of legal clarity regarding representation for PIC a lot of time is required to show
who the owner is139 and that his/her consent was obtained based on sufficient information (for
PIC purposes) and that these are serious and difficult issues to deal with. On the other hand, by
showing their respect for the CBD guidelines and the Mexican laws140 and pretending to have
good intentions, e.g. humanitarian rather than financial interests, the experts are trying to avoid
criticism and not be seen as pirates. Similarly, the experts are trying to free themselves from the
typical criticism of bioprospecting projects which accuses them of being another capitalist
venture which justifies and acquits itself by arguing that it can save humanity along with its
culture and environment. Therefore, these social actors are to a certain extent responding to the
biopiracy discourse which demonstrates how both discourses influence each other to a certain
extent. Finally, the experts incorporate elements of a popular local discourse on indigenous
people into theirs by showing how they are also ‘fighting’ in the name of the indigenous people
so that their rights can be respected and recognized and how their project is democratic. The
Berlins (2001) even claim that the goals of the ICBG-Maya project are precisely the same as the
138 RAFI also works on biotechnology issues. 139 SEMARNAP explained to ECOSUR that to show who the owner of the resource is they need to obtain a copy from a notary of the registration of the property (Francisco, personal communication, 2003). 140 Sergio (personal communication, 2003) explains that the ICBG-Maya team had taken all the measures to make sure that the project was in accordance with the CBD and Mexican regulations.
105
ones expressed by the Zapatistas. Conclusively, these social actors also incorporate a few local
contextual elements into their discourse along with more general claims found in the sustainable
development discourse and more precisely the typical bioprospecting ‘win-win’ discourse.
Despite the fact that these two discourses seem clearly different and opposite several
commonalities can be identified. First, both discourses depict a similar image of the indigenous
people. They try to justify and show the importance of their work by demonstrating their loyalty
and sympathy towards the indigenous people who they argue are in urgent need of development
or help of some kind and which they can provide. By pointing out problems with the indigenous
people and their current lifestyle the experts can then suggest training assuming that these people
are uneducated and ignorant especially compared to them. They also both portray the indigenous
people as passive and vulnerable since they assume that their behavior is caused by external
influences. Hence, both discourses actually illustrate how ideas of development are still imposed
from the exterior. Secondly and in contradiction to the first claim, both groups of social actors
pretend to understand the needs and desires of the indigenous people. They argue for a bottom-up
type of development and conservation project: “the indigenous people want to be the owners of
the construction of their own future” (Limón, personal communication, 2003). Thirdly, in order
to justify their work both groups of social actors argue for the value of indigenous people’s
culture. Nevertheless, this valuation is done differently by both parties: the experts confer a
monetary value to the indigenous people’s cultural attributes (TM and TK) whereas the heroes
mostly bestow a moral and social value to it which they try to re-establish, even though they are
aware of its monetary value. Therefore, both groups of social actors identify the indigenous
people as a homogenous group which is viewed in a romantic way and based on which
assumptions are made which suggest a solution. Indeed, they both pretend to praise these
people’s culture and their social organization, but at the same time they assume their inferiority
and their need to organize in a way that would e.g. suit bioprospecting projects. Fourthly, the
‘win-win’ and biopiracy discourses found here both include elements from the Zapatista
movement by making similar denunciations which shows how both discourses are context
specific. For example, they both deplore the non-recognition of indigenous people’s rights which
for the experts hampers their work whereas it represents a source of work for the heroes since
they claim to fight for the recovery of these collective rights. In their discourses both groups of
106
social actors pretend to be working towards democracy and were open with their information
even though they both accused each other of not being transparent enough – through which they
each actually pretended to be more transparent than the other. Finally, the heroes and the experts
point out problems with the government, the political system, and the legal gap in terms of
bioprospecting which for the experts leads to implementation difficulties and for the heroes
represents a risk that biopiracy is or will take place. Hence, as Dryzek (1997) remarks
“sustainable development, like democracy, is a discourse rather than a concept…” (p. 125) and
elements of both of these discourses were used in this case by the different social actors.
Conclusively, even though both groups of social actors show similar motivations, they did not
agree on the way to achieve them and thus worked against each other’s plans.
Finally, it is interesting to note that both narratives use metaphors and powerful words such as
‘battle (the case), show (public debate), kill (their opponents actions), propaganda (the
opponents’ information), activists (the opponents)’ for the experts and ‘bar codes (patents),
robbery (bioprospecting), crime (collections), devil (Dr. Berlin), financial empire (Northern
financial interests), maquiladora (ECOSUR’s role), fantasy (the ‘win-win’ discourse)’ for the
heroes.
5.6.2 Spread of Discourses One of the main differences between the two groups of social actors is the spread of their
discourse which can be understood by looking at the techniques and strategies they use to make
their claims heard. By making their claims available to different social actors these could further
be spread to the public at an international level.
The heroes were strikingly more efficient in the spread of their denunciation of the ICBG-Maya
and other claims thanks to the following reasons. First, these social actors’ use of the media was
extremely efficient. They used widely the Internet and newspapers such as La Jornada141 which
according to Felipe (personal communication, 2003) “helped them a lot and made so much
noise”. This newspaper along with local ones142 echoed e.g. the rejection of the permit by
141 It is interesting to note that this is a left-wing, progressive newspaper which supports the Zapatista movement and is largely read in Mexico. 142 The articles in local newspapers were very often exactly the same from one newspaper to the other.
107
SEMARNAP as if the project had been recognized as illegal by a governmental authority.
Moreover, RAFI helped the local CSOs tremendously in their fight143 by spreading information
through their Internet newsletters.144 RAFI also provided COMPITCH and OMIECH with
informational support since they have experience with other biopiracy projects.145 Therefore, the
fight led against the ICBG-Maya used the same strategies as the Zapatistas as they both took
advantage of the Internet and the important network provided by NGOs and CSOs around the
world to spread their denunciations, which emphasizes the importance of the context as this
strategy may not have been very successful or even possible outside of Chiapas. Indeed,
numerous NGOs such as CIEPAC and SIPAZ e.g. that also spread the heroes’ discourse are
located in Chiapas and more specifically in San Cristóbal de las Casas because of the particular
political and social context and the important presence of indigenous people. Thanks to their
forums, the heroes were able to widen their discussion and extend the basis of their accusations
by denouncing other projects and similar biodiversity related issues currently highly debated such
as GMOs (see Luisa, personal communication, 2003). Finally, academics adhered to the issue
raised by the heroes and supported their claims. For example, Prof. Nadal from the National
Autonomous University of Mexico (UNAM) criticized the project and mostly the government’s
position and his comments appeared in RAFI newsletters.146 A researcher Delgado-Ramos also
strongly condemned this project and linked it to other issues such as neo-colonialism, and
biotechnology projects.147 On the other hand, the heroes’ discourse was seen by certain
researchers working on biodiversity issues as “extremely idealized” based on a “fundamentalist”
approach to the issue (see Larson and Oviedo, personal communications, 2003/4) which fits well
with the accusation of propaganda by the bioprospecting proponents.148 The fact that this
discourse was criticized by these social actors shows how the experts’ discourse makes similar
claims as those made by international environmental organizations (e.g. IUCN) and
143 Nigh (personal communication, 2003) explains that ”RAFI through an international press release escalated the case to an international issue…” and that they adopted a radical position. 144 Please refer to the RAFI references at the end of this thesis to find some of these newsletters. 145 Please refer to their website www.etcgroup.org for articles they publish. 146 This actor also opposed the UNAM Diversa bioprospecting project that took place before this one. 147 See e.g. the following article: Delgado, G. C. 2002. Biopi®acy and Intellectual Property as the Basis for Biotechnological Development: The Case of Mexico. International Journal of Politics, Culture and Society 16:297-318.
148 External actors also accused the opponent’s of constructing their discourse based on falsified information that would be further spread (Larson, personal communication, 2003) and to have based their criticism on more general biopiracy denunciations that were not very relevant for this case (Hardison, 2000).
108
environmental advisors (e.g. CONABIO) who strongly promote the implementation of the CBD
guidelines. At the same time, they are trying to discredit the claims made by the heroes in order
for future bioprospecting projects to be able to take place without so much controversy.
On the other hand, the experts complain that newspapers such as La Jornada did not enable them
to publish their view of the events (Berlin and Berlin, 2003). They point out that the media was
against them fighting with the enemy and thus, that they were in a sense victims of a conspiracy.
The experts also tried to publish their version of the story, but it fell on deaf ears or rather it was
read mostly by academics who do not generally make as much noise as activists.149 Academics
working in the field of biodiversity and who are acquainted with bioprospecting projects expected
the ICBG-Maya to be quite a ‘successful’ endeavor especially because of its novel approach – it
was “intended to be a model of financial equity, prior informed consent, and local participation”
(Brown, personal communication, 2003). However, the experts’ version of the story, or narrative,
was not ‘popular’ at the local level; it was not what most people in Chiapas wanted to hear.150
The popularity of the biopiracy discourse highlights the important influence of the particular
context of Chiapas on the outcome of the project. Even though the anti-globalization movement
is a global movement its presence is particularly strong in Chiapas. The same discourse in a
different place would be constructed differently and its strength of diffusion would not have been
the same. The significance of the context in discourse analyses is also revealed by the impacts of
the discourses.
5.6.3 Impacts of Discourses After having looked at the way the two discourses were constructed and the way they were
spread, we can now identify and analyze the effect produced by the entire ICBG-Maya
controversy and its associated discourses. Even though the intentions of the two groups of social
actors were quite different, the impact of their discourse cannot be separated and thus, will be
discussed as a combined effect.
149 The bioprospecting proponents published statements in informational bulletins from ECOSUR, on the UGA website, and in scientific journals. 150 This was quite obvious from small conversations I had in San Cristóbal with people who knew just a little bit about the project. They were all in agreement with the heroes. However, once out of Chiapas, people became more divided over the issue.
109
The heroes’ discourse made the ICBG-Maya project known to the international public through
the techniques mentioned above and as SIPAZ (personal communication, 2003) explains it
converted itself into a very clear banner for the fight: “This is what we want to avoid”. It was
indeed used by many NGOs as an example of the threats faced by indigenous people from
Northern interests; therefore, it was the perfect case to be used by the anti-globalization
movement. In other words, the heroes used the anti-globalization for their fight against the ICBG-
Maya and vice-versa. The power of this discourse was deemed so strong that the experts blame it
for the cancellation of the project: “our Mexican host institution [ECOSUR] was no longer able
to withstand the public pressure and the project became a political liability of such magnitude that
they were forced to withdraw” (Berlin and Berlin, 2003, p. 634). Brown (personal
communication, 2003) also remarks that the project attracted too much attention and was
undertaken with a lot of public noise, which was created by the collision of both discourses.
According to some social actors, the project and the heroes’ discourse had a negative impact on
the future work of ECOSUR in the communities by damaging their reputation151; however, this is
not a unanimous opinion. COMPITCH and OMIECH explain that when ECOSUR wanted to
conduct different projects in the communities (e.g. agro-ecology, coffee projects) they could not
enter the communities and thus became very worried for their work (Luisa and Felipe, personal
communications, 2003). Sergio (personal communication, 2003) also explains that “ECOSUR
researchers were being denied access to the communities because of OMIECH’s propaganda”.
