Abstract
The Maya International Cooperative Biodiversity Group (Maya ICBG) research project began in 1998 in the central highlands of Chiapas, Mexico, in a difficult and contentious legal, social and political climate. The researchers' good intentions were that the indigenous Maya people would both contribute to the project and benefit from it. However, gaps in the way local communities were included became a focus for international resistance to the project, which was abandoned in 2001.
No single actor should bear the total responsibility for what happened to the Maya ICBG, but none is devoid of it. Through a comparison with the San- Hoodia case we discuss how parties on all sides implicitly understood ‘collaboration’ and ‘benefit sharing’, which can easily become controversial due to conflicting assumptions about how and to what extent different groups of people should benefit from the potential royalties, and who should make these decisions.
Like the San peoples, the Maya stood to receive a very small proportion of any profit that might come from the development of commercial products. These benefits, whether realized or not, are never ethically neutral, so the transparent, full and free prior informed consent of communities to accept the risk of going along this path is absolutely essential. Both cases played out in a domestic legal and policy vacuum. Questions about the legitimacy of processes and decisions emerge as fundamental.
The failure of the Maya ICBG was due largely to the lack of an appropriate prior informed consent process built on trust and adequate representation. The question of Maya identity and self-representation through forms that are ‘credible’ to outside bioprospectors is an ongoing issue. The pan-Mayan identity currently under construction in Chiapas faces similar challenges to those of the San people.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Notes
- 1.
1 For a fascinating discussion on obtaining research permits from the leaders of autonomous municipalities in Chiapas, see Simonelli and Earle 2003 (‘Yes, they're illegal. But they're legitimate’). Some commentators see the armed conflict as ‘the most important limiting factor’ for the Mayan people (Field 2006).
- 2.
2 Consuelo S á nchez argues that the Mexican government attempted to destroy ethnic identity by ‘deliberately [fomenting] … the atomization of Indian peoples into fragmented communities’ (Sánchez 1999).
- 3.
- 4.
4 Maya ICBG developed an agreement form modelled on guidelines from the US Department of Health and Human Services, the National Institutes of Health and the University of Georgia Institutional Review Board.
- 5.
5 The Rural Advancement Foundation International (RAFI), the project's main international NGO opponent, also described the project as having ‘honourable intentions’ (RAFI 1999b).
- 6.
6 Following the Declaration of the Alma-Ata International Conference on Primary Health Care in 1978, the Mexican government's Instituto Nacional Indigenista (National Indigenous Institute) created OMIECH, through which local healers and midwives were officially recognized as part of national health systems. However, medical staff in Mexico's national public health service never quite recognized this status. When Dr Brent Berlin and Dr Elois Ann Berlin started PROCOMITH (Programa de Colaboración sobre Medicina Indígena Tradicional y Herbolaria – Collaborative Programme in Traditional Indigenous Herbal Medicine) (Berlin et al. 1990) to promote ethnobo-tanical research in the highlands of Chiapas, they concluded collaboration agreements with the official health service and were thus seen by OMIECH as enemies.
- 7.
7 According to Nigh (2002), members of COMPITCH, including OMIECH, had been developing their own proposals for research and possible commercial development of Maya medicine for many years, but these initiatives were not included in the priorities of the ICBG.
- 8.
8 Lauren Naville writes: ‘Berlin 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 bio-prospecting research. ECOSUR also agreed to stop any type of collections’ (Naville 2004).
- 9.
9 Interestingly, WIMSA avoided using ‘San’ in their title as the name was ‘strongly disapproved of by certain southern African Governments’ (Chennells 2007).
- 10.
10 ‘This assertion was angrily received by some social scientists, accustomed to unilateral research on hapless San communities’ (Chennells 2007).
References
Ayora Diaz, S. I. (2002). Comment, in Nigh, R., ‘Maya medicine in the biological gaze: bio-prospecting research as herbal fetishism’. Current Anthropology, 43(3), 464–465.
Barrios, L. E. G., & Espinosa, M. G. (2000). ECOSUR y el proyecto de bioprospección ICBG-Maya en Chiapas. A los pueblos y comunidades indígenas, a todos los miembros de COMPITCH, a la opinión p ú blica. La Jornada, Mexico City. http://chiapas.laneta.org/noticias/icbgmaya.htm. Accessed 12 November 2008.
