Advertisement

The Limitations of Good Intent: Problems of Representation and Informed Consent in the Maya ICBG Project in Chiapas, Mexico

  • Dafna Feinholz-KlipEmail author
  • Luis García Barrios
  • Julie Cook Lucas
Chapter

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.

Keywords

Benefit sharing biopiracy indigenous Maya people Mexico policy representation International Cooperative Biodiversity Group 

References

  1. 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.Google Scholar
  2. 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.
  3. 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.Google Scholar
  4. 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.
  5. 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.
  6. 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.Google Scholar
  7. 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.Google Scholar
  8. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 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.Google Scholar
  10. CBD (1992). Convention on Biological Diversity. Quebec: Secretariat of the Convention on Biological Diversity. www.cbd.int/convention/convention.shtml. Accessed 18 June 2008.Google Scholar
  11. 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.Google Scholar
  12. 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.
  13. 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.
  14. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 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.Google Scholar
  16. 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.Google Scholar
  17. 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.Google Scholar
  18. ISE (2006) Code of ethics. International Society of Ethnobiology. http://ise.arts.ubc.ca/global_ coalition/ethics.php. Accessed 27 November 2008.
  19. 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.Google Scholar
  20. Nigh, R. (2002). Maya medicine in the biological gaze: bioprospecting research as herbal fetishism. Current Anthropology, 43(3), 451–477.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 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.
  22. 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.
  23. 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.
  24. Rosenthal, J. P. (2006). Politics, culture, and governance in the development of prior informed consent in indigenous communities. Current Anthropology, 47(1), 119–142.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Sánchez, C. (1999). Los pueblos indígenas: del indigenismo a la autonomia. Mexico City: Siglo Veintiuno, Editores.Google Scholar
  26. 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.Google Scholar
  27. 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.Google Scholar
  28. Simonelli, J., & Earle, D. (2003). Meeting resistance: autonomy, development, and “ informed permission ” in Chiapas, Mexico. Qualitative Inquiry, 9(1), 74–89.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 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.
  30. 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.
  31. 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.
  32. 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.
  33. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. ECOSUR-San Cristóbal (n.d.). El ICBG Maya en Los Altos de Chiapas. Project archives of the General Director.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2009

Authors and Affiliations

  • Dafna Feinholz-Klip
    • 1
    Email author
  • Luis García Barrios
    • 2
  • Julie Cook Lucas
    • 3
  1. 1.National Commission of Bioethics MexicoBosque del CastilloHuixquilucanMexico
  2. 2.Departamento de AgroecologíaDivisión de Sistemas de Producción Alternativos, El Colegio de la Frontera Sur (ECOSUR)ChiapasMexico
  3. 3.UCLANCentre for Professional EthicsUnited Kingdom

Personalised recommendations