On the other hand, another researcher from ECOSUR argues that their work can continue and
thereby that they are not the biggest losers in the cancellation of this project (Bernardo, personal
communication, 2003). Based on the fact that the effects of the case would be too subjective to
measure, it is more interesting to remark that after the cancellation of this project the role of
research was questioned. Nigh (personal communication, 2003) explains that this case brought up
the question of whether or not communities should cooperate with researchers, a discussion that
is still taking place. He adds that there is a general attitude of cooperation since there is a
common perception that research is done for everyone’s benefit. As far as this project is
concerned, Nigh (Ibid.) explains that people trusted Dr. Berlin and ECOSUR; however, based on
151 Apparently, before the project ECOSUR was a reputable research institute in Southern Mexico and is a reason why numerous communities started working with them according to CAPICE (Berti, personal communication, 2003).
110
some actors’ comments it seems that this confidence has now been lost. Bellot (personal
communication, 2003) also remarks that even if scientific research is not done with commercial
ends it is still extracting resources and giving them to a research institute outside the country,
which is denounced by civil society. Indeed, Larson-Guerra et al. (Draft) explain that the transfer
of biological material to other countries is seen by many as a violation of the country’s rights
over its resources further questioning the political legitimacy of bioprospecting projects.
Consequently, research institutes are worried that access conditions for fieldwork are being
restricted which will negatively affect research and Mexico (Bellot, personal communication,
2003). More locally the project seems to have increased divisions within research institutes as
Sergio (personal communication, 2003) explains that the accusations made in the heroes’ public
statements filtered the institutes and divided ECOSUR and UGA. Finally, the ICBG-Maya case
impacted another bioprospecting project in Mexico, namely the UNAM-Diversa by reconsidering
the role of TK in research. Bellot (personal communication, 2003) explains that when planning
this project they tried to limit the damages so they did not include any TK and they prospected
exclusively on federal lands. Nevertheless, this project was denounced as well and had to be
cancelled. As a result of the issues brought up in the ICBG-Maya case, Larson (personal
communication, 2003) sees the future of bioprospecting rather in areas such as marine floors
under federal land and without TK.
By pointing out the legislative gap and showing that if a clear legal framework existed
bioprospecting projects would be less controversial and more socially acceptable both groups of
social actors are arguing for the need for the local legal enactments of the CBD guidelines. As
Bellot (personal communication, 2003) argues there is some good in the cancellation of all these
bioprospecting projects since Mexico is able to gain experience on these issues and can now
better regulate. Therefore, one of the main effects of the dispute that arose in the ICBG-Maya is
the push for a clear regulatory framework for bioprospecting projects. As a result of this
controversy, the Mexican and international environmental laws may be subject to change.
Even though articles 87 and 87bis of the LGEEPA differentiate between the two possible uses of
genetic resources, scientific or commercial152, this distinction may not always be very easy to
152 Please refer back to Chapter 3 for a short presentation of the Mexican law on access to natural resources.
111
make and follow. Moreover, since these articles are not clear on the ownership of the resources or
on many aspects of ABS, implementation and interpretation is left to the authorities153 (Bellot,
personal communication, 2003), which is likely to yield problems especially if the political
conditions are not present (Larson, personal communication, 2003) as seen in this case. As a
result, Bellot (Ibid.) explains that Mexico is demanding for an international regime that would
regulate ABS for genetic resources. This International ABS regime is promoted by the Group of
Like Minded Megadiverse Countries of which Mexico is part and it basically argues that national
ABS measures complicate control of the movement of genetic resources and thus, an
international instrument is needed if the provisions of the CBD are to be met (Ruiz, 2003).154
Hence, Mexico expresses its frustration that other countries may not be complying with the
regulations set by the CBD so they want an international law that would obligate countries to
obey; however, international laws do not have complying mechanisms (Bellot, personal
communication, 2003). It is also interesting to note that Mexico is very active in the Conference
of the Parties (COP) meetings which are basically follow-up meetings on the implementation of
the CBD.
Bellot (personal communication, 2003) also informs us that a new article is currently in the
Mexican senate which comes out of article 87bis and basically sets the minimum requirements to
obtain a permit under the provisions of article 15 of the CBD and expresses the need for the
international regime mentioned above. Therefore, this dispute clearly had an impact at the
legislative level in Mexico and possibly at the international level. As Brand and Görg (2003)
argue international regulations are more likely to become important issues if they are in the
interest of dominant actors which is the case for IPR regulation. Issues such as benefit sharing
and PIC will only be dealt with if they are put on the agenda by social actors or if they are
deemed necessary to be dealt with in order to lessen opposition to bioprospecting projects and
increase their legitimacy (Ibid.). The ICBG-Maya case exemplifies this argument when looking
at the effect of both discourses. Finally, this effect shows how even though discourses incorporate
153 Larson (personal communication, 2003) explains that more clarification is needed in terms of who is going to implement the PIC, what are the minimum standards for the distribution of benefits, and how is it characterized. 154 As Bellot (personal communication, 2003) clarifies, this regime is meant to set obligations on the exit and entrance of genetic resources from and to a country so that the flow of genetic resources be under the provisions of the CBD such as PIC, MAT, BS. These requirements would have to be met in order to be able to file a patent application and have it granted.
112
contextual elements, e.g. the legal gap, to create local narratives, their effect may be local or
global which points out the idea of global/local links.
5.6.4 Concluding Remarks Based on the analysis made in this section and the framework used several elements were
identified in both discourses which reveal the reason for the particular outcome of the ICBG-
Maya case. The cancellation of the project was widely discussed at an international level and
seen by many as surprising. However, once the different actors involved in the case are identified
and the context presented this outcome becomes less surprising. The different actors appear to
have strikingly different interests which could only conflict with each other and lead to the halt of
this project.
While studying biodiversity politics in Mexico, Brand and Görg (2003) identify four actors and
their positions vis-à-vis bioprospecting. Two of these are recognizable from this discourse
analysis. The experts could be said to somewhat fit the ‘technocratic nationalistic’ position. These
authors describe this position as “wanting to promote biotechnological developments and a
valorization of genetic resources…” while arguing that “a greater part of the bioprospecting
process and further product development should take place in Mexico” (Ibid., p. 227). Actors
adopting this position are in favor of technology transfer and perceive the State as playing an
important role by creating effective legislation for access and appropriation of the needed
resources (Ibid.), which was clearly expressed in the experts’ discourse. However, Brand and
Görg (2003) also argue that this position does not prioritize issues of distribution and
participation, which was not the case here as the experts claim to have planned a participative
project in which equal benefit sharing arrangements were developed in what they deemed was the
‘best’ way possible. On the other hand, the heroes’ discourse would fit well into what Brand and
Görg (2003) call the ‘radical democratic position’ which perceives “the information and
discussion of the local people as a precondition for adequate politics … The affected people need
to be involved” (p. 228). They then add that actors adopting this position criticize neoliberal
policies, the government’s submission to dominant interests, and promote alternative
development systems with an emphasis on autonomy. Actors adhering to this position also
consider conservation organizations as opponents and promoted the implementation of a
moratorium (Ibid.). As we have seen, when looked more into detail several of the different
113
actors’ interests and assumptions are actually common due in part to the experts’ departures from
the ‘technocratic nationalists’ position. However, the experts’ and the heroes’ discourses both
portray and interpret the interests and actions of the others as contradictory to theirs in order for
them to justify their claims. Therefore, both groups of social actors created this particular
outcome and further impacts because of the way they constructed and diffused their discourses.
Throughout this discourse analysis the important role played by the context was pointed out. The
political, environmental, economic, social, historical, and cultural situation of Chiapas makes it
not only a very ‘interesting’ place to conduct a bioprospecting project, but also one where
complex narratives are told due to their intricate elements. The social actors clearly integrated
local contextual elements into their narratives along with global ones to reinforce their claims,
spread their availability, and increase their impact. Thus, global/local links were established
within the discourses and were used as a diffusion strategy. The heroes were advantaged in the
latter endeavor thanks to the important networks connecting different CSOs and NGOs and the
use of media tools such as the Internet. Therefore, the heroes were helped in their fight through a
process of globalization, which Pages (personal communication, 2003) calls “the globalization of
hope” while referring to the use of Internet by the Zapatista movement. Long (2000) explains that
people and organizations alike use different strategies to solve their problems such as relying on
networks (e.g. NGOs) and as appealing to “widely-accepted value positions” (p. 189), which was
clearly illustrated in the strategies adopted by the heroes. The role NGOs play in putting local
issues out in the global arena, as it was the case here with notably RAFI and Global Exchange, is
also pointed out by Dumoulin (2003) who argues that “the past twenty years have seen a
significant degree of diversification in the way in which they participate in a political world order
and environmental field…” (p. 593). In addition, he stresses that these NGOs should be seen as
actors part of a larger, global transnational network.
Based on the different narratives found in both discourses we realize how these social actors view
reality differently. Since events may be socially constructed certain social actors’ experiences
will be common leading to shared assumptions and the formation of coalitions within a common
discourse as was the case here. Nevertheless, since assumptions and interests sometimes differ
opposing groups of social actors will be formed leading to the construction of narratives and
114
counter-narratives. When two opposing discourses try to explain a same event, they will clash
with each other with the resulting effects. Therefore, due to somewhat divergent assumptions and
interests found in the experts’ and heroes’ discourses and expressed through their narratives no
‘negotiations’ could be achieved or common grounds found and the project had to be cancelled.
Conclusively, throughout this analysis I was able to identify the motivations, claims, and
assumptions of these social actors. For example, I realized how the experts were convinced to be
carrying out the right project, but now recognize having made mistakes and underestimated or
unexpected some consequences. On the other hand, the heroes believe that they undertook a great
task for the benefit of the indigenous people even though they are still facing many challenges
and the problems of the indigenous people have not yet been solved. Therefore, by
deconstructing these discourses I uncovered the different elements of the experts’ and the heroes’
discourses revealing the process leading to the cancellation of the ICBG-Maya project.
Nevertheless, the interpretation of the social construction of this event could be reconsidered
based on a discourse analysis undertaken by another researcher as this is only my story created by
my own interpretation of the data.
115
Chapter 6: Final Discussion and Conclusions
In this chapter, final conclusions are drawn and reflections are made on important issues brought
up in this case and needing further discussion. These issues will be discussed based on the
discourse analyses from the previous chapter focusing on the effect of assumptions, motivations,
and claims in the planning and implementation of a bioprospecting project. The two groups of
social actors disagreed on a number of issues which they perceived differently. These issues are
often brought up when bioprospecting projects are conducted and consist mostly of how to
undertake PIC, how to legislate on access to genetic resources, how to distribute benefits, and
how to define and delimitate property rights. Since this thesis also uses an actor-oriented
approach, problems of power relations and external influences are pointed out. Finally,
consideration of the context and global/local links enables us to look at their influence on the case
and its actors.
