THE PLOT. In previous bulletins, we have said that this project is foreign to the indigenous people of Mexico, since it was made up by the government of the United States. Only in these exclusive conditions could ICBG establish for ICBG-Maya the following: “The parties, before distributing any funds, will establish agreements on (Cfr. ICBG, loc. cit. p. 44):

a)      a procedure for sharing royalties (...);

b)      the criteria for deciding who will own inventions;

c)      responsibility for registration and the process for patenting and other forms of intellectual property.”

Of course, none of the above falls within the agreement on intellectual property. However, it is clear that ECOSUR also signed and consented to this project, to the detriment of indigenous persons and national sovereignty. It entered into negotiations at a disadvantage: ECOSUR before two powerful allies. With just reason, a large number of researchers who work in this academic center have seen ethics and justice disappear and cannot help but adopt a tone of indignation.

If the reader returns to point 10 of this chapter, relating to the Convention, he/she will notice in point (f) that clause XXI (the last one) establishes that this contract will not terminate until the three parties consent. The reader would be correct in thinking that PROMAYA is already surpassing itself. The alliance of the imperialists should be emphasized: for the most part, they can modify things in their favor when it is convenient  without Mexico being able to stop them. Thus, they will have obtained primary material, laboratory analysis, information, inventions, technology, biotechnology businesses, control of the market and even subsidies from their governments. Meanwhile Mexicans, waiting for the above-mentioned royalties, will be compelled to sell their very last resource.

BELEM DECLARATION. We do not know whether Brent Berlin ignored Mexican laws. He certainly does not ignore the rules of the Belem Declaration which he cited in his answer to RAFI: there it is established that the Principio de la Propia Determinación of indigenous persons consists of:

a)      control of land and territory;

b)      the right to sacred locations;

c)      the right to possess and determine the use, authorization, protection and compensation for their knowledge;

d)      the right to access traditional resources;

e)      the right to preserve and protect local languages, symbols and modes of expression;

f)        the right of indigenous persons to define themselves.

The creation of the project and PROMAYA by the government of the United States, as well as the establishment of the criteria of organization, representation, and distribution of benefits from ICBG, violates the principles in points (c) and (f). Similarly, the rejection of territorial consensus in order to give priority to the owners of land, violates point (a). Brent Berlin comments on none of this.

STRENGTHENING THE ORGANIZATION. We believe that the experience with ICBG-Maya, rather than signifying lost time, has actually strengthened indigenous doctors. Now their organization is known all over the world and they have been introduced to new organizations that support them. In addition, they have demonstrated a capacity to present proposals and define their positions. They have needed to strengthen communication between communities and have initiated an information bulletin. They have become involved in and developed an understanding of the complex subject of biotechnology; and, are spreading the information amongst the indigenous peoples. Moreover, they are constructing an ideological identity that a large part of Mexicans do not possess... all, giving way to a development that is more comprehensively organized: medical-political-educational.

Expectations now are directed at the response by civil society and organizations, the Mexican government, international solidarity, and the emancipation of countries around international treaties that oppress them. This liberation will be as difficult as any that has come before; it does not appear possible to stop the technological and commercial onslaught. One need only observe the 5th Conference of the Parties to the Biodiversity Convention that took place in Nairobi, Kenya in May of 2000 (Cfr. GRAIN, El Convenio de Biodiversidad: Entran los Tecnócratas (The Biodiversity Convention: The Technocrats Enter); in Biodiversidad, N. 24, p. 30) where the technocrats occupied all of the space. Nevertheless, the disastrous results of biotechnology perhaps makes way for a political revision in this area.

