From ehammond@uswest.net Sun Feb 6 12:36:45 2000 Received: from mxu4.u.washington.edu (mxu4.u.washington.edu [140.142.33.8]) by lists.u.washington.edu (8.9.3+UW99.09/8.9.3+UW99.09) with ESMTP id MAA49556 for ; Sun, 6 Feb 2000 12:36:44 -0800 Received: from mail.rdc1.wa.home.com (imail@ha1.rdc1.wa.home.com [24.0.2.66]) by mxu4.u.washington.edu (8.9.3+UW99.09/8.9.3+UW99.09) with ESMTP id MAA10578 for ; Sun, 6 Feb 2000 12:36:43 -0800 Received: from [24.12.240.231] by mail.rdc1.wa.home.com (InterMail v4.01.01.00 201-229-111) with ESMTP id <20000206203642.OKUN17514.mail.rdc1.wa.home.com@[24.12.240.231]> for ; Sun, 6 Feb 2000 12:36:42 -0800 Date: Sun, 06 Feb 2000 12:36:51 -0800 Subject: Re: Biodiversity PR From: Edward Hammond To: Message-ID: In-Reply-To: <436101.3158856164@mac010.joh.cam.ac.uk> Mime-version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit Hello All - >> On Saturday, February 05, 2000, 11:55 AM -0500 "David Casagrande" >> wrote: [SNIP] >>> large drug companies were only brought in as a mechanism to finance these >>> basically altruistic schemes. This is a very serious issue. Many lives, >>> careers, cultures and potential medical benefits are in jeopardy due to the >>> knee-jerk, oversimplified assertions that all bioprospecting is inherently >>> evil, which appears to be proliferating without empirical justification. We >>> desparately need research such as yours, and we need it to be rigorous Yikes! David, I sincerely hope that the above was not written in reference the University of Georgia's ICBG or, as far as that goes, for the truly terrible ICBG Program in general. If so, I would have to debate you on almost all of your assertions... in particular, the altruistic bit. I have followed the ICBG Program intensely since 1994, worked with Dr. Berlin's former ethnobotany research subjects in Peru, and FOIA'ed NIH's manager of the ICBG Program more than once. ICBG's record is appalling, and it's just plain wrong to characterize the commercial sector's role as an altruistic afterthought! To wit, I attach some recent stuff from RAFI (for whom I used to work) on the UGA bioprospecting effort. I don't think this material ever made it to this list. If this is a repost, my apologies. As for HFC, well... that another issue; but I'm afraid I can't find much success HFC's work at all... what are you referring to, Niall? HFC has always looked to me more like a lobbying arm of Shaman Pharmaceuticals and, as Shaman teeters on bankruptcy, has simply warmed to ICBG and former ICBG people in its quest for relevance. Thanks, Edward Hammond ----- See http://www.rafi.org for more info, as well as copies of this article in Spanish. Messages from the Chiapas 'Bioprospecting' Dispute An analysis of recent issues raised in the Chiapas 'Bioprospecting' controversy with reflections on the message for BioPiracy Rural Advancement Foundation International - RAFI Geno-type December 22 1999 www.rafi.org The more information that surfaces about the U.S. Government s International Cooperative Biodiversity Groups (ICBG), the more we are persuaded that current realities render equitable bioprospecting the implausible stuff of myth and legend. In keeping with the Season, if there is a Santa Claus, Virginia, it sure isn t Uncle Sam. Even the best-intentioned projects seem destined to devolve into biopiracy. On December 1st, RAFI issued the news release 'Biopiracy Project in Chiapas, Mexico Denounced by Mayan Indigenous Groups - University of Georgia Refuses to Halt Project.' (www.rafi.org). The news story arose from requests made by 11 Mayan organizations (known as the Consejo ) in Chiapas for RAFI to go to Chiapas and to discuss their opposition to the ICBG-Maya project with them. Following meetings in Chiapas and in Mexico City, RAFI contacted the University of Georgia (UGA, Athens) to understand their perspective on local opposition to the bioprospecting agreement. Based on these discussions, especially UGA s refusal to stop the project and to participate in an open meeting on the issue in Chiapas, RAFI concluded that wider attention should be drawn to the situation. Accordingly, RAFI s December 1st news release quoted the parties involved at considerable length in order that their concerns could be heard. Somewhat uncharacteristically, RAFI avoided extensive editorializing. The news release did bring this important concern into the open. Whether the end result sheds more light or just more heat remains to be seen. Certainly, the Chiapas case does rekindle wider issues related to bioprospecting/biopiracy. It also gives us a chance to review our own policies and positions Underlying any initiative to commercialize genetic material and local knowledge are legitimate ethical and practical considerations regarding ownership and control. These days, commercialization presumes exclusive intellectual property monopoly over end products and/or processes. Many individuals and communities have moral or religious objections to patents on life. Many are also opposed to genetic engineering. These concerns must be respected and addressed directly in any prospecting negotiation. In our experience, the full evaluation of these issues is a long community-wide process that is almost always dealt with inadequately. In the absence of effective protocols and regulatory procedures, neither national governments nor intergovernmental treaties can guarantee the integrity of any bioprospecting contract. The 10-20 year timeline involved in commercializing biomaterials compounded by the rapid turnover in corporate identities through acquisitions and divestitures exacerbates the regulatory scene enormously. For these reasons, we believe that unless, and until functioning mechanisms are in place, all bioprospecting agreements jeopardize the right and interests of local communities. For more than 22 years, RAFI has held the position that exclusive monopoly intellectual property over products and processes constrain innovation and disenfranchise society. RAFI does not believe that there exists any adequate mechanism including the Biodiversity Convention capable of safeguarding the rights and interests of local communities. Therefore, without impugning the goodwill or honourable intentions of anyone, RAFI regards all bioprospecting agreements to be biopiracy. Nevertheless, we acknowledge the right of indigenous and local communities and nations to reach their own conclusions on these issues. In the Chiapas case, there may be no lack of goodwill or sincerity, but despite their desire to do otherwise the project s partners have fallen victim to the anthropogenic syndrome wherein