6.1 Prior Informed Consent The issue of how to inform and obtain consent from the owners of genetic resources about a
bioprospecting project has been widely discussed in this thesis as well as by other actors.
According to the CBD, the State, which is a party to the convention, has the responsibility to
legislate on access to genetic resources in its own country through its institutions. In this case
study, both groups of social actors criticize the government and its institutions by pointing out the
legal gap for bioprospecting (i.e. the vagueness of the implementation of articles 87 and 87bis)
and the weak role of the government155. On the other hand, these social actors disagree on the
way PIC should be undertaken and achieved based on issues of representation, level of
agreement, and sufficiency of information. Despite these disagreements both groups agree that
the indigenous people should be considered the owners of the resources if legitimacy is to be
ensured and thus should be consulted.
The conflicts around PIC do not only highlight problems linked to the legal implementation of
the CBD in Mexico, but also question the role of the government. The imprecision of the law
155 Nadal (in RAFI, 2000) criticizes SEMARNAP’s position by arguing that “it conveys the message that any private interest wishing to access genetic resources in Mexico can directly negotiate with local inhabitants, and that the State will only intervene in order to promote negotiations between parties that cannot come to an agreement by themselves” ( p. 2).
116
allows for various interpretations of it based on the actor’s interests and assumptions increasing
the role of social actors identified in this case while weakening the role of the State which is
contrary to the CBD’s intent. If two groups of social actors make different assumptions and have
perceptions of reality that do not coincide they will disagree on what information provided to the
land owner is valid. For example, Hardison (2000) argues that the ICBG-Maya project team had a
narrower view of what represented sufficient information to obtain PIC while the opponents had
a wider view and wanted to include information related to regional and global impacts of
bioprospecting in general. Therefore, even though the Mexican law currently asks the project
team to inform the owners of the resources both groups should present their views on the project
(i.e. subjective information) and allow the indigenous people to decide if they want or not to
participate in the project, a decision that should be respected by both parties. Given the difficulty
of this task, the role of the government and its institutions should be reconsidered. Moreover, the
legitimacy of the indigenous people’s decision about the project may be challenged based on
disagreements over the ownership of the resources targeted in the project.
6.2 Property Rights and Legislation According to the Mexican law, in order to be able to know who to inform about the project and
obtain their consent, the owners of the land where genetic resources are to be prospected must be
identified. However, this task is as complicated as conducting PIC. The origin of genetic
resources may be difficult to determine and their presence may defy non-natural boundaries. TK
may be associated with genetic resources used as medicinal plants conferring them an intangible
character. Identification of ownership is also complicated by the fact that actors do not agree on
what constitutes a community (see Berlin and Berlin, 2003; Rosenthal, Draft) and who should
have the legal and legitimate right to represent and speak in the name of the indigenous people to
provide their agreement or refusal for the project to take place on their land. The issue of
ownership of natural resources is further rendered complex in Chiapas by the non-recognition of
indigenous people’s rights and associated problems of land ownership. The communal ownership
system of indigenous communities156 is different from the one used by the mestizos157 and thus,
156 According to Larson (personal communication, 2003) the commissariats in the communities are the authorities that regulate access to and use of natural resources. 157 A mestizo is person with mixed ethnicity (Amerindian and Spanish descent).
117
the legal representation of their communities is not recognized by the Mexican government.158
According to Rosenthal (Draft), the legal recognition of municipalities as adequate units from
which to obtain PIC is challenged by the traditional Maya concept of community which
represents the village (paraje)159. Nevertheless, the project team used the paraje as representing a
community and from which PIC had to be obtained.
In terms of ownership of and access to TK, Nigh (personal communication, 2003) explains that
even though Mexico has ratified the CBD it has not created any law regarding the regulation of
TK as it is requested under article 8J. Both groups of social actors also agree that there is a grey
area in the legislation regarding rights on TK (see Sergio, Felipe, and Luisa personal
communications, 2003). This legislative gap is understandable based on the non-recognition of
indigenous people’s rights. Nigh (personal communication, 2003) also claims that the regulation
of TK is linked to a wider issue regarding the fundamental human rights of indigenous people to
maintain their relationship with resources and thus, that a regulation would be a way of
respecting their knowledge as he claims that there is a “failure of the current political system to
fully recognize indigenous political rights and rights over natural resources”. The opinions of
social actors working at international organizations such as IUCN were also collected during the
fieldwork. Their arguments express assumptions that these actors make about other actors and
power relations. For example, Oviedo (personal communication, 2004) who works at IUCN
believes that the knowledge holders (i.e. the indigenous people) should make the decisions and
that the government should only act to provide guarantees of fairness for the deals and
negotiations for bioprospecting and thus, that the State should have no direct right over TK. This
argument highlights the assumption that indigenous people are lacking power especially
compared to the government and bioprospectors.160 He then explains that the international policy
framework seems to be moving in that direction161, but that there is still a long way to go. As a
result, it is important to keep in mind that these actors also have an influence on the design of 158 If bioprospecting was to take place on federal or private land recognition of ownership would not be an issue. 159 Larson-Guerra et al. (draft) define the paraje as ”a sub-unit of agrarian communities that traditionally maintained a high degree of independence in their decisions” (p. 34). 160 Oviedo and Tvedt (personal communications, 2003/2004) also assume that it is dangerous to put the resources into the hands of the locals since they do not believe that especially now, they are in a position to deal with (e.g. legally) and understand the complexity of bioprospecting projects and are able to negotiate with commercial bioprospectors. 161 Bhatti (personal communication, 2004) explains e.g. that the Bonn guidelines grant the authority to the indigenous people to regulate their TK.
118
policies and that their assumptions would be interesting to analyze in order to better understand
how policies are devised. These assumptions about power relations may provide some actors with
more authority than others such as the government explains why such narratives are told.
Conclusively, a conflict between legitimacy and legality was pointed out in this case study in
which the institutional framework of the Mexican government conflicts with the particular social
context. Since the governmental institutions were unclear about how to obtain PIC and that issues
of legitimacy are prevalent in Mexico, both groups of social actors interpreted the law in their
own interests and based on their own assumptions. Due to conflicting discourses the law was
interpreted differently, no agreement was found and the project had to be halted. Therefore, the
role of the government and its institutions are denounced in this case while highlighting the
difficulty of implementing the CBD guidelines for bioprospecting projects especially in a country
where governmental institutions are considered by many as socially illegitimate and democracy
as lacking. Conclusively, the particular context of Chiapas and issues of legitimacy complicate
bioprospecting projects by blurring property rights. As a result, CONABIO and SEMARNAP are
currently working on clearer legal guidelines to avoid such problems. Their main challenge is to
implement legislation that will ensure the respect and protection of indigenous people’s rights;
i.e. legislation that will be socially legitimate since civil society will play its role as a social
watchdog. On the other hand, the future of PIC and ownership questions in bioprospecting
projects appears to be a major challenge for all social actors. The current rise of indigenous
people’s movements in Latin America may hamper the social legitimacy of these issues
depending on the indigenous people’s assumptions about the interests of the international
environmental community and their own governments.
6.3 Benefit Sharing The two groups of social actors disagreed on benefit sharing even though they both claimed to be
acting in what they perceived as the best interest for the indigenous people they disagree on how
to achieve this task (i.e. develop the indigenous people). As discussed in Chapter 5, both groups
make similar assumptions about the indigenous people regarding their weaknesses and strengths.
They both also argue that the indigenous people need to be trained, their environment should be
conserved, and their TM and TK re-established and preserved. However, the proponents believe
that all these goals could be achieved through a bioprospecting project initiated in the North such
119
as the ICBG-Maya whereas the opponents push for a more local, grass-roots approach with only
the involvement of local actors and means. The opponents also opt for more locally devised
benefits such as local sale of medicinal plants and community based projects undertaken by local
CSOs. Therefore, even though both groups of social actors have the same goal and very similar
motivations, due to different perceptions of reality (e.g. the value of medicinal plants) and
external factors they disagree on the methods used to help the indigenous people and their area.
Benefit sharing can easily become very controversial due to different assumptions and ideas on
what targeted actors need, what they want, how and to what extent they should benefit from the
project and possible royalties, and finally who should benefit and decide on these benefits. Issues
of power relations between different actors and contextual factors also complicate benefit sharing
agreements in a similar way that they affect other aspects of bioprospecting projects mentioned
above. For example, relationships between different actors, the role and image of an organization,
the personal experiences of the social actors will push them to act in various ways and devise
differing strategies as solutions to a particular problem. Therefore, the use of a case study and an
actor-oriented approach to conduct such research becomes obvious due to the importance of
contextual factors and global/local links.
6.4 Global/Local Connections The opponents fear the involvement of ‘outsiders’ which they associate with the globalization
phenomenon assuming and further claiming that power relations are unequal and rights’ abuses
rampant. They assume that opening the world of the indigenous people to external actors will
make these people vulnerable to global forces such as capitalism and modernization. At the same
time the opponents benefit from technological advances developed in the North and that increase
global/local connections such as the Internet. By contacting RAFI and bringing this case to the
international arena they too connected the world of the indigenous people to the global world and
exposed these actors to the ideas of the general public. As a result, bioprospectors and policy
makers may modify or confirm their assumptions about indigenous people further affecting their
projects and policies. Long (2000, p. 194) also points out this particular use of Internet by
explaining that this communication tool connects geographically dispersed actors who are then
“brought together as ‘virtual communities’ that clearly exert influence on their members and play
an increasingly crucial role in the definition, representation and symbolization of critical events”
(p. 194).
120
The effect of NGO/CSO networks must be taken into consideration when planning and
implementing bioprospecting projects as it demonstrates the power of coalitions where social
actors are united under the same assumptions, claims, and motivations. Based on this study these
actors have an influence on international or national legislation as seen from the impacts of their
discourse. By promoting the power of this organizational networking Escobar (1996) hopes for
the beneficial effect of their collective actions in terms of development initiatives: “social
movements and communities in the Third World need to articulate alternative productive
strategies that are ecologically sustainable, lest they be swept by a new round of conventional
development” (p. 339). Therefore, the role of civil society cannot be ignored and was clearly
present in this case by denouncing social illegitimacy. As a result, when planning legislation the
legitimacy of the government’s institutions will be checked by civil society.
The project proponents also made use of global/local links in terms of ties with research institutes
and the pharmaceutical industry as well as partnerships with different social actors working in
different fields. These ties do not only illustrate the globalization phenomenon, but also the
increasing multi-disciplinary characteristics of projects and research such as bioprospecting. The
monetary valuation of natural resources, which is done through bioprospecting in order to
preserve the environment and develop local people, also exemplifies the new assumptions actors
make about the environment and culture (i.e. TK and TM) and their value which is influenced by
the political and social system of the capitalist world.
