The Biodiversity Discourse: Categorisation of Indigenous People in a Mexican Bio-prospecting Case

Abstract

Indigenous knowledge is often portrayed as static and traditional, while indigenous people are considered victims of exploitation. In the name of development and empowerment NGOs as well as scientists may run the risk of representing indigenous communities that fit their definition of the "correct" way to be indigenous. However, for indigenous people knowledge is not necessarily a static condition in a binary position to science or the 'modern' world. Rather, it is a dynamic condition that draws from experience and adapts to a changing environment. The perspective advanced in this paper is that all forms of knowledge, including indigenous knowledge(s), are situated and hybrid. Our argument draws from research carried out in Chiapas, Mexico, regarding the ICBG-Maya bioprospecting project that was initiated in the 1990s and later terminated due to accusations of bio-piracy.

The Global Quest for Green Gold: Implications of Bioprospecting and Patenting for Indigenous Bioresources and Knowledge

“…Second, tribal communities are not always passive to exploitative advances, indigenous knowledge is not stagnant and pure, and communities are not homogeneous; they are highly stratified and have seen unequal development. But the bioprospectors and protesting civil society organisations like the NGOs construct an idyllic image of the tribal groups, while claiming to represent the communities’ interests (Bjørkan and Qvenild 2010). Bioprospectors rely on these premises to defend bioprospecting, arguing that these projects will ameliorate the lives of the community by preserving natural resources, discovering innovative drugs and boosting their economic development with little awareness of the endogenous developments in the community or in the regions concerned.…”

Learning from the Past: Reflecting on the Maya-ICBG Controversy in the Classroom

“…Approximately 8,000 villages and 900,000 Maya individuals are present in the Highlands of Chiapas, most of whom live in poverty and are divided by religious and political conflict. Importantly, they lack local authorities that are allowed to speak on behalf of all community members, making it exceptionally challenging to gain Prior Informed Consent (PIC) to conduct the study with each community (Bjorkan and Qvenild 2010;Rosenthal 2006). Berlin and Berlin (2004) argued that the project went through an extensive process of obtaining PIC from the communities based on the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) guidelines for ethical bioprospecting research.…”

“…Attendees returned to their communities and discussed in assemblies the possibility of participating in the project. The Maya-ICBG performed the skits at each community that expressed interest (Bjorkan and Qvenild 2010). Elections were held and 46 out of 47 communities agreed to participate.…”

“…Perhaps the greatest disagreement in terms of this Perspectives Special Issue on Ethics in Ethnobiology study is over how PIC was attained. RAFI and COMPITCH argued that the PIC obtained by the Maya-ICBG did not adequately represent participant communities and involved a lack of respect for local historical processes for decision-making (Bjorkan and Qvenild 2010). In reference to the term "prior", the opposition claimed that biological samples resources were obtained before authorizing signatures were acquired since the Berlins had been conducting research in the area for decades before the project started (Hardison 2000).…”

“…The Maya-ICBG scientists, however, argued that the opposite was true and that the NGOs who opposed their project took local community autonomy away from the Indigenous communities that agreed to participate even though they had no legitimate authority to speak for them (Berlin and Berlin 2004). As Bjorkan and Qvenild (2010) stated, the scientists involved associated with the Maya-ICBG and the NGO opposition both claimed to have the best interests of the Indigenous communities in mind. While the Maya-ICBG wanted to bring development and knowledge preservation to the Indigenous communities, COMPITCH and RAFI wanted to protect the Indigenous culture and knowledge, and to protect the biological resources from "biopiracy and the greedy scientists" (Bjorkan and Qvenild 2010:198).…”