PUKUJ
BIOPIRACY IN CHIAPAS
(Part 4)
BIOTECHNOLOGY PROJECT ICBG-Maya
-CASE STUDY-

As a result of these observations on the text of the convention and the analysis of various declarations, we can sum up the denial by COMPITCH in 4 fundamental arguments:

a)      ABSENCE OF AN APPROPRIATE LEGAL FRAMEWORK.  Laws that consider strategic biodiversity resources do not exist; nor are there laws to regulate the authorization of biotechnological ends or that are concerned with the patenting of traditional knowledge.

b)      PRIOR AND INFORMED CONSENT. Indigenous communities have not been          consulted according to their customs and organization; neither have all the communities that share Mayan medicine been included; nor have they been sufficiently informed about the characteristics of this project.

c)      NEOLIBERAL PROJECT. Indigenous communities are not opposed to technological advances, but to the use of them through the use of patents in the neoliberal project that the Mexican government is promoting. They advocate for a humane logic for traditional medicine and reject the dynamic of the free market.

d)      ILLEGAL PROJECT. The farming communities consider ICBG-Maya to be illegal in the national and international normative framework, but above all because it does not rely on popular consent. Thus, they request an indefinite moratorium on the project.

OBSERVATIONS OF BRENT BERLIN

For his part, Brent Berlin, in his answer to RAFI, insists on justifying the continuation of the programs that he directs with the following arguments upon which we will comment:

            a) ONE ORGANIZATION CANNOT DECIDE. Brent Berlin rejects the leadership of COMPITCH. For him, the  municipal authorities represent the law; but the reality is that the law does not represent the communities. In addition, he supposes that the communities are subjects of the municipality and its authority, not the reverse of the mandar obedeciendo, that has been the demand of the indigenous communities. It is because in Chiapas there is a crisis in governance and authorities are ignored: the law of uses and customs governs, frequently manifested in popular organizations, in which agreements about communal property are often determined, and where the municipal president has no role.

That is not all, COMPITCH represents a union of communities, with the potential to attract other sectors to form a single fromt. From here its force and the large nuisance it signifies for ICBG-Maya, that which follows the same strategy to divide and conquer that has been used by the United states in its conquests of Latin America; for this reason, the union continues to be the largest challenge from a popular organization.

As a consequence, ICBG-Maya scorned social organizations and the population, and sided with the municipal and communal authorities- and only because they felt pressure. The result was a series of 41 community records, pertaining only to 14 municipalities from the areas of the Altos (highlands) and the Selva (jungle). However, in the Altos there are no less than 226 communities; and, there are another 3 655 in the Selva, 1 795 in the Frontera (frontier region), 1 239 in the Norte (north), and 830 in the Sierra (mountains), which are the principle areas of influence. Thus, there are 8 704 communities left to consult, that is, 99.53%; with more in the rest of the areas, the state, Latin America, and the world, if we consider it a matter of humanity that requires a consensus. Because it is not a matter of random sampling; even less if it is selective, manipulated, or misinformed: “We allow our plants to be taken” some farmers told them, “but not too many...” anyone see that they are ignorant about what is happening.

            b) BENEFITS FOR THE INDIGENOUS. Berlin reiterates that Program 3 for sustainable development is proof of the concern with the well-being of indigenous people. But we doubt his propositions and proceed to observe that only have been trying to  adjust the limits and conditions that they find in Mexican laws (in particular, we are referring to articulo 87-Bis de la Ley General de Equilibrio Ecologico y Proteccion al Ambiente, article 87- A of the General Law of Ecological Equilibrium and Protection of the Environment, SEMARNAP).

In addition, it appears that the doctor of anthropology ignores the values of Mayan cultures that do not correspond to the American dream of conquest of the strength and riches of the world; the benefits of the patents collides with the humane vision of the indigenous, who prefer a life that is communal and cooperative.

Equally, dependence on economic projects planned by ICBG-Maya, is not attractive for the autonomy that is being sought. In addition, the statement that persons and groups who decide to not participate in the project will receive equal benefits from PROMAYA is offensive to the most basic sense of justice and logic and provokes divisions between communities for reasons that are not necessary to explain. This arrangement promotes competition through price auctioning that always favours the buyer; in which the buyer can always go to another community and ask for a lower price than that offered by another group of indigenous people. In addition, ICBG sets the parameters of quality and quantity of production according to its convenience. They can say: That which we now want you cannot do, we will have to look for it elsewhere. Thus, PROMAYA is not susceptible to gaining supporters but rather desertions.

            c) ATTACHED TO THE LAW. All of the previous is more serious than it appears.  It also strikes at Article 27 of the Constitution, the article which promulgates communal strength, not division and competition. On the other hand, according to Article 33 of the Constitution: “Foreigners cannot interfere in the political matters of the country’. Meanwhile Berlin states that; “We have worked with the Instituto Nacional de Ecologia (National Institute of Ecology) and other institutions to move forward on the question of those laws.” (BERLIN, Answer to RAFI, Appendix C) In the meantime,  Mexicans continue to wait for an opportunity to enter into these matters which are their concern. Moreover, the monopolization of articles of necessary consumption, like medicinal plants, in the hands of a few, is a monopolistic practice subject to severe punishment by Mexican authorities according to Article 28 of the Constitution. However, he maintains that he has not violated the law.