Global/local connections are also expressed in the relationships between the different social
actors and their influences. The way the different actors perceive what happened in the ICBG-
Maya case, their own vision of reality and more specifically of this event is influenced by other
social actors as well as social, historical, economic, political, and cultural factors at the global and
local levels. While discussing the UZACHI case Hughes (2002) points out this issue of
influences in bioprospecting projects by arguing that they “illustrate the differences within and
amongst civil society actors, whose interests and perceptions of rights have themselves been
shaped by differing social and historical circumstances, and may in fact be competing” (p. 107).
This argument could be extended to include all social actors such as those in the ICBG-Maya
121
case and who attempted to find a common ground, but never managed to reach an agreement.
Negotiations may therefore not only expose opposing interests, but also more deeply differing
perceptions of an event which hamper the possibility of reaching an accord due to
‘misunderstandings’.
6.5 Communication Problems? Several social actors pointed out problems of communication between the different actors
involved in this case. We have also seen in Chapter 5 that legislation requires social legitimacy
which the social actors argue may only be acquired through consultation with the citizens. Some
argue that mistrust appears based on a lack of understanding (i.e. different worldviews) and
communication (i.e. no consultation) between different social actors. For example, Larson
(personal communication, 2003) claims that the ICBG-Maya project suffered from a general
mistrust between Mexican institutions and the indigenous people which is exposed by civil
society organizations.162 This mistrust is based on historical factors and social realities in Mexico
along with the different assumptions of the various actors who do not understand each other and
have problems communicating together because they perceive reality differently. Communication
problems can thus be blamed on different perspectives of an event and on issues of power
relations and social positions which are related to contextual factors. As a result, the role of the
different social actors and their influences must also be understood.
Global Exchange (Accessed 2003) stresses the importance of dialogue in these types of projects:
“in the fight for social justice and democracy, the value of dialogue among various sectors of
society cannot be overemphasized”. Indeed, sharing of ideas, claims, beliefs, motivations
between different actors is essential in order for a project to be carried out in a smooth way.
Nevertheless, if these social actors are not brought to question their own beliefs whereas just
inquiring the intentions of others no progress will be made. In this case, dialogue was attempted
through meetings arranged by SEMARNAP; however, these ‘negotiation attempts’ did not enable
the social actors to reach an agreement since SEMARNAP was perceived as an illegitimate social
actor. The different social positions occupied by the actors and their accompanying power may
162 The UNAM-Diversa case was accused of taking advantage of the resources of the nation without a fair benefit sharing agreement even though the benefits would have been for a public institute. On the other hand, the UZACHI case went through without involving any governmental authority.
122
also hamper a two way dialogue process. As a result, dialogues and negotiation attempts may be
insufficient for reaching an agreement and creating a socially legitimate policy framework.
Finally, according to Arce and Long (1992) negotiations that attempt to unite opposing world
views and reconcile conflicting interests may fail and actually reinforce this separation and give
legitimacy to each actor’s beliefs and knowledge. In other words, negotiations may either
improve the conflicting situation or worsen it leading to further conflicts and to a context hostile
to any future projects involving these actors which was the case here.
6.6 Final Reflections and Future Thoughts To conclude, I believe that rather than explaining the cancellation of the ICBG-Maya or any other
development and/or environmental project based on conflicting interests it is more interesting to
undertake a deeper analysis and seek to uncover actors’ assumptions about other actors and
issues, to present their claims and motivations, and then assess the effects of their discourses once
these have been deconstructed. As a result, projects can be planned and modified based on deeper
reflections and a more thorough vision of things. As Crewe and Harrison argue “When
development flounders, self-criticism is often limited to an acceptance that insufficient attention
has been paid to the recipients of aid”. Instead of questioning their beliefs, assumptions, and
claims, development workers try to find the reason for the failure of a development project in ‘the
other’. Discourse analyses of such projects could help project and policy developers and
implementers question the role of assumptions, claims, and motivations along with power
relations in order to modify their plans. On the other hand, an actor-oriented approach enables the
researcher to identify the range of different actors involved in such projects along with their
social positions and roles, the power relations between them, and the influence of external
factors. Finally, a case study enables us to analyze the role of contextual elements and recognize
global/local links.
Even though this thesis is based on a case study, the use of discourse analysis and an actor-
oriented approach as analytical methods can be applied to any types of research. These methods
may be particularly useful for analyzing development and environmental projects since they
involve a wide range of actors and factors that bring up ethical and cultural issues. As a result,
assumptions made by social actors working in the development and/or environmental fields may
123
have powerful and far reaching effects which are sometimes denounced by civil society.
Similarly, policies made in these fields may bring up issues of social legitimacy and therefore
deserve a sensitive design based on a thorough understanding of the issue at stake and contextual
factors. Based on the usefulness of this approach in studying these types of projects, I would
encourage researchers to engage in uncovering assumptions, studying claims, and identifying
motivations in order to describe narratives by creating their own story.
125
Interviews
The following interviews were undertaken for this research during the fieldwork period. As
mentioned earlier when deemed necessary pseudonyms were used for the main social actors
directly involved in the case. These are italicized. The title and function of some internal actors
are imprecise or not current for reasons of anonymity. All the interviews are by the researcher.
Table 4: List of interviews conducted Actors Organization/Institute Title/Function Interview date and
place Bhatti, Shakeel WIPO Senior program officer in
the Genetic Resources,
Biotechnology, and
Associated TK section.
January 7, 2004.
Geneva, Switzerland.
Bellot-Rojas, Mariana
CONABIO Coordinator of International
Affairs
December 12, 2003.
Mexico City, Mexico.
Bernardo ECOSUR Researcher November 6 and 13, 2003.
San Cristóbal de las Casas,
Mexico.
Berti, Benedetta CAPICE Biodiversity program
coordinator
October 20, 2003.
San Cristóbal de las Casas,
Mexico.
Brown, Michael. F Williams College Author and professor of Anthropology and Latin American Studies
Received November 3,
2003. Email interview.
Felipe OMIECH Advisor October 28, 2003.
San Cristóbal de las Casas,
Mexico.
Francisco ECOSUR Researcher November 13, 2003.
San Cristóbal de las Casas,
Mexico.
Harvey, Neil New Mexico State
University (NMSU)
Author and associate
professor
Received November 18,
2003. Email interview.
Hernandez Gomez,
Eliseo
CIEPAC
Team member and
indigenous person
November 11, 2003.
San Cristóbal de las Casas,
Mexico.
126
Actors Organization/Institute Title/Function Interview date and
place Kissling-Näf, Ingrid Dr. oec.,
Secretary General
Swiss Academy of Sciences
(SAS)
January 7, 2004. Bern, Switzerland.
Larson-Guerra,
Jorge
CONABIO Coordinator for Collective
Biological Resources
Project
December 5, 2003.
Mexico City, Mexico.
Limón-Aguirre,
Fernando
ECOSUR Researcher and Professor November 27, 2003.
San Cristóbal de las Casas,
Mexico.
Luis ODEMICH President and indigenous
person
November 29, 2003.
Oxchuc, Mexico.
Luisa COMPITCH Advisor October 24. 2003.
San Cristóbal de las Casas,
Mexico.
Nigh, Ronald CIESAS Anthropologist, research
professor
November 12, 2003.
San Cristóbal de las Casas,
Mexico.
Oviedo IUCN Senior social policy advisor January 7, 2004.
Gland, Switzerland.
Pages, Marina SIPAZ Local team coordinator November 25, 2003.
San Cristóbal de las Casas,
Mexico.
Rodrigo OMIECH Advisor and indigenous
person
November 17, 2003.
San Cristóbal de las Casas,
Mexico.
Sergio ECOSUR Researcher December 13, 2003.
Mexico City, Mexico.
Tvedt Walløe,
Morten
Fritdtjof Nansen Institute Research Fellow December 18, 2003.
Oslo, Norway.
127
References
3ra Comisión Civil Internacional de Observación por los Derechos Humanos. Accessed 2003.
"Consejo de Organizaciones de Médico y Pateras Indígenas Tradicionales de Chiapas, COMPITCH". June 11, 2003. Ya Basta. http://www.zapata.com/site/cciodh3/article-cciodh3-213.html
Adger, W. N., T. A. Benjaminsen, K. Brown, and H. Svarstad. 2000. Advancing a Political Ecology of Global Environmental Discourses. CSERGE Working Paper GEC 2000-10.
Alarcón, R. 2003. La biopiratería de los recursos de la medicina indígena tradicional en el estado Chiapas, Mexico. (El caso ICBG-Maya). OMIECH.
Amundsen, C., and S. S. Dhillion. 2000. "8. Bioprospecting and the maintenance of biodiversity," in Responding to Bioprospecting. From biodiversity in the South to medicines in the North. Oslo: Spartacus Forlag AS.
Arce, A. 2000. "Creating or regulating development. Representing modernities through language and discourse," in Anthropology, Development, and Modernities. Exploring discourses, counter-tendencies and violence. Edited by A. Arce and N. Long, pp. 32-51. London and New York: Routledge.
Arce, A., and N. Long. 1992. "The dynamics of knowledge. Interfaces between bureaucrats and peasants," in Battlefields of Knowledge. The Interlocking of Theory and Practice in Social Research and Development. Edited by N. Long and A. Long, pp. 211-246. London and New York: Routledge.
Arid Lands Information Center, O. o. A. L. S., University of Arizona,. 2003. "Bioactive Agents from Dryland Biodiversity of Latin America". February, 2004. http://ag.arizona.edu/OALS/ICBG/bio-home.html
Artuso, A. 2002. Bioprospecting, Benefit Sharing, and Biotechnological Capacity Building. World Development 30:1355-1368.
Barrios, L. E. G., and M. G. Espinosa. 2000. "ECOSUR y el Proyecto de Bioprospección ICBG-Maya en Chiapas. A los Pueblos y Communidades Indígenas, a Todos los Miembros de COMPITCH, a la Opinión Pública," in La Jornada. Mexico City.
Baruffol, U. 2003. Contractual Regulation of Access to Information and Biodiversity for Scientific and Commercial Use. The Novartis-UZACHI Biolead Project. Master, Eidgenössische Technische Hochschule Zürich.
Baruffol, U., I. Kissling-Näf, S. Biber-Klemm, and L. Merino. 2002. The contractual regulation of access to biological resources and genetic plant information: an agreement between Mexican communities and a multinational bio-prospecting concern., Swiss Academy of Sciences, Bern, University of Basle, University of Mexico.
128
Belejack, B. 2001. "The Professor and the Plants. Prospecting for problems in Chiapas". November, 2003. The Texas Observer. http://www.texasobserver.org/showArticle.asp?ArticleID=222
Bellot, M. 2001. Ownership and Access to Genetic Resources in Mexico: A reflection upon the UNAM-Diversa. Master of Arts, University of Sussex.
Berlin, B. Accessed 2004. "Department of Anthropology Faculty Information, Brent Berlin". January, 2004. http://anthro.dac.uga.edu/bberlin.htm
Berlin, B., and E. A. Berlin. 2003. NGOs and the process of prior informed consent in bioprospecting research: the Maya ICBG project in Chiapas, Mexico. Int Social Science J 55:629-638.
