Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

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

  • Published:
Human Ecology Aims and scope Submit manuscript

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 bio-prospecting project that was initiated in the 1990s and later terminated due to accusations of bio-piracy.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. Bio-prospecting can be defined as the contemporary search for scientific-commercial utility in the world’s resources, and is of great importance to the private sector that is interested in access to gene pools to develop new products, in this case the pharmaceutical industry.

  2. COMPITCH was earlier known as the Organizacion de Medicos Indigenas del Estado de Chiapas (OMIECH).

  3. Now called the Action Group on Erosion, Technology and Concentration. However, it was called RAFI during the ICBG-Maya project, and we therefore use RAFI throughout the article. Website http://www.etcgroup.org/en/

  4. We spent five months in Chiapas with the Norwegian Latin American Solidarity Group (LAG) as solidarity workers in indigenous communities

  5. The number of dead varies between 30 and 500 persons.

  6. The project’s full name was ‘Pharmaceutical Research and Sustainable Use of Ethno-botanical Knowledge in the Maya Region of Los Altos in the State of Chiapas,’

  7. For a thorough discussion of the ‘noble savage,’ see for example Krech (2005), and Ellingson (2001).

  8. Sandoz later merged with Novartis, which has been ranked as one of the largest pharmaceutical companies in the world (Kate and Laird 2000)

  9. Social and cultural change were the focus for many anthropological studies in the 1940s to 1960s, which aimed to understand social and cultural change as well as conflicts. See for instance Hylland Eriksen, 1996.

  10. In this particular case, one can ask who gained from the failure of the ICBG-Maya project. The answer is complicated, and we do not argue that COMPITCH had motives for personal gain in this. However, in the end, regardless of the intentions, COMPITCH has kept their privileged position in the area with regards to selling traditional medicine and their medical services.

  11. We are grateful to one of the anonymous reviews for pointing out these issues for us.

References

  • Arce, A., and Fisher, E. (2007). Creating natural knowledge: agriculture, science and experiments. In Sillitoe, P. (ed.), Local Science vs. Global Science—Approaches to Indigenous Knowledge in International Development. Berghahn Books, New York, pp. 175–190.

    Google Scholar 

  • AsiesChiapas (2008). Goverment of Chiapas: Asi es Chiapas. http://www.asieschiapas.gob.mx/?accion=mostrarpaginas&consecutivo=1&idcategoria=3&idpadre=0.

  • Baker, J. T., Borris, R. P., Carte, B., Cordell, G. A., Soejarto, D. D., Cragg, G. M., Gupta, M. P., Iwu, M. M., Madulid, D. R., and Tyler, V. E. (1995). Natural Product Drug Discovery and Development—New Perspectives on International Collaboration. Journal of Natural Products-Lloydia 58: 1325–1357.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Balick, M. J., Elisabetsky, E., and Laird, A. S. (eds.) (1996). Medicinal Resources of the Tropical Forest: Biodiversity and Its Importance to Human Health. Columbia University Press, New York.

    Google Scholar 

  • Berlin, B., and Berlin, E. A. (2004). Community Autonomy and the Maya ICBG Project in Chiapas, Mexico: How a Bio-prospecting Project That Should Have Succeeded Failed. Human Organization 63(4): 472–486.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bjørkan, M. (2005). Cooperatives and Community Failure in Fisheries Management: A Mexican Case Study on Collective Opportunism and Social Capital. Social Science, University of Tromsø, Tromsø.

    Google Scholar 

  • Briggs, J. (2005). The Use of Indigenous Knowledge in Development: Problems and Challenges. Progress in Development Studies 5: 99–114.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Buanes, A., Jentoft, S., Karlsen, G. R., Maurstad, A., and Søreng, S. (2004). In Whose Interest? An Exploratory Analysis of Stakeholders in Norwegian Coastal Zone Planning. Ocean & Coastal Management 47: 207–223.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Buanes, A., Jentoft, S., Maurstad, A., Soreng, S. U., and Karlsen, G. R. (2005). Stakeholder Participation in Norwegian Coastal Zone Planning. Ocean & Coastal Management 48: 658–669.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Byklum B., Qvenild M., and Øpstad Å. (2003). Kommersialisering av den meksikanske urbefolkningens genetiske ressurser og tradisjonelle kunnskap—case studier fra Oaxaca og Chiapas Høgskolen i Oslo.