Certainly, all of those involved recognize that the laws on the matter are not sufficient, above all in the area of regulations or procedures to enforce the little that is established. What we see here is another example of adaptation within the the limits of the system, since the same laws that are used to defend rights to the environment are inscribed in the logic of the market, so that as soon as they prepare the conditions for the transfer of primary material in exchange for money that underdeveloped countries do not even control. This is what happens with the Biodiversity Convention, which is an eminently neoliberal treaty.  Close scrutiny of the treaty is required in order to find the paragraphs that grant some rights; and the worst is that upon finding them and trying to utilize them for a proper defence, legitimates a convention that we do not even want since it violates the economies of the third world.

The same occurs with the Constitution of Mexico. Upon seizing the necessary parts, the rest is set aside, much of which is contradictory. Article 28 establishes, for example, that there will not be monopolies that exclusively favour one sector or include one social class in products of necessary consumption; but after excluding intellectual property. Equally, Article 27 says that the nation will allocate resources for the best advantage of Mexicans. However, the following article does not say that biological resources are strategic for the country, nor that they are considered part of necessary consumption. For these reasons, the legal defence of indigenous rights, or those of other sectors of Mexican society, are at a large disadvantage. That which is at stake is a new constituent body , and that which is needed is a moratorium on all international agreements. But, we believe that this will not happen without a heightened political awareness and an increase in participation by citizens- the constant challenge.

On the other hand, Brent Berlin cannot- or does not want to- see that the Mexican government has pending issues, like the San Andres Accords, that are waiting to be addressed within the national legal framework. These changes put on hold a significant quantity of laws and articles on indigenous matters, starting with the Magna Carta. In addition, municipal constitutions are in doubt since they are the product of electoral fraud and are rejected by the majority of indigenous people. The same can be said for the majority of governors, deputies, senators, and the president of the republic, who do not represent the interests of the population and who are illegal. The laws that exist, the authorities, and therefore this project, are all illegal. This is reality in Chiapas.

OBSERVATIONS BY RAFI

The Rural Advancement Foundation International (RAFI) analized this case and found 6 principal points of controversy that help deepen our understanding of this project (Cfr. RAFI; Reflections on the dispute over Bioprospecting in Chiapas; www.RAFI.org, December 22, 1999). We comment on them as follows:

            1) THE CONTRACT: The project would not exist without its commercial objective. -What RAFI means to say is that the supposed objectives of economic growth, protection of biodiversity, respect fo national sovereignty and the autonomy of indigenous people, or the discovery of medicines, are only part of a guise given to the project in response to the demands of environmental groups and indigenous communities. The real purpose is to generate wealth through the commercialization of biotechnological products- products which human necessity has not required.

The program for the discovery and sale of pharmaceuticals will dispense with the other two if it can. The logic of the market guides the economic system both normatively and ideologically. Moreover, when has the United States been seen to unselfishly concern itself with the others? They have always stolen Mexican sovereignty, along with its natural resources, territory, and labour. The relationship has also been characterized by the flight of brains and money, along with the imposition of its market structure, capitalist ideology, and laws. What we are talking about is Yankee imperialism.

            2) PIC-NIC: No intention of Consent- One of the most debated aspects of this process is the necessity of Previous and Informed Consent (PIC) for biotechnology projects. PIC is demanded by indigenous organizations and stipulated in the Convention on Biological Biodiversity. For this reason it has been previewed in the planning of ICBG. However, has resulted trial by fire: the majority of the population is not informed, or not to the extent that they should be, and included radically oppose the project. In spite of this, he has wanted to insist on convincing the population, without hearing that there is no intention to give consent amongst the majority of indigenous people who project a resounding no.

Nevertheless, Brent Berlin began the collections ignoring  the sentiments of the people and stating: “We will continue making our plans as transparent as possible” (BERLIN, Response to RAFI, Appendix C). Acts demonstrate that this transparency is not match the kind and amount that indigenous people demand. Only when there was a scandal did Berlin become concerned with informing and broadcasting, and with previous consent. The truth is that collection started in May of 1999, and only after were there records of agreement, diffusion, and proposals for creating a legal framework, and not precisely por su gusto y iniciativa. Then, they did the reverse: “The process being developed is in agreement with the direct lines of the department of health of the United States and with the Committee of Human Aspects of the University of Georgia.”

            3) “COMMUNAL” KNOWLEDGE: All or nobody.- RAFI comments that, if one community refuses to participate in this project, then, this is sufficient for it to amount to a theft of their rights, since the knowlege comes from all the communities. But that is not important to ..., the University of Georgia starts this project of biological appropriation even though only some communities accept it, thus in the legal framework enough than one participates to enajenar/enrage the others. And then RAFI asks the obligatory questions, How many communities should accept for the project to proceed? And who decides?