Berlin, B., E. A. Berlin, J. C. F. Ugalde, L. G. Barrios, D. Puett, R. Nash, and M. González-Espinoza. 1999. The Maya ICBG: Drug Discovery, Medical Ethnobiology, and Alternative Forms of Economic Development in the Highland Maya Region of Chiapas, Mexico. Pharmaceutical Biology 37:127-144.
Berlin, B., and M. G. Espinosa. 2000. "Que aprobo su participación en el proyecto ICBG-Maya". Recipient: Comunidad Navil. Letter. December.
Berlin, E. A., and B. Berlin. 1999. "Knowledge? Whose Property? Whose Benefits? The case of OMIECH, RAFI, and the Maya ICBG". 2003. http://guallart.dac.uga.edu/ICBGreply.html
—. 2001. "Email to Global Exchange". Recipient: Shannon Wolfe. Email. March 3.
Bermudez-Ballin, T. R. 1996. San Andres accords. Government of Mexico and EZLN.
Brand, U., and C. Görg. 2003. The state and the regulation of biodiversity. International biopolitics and the case of Mexico. Geoforum 34:221-233.
Bruntland, G. 1987. Our common future: The World Commission on Environment and Development. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Brush, S. B. 1999. Bioprospecting the Public Domain. Cultural Anthropology 14:535-555.
Carlsen, L. 1999. Autonomía indígena y usos y costumbres: la innovación de la tradición. Chiapas 7.
Castree, N. 2002. Bioprospecting: from theory to practice (and back again). Trans Inst Br Geogr:35-55.
Ceceña, A. E., and A. Barreda. 1995. Chiapas y sus recursos estratégicos. Chiapas 1:53-99.
Chapela, I. 1997. "Bioprospecting: Myths, Realities and Potential Impacts on Sustainable Development," in Mycology in sustainable development: Expanding Concepts, Vanishing Borders. Edited by M. Palm and I. Chapela. Boone, North Carolina: Parkway Publishers, Inc.
129
CIESAS ISTMO. 2003. "Perfil Indígena de México - Chiapas". April 30, 2004. http://www.ciesasistmo.edu.mx/ciesasweb/perfilnacional.html
Comisión Nacional para el Desarrollo de los Pueblos Indígenas, M. 2003a. "Chiapas: The Highlands or Altos (Tzotzil and Tzeltal Profiles)
Summary". February, 2004. http://www.ini.gob.mx/perfiles/perfiles/tzotziles/00_summary.html
—. 2003b. "Demografia". January 29, 2004. http://www.ini.gob.mx/perfiles/estatal/chiapas/05_demografia.html
—. 2003c. "Portal de los Pueblos Indígena". January 29, 2004. http://www.ini.gob.mx
Comisión, r. C. C. I. d. O. p. l. D. H.-. Accessed 2003. "Consejo de Organizaciones de Médico y Pateras Indígenas Tradicionales de Chiapas, COMPITCH". June 11, 2003. Ya Basta. http://www.zapata.com/site/cciodh3/article-cciodh3-213.html
COMPITCH. 2000a. Propuesta Convenio ICBG-Maya/CEOMPIT. COMPITCH.
—. 2000b. Propuesta de acción para crear un marco legal y ético para el acceso a la biodiversidad en territorios de los pueblos indigenas de México. COMPITCH Operative document 2.
—. 2002. Reglamento COMPITCH. COMPITCH Institutional regulations.
—. Accessed 2004. "COMPITCH. Nosotros". March 19, 2004. Laneta. http://www.laneta.apc.org/compitch/home/compitch%20primera%20p%E1gina.htm
Crewe, E., and E. Harrison. 1998. Whose Development? An Ethnography of Aid. London and New York: Zed Books.
Delgado, G. C. 2002. Biopi®acy and Intellectual Property as the Basis for Biotechnological Development: The Case of Mexico. International Journal of Politics, Culture and Society 16:297-318.
Dobrosavljev, D. k. 2002. Gadamer's Hermeneutics as Practical Philosophy. Facta Universitatis: Philosophy, Sociology, and Psychology 2:605-618.
Dodds, D. J. 1998. Lobster in the Rain Forest: The Political Ecology of Miskito Wage Labor and Agricultural Deforestation. Journal of Political Ecology 5:83-108.
Dryzek, J. S. 1997. The Politics of the Earth. Environmental Discourses. Oxford, New York: Oxford University Press.
Dumoulin, D. 2003. Local knowledge in the hands of transnational NGO networks: a Mexican viewpoint. Int Social Science J, UNESCO 178:593-605.
Duncan, P. 2000. "The Maya ICBG Takes Stock as Year Three Begins". http://anthro.dac.uga.edu/newsletter/projectUpdates/mayaICBG.html
130
Dutfield, G. 2000. Bioprospection ou biopiratage? Biofutur 204:42-45.
ECOSUR. Accessed 2003. El ICBG Maya en Los Altos de Chiapas.
Ellis, F. 2000. Rural Livelihoods and Diversity in Developing Countries. Oxford New York: Oxford University Press.
Escobar, A. 1996. Construction Nature. Elements for a post-structuralist political ecology. Futures 28:325-343.
—. 1998. Whose Knowledge, Whose Nature? Journal of Political Ecology 5.
ETC. Accessed 2004. "About ETC group". April 20, 2004. ETC. http://www.etcgroup.org/about.asp
Fernández-Ugalde, J. C., L. García-Barrios, and M. González-Espinosa. Accessed 2003. "ECOSUR y su participación en el proyecto bioprospección, conservación de la biodiversidad y desarrollo sustentable en los altos de Chiapas (GCIB-Maya)," in ECOSUR newsbrief. San Cristóbal de las Casas.
Franklin, C., and P. S. Nurius. 1998. Constructivism in practice: methods and challenges. Milwaukee: Families International Inc.
Fundació Solidaritat. Accessed 2004a. "Fitxa Chiapas Estats Units Mexicans". February, 2004. Universitat de Barcelona. http://www.ub.es/solidaritat/observatori/chiapas/chiadad.htm
—. Accessed 2004b. "Les violacions dels drets humans a Chiapas". January, 2004. Universitat de Barcelona. http://www.ub.es/solidaritat/observatori/chiapas/chianali.htm
Garrity, G. M., and J. Hunter-Cevera. 1999. Bioprospecting in the developing world. Current Opinion in Microbiology 2:236-240.
Giddens, A. 1991. Modernity and Self-Identity. Self and Society in the Late Modern Age. Cambridge: Polity Press.
Global Exchange. Accessed 2003. "Email to the Berlins". Recipients: Elois Ann Berlin and B. Berlin. Email. Accessed June 24.
González-Espinosa, M. 2001. "Letter from ECOSUR to OMIECH". Recipient: Antonio Pérez Méndez. May 22.
González-Espinosa, M., and N. Ramírez-Marcial. In press. El disturbio antrópico y la conservación y restauración de bosques en Los Altos de Chiapas, México. Boletín de la Sociedad Botánica de México.
Grassie, W. 1997. The Teacher's File. Postmodernism: What one needs to know. Zygon 32:83-94.
Grifo, F. T. 1996. Chemical Prospecting: An Overview of the International Cooperative Biodiversity Groups Program. Biodiversity, biotechnology, and
131
sustainable development in health and agriculture: Emerging connections. Scientific Publication.
Hammersley, M., R. Gomm, and P. Foster. 2000. "Chapter 12: Case Study and Theory," in Case Study Method. Key Issues, Key Texts. Edited by R. Gomm, M. Hammersley, and P. Foster, pp. 234-258. London, Thousand Oaks, New Delhi: Sage Publications.
Hardison, P. 2000. "ICBG-Maya: A Case Study in Prior Informed Consent". October 23, 2003. The Monthly Bulletin of the Canadian Indigenous Caucus on the Convention on Biological Diversity (ibin.net). http://trade-info.cec.eu.int/civil_soc/documents/meeting/me-4-trips_c06.pdf
Harvey, N. 2000. La rebelión de Chiapas. La lucha por la tierra y la democracia, ERA edition. Colección Problemas de México. México D.F: ERA.
—. 2001. Globalization and Resistance in post-Cold War Mexico: citizenship, difference and biodiversity conflicts in Chiapas. Third World Quarterly 22:31.
Holloway, J. 2000. El zapatismo y las ciensas sociales en América Latina. Chiapas 10:41-50.
Hughes, A. 2002. Who Speaks for Whom? A Look at Civil Society Accountability in Bioprospecting in Debates in Mexico. IDS Bulletin 33:101-108.
ILO, I. L. O. 1989. "C169 Indigenous and Tribal Peoples Convention, 1989". February, 2004. http://www.ilo.org/ilolex/english/convdisp1.htm
INE. 2000. Minuta. INE Meeting minutes.
INI, S. d. I., Database de Localidades y Comunidades Indígenas.1993. Localización de los Pueblos Indígenas. http://cdi.gob.mx/ini/perfiles/estatal/chiapas/00_resumen.html
Instituto de Ecología, U. Accessed 2003. "National Profile of the Indigenous Peoples of Mexico". June, 2003. TravelChiapas.com. http://www.travelchiapas.com/about/about-8.php
IUCN, T. W. C. U.-. 2003. An Assessment of Progress 2002: The IUCN Programme. Gland, Switzerland and Cambridge, UK: IUCN.
Jones, S. 2002. Social constructionism and the environment: through the quagmire. Global Environmental Change 12:247-251.
Keeley, J., and I. Scoones. 1999. Understanding Environmental Policy Processes: A Review. IDS Working Paper 89.
Kim, B. 2001. "Social Constructivism". Apirl 2, 2004. http://www.coe.uga.edu/epltt/SocialConstructivism.htm
Koch, T. 1998. Story telling: is it really research? Journal of Advanced Nursing 28:1182-1190.
132
Koziell, I., and I. R. Swingland. 2002. Collateral biodiversity benefits associated with 'free-market' approaches to sustainable land use and forestry activities. Phil. Trans. R. Soc. Lond. A:1807-1816.
Land Research Action Network. 2003. "Land Reform in Mexico". April 5, 2004. LRAN. www.landaction.org/printdisplay.php?article=152
Larson-Guerra, J., C. López-Silva, F. Chapela, J. C. Fernández-Ugalde, and J. Soberón. Draft. "Chapter 10. Mexico: Between Legality and Legitimacy," pp. 54.
Liedo, P. 2001. "Letter to the public". o. d. l. s. c. Recipients: Comunidades y pueblos indígenas, comunidad científica del país, sociedad en general,. Letter. October 23.
Long, A. 1992a. "Goods, knowledge and beer. The methodological significance of situational analysis and discourse," in Battlefields of Knowledge. The Interlocking of Theory and Practice in Social Research and Development. Edited by N. Long and A. Long, pp. 147-170. London and New York: Routledge.
Long, N. 1992b. "From paradigm lost to paradigm regained? The case for an actor-oriented sociology of development," in Battlefields of Knowledge. The Interlocking of Theory and Practice in Social Research and Development. Edited by N. Long and A. Long, pp. 16-43. London and New York: Routledge.
—. 2000. "Exploring local/global transformations. A view from anthropology," in Anthropology, Development, and Modernities. Exploring discourses, counter-tendencies, and violence. Edited by A. Arce and N. Long, pp. 184-201. London and New York: Routledge.