  • Carrithers, M. (1992). Why Humans Have Cultures: Explaining Anthropology and Social Diversity. University Press, Oxford.

    Google Scholar 

  • CBD (1992a). Convention on Biological Diversity: Article 1. Objectives. http://www.cbd.int/doc/legal/cbd-un-en.pdf.

  • CBD (1992b). Convention on Biological Diversity Article 8(j): In-situ Conservation www.biodiv.org/convention/articles.asp?lg=0&a=cbd-08.

  • Cocks, M. (2006). Biocultural Diversity: Moving Beyond the Realm of ‘Indigenous’ and ‘Local’ People. Human Ecology 34: 185–200.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dove, M. R., Smith, D. S., Campos, M. T., Mathews, A. S., Rademacher, A., Rhee, S., and Yoder, L. M. (2007). Globalisation and the construction of Western and non-Western knowledge. In Sillitoe, P. (ed.), Local Science vs. Global Science—Approaches to Indigenous Knowledge in International Development. Berghahn Books, New York, pp. 129–154.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dryzek, J. S. (1997). The Politics of the Earth: Environmental Discourses. Oxford University Press, Oxford.

    Google Scholar 

  • Duomulin, D. (2003). Local Knowledge in the Hands of Transnational NGO Networks: A Mexican Viewpoint. UNESCO.

  • Eisner, T. (1991). Chemical prospecting: a proposal for action. In Bormann, H., and Kellert, R. (eds.), Ecology, Economics, and Ethics: the Broken Circle. Yale University Press, New Haven.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ellingson, J. (2001). The Myth of the Noble Savage, University of California Press, Berkeley, CA.

  • Escobar, A. (1999). After Nature: Steps to an Antiessentialist Political Ecology. Current Anthropology 40: 1–30.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • ETC (2008). Global Exchange: Bio-piracy Report. http://www.globalexchange.org/countries/americas/mexico/bio-piracyReport.html.

  • Faust, B. B. (2001). Maya Environmental Successes and Failures in the Yucatan Peninsula. Environmental Science and Policy 4: 153–169.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Feyerabrand, P. (1987). Farewell to Reason. Verso, London.

    Google Scholar 

  • FOKUS (2008). TV-aksjonen: Latin-Amerika. http://www.fokuskvinner.no/FOKUS-prosjekter/TV-aksjonsprosjektene/Latin-AmerikaTVA_/5229?view=print.

  • GRAIN (1998). Bio-piracy, TRIPS and the patenting of Asia’s rice bowl, http://www.grain.org/briefings/?id=29.

  • Greenpeace (2005). Greenpeace heads global campaign against ‘bio-piracy’. Third World Network’s homepage, http://www.twnside.org.sg/title/heads.htm.

  • Harraway, D. (1988). Situated Knowledges: The Science Question in Feminism and the Privilege of Partial Perspective. Feminist Studies 14: 575–599.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Harraway, D. (2004). The Harraway Reader. Routledge, New York.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hewitt de Alcántara, C. (1988). Imágenes del campo. El Colegio de México, México.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hunn, E. (1993). What is traditional knowledge? In Williams, N., and Barnes, G. (eds.), Traditional Ecological Knowledge: Wisdom for Sustainable Development. Australian National University, Canberra.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hylland Eriksen, T. (ed.) (1996). Sosialantropologiske Grunntekster. Ad Notam Gyldendal, Oslo.

    Google Scholar 

  • INI (2008). Instituto Nacional Indigenista (INI), Subdirección de Investigación, IBAI Base de Localidades y Comunidades Indígenas, 1993. http://www.cdi.gob.mx/ini/perfiles/estatal/chiapas/13_anexo.html.

  • Irwin, A., and Wynne, B. (1996). Introduction. In Irwin, A., and Wynne, B. (eds.), Misunderstanding Science? The Public Reconstruction of Science and Technology. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp. 1–19.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Jentoft, S. (2000). The Community: A Missing Link o Fisheries Management. Marine Policy 24: 53–59.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jentoft, S. (2008). Personal Communication (e-mail) 22.01.2008.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Karasov, C. (2001). Who Reaps the Benefits of Biodiversity? Environmental Health Perspectives 109: 582–587.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kate, K., and Laird, A. S. (2000). The Commercial Use of Biodiversity—Access to Genetic Resources and Benefitsharing. Earthscan, UK.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kattán Ibarra, J. (1995). Perspectivas Culturales de Hispanoamérica. NTC, USA.