THE PROPOSAL OF COMPITCH: INFORMATION, ANALYSIS AND REFORM

COMPITCH decided to denounce the biopiracy of ICBG-Maya, and, did so with such vehemence that it succeeded in being heard in, at the least, the 150 countries that have signed the Biodiversity Convention (Propuesta de Acción para Crear un Marco Legal y Etico para el Acceso a la Biodiversidad/ Proposal for Action to Create a Legal and Ethical Framework for Access to Biodiversity). Indigenous people became aware of the fraud being done to them. ECOSUR’s own researchers began to reject the project. Large farmer organizations gave their support to COMPITCH.  In the face of all this, ICBG began to weaken. It sought a truce and sought a time-out: It requested that the parties cease speaking badly about one another in order to clear the way for dialogue and to enable the parties to clear away the obstacles to project Maya. They then met at what they called the Mesa de Negociación Tripartita (MNT), (Tripartite Table of Negotiation), on May 12th. And, they formed a Comisión Técnica de Trabajo (CTT) in order to bring about the actions entrusted/ commended by the said Table. COMPITCH presented the first proposal on May 29th: 

We want, they said, that the communities are well-informed of what will take place with this project. In addition, we require the establishment of the necessary laws and rules so that indigenous cultures can protect their biological resources from bio-prospecting projects.

They went on to say, we propose workshops in all the communities at which international treaties in favor of biodiversity and the experiences that other third world countries have had due to biotechnology business can be analyzed. In addition, other laws that serve as references can be studied so that together we can begin to formulate how we want these matters regulated. In addition, there should be public research forums at which academic documents and public opinion should be taken into account so that the perspective can be adapted to indigenous understanding. At that point, we can tell SEMARNAP how proposals for just laws and democratic processes can be made.

Then, they affirmed, when we have a law that favors Mexicans, we can adjust the project ICBG-Maya so that the communities can revise it anew if they consider it necessary. Only then, they concluded, can one proceed to grant permission for the collections. This proposal by COMPITCH circulated amongst many hands in a short time.

COUNTERPROPOSAL BY ICBG-MAYA: TRAINING, INFORMATION AND CONSENT...

...but none of the amendments. The members of ICBG-Maya said with certainty, “They want information, new laws and a new project; all of it cannot be done” (ICBG-Maya, Proposal of ECOSUR/ICBG-Maya, in Relation to the Proposal Presented by COMPITCH). After a few days, ICBG-Maya presented to COMPITCH a more elaborate counterproposal- thanks to a consultant from CONABIO-, with much form but little substance; limited to informing, without concluding in a proposal of law or in modifications to the project. Thus, the counterproposal was three times larger, but three times less substantial:

We propose, first, a workshop at ECOSUR locations, with people from both sides, where we will analyze what information will pass to the communities, and where it will be possible to propose the procedures necessary for the communities to give us consent for the project. We will leave from this workshop with a script for broadcasting by radio, with proposals for pamphlets, and with the contents and procedures for our information visits to the communities.

After the workshops, we will visit communities, although not all communities, only 10: 5 that have accepted ICBG-Maya, and 5 from COMPITCH that are not familiar with the project. We will inform them about that which we agreed in the workshop so that they can weigh the information and make a decision, and, make suggestions about legislation. Meanwhile, we will broadcast by radio as much as possible about what will be happening. We will organize a public forum; but not until November, 6 months later.

COMPITCH received ICBG-Maya’s plan and suggested that both proposals be brought to the bases to be analyzed for a period of 60 days during the following 3 months. This was the 19th of June.

OUTCOME: THE PROCESS OF SEPARATION

Finally, both sides have begun a process of separation. Considering their respective public announcements on this controversy, they are not respecting the agreement to have a verbal truce and both manipulate information.

For its part, the government informed the first Table of Tripartite Negotiations that since the past May 11th, an inter-institutional commission formed by SEMARNAP, INE, CONABIO and the Procudaduría Federal de Protección al Ambiente, meets and is preparing a proposal of law- al vapor y sobre las rodillas, without taking into account the proposal  of COMPITCH on the subject.

The first draft, prepared by the deputy of the Partido Acción Nacional (PAN) (National Action Party), is an index of the national and international legal context, and established terms to regulate the control of biological resources, which shows his accommodation to the neoliberal model insofar as it alludes to cross-border commercialization. (Cfr. Fernando CASTELLANOS, Iniciativa de Ley en Bioseguridad).