—. 2001. Development Sociology. Actor Perspectives. London and New York: Routledge.
—. 2002. "An Actor-oriented Approach to Development Intervention." APO Meeting, Tokyo, 2002, pp. 13.
McAfee, K. 1999. "Selling Nature to Save it: Biodiversity and the Global Economic Paradigm." Cultural and Spiritual Values of Biodiversity - UNEP, Nairobi, 1999 Ch 11: Rights, Resources and Responses.
Mexico Child Link. 2003. "Mexico - Factfile & Statistics. Poverty, politics, income & human rights in Mexico". June 18, 2004.
Milton, K. 1996. Environmentalism and Cultural Theory: Exploring the Role of Anthropology in Environmental Discourse. London: Routledge.
Mitchell, J. C. 2000. "Chapter 7: Case and Situational Analysis," in Case Study Method. Key Issues, Key Texts. Edited by R. Gomm, M. Hammersley, and P. Foster, pp. 165-186. London, Thousand Oaks, New Delhi: Sage Publications.
Mittermeier, and Goettsch. 1992. "La importancia de la biodiversidad biológica de México," in Conabio, México ante los retos de la biodiversidad, pp. 67.
133
Moguel, J. 1995. "Para entender el nuevo zapatismo". February 25, 2004. Fundació Solidaritat,. http://www.ub.es/solidaritat/observatori/chiapas/chiatran.htm
Molecular Nature, L. 2001. "Molecular Nature Limited. The way ahead for new discoveries". January, 2004. http://www.molecularnature.com
Montes, A. R. 1999. Los pueblos indígenas: diversidad negada. Chiapas 7:21-70.
Moreno, O. 1994. "La Utopía India". February 25, 2004. Fundació Solidaritat,. http://www.ub.es/solidaritat/observatori/chiapas/chiatran.htm
Mulholland, D. M., and E. A. Wilman. 1997. "Bioprospecting and Biodiversity Contracts." Seventh Annual Conference Canadian Resource and Environmental Economics Study Group, McMaster University, Hamilton, Ontario, 1997, pp. 41.
Nash, R. 2004. "ICBG-Maya". Recipient: Lauren Naville. Email. January 27.
Naville, L. 2002. Environmental 'received wisdom'. Agricultural University of Norway (NLH) Take-home exam.
Nesbitt, J. T., and D. Weiner. 2001. Conflicting environmental imaginaries and the politics of nature in Central Appalachia. Geoforum 32:333-349.
Nigh, R. 2002. Maya Medicine in the Biological Gaze, Bioprospecting Research as Herbal Fetichism. Current Anthropology 43:451-477.
Nijar, G. S. 1996. Developing a "rights regime" in defense of biodiversity and indigenous knowledge. Third World Network.
ODEMITCH. Received 2003. "Organización para la Defensa de la Medicina Indígena Tradicional de Chiapas," pp. Organizational flyer. San Cristóbal de las Casas: ODEMITCH.
O'Meara, J. T. 2001. Causation and the postmodern critique of objectivity. Anthropological Theory 1:31-56.
OMIECH. 2000. "Algo de historia y lo que hacemos en la OMIECH". March 17, 2004. http://www.laneta.apc.org/omiech/historia.htm
Pérez, M. 2000. "Negó Semarnap permiso para proyecto de bioprospección," in La Jornada, pp. 1.
RAFI. 1999a. "Biopiracy Project in Chiapas, Mexico Denounced by Mayan Indigenous Groups. University of Georgia Refuses to Halt Project," in RAFI newsletter.
—. 1999b. "Messages from the Chiapas “Bioprospecting” Dispute. An analysis of recent issues raised in the Chiapas “Bioprospecting” controversy with reflections on the message for BioPiracy." http://www.etcgroup.org/article.asp?newsid=35
134
—. 2000. ""Stop Biopiracy in Mexico!" Indigenous Peoples’ Organizations from Chiapas. Demand Immediate Moratorium. Mexican Government Says No to Bioprospecting Permits". http://www.etcgroup.org/article.asp?newsid=18
—. 2001. "US Government's $2.5 Million. Biopiracy Project in Mexico Cancelled. Victory for Indigenous Peoples in Chiapas". http://www.etcgroup.org/documents/news_ICBGterm_Nov2001.pdf
Rosendal, K. G. 1995. The Convention on Biological Diversity: A Viable Instrument for Conservation and Sustainable Use? Green Globe Yearbook:69-81.
Rosenthal, J. P. 1996. "Equitable Sharing of Biodiversity Benefits: Agreements on Genetic Resources." International Conference on Incentive Measures for the Conservation and the Sustainable Use of Biological Diversity, Cairns, Australia, 1996, pp. 19.
—. Draft. Politics, culture and governance in the development of prior informed consent and negotiated agreements with indigenous communities. Fogarty International Center, National Institute of Health Final draft for Chuck McManis.
Rosenthal, J. P., and F. N. Katz. Draft. Natural products research partnerships with multiple objectives in global biodiversity hotspots: nine years of the ICBG Program.
Rubin, H. J., and I. S. Rubin. 1995. Qualitative Interviewing. The Art of Hearing Data. International Educational and Professional Publisher. Thousand Oaks, London, New Delhi: SAGE Publications.
Ruiz, M. 2003. "Intellectual Property Rights and Biodiversity: Processes and Synergies Background paper for Workshop on TRIPS and CBD." Global Biodiversity Forum, Cancun,
Mexico, 2003, pp. 24.
Salkind, N. J. 2003. Exploring Research, Fifth edition. New Jersey: Prentice Hall.
Santiago-Garcia, C., and P. D. Duncan. 2001. Hoja Informativa - Grupo Internacional Cooperativo para la Biodiversidad Maya. ECOSUR
UGA Information paper.
Sarabia, A.2000a. Areas Naturales Protegidas. LAIGE, ECOSUR, SCLC.
—.2000b. Región los Altos de Chiapas. LAIGE, ECOSUR, SCLC.
—.2000c. Vegetación años 2000 en los Altos de Chiapas. LAIGE, ECOSUR, SCLC.
Schwartz, J. 2001. "Oposición de los indígenas cancelan investigación científica en Chiapas," in SUR Proceso, N. 45 edition. Mexico City.
Secretariat on the Convention on Biological Diversity, U. 2002. "Access to Genetic Resources and Benefit-sharing, Bonn Guidelines". February 12, 2004. http://www.biodiv.org/programmes/socio-eco/benefit/bonn.asp
135
SEMARNAP. 2000a. Acta de la Primera Reunión entre el Consejo de Organizaciones de Médicos y Parteras Indígenas Tradicionales de Chiapas, Grupo de Investigación y Cooperación en Biodiversidad Maya del Colegio de la Frontera Sur y functionarios de la Semarnap - May 12. SEMARNAP Meeting minutes.
—. 2000b. "Letter to COMPITCH". Recipients: Consejeros del COMPITCH presentes. Letter. September 25.
—. 2000c. "Oficio No. DOO. 002.04155/00". Recipient: Pablo Liedo Fernández. Letter. August 16.
—. 2000d. Resumen de las minutas de las reuniones sostenidas en torno al proyecto. SEMARNAP Annex.
—. Accessed 2004. "Secretaria de Medio Ambiente y Recursos Naturales". June 18, 2004. Dirección General de Estadística e Información Ambiental. http://www.semarnat.gob.mx/
Sen, A. 1999. Development as Freedom. New York: Random House, Inc.
Soto, J. C. 2000. Pukuj - Biopiratería en Chiapas. RMALC, COMPITCH, A.C., CIEPAC Report.
Stake, R. E. 2000. "Chapter 1: The Case Study Method in Social Inquiry," in Case Study Method. Key Issues, Key Texts. Edited by R. Gomm, M. Hammersley, and P. Foster, pp. 19-26. London, Thousand Oaks, New Delhi: Sage Publications.
Steins, N. A., and V. M. Edwards. 1999. Collective Action in Common-Pool Resource Management: The Contribution of a Social Constructivist Perspective to Existing Theory. Society & Natural Resources 12:539-557.
Stonich, S. C. 1993. "I am Destroying the Land!" The Political Ecology of Poverty and Environmental Destruction in Honduras. Boulder: Westview Press.
Støen, M. A., and S. S. Dhillion. 2002. The Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) in Mesoamerica: Implementing activities related to Articles 6, 7 and 8. SUM Working Paper. 2002/01.
Svarstad, H. 2003. Bioprospecting: Global discourses and local perceptions - Shaman Pharmaceuticals in Tanzania. Doctoral Dissertation No. 06/2003, University of Oslo.
Svarstad, H., and S. S. Dhillion. 2000. "Responding to bioprospecting: Rejection or regulation?," in Responding to Bioprospecting. From biodiversity in the South to medicines in the North. Edited by H. Svarstad and S. S. Dhillion, pp. 9-15. Oslo: Spartacus Forlag AS.
Talja, S. 1999. Analyzing Qualitative Interview Data. The Discourse Analytic Method. Library & Information Science Research 21:459-477.
UGA. Accessed 2004a. "UGA's Laboratories of Ethnobiology, Activities in 1998-1999". January 22, 2004. http://guallart.dac.uga.edu/report98-99/report98-99.html
136
—. Accessed 2004b. "The University of Georgia". January 22, 2004. http://www.uga.edu/
UGA, U. o. G.-. Accessed 2004c. "Laboratories of Ethnobiology, Department of Anthropology, University of Georgia". January 22, 2004. http://guallart.dac.uga.edu/
UNEP, S. o. t. C. o. B. D.-. 2002. Convention on Biological Diversity. UNEP Official document.
Valadez, A. 2000. "Nuestros recursos, nuestro saber, inalienables," in La Jornada. México City.
Verschoor, G. 1997. Tacos, tiendas and mezcal. An actor-oriented perspective on small-scale entrepreneurial projects in Western Mexico. Published PhD dissertation, Wageningen Agricultural University.
WHO. 2002. WHO Traditional Medicine Strategy 2002-2005. World Health Organization Geneva WHO/EDM/TRM/2002.1.
Williams, P. 1999. "Drug Discovery and Biodiversity among Highland Maya. Subject of Misunderstandings, according UGA Professor," in University of Georgia Public Affairs. Athens.
Wilson, E. O. 1986. Biodiversity. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
WIPO, W. I. P. O. 2001. Savoirs Traditionneles: Besoins et Attentes en Matière de Propriété Intellectuelle. Rapport de l'OMPI sur les missions d'enquête consacrées à la propriété intellectuelle et aux savoirs traditionnels (1998-1999). WIPO Report.
—. 2003. Intergovernmental Committee on Intellectual Property and Genetic Resources, Traditional Knowledge and Folklore, Fifth session, July 7-15, 2003. WIPO Report annex. WIPO/GRTKF/IC/5/13.
Yin, R. K. 2003. Case Study Research. Design and Methods, Third edition. Vol. 5. Applied Social Research Methods Series. Thousand Oaks, London, New Delhi: SAGE publications.