Berlin, B., & Berlin, E. A. (2002). Comment, in Nigh, R., ‘Maya medicine in the biological gaze: bioprospecting research as herbal fetishism’. Current Anthropology, 43(3), 466–467.
Berlin, B., & Berlin, E. A. (2003). NGOs and the process of prior informed consent in bioprospect-ing research: the Maya ICBG project in Chiapas, Mexico. International Social Science Journal, 55(178), 629–638. http://unesdoc.unesco.org/ulis/cgi-bin/ulis.pl?req = 2&mt = 100&mt _p = % 3C&by = 2&sc1 = 1&look = default&sc2 = 1&lin = 1&mode = e&futf8 = 1&gp = 1&text = Maya + ICBG + Mexico&text_p = inc. Accessed 30 June 2008.
Berlin, B., & Berlin, E. A. (2004). Community autonomy and the Maya ICBG Project in Chiapas, Mexico: how a bioprospecting project that should have succeeded failed. Human Organization, Winter 2004. http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qa3800/is_200401/ai_n9466403. Accessed 27 November 2008.
Berlin, B., & Berlin, E. A. (2006). Comment, in Rosenthal J. P., ‘Politics, culture, and governance in the development of prior informed consent in indigenous communities’, Current Anthropology, 47(1), 129–130.
Berlin, B., Berlin, E. A., Breedlove, D. E., Duncan, T., Astorga, V. M. J., Laughlin, R. M., et al. (1990). La herbolaria m é dica tzeltal-tzotzil en los altos de Chiapas. Chiapas, Mexico: Gobienos del Estado de Chiapas, Consejo Estatal de Fomento a la Investigación y Difusión de la Cultura, DIF-Chiapas, and Instituto Chiapenco de Cultura, Tuxtla Gutienez.
Berlin, B., Berlin, E. A., Ugalde, J. C. F., Barrios, L. G., Puett, D., Nash, R., et al. (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(Suppl.), 1–19.
Brush, S. B. (2002). Comment, in Nigh, R., ‘Maya medicine in the biological gaze: bioprospect-ing research as herbal fetishism’, Current Anthropology, 43(3), 467–468.
CBD (1992). Convention on Biological Diversity. Quebec: Secretariat of the Convention on Biological Diversity. www.cbd.int/convention/convention.shtml. Accessed 18 June 2008.
CBD (2002). Bonn guidelines on access to genetic resources and fair and equitable sharing of the benefits arising out of their utilization. Quebec: Secretariat of the Convention on Biological Diversity. www.biodiv.org/doc/publications/cbd-bonn-gdls-en.pdf. Accessed 27 June 2008.
Cece ñ a, A. E. (2000). ¿ Biopiratería o desarrollo sustentable? Chiapas, M é xico: Era-IIE. http://membres.lycos.fr/revistachiapas/No9/ch9cecena.html. Accessed 11 November 2008.
Chennells, R. (2007). San Hoodia case: a report for GenBenefit. http://www.uclan.ac.uk/old/facs/health/ethics/staff/projects/GenBenefit/docs/cases/San_Case.pdf. Accessed 7 December 2008.
Field, L. (2006). Comment, in Rosenthal, J. P., ‘Politics, culture, and governance in the development of prior informed consent in indigenous communities’. Current Anthropology, 47(1), 131.
Fischer, E. F. (2002) Comment, in Nigh. R., ‘Maya medicine in the biological gaze: bioprospect-ing research as herbal fetishism’. Current Anthropology, 43(3), 470–471.
Greene, S. (2006) Comment, in Rosenthal, J. P., ‘Politics, culture, and governance in the development of prior informed consent in indigenous communities’. Current Anthropology, 47(1), 131–132.
Hunn, E. S. (2006) Comment, in Rosenthal, J. P., ‘Politics, culture, and governance in the development of prior informed consent in indigenous communities’. Current Anthropology, 47(1), 133–134.
ISE (2006) Code of ethics. International Society of Ethnobiology. http://ise.arts.ubc.ca/global_ coalition/ethics.php. Accessed 27 November 2008.
Naville, L. (2004). The experts, the heroes, and the indigenous people: the story of the ICBG-Maya bioprospecting project in Chiapas, Mexico. Å s, Norway: Noragric, Agricultural University of Norway. www.umb.no/noragric/publications/msctheses/2004/2004_ds_Lauren_ Naville.pdf. Accessed 15 October 2008.
Nigh, R. (2002). Maya medicine in the biological gaze: bioprospecting research as herbal fetishism. Current Anthropology, 43(3), 451–477.