    Google Scholar 

  • Koul, O., and Wahab, S. (eds.) (2004). Neem: Today and in the New Millennium. Kluwer, New York.

    Google Scholar 

  • Krech III, S. (2005). Reflections on Conservation, Sustainability, and Environmentalism in Indigenous North America. American Anthropologists 107: 78–86.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • LAG (2002). Latin-Amerika årboka 2002; Åpne brev, hemmelige dokumenter og andre utklipp fra latinamerikanske medier. Latinamerikagruppene i Norge og Solidaritet forlag, Norway.

  • Larson, J. (2002). Personal Communication (Interview), 02.02.2002, San Cristobal de las Casas.

  • Larson-Guerra, J., López-Silva C., Chapela F., Fernández Ugalde, J. C., and Soberón, J. (2004). Mexico: Between legality and legitimacy (chapter 6). In Carrizosa, S., Brush, S. B., Wright, B. D., and McGuire, P. E. (eds.), Accessing Biodiversity and Sharing the Benefits: Lessons from Implementing the Convention on Biological Diversity (p. 315). IUCN Environmental Policy and Law Paper no.054. Gland: IUCN.

  • Latour, B. (1987). Science in Action—How to Follow Scientists and Engineers Through Society. Harvard University Press, Cambridge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Latour, B. (1993). We Have Never Been Modern. Harvester Wheatsheaf, Brighton.

    Google Scholar 

  • Law, J. (2004). After Method: Mess in Social Science Research. Routledge, New York.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lothe, L. (2002). Landartikkel om Mexico. In Latin-Amerika årboka 2002; Åpne brev, hemmelige dokumenter og andre utklipp fra latinamerikanske medier. Latinamerikagruppene i Norge og Solidaritet forlag, Norway.

  • McGregor, D. P. (1999). Hawaiian subsistence, culture and spirituality, and natural biodiversity. In Posey, D. A. (ed.), Cultural and Spiritual Values of Biodiversity. UNEP and Intermediate Technology Publications, London, pp. 114–116.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mgbeoji, I. (2007). Lost in translation? The rhetoric of protecting indigenous peoples’ knowledge in international law and the omnipresent reality of bio-piracy. In Phillips, P., and Onwuekwe, C. (eds.), Accessing and Sharing the Benefits of the Genomics Revolution, The International Library of Environmental, Agricultural and Food Ethics. Kluwer/Springer Publishers, Dordrecht, pp. 111–142.

  • Millar, L. (2006). Subject or Object? Shaping and Reshaping the Intersections Between Aboriginal and Non-aboriginal Records. Archival Science 6: 329–350.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mittermeier, R.A., Myers, N., Robles Gil, P. and Mittermeier, C.G. (1999). Hotspots. Mexico City, México: CEMEX.

  • Mol, A. M. (2002). The Body Multiple: Ontology in Medical Practice. Duke University Press, United.

    Google Scholar 

  • Nebbia, G. (2005). Tlatelolco Massacre. http://www.wsws.org/news/1998/oct1998/mex-o06.shtml.

  • Neumann, I. B. (2001). Mening, materialitet, makt: En innføring i diskursanalyse. Fagbokforlaget, Bergen.

    Google Scholar 

  • Nygren, A. (1999). Local Knowledge in the Environment-Development Discourse: From Dichotomies to Situated Knowledges. Critique of Anthropology 19: 267–288.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • O’Connor, B. (2003). Protecting Traditional Knowledge. The Journal of World Intellectual Property 6: 677–698.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pedynowski, D. (2003). Science(s) Which, When and Whose? Probing the Metanarrative of Scientific Knowledge in the Social Construction of Nature. Progress in Human Geography 27: 735–752.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Posey, D. A. (1999). Cultural and spiritual values of biodiversity. A complementary contribution to the global biodiversity assessment. In Posey, D. A. (ed.), Cultural and Spiritual Values of Biodiversity. UNEP and Intermediate Technology Publications, London, pp. 1–19.

