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 chamuco@romandie.com 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

XI

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.

124

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)

138

Figure 4: The Natural Protected Areas of Chiapas (Sarabia, 2000a)

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

153

Picture 5: Maya cross in Chamula Picture 6: Indigenous people and Chamula church

Picture 7: Biodiversity and globalization at market in San Cristóbal de las Casas