RAFI (1999a). Biopiracy project in Chiapas, Mexico denounced by Mayan Indigenous Groups. Rural Advancement Foundation International. www.etcgroup.org/en/materials/publications. html?pub_id = 348. Accessed 8 May 2008.
RAFI (1999b). Messages from the Chiapas ‘bioprospecting’ dispute. Rural Advancement Foundation International. www.etcgroup.org/en/materials/publications.html?id = 344. Accessed 18 June 2008.
RAFI (2000). Stop biopiracy in Mexico – Indigenous people's organizations from Chiapas demand immediate moratorium, Mexican government says no to bioprospecting permits. Rural Advancement Foundation International. www.etcgroup.org/en/materials/publications.html?pub_ id = 304. Accessed 18 June 2008.
Rosenthal, J. P. (2006). Politics, culture, and governance in the development of prior informed consent in indigenous communities. Current Anthropology, 47(1), 119–142.
Sánchez, C. (1999). Los pueblos indígenas: del indigenismo a la autonomia. Mexico City: Siglo Veintiuno, Editores.
SEMARNAP (1997). Ley general del equilibrio ecologico y la proteccion al ambiente, Secretaria de Medio Ambiente, Recursos naturales Y Pesca, Mexico City, quoted in Nigh, R. (2002). Maya medicine in the biological gaze: bioprospecting research as herbal fetishism. Current Anthropology, 43(3), 451–477.
Simonelli, J. (2006). Comment, in Rosenthal, J. P., ‘Politics, culture, and governance in the development of prior informed consent in indigenous communities’. Current Anthropology, 47(1), 135–136.
Simonelli, J., & Earle, D. (2003). Meeting resistance: autonomy, development, and “ informed permission ” in Chiapas, Mexico. Qualitative Inquiry, 9(1), 74–89.
UGA (1999). Drug discovery and biodiversity project among highland Maya subject of misunderstanding, according to UGA professor, news release, University of Georgia, GA, 6th December. www.uga.edu/news/newsbureau/releases/1999releases/berlin_maya.html. Accessed 15 May 2008.
WIPO (2008a). Recognition of traditional knowledge within the patent system. WIPO Intergovernmental Committee on Intellectual Property and Genetic Resources, Traditional Knowledge and Folklore, Thirteenth Session, Geneva, 13–17th October. www.wipo.int/edocs/mdocs/tk/en/wipo_grtkf_ic_13/wipo_grtkf_ic_13_7.doc. Accessed 20 November 2008.
WIPO (2008b). Genetic resources: list of options. WIPO Intergovernmental Committee on Intellectual Property and Genetic Resources, Traditional Knowledge and Folklore, Thirteenth Session, Geneva, 13–17th October. www.wipo.int/edocs/mdocs/tk/en/wipo_grtkf_ic_13/wipo_grtkf_ ic_13_8_a.doc. Accessed 21 November 2008.
WIPO (2008c). Genetic resources: factual update of international developments. WIPO Intergovernmental Committee on Intellectual Property and Genetic Resources, Traditional Knowledge and Folklore, Thirteenth Session, Geneva, 13–17th October. www.wipo.int/edocs/mdocs/tk/en/wipo_grtkf_ic_13/wipo_grtkf_ic_13_8_b.doc. Accessed 21 November 2008.
Wynberg, R. (2004). Rhetoric, realism and benefit sharing: use of traditional knowledge of Hoodia species in the development of an appetite suppressant. The Journal of World Intellectual Property, 7(6), 851–876.
ECOSUR-San Cristóbal (n.d.). El ICBG Maya en Los Altos de Chiapas. Project archives of the General Director.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2009 Springer Science+Business Media B.V.
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Feinholz-Klip, D., García Barrios, L., Cook Lucas, J. (2009). The Limitations of Good Intent: Problems of Representation and Informed Consent in the Maya ICBG Project in Chiapas, Mexico. In: Wynberg, R., Schroeder, D., Chennells, R. (eds) Indigenous Peoples, Consent and Benefit Sharing. Springer, Dordrecht. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-90-481-3123-5_17
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-90-481-3123-5_17
Publisher Name: Springer, Dordrecht
Print ISBN: 978-90-481-3122-8
Online ISBN: 978-90-481-3123-5
eBook Packages: Earth and Environmental ScienceEarth and Environmental Science (R0)