    Google Scholar 

  • PrimalSeeds (2008). Rice as a strategic weapon for profit. Primal Seed, http://www.primalseeds.org/bio-piracy.htm.

  • Purcell, T. V. (1998). Indigenous Knowledge and Applied Anthropology: Questions of Definition and Direction. Human Organization 57: 258–272.

    Google Scholar 

  • Qvenild, M. (2008). Svalbard Global Seed Vault: A ‘Noah’s Ark’ for the World’s Seeds. Development in Practice 18: 110–116.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • RAFI (1995). Bio-piracy Update: A Global Pandeminc. RAFI Communique, http://www.etcgroup.org/upload/publication/473/01/raficom45biopupdate95.pdf.

  • RAFI (1999). Bio-piracy Project in Chiapas, Mexico Denounced by Mayan Indians. RAFI (ETC-Group), http://www.rag.org.au/baa/biopiracy.htm.

  • RAFI (2000). Stop Bio-piracy in Mexico!, http://www.etcgroup.org/en/materials/publications.html?pub_id=304.

  • Rattray, G. N. (2002). The Enola Bean Patent Controversy: Bio-piracy, Novelty and Fish-and Chips. Duke Law & Technology Review, http://www.law.duke.edu/journals/dltr/articles/pdf/2002DLTR0008.pdf.

  • Redford, K. H. (1990). The Ecological Noble Savage. Orion Nature Quarterly 9: 25–29.

    Google Scholar 

  • Reid, W. V., Laird, A. S., Meyer, C. A., Gámez, R., Sittenfeld, A., Janzen, D. H., Gollin, M. A., and Juma, C. (1992). Biodiversity Prospecting: Using Genetic Resources for Sustainable Development. Baltimore MD. World Research Institute (WRI).

  • Rosenthal, J. P. (2006). Reply to Comments in Politics, Culture, and Governance in the Development of Prior Informed Consent in Indigenous Communities. Current Anthropology 47: 119–142.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • SEDESOL (2005). Indigenous people in Mexico, http://www.sedeinco.yucatan.gob.mx/esp/docpublicaciones/200406291733.xls.

  • Shiva, V. (1997). Bio-piracy: The Plunder of Nature and Knowledge. South End, Boston.

    Google Scholar 

  • Shore, C., and Wright, S. (eds.) (1997). Anthropology of Policy Critical Perspectives on Governance and Power. Routledge, London.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sillitoe, P. (ed.) (2007). Local Science vs. Global Science—Approaches to Indigenous Knowledge in International Development. Berghahn Books, New York.

    Google Scholar 

  • Smith, L. T. (2005). On Tricky Ground: Researching the Native in the Age of Uncertainty. SAGE, Thousand Oaks.

    Google Scholar 

  • Svarstad, H. (2002). Analysing Conservation—Development Discourses: The Story of a Bio-piracy Narrative. Forum for Development Studies 1: 63–92.

    Google Scholar 

  • Thomas, D. S. G., and Twyman, C. (2004). Good or Bad Rangeland? Hybrid Knowledge, Science, and Local Understandings of Vegetation Dynamics in the Kalahari. Land Degradation & Development 15: 215–231.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wolf, E. (1956). Aspects of Group Relations in a Complex Society: Mexico. American Anthropologists 58: 1065–1077.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

We are indebted to the communities, the institutions and the families whose activities we studied: Muchas gracias a la gente en las comunidades en Chiapas y en Oaxaca. We are also grateful for the comments and support from Svein Jentoft and Ratana Chuenpadee on an early draft. Special thanks to Jahn Petter Johnsen. We also thank the anonymous referees for insightful comments and suggestions.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Norwegian College of Fisheries Science, Tromsø, Norway

    Maiken Bjørkan

  2. Norwegian Institute for Nature Research (NINA), Lillehammer, Norway

    Marte Qvenild

Authors
  1. Maiken Bjørkan
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Marte Qvenild
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Maiken Bjørkan.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Bjørkan, M., Qvenild, M. The Biodiversity Discourse: Categorisation of Indigenous People in a Mexican Bio-prospecting Case. Hum Ecol 38, 193–204 (2010). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10745-010-9305-7

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10745-010-9305-7

Keywords

Search

Navigation