These questions appear impossible to respond to before the planned ends. Perhaps in our contemporary culture democracy will answer both: the will of the majoirty is the adequate number and the decision. Nonetheless, democracy does not function here for two reasons: First, because democracy extends to the other prehipsanic cultures that possess the same knowledge, reaching between the indigenous people of other continents and including the entire globe terraqueo- because biological resources are a benefit that always has been shared by humanity-. And secondly, because indigenouis people value community from each individual: community does not advance over anyone, no one advances above the community, proceed by consensus; so both democracy and individualism are accustomed to being inappropriate in indigenous culture, but ICBG is looking to divide this unity.

It is that they have always advanced as a group/people, and thanks to this unity, they have survived for centuries. It is necessary to give a thousand steps forward to leave underdevelopment? Each will give one. There is not who gives all, and how happens with the heroes of success in the competitive culture of the United States- imposed in our country-, where one advances to the detriment of another, and democracy advances at the cost of minoirties; where community is not respected, nor the individual, because capitalist culture people do not matter. Indigenous people are accustomed, then, to sharing, demonstrating a culture more civilized that the barbarism of modern technology; because science, competition and individualism perhaps present us with better products, empero not better persons or environment. Thus, indigenous culture is not being respected.

            4) COLLECTION OF MATERIAL. Inconsistent information. - At least three different versions about the collection of material have so far been offered. First it was said that they had not taken a single plant. Then, they had collected some plants in four municipalities, but for other projects. Then finally, that yes, the collections were by ICBG-Maya, but not with biotechnological ends but to enrich herbarios. In total, no matter how, the project is underway. Thus, one worries about the falsity and lack of transparency with which they are running things, then even though one of the three affirmations were true, the other two were not.

And they do not conform, we believe that the three statements are false, since the biotechnological ends start since the researcher directed toward the community although only is to recognize the place; and although by some artifice of thought we could check that the collections are not for such a thing, of whichever manner, we repeat, the project began when the entire project is in en tela de juicio, not just one of the programs. In addition, it is not necessary that the collections are with scientific ends in order that the communities have a right to reject or accept a project; in such a manner that they simply could say we do not want to.

They also affirmed that they had authorization from the communities for the collections that were started in May of 1999: “The botanical collections started in four municipalities (with the permission of the municipal and communal presidents); (...) we have started certain scientific collections (...), all with the permission of the municipality and the local proprietarios.” (BERLIN, Response to RAFI), when the report of 41 records indicate that the first permission was given on April 13, 2000, in the community of Madronal, municipality of Amatenango del Valle. The rest pertain to the municipalities of Cancuc, Chamula, Chalchihuitan, Chanal, Chenalho, Chilon, Huixtan, Las Margaritas, Mitontic, Ocosingo, Oxchuc, Tenejapa and Teopisca. (COMPITCH, report on Municipalities, Communities and Dates).

            5) CLOSED CIRCUS/CIRCUIT?: ICBG rejects public debate.- COMPITCH requested that the project be presented at an open forum with authorities, academics, and civil society in general, but, ICBG-Maya has refused, arguing that it would be chaos and preferring bilateral meetings behind closed doors. Openness would be everything to light. RAFI observes that this rejection is incorrect because they are requesting permission and should not put conditions on negotiations; and because an open meeting permits the display/explanation/exposure of the positions found in order to measure social forces of support, while to stones and mud , not only end up harmed. COMPITCH, also ICBG-Maya, although certainly less, for this reason propose this.

There is not much to add to this, in reality one could not wait for other things from ICBG. An open meeting would mean unifying that which has been dividing to overcome resistance; and would leave discovered that which they are doing and telling the communities. Moreover, accurate opinions at the heart of the project would not be missing- while the means of communication listening-, and the communities would discover many disadvantages that they have not been permitted to see because of the closed doors. For this reason, ICBG prefers to negotiate in secret. If they were secure/trust-worthy, they would be the first to call everyone together.

            6) FOREIGN INFLUENCES: Rejection of mestizos.-COMPITCH has made known, and we have confirmed, that the ICBG-Maya project is sustained by foreign interests. For its part, Berlin’s trench repudiates non-indigenous consultants from COMPITCH for as long as it is decided to not participate.

The rejection by ICBG of intervention by campesino (farmer) organizations results in an illusion, being that these impose themselves in practice over constitutional authorities, representing indigenous interests, uses, and customs, establishing territories that exceed municipal limits, transplanting them on occasion, or including creating them for specific occasions; for that which extranaria that at the root of this problem emerges a kind of front or coalicion against foreign interference- to that which at its time would be a big incumbrencia Zapatista revolutionary.

For this, the claim by the organization of curanderos about the right that, above them, have for control knowledge, is not the same as if the organization of doctors from the United States claims the right to control information on the health of people of the United States, as Berlin states.