137
Appendix
A.1 Environmental Maps of Chiapas
Figure 3: The vegetation of the Highlands of Chiapas as of 2000 (bosque = forest, pastizal = pasture) (Sarabia, 2000c)
139
A.2 Bioprospecting Cases in Mexico There are four cases of bioprospecting projects in Mexico. One of them is the subject of this
research while the three others are briefly presented in the following paragraphs.
A.2.1 The UNAM-Diversa This bioprospecting project was signed in 1998 and was intended to take place over a three year
period. It was a collaboration between the Autonomous National University of Mexico (UNAM,
through its biotechnology institute) and the US-based Diversa Corporation which works on the
development of new enzymes and bioactive compounds (Bellot, 2001). UNAM was to receive
equipment that would allow it to process the samples for study. According to Delgado (2002)
each biological sample had a value of 50 dollars and all patenting rights would be transferred to
the company and UNAM would receive 0.3 to 0.5% of the royalties on the possible net sales. The
possible financial benefits obtained from the royalties would go to a biodiversity conservation
fund. This project would take place only under the following criteria: research done strictly on
federal lands, no involvement of local communities or indigenous people, and non-monetary
benefits (such as technology transfer) would be preferred to monetary ones (Bellot, 2001).
Advice was sought from people working on the famous INBio project in Costa Rica and benefit
sharing arrangements were negotiated. Nevertheless, this project was denounced by several
journalists and NGOs who accused UNAM of selling Mexico’s resources and questioned its right
to benefit from resources that are the property of the nation (Bellot, personal communication,
2003). Due to social pressure and denunciations of unequal benefit sharing, insufficient PICs, and
so on the project had to be suspended by government authorities in 2000 and the ABS agreement
expired in 2001 (Larson-Guerra et al., Draft). This case was very revealing of a gap in the legal
framework concerning access to genetic resources and especially regarding ownership rights
(Bellot, 2001 & personal communication, 2003).
A.2.2 The UZACHI-Sandoz (Novartis) Biolead Project The following bioprospecting project took place between 1995 and 1999 in the forested area of
the mountains of Oaxaca. Baruffol (2003) explains that the goal of the project was to conduct
scientific research on micro-organisms and to study the collaboration possibilities between a
large pharmaceutical company (Novartis) and a community organization (UZACHI). A contract
was made between Sandoz (now Novartis) a Swiss-based pharmaceutical company, a Mexican
140
consultant organization (ERA) and an association of indigenous communities called UZACHI
(Delgado, 2002). UZACHI had appropriated its territory before the project started and they had
started selling mushrooms. Later on they signed a legal contract directly with Sandoz (i.e. no
State intervention) (Larson-Guerra et al., Draft). This contract had specific provisions such as
access to the lands where the resource is found is restricted to UZACHI, no indigenous
knowledge is involved, a copy of each sample must be kept in Mexico, benefits from the possible
commercialization of a drug need to be returned to the UZACHI farmers, etc (Baruffol et al.,
2002). UZACHI’s goal was to add value to their resources and products, whereas Sandoz’ main
goal was to study bioprospecting arrangements. UZACHI people were trained in Switzerland on
protocol issues and received a laboratory that it still used now for UZACHI’s own activities
(Larson-Guerra et al., Draft). One of Sandoz’ conditions was to have exclusive rights over the
information obtained for two years. Around 3’000 samples were collected during the three year
period. The collections have now stopped and the contract has not been renewed since enough
samples have been obtained which are being processed at the Sandoz’ laboratories in Switzerland
(Kissling-Näf, personal communication, 2004).
The success of this project is believed to be due to the well organized communities and the terms
of the contract. Not much opposition to the project was found at the local level. However, at the
national and international levels denunciations were made by RAFI (now ETC); accusations that
were then clarified by UZACHI trying to demonstrate the legitimacy of this project (Larson-
Guerra et al., Draft).
A.2.3 The ICBG Dry Zones project This project led by the ICBG in collaboration with UNAM, the University of Arizona, Louisiana
and Perdue, and American Cyanamid takes place in several arid regions of different countries
such as Mexico, Argentina, and Chile with the involvement of local universities as well
(Delgado, 2002). This project does research notably on cactus species and according to the
director, Dr. Timmermann, 3’500 extracts have been obtained from the three countries between
1994 to 1997 (Ibid.). This research actually encompasses two projects; one started in 1993 and
ended in 1998 and the other one started in 1998 until 2003 (Arid Lands Information Center,
2003).
141
A.3 Interview Questions As mentioned in Chapter 4 two sets of interview questions were developed: for internal and
external social actors. Other interview questions were also devised for external actors who were
interviewed on the context of Chiapas, but these questions do not figure here because of their
secondary importance.
A.3.1 Interview questions for internal actors 1. Please tell me the story of the ICBG-Maya bioprospecting case. What happened?
2. Did you have any information on the project? How did you get that information, who
provided you with information?
3. Have you heard of any other similar projects taking place in Mexico or elsewhere and if yes
when did you hear about them?
4. In your opinion what are the important issues in Chiapas at the moment?
5. What do you think the role of the government should be in relation to natural resource
management in the Chiapas?
6. Why do you think that people and organizations objected to this project? Who are these
people and organizations?
7. Why do you think that people and organizations were in favour of this project? Who are these
people and organizations?
8. Who are the main actors in this case?
9. In your opinion what were the strengths and weaknesses of the project?
10. What conditions do you think will contribute to the lifting of the moratorium? Do you think
that future bioprospecting projects will take place in Chiapas?
11. Do you think that these projects could be beneficial to the local people? How?
12. Do you think that if a legal framework for bioprospecting events existed associated projects
would be more successful?
13. Do you think that the existence of a legal framework legitimizes such projects? (Does legality
mean legitimacy?)
14. How is the use of natural resources regulated now?
15. How do you think medicinal plants should be used and regulated?
142
16. Who do you think should have the right to use and decide of the use of the natural resources
located in this area? Why?
17. How is the use of traditional knowledge regulated now?
18. How do you think traditional knowledge should be used and regulated?
19. Who do you think should have the right to use and decide of the use of traditional
knowledge in this region? Why?
20. How do you think the project should have been designed for it to be accepted by the local
people, if that is possible at all? What would have been your recommendations to the ICBG
team?
21. Do you think that bioprospecting could be an incentive for the local people to conserve
biodiversity?
A.3.2 Interview questions for external actors (by Email) I am writing a Master thesis on the ICBG-Maya case. It is so far called: An actor-oriented study
of a failed bioprospecting project in Chiapas, Mexico. The goal of the thesis will be to investigate
the causes of the failure of this project and to better understand the issues that were at stake for all
the actors involved. This study will attempt to shed light on the complexity of bioprospecting and
the interrelatedness of all the issues it involves.
If some questions are unclear or you do not have enough information to answer them please
ignore them.
1. Can you please tell me the story of the ICBG-Maya? What happened?
2. Did you have any information on the project? How did you get that information, who
provided you with information?
3. Have you heard of any successful bioprospecting projects? If yes, could you give some
examples and explain how in your opinion they were successful?
4. Have you heard of any unsuccessful bioprospecting projects? If yes, could you give some
examples and explain how in your opinion they were unsuccessful?
5. How does the ICBG-Maya project compare to these successful projects?
6. How does the ICBG-Maya project compare to these unsuccessful projects?
7. Why do you think that people and organizations objected to the ICBG-Maya project? Who
are these people and organizations? (Please identify actors)
143
8. Why do you think that people and organizations were in favour of this project? Who are these
people and organizations? (Please identify actors)
9. In your opinion what were the strengths and weaknesses of the project?
10. What conditions do you think will contribute to the lifting of the moratorium? (The
moratorium that was put up after the ICBG-Maya case was cancelled). Do you think that
future bioprospecting projects will take place in Chiapas?
11. Do you think that these projects could be beneficial to the local people? How?
12. Do you think that the existence of a legal framework legitimizes such projects? (Does legality
mean legitimacy?)
13. How and by whom do you think medicinal plants’ use should be regulated?
14. How and by whom do you think traditional knowledge should be regulated?
15. How do you think the project should have been designed for it to be accepted by the local
people, if that is possible at all? What would have been your recommendations to the ICBG
team?
16. In your opinion is there any link between bioprospecting and biodiversity conservation? If
yes, in what way?
Thank you for taking your time to answer these questions. If you want I can send you a copy of
my thesis when I finish it.
Sincerely,
Lauren Naville
MSc. Development Studies
Agricultural University of Norway (NLH)
144
A.4 Timeline of the ICBG-Maya case The following table shows a timeline of the events in order to better understand the chronology of the ICBG-Maya case and relevant side events.
It is important to understand that such a chronology is hard to develop since events were seen differently by various social actors and thus, this
historical perspective of the events may not be agreed upon by all the social actors.
Table 5: Timeline of ICBG-Maya and relevant side-events Date ICBG-Maya events Relevant side-events 1983-85 UNICEF starts a health program in Chiapas.
1985-86 The University of California Berkeley starts a collaboration project in indigenous, traditional, and herbolary medicine (PROCOMITCH) Dr. Berlin takes part in it.
1987 The Berlins start a multidisciplinary research project on Highland Maya medical ethnobiology (Berlin et al., 1999).
1989-90 INI creates the National Council of Medical Doctors Organizations which will then form state councils such as the CEOMPTCH in Chiapas (now COMPITCH).
1990 The Berlin creates the Ethnobotanical Herbolary of Chiapas (Soto, 2000).
1991-92 ECOSUR is created from CIES.
1992 Creation of Convention 169 of the ILO on Indigenous People’s Rights.
145
Date ICBG-Maya events Relevant side-events 1992 A sub-unit of botanical herbolary of Chiapas is opened in
ECOSUR of which Dr. Berlin is the director (Soto, 2000).
1992 ECOSUR and IMSS respond to the first ICBG request for applications (Berlin et al., 1999).
1992 (June) Convocation to form the ICBG group.
1993 (Dedember 29) The CBD enters into effect. Mexico ratifies it the same year.
1993 (Spring) The ICBG-Maya was presented but it had no commercial partner and was defeated by other projects (ranked 6th out of 5 accepted projects). The project was presented again including a private commercial partner (Berlin et al., 1999; Berlin and Berlin, 2001).
1993-1994 Five ICBG projects were selected out of 34 competitive proposals (not the ICBG-Maya) (Rosenthal, 1996).
1994-1999 Continued research on medical ethnobiology (Berlin et al., 1999). 1994 Formation of CEOMPTCH from 14 organizations (3ra Comisión Civil Internacional
de Observación por los Derechos Humanos, Accessed 2003).
1994 ECOSUR and UGA sign a contract of academic exchange (Soto, 2000). 1994 (January 1st) NAFTA treaty enters into effect; Zapatista uprising.
1995 Mexico is incorporated into the ICBG Zonas Aridas program (Baruffol, 2003).
1995 (August) UZACHI-Sandoz contract signed (Baruffol, 2003). 1996 (February 16) Signing of the San Andres Accords between the EZLN
and the federal government (not implemented).