even anthropologists (who usually know better) delude themselves into thinking that it is their lot in life to set the rules of engagement. In Mexico, the disease is compounded by acute commerciogenic kleptomania as biotech companies prepare to survey the intellectual and genetic wealth of one of the world s most diverse environments. Undoubtedly, many misunderstandings might be resolvable - but it is unlikely that this particular initiative can be salvaged. The logical diagnosis is to take the patient off life-support and let it die. The e-mail debate that has raged over the past several days swirls around six points 1.The Contract: It is important to keep in mind why the ICBG project was funded. This is essentially a U.S. Government initiative to identify, patent, and commercialize Mayan knowledge and biological materials - at least in part - through a private biopharmaceutical enterprise. For this purpose, a U.S. University has been contracted to develop a project relationship with Mexican officials and Mayan communities that will make the extraction and privatization of some of their knowledge/resources mutually acceptable. None of this precludes other positive motivations or benefits, such as biodiversity conservation and sustainable economic development, but the project would not exist without the end goal of commercial exploitation. 2. PIC-NIC: The U.S. Government (the NIH s ICBG initiative) and other commercial partners in the project contracted with the University of Georgia (whose project leader has a long and credible history of work in Chiapas). UGA offered the experience and acceptance necessary to obtain the cooperation of Mexican and Mayan authorities. The ICBG is now in its second year however, and it still faces serious local opposition. A significant number of credible local organizations in Chiapas (the original 11 members of the Consejo have been joined by 13 other local organizations and coalitions including ARIC, the Chiapas chapter of UNORCA , representatives of the Global Confederation Via Campesina), have denounced the project. According to ICBG-Maya a few local communities appear to have accepted the project. There is not a consensus among the peoples of Chiapas that the project should proceed. The project organizers, rather than accepting what should amount to a veto, say they need more time to convince people. They seem unclear as to when those who are sought for their Prior Informed Consent (PIC) have the right to declare NIC No Intention of Consenting. 3. 'Common' Knowledge: The issue of who constitutes no or yes is critical since the University of Georgia has stated that it is willing to begin collecting even if only some of the communities agree. Georgia has stated that it would nevertheless be open to sharing the benefits of the project with those communities that refuse to participate. Although this is undoubtedly intended as a generous act, it misses the fact that the target knowledge and biological resources to be collected and commercialized derive from all of the communities. Unless all agree, some will have their rights violated. Theoretically, the agreement of even one community could legally allow the project to privatize the knowledge/resources of all of the communities. Again, the question is what share of the Chiapas communities makes this project acceptable and who makes that evaluation? 4. Collections: There has been much debate as to whether the ICBG has or has not - begun collecting. First RAFI was told that not a single plant had been gathered. Then we were told that ECOSUR (the ICBG s partner institution in Mexico) had begun collecting, but for other purposes or projects. Now we are told that 'botanical collecting' for the ICBG-Maya has begun in four municipalities but no collections for 'bioassay analysis' have yet been initiated. These revised statements require immediate clarification. The confusion is harmful to good relations and undermines PIC. It appears that neither the ICBG - nor ECOSUR - have adequately defined the protocol or procedures that could ensure the integrity of Mayan material. 5. Closed Circus: A face-to-face meeting among the protagonists is necessary and possibly constructive. All parties concur that the Consejo has proposed such a meeting and that the ICBG has declined. In refusing, the ICBG partners have stated that an open public meeting would be a 'circus' and that they would prefer a private discussion between the ICBG and the Consejo (and possibly other Mayan communities?). Open encounters in a controversial environment are never fun. There are, however, three compelling reasons why the ICBG should agree to such a meeting. First, because the ICBG is seeking permission to do something and it should not pre-determine the conditions for negotiation. If the ICBG is not prepared to negotiate on local terms, it is not capable of conducting the project. Second, an open meeting is an 'equal opportunity' event that allows all parties to present their views and to demonstrate the level of support they have for their positions in Chiapas. Thirdly, the alternative an encounter that could later be characterized as a 'closed door' or 'secret' discussion, would be damaging to all sides. Indeed, at this juncture, only a public meeting would appear to serve everyone s interests. 6. Outside Influences: Chiapas has sparked the inevitable debate as to whether local communities are being manipulated by outside interests. The ICBG project partners have made this accusation of the Consejo. The Consejo has certainly accused the ICBG project of being dominated by outsiders. While many of the facts can be in dispute, some are commonly agreed upon. First, outsiders contractually control the ICBG Project. Second, when the project first introduced itself in Chiapas, members of the Consejo were approached to participate. Only after their refusal have some of the Consejo members been accused of being dominated by outsiders. These six points should not lead us to the conclusion that bioprospecting is forever impossible or that the vast knowledge and resources of indigenous and local communities must remain forever fortressed against the needs of humanity. The opposite is true. Traditionally, this knowledge is shared. Only the advent of patent privatization and monopoly has forced the closure to free exchange. If these traditions can be respected then there will be few constraints to bioprospecting. Our response has to be to ensure the moral, legal, and regulatory environment necessary for consenting peoples to share their wisdom honourably and equitably for the benefit of everyone. .