146
Date ICBG-Maya events Relevant side-events 1997 (December 22) 45 indigenous men, women, and murdered by
paramilitaries in Acteal (Chiapas).
1997 (End) ECOSUR is invited to participate in the ICBG-Maya project (Liedo, 2001). 1998 Mexico ratifies Convention 169 of the ILO. 1998 (January) ECOSUR invites OMIECH to take part in the project (Felipe, personal
communication, 2003).
1998 (August) The ICBG-Maya team is informed that the project had been approved (Berlin et al., 1999).
UNAM-Diversa contract signed (Baruffol, 2003).
1998 (September) USAID agrees to fund the 5 year long project.
1998 (September 9) First letter denouncing the threat of biopiracy (Sergio, personal communication, 2003) 1998 end/1999 beg. Scientific collections start for the ECOSUR herbarium (Liedo, 2001; Schwartz, 2001). 1999 (February) Workshop held at ECOSUR on IPRs with the participation of INE, INI, CONABIO,
Mexican senate members, and OMIECH (Berlin and Berlin, 1999).
1998 (March 9) Meeting requested by CEOMPTCH with the project team in which they are informed about a draft contract that will be signed between UGA, MNL, and ECOSUR and the formation of PROMAYA (Alarcón, 2003).
1999 (March 15-17) The Maya-ICBG organized a workshop and a forum on Mexican experiences with ABS. OMIECH participated in the forum as an observer (Larson-Guerra et al., Draft).
1999 (May) Molecular Nature Limited joins the project as the laboratory partner (Belejack, 2001)
1999 (May 28) ECOSUR, MNL, and UGA sign an agreement on minimal principles (accords on IP) in which the formation of PROMAYA is mentioned (Liedo, 2001).
1999 (May) Plant collecting for scientific purposes started (Larson-Guerra et al., Draft; Soto, 2000).
1999 (Summer) Start of detailed floristic composition and structural analysis of plants under human disturbance (Berlin et al., 1999).
147
Date ICBG-Maya events Relevant side-events 1999 (July) CEOMPTCH invites the project team to a meeting to obtain information on their
activities. ECOSUR informs them that the IPR contract has been signed and that there are draft proposals for PROMAYA (Alarcón, 2003).
1999 (August) First warning to the communities by CEOMPTCH for them not sign any contract (Soto, 2000).
1999 (July to November) ICBG-Maya makes scientific collections of specimens (vouchers) in 4 municipalities by Maya collaborators (Santiago-Garcia and Duncan, 2001).
1999 (September 7) CEOMPTCH explains its position regarding the ICBG-Maya project to SEMARNAP, CONABIO, and INE and suggests suspending the project and creating public forums to establish a legal framework (COMPITCH, 2000b).
1999 (September 7) Second warning to the communities by CEOMPTCH for them not to accept any agreements with the ICBG-Maya team (Soto, 2000).
1999 (September 11) First press release by OMIECH opposing the project (Larson-Guerra et al., Draft).
1999 (September 14) CONABIO affirms that there exist enough laws to protect the communities (Soto, 2000).
1999 (October 29) ECOSUR holds an open house to discuss plans for biodiscovery and economic development (Williams, 1999).
1999 (October end) By that time, almost 6000 collections made (Berlin et al., 1999).
1999 (November beginning)
ECOSUR declares that it will stop all collections, even scientific (Sergio, personal communication, 2003).
1999 (November) SEMARNAP gets involved in the conflict (SEMARNAP, 2000a).
1999 (November 18) ECOSUR asks for a biotechnology permit and a gap in the legislation is recognized regarding this type of investigation (SEMARNAP, 2000a) during a meeting between ECOSUR, Dr. Berlin, and INE at INE (SEMARNAP, 2000d).
1999 (November 23) CEOMPTCH expresses its concern to SEMARNAP that the project is continuing without proper and complete information to the communities (COMPITCH, 2000b).
148
Date ICBG-Maya events Relevant side-events 1999 (December) RAFI starts publishing objections against the case on the Internet.
1999-2000 CEOMPTCH becomes COMPITCH.
2000 COMPITCH organizes a forum on biodiversity related issues with the support of Oxfam and the participation of different actors including some from other biopiracy cases (Luisa, personal communication, 2003).
2000 (January) COMPITCH asks SEMARNAP for a minimum of information on the project, they warn them about the deficiency in the information provided to the communities for their consent, they manifest their confusion regarding the agreement on IP, and they explain that they will continue informing the communities (COMPITCH, 2000b).
2000 (February 7) SEMARNAP holds an internal meeting to define strategies regarding the conflict (SEMARNAP, 2000a).
2000 (March 1) Limón writes a document about ethical reflections on ECOSUR’s work (Soto, 2000).
2000 (March 7) Meeting between SEMARNAP and COMPITCH (asked for by COMPITCH) where the latter give their proposal regarding the project and SEMARNAP informs them about the scientific permit demand from ECOSUR and the possibility of a dialogue between both parties. INE gives COMPITCH the documents it has on the case and a pause in the collections is agreed on before a new permit is granted. SEMARNAP agrees to act as a mediator only (SEMARNAP, 2000a; SEMARNAP, 2000d).
2000 (March 17) Presentation of the project to the NGOs at ECOSUR (Soto, 2000). 2000 (March 24) Meeting between SEMARNAP and the ICBG-Maya team (with the presence of
CONABIO and INE) discussing: modifications to the project and some points of the IP contract signed between UGA and MLN, the fact that ICBG-Maya has made no formal request for a permit to INE, ECOSUR recognizes COMPITCH and OMIECH as valid interlocutors (SEMARNAP, 2000a; SEMARNAP, 2000d).
2000 (April) COMPITCH participates in the International Ethnobiology Congress in the US where it receives a list of the plants Berlin brought from Chiapas to UGA (Soto, 2000).
2000 (April 4) SEMARNAP internal meeting discussing COMPITCH’s documents and defines its position (SEMARNAP, 2000a).
2000 (April 12) Meeting in SC between SEMARNAP and ECOSUR (presence of INE) to suggest modifications to some parts of the IP agreement, ask for the protocol with which they received financing, agree to formalize the participation of ECOSUR and COMPITCH in a working group on access and benefit sharing, and define a possible date for a meeting of all the parties (SEMARNAP, 2000a; SEMARNAP, 2000d).
149
Date ICBG-Maya events Relevant side-events 2000 (April 15) ECOSUR applies to SEMARNAP for a scientific (biotechnology) collection permit to
INE and is informed that it must wait three months for an answer (SEMARNAP, 2000a).
2000 (April 30) COMPITCH proposes a new agreement for the ICBG-Maya project and asks for an immediate moratorium (COMPITCH, 2000a).
2000 (May 10) The ICBG-Maya team sends a note to SEMARNAP saying that the plants from Chiapas at UGA are dry and are not used for biotechnology purposes (Soto, 2000).
2000 (May 12) Meeting at SEMARNAP between COMPITCH, ECOSUR, ICBG-Maya members and SEMARNAP (SEMARNAP, 2000a) in which they agree: to inform the communities, on a verbal truce, and to form a technical commission (Soto, 2000).
2000 (May 25) COMPITCH asks for the creation of a legal and ethical framework for access to biodiversity on indigenous territories in Mexico (COMPITCH, 2000b).
2000 (29-30 May) Second combined meeting at ECOSUR between ECOSUR and COMPITCH where they both present propositions for information diffusion (SEMARNAP, 2000b). Disagreement from COMPITCH on the wording from the last meeting “accords”. Presence of Rosenthal (ICBG program manager) (Nigh, personal communication, 2003).
2000 (May-June) Dialogue mediated by SEMARNAP where ECOSUR affirms it has not started any bioprospection collections (Liedo, 2001; Schwartz, 2001).
2000 (June) The US government sends an economic affairs representative from the Mexican embassy to negotiate with the COMPITCH advisors (Alarcón, 2003).
2000 (June 19) Second tri-party table of negotiations at CIESAS. COMPITCH decides to bring to the communities the proposals made by the parties (for 60 days) (SEMARNAP, 2000b) and they agree to elaborate together radio announcements and flyers in the indigenous languages (Soto, 2000).
2000 (July 18) ECOSUR and SEMARNAP publish their version of the controversies and agreements in La Jornada newspaper (Soto, 2000).
2000 (August 1) COMPITCH publishes in La Jornada that no agreements were reached as was published before (Soto, 2000).
2000 (August 16) SEMARNAP sends an official note to ECOSUR with the necessary requirements for the permit to be accepted (SEMARNAP, 2000c).
150
Date ICBG-Maya events Relevant side-events 2000 (August 24) Meeting at INE between ECOSUR, SEMARNAP, UCAES, INE to discuss the
requirements for the permit (INE, 2000).
2000 (August 31) SEMARNAP decides not to continue being the mediator (SEMARNAP, 2000b).
2000 (September 12) COMPITCH demands for an active moratorium on the ICBG-Maya project and all bioprospecting projects in Mexico and elsewhere at a press conference (RAFI, 2000).
2000 (September 14-15) “Bioprospecting or Biopiracy?” seminar held in Mexico City (RAFI, 2000).
2000 (September 25) SEMARNAP informs COMPITCH that the permit was negated (SEMARNAP, 2000b). SEMARNAP refuses to give the permit to ECOSUR (Pérez, 2000).
2000 (October) COMPITCH attends the International Society of Ethnobiology (ISE) forum at UGA including RAFI, indigenous people, the Berlins, ECOSUR, and ethnobiologists (RAFI, 1999a).
2000 (October 17) ECOSUR declares a moratorium in La Jornada (Liedo, 2001).
2000 (October 28) ECOSUR declares a moratorium published that day in a national newspaper. Moratorium would be lifted if 2 requirements were met (judicial framework + indigenous representation) (González-Espinosa, 2001).
2000 (December) A researcher from ECOSUR and Dr. Berlin send a letter to a community to inform them of the project (Berlin and Espinosa, 2000).
2001 (Beginning) Dr. Berlin gives a new initiative by ECOSUR and OCOMITCH to SEPI (Schwartz, 2001) to continue the establishment of botanical gardens and the promotion of the knowledge and use of plants for the communities with no bioprospecting involved or any laboratories (UGA or MNL) (Liedo, 2001).
COCOPA law enters into effect.
2001 (July 27) ECOSUR sends the new proposal to the Institute of Natural History and Ecology.
2001 (August) Dr. Berlin suggests a re-orientation of the project to ECOSUR. Accepted by ICBG but not ECOSUR to avoid more conflicts (Liedo, 2001).
2001 (October 7) US embassy representative in Mexico went to Chiapas and met with COMPITCH. They still refused.
2001 (October 23) ECOSUR notifies Dr. Berlin and the general public of the definitive cancellation of the project (Liedo, 2001).
151
Date ICBG-Maya events Relevant side-events 2001 (November 9) US government confirms cancellation of the ICBG-Maya project (RAFI, 2001).
152
A.5 Pictures from Fieldwork
Picture 3: View of San Cristóbal de las Casas
Picture 4: OMIECH museum of traditional medicine