Faced with this situation, apparently each side will proceed according to their own interests: the government will prepare their law; ICBG-Maya will continue with the project in any way they can; and, COMPITCH will openly voice its disagreement, look for support from popular and non-governmental organizations to denounce biopiracy, inform the communities, and organize a front of action against all of this.

This is how things stand; this case study is but another example of how technology and many highly academic steps can have useless and undesirable results when they are used to damage society. The knowledge and wisdom of traditional cultures is of broader scope than that of those who consider the people of these cultures to be illiterate, ignorant, or lacking in education. Certainly, this is how indigenous persons have been viewed in this project; they are deemed to merit no more than 0.25% for everything, while the technocrats who are destroying humanity receive the profits that we will not scrutinize more.

CONCLUSIONS

We confirm now in the following list of 50 reasons our total rejection of this project. No doubt, the list will be made even longer by the people who are even more involved.

a) 50 Reasons to Reject the ICBG-Maya Project

1. It was made without the participation of Mexicans.

2. The United States and the United Kingdom have never been honest in their relations with Mexico.

3. Its objects are profit, not the development of the poorest countries.

4. Biodiversity is a strategic national resource that we should not squander.

5. Mexico is at a disadvantage compared to the other two parties.

6. Mexico does not have the same access to technology.

7. Biotechnology corporations will benefit the most of everyone.

8. Brent Berlin lacks professional training for a project of this kind in Mexico.

9. Mexico subsidizes the government of the United States with the salaries of their researchers.

10. The salaries of the foreigners are an insult to the poor farmer.

11. The territory where they are collecting plants is larger than that planned for in the project.

12. They are not respecting existing indigenous organizations.

13. With PROMAYA, indigenous people lose their right to organize themselves on their own terms.

14. The convention on intellectual property does not take into account the communities.

15. Indigenous people reject intellectual property and its commercial abuse.

16. Natural resources should not be privatized because they are the property of humanity.

17. ICBG-Maya does not respect the agreements and proceeds however it decides to.

18. The project began without an adequate legal framework.

19. Information about the project is always late, false, and manipulated.

20. National and international laws in biodiversity materials are being violated.

21. The Mexican government acted in complicity against Mexicans.

22. Foreigners who are intervening in political points in Mexico are violating the law.

23. The benefits offered to indigenous people are uncertain, and can be delayed up to 20 years.

24. The distribution that is being created is unjust and unequal.

25. Capitalist values of competition, individualism, consumption, etcetera are being promoted.

26. Divisions of communities and their territory are being fostered.

27. The neoliberal market system is being introduced and is putting communities at a disadvantage.

28. No one can confirm that the information from research is complete or true.

29. PROMAYA is at a disadvantage in negotiations with the 3 parties of ICBG-Maya.

30. Indigenous people do not control PROMAYA.

31. The development of the region is dependent on ICBG-Maya.

32. The small gains that would be achieved will not even reach 1 226 communities.

33. Municipalities that are not from the Altos (Highlands) will not share in the gains.

34. The project helps the neoliberal system become established in Mexico.

35. Indigenous uses and customs are not being respected.

36. The appropriation of patents is a theft of the vital resources of the communities.

37. ICBG-Maya refuses to make the discussion public.

38. Pending matters like the San Andres accords are ignored.

39. ICBG-Maya refuses to allow the communities to modify the project.

40. The proposal of workshops by ICBG-Maya is only to get permission for collection.

41. They confirm that they will continue to proceed with the project while indigenous people are being convinced.

42. A proposed law is being prepared without taking into account the opinion of indigenous people.

43. Mexico cannot retire from the convention without the consent of all other parties.

44. The triumph of ICBG-Maya signifies a defeat and a step back for the indigenous struggle.

45. It was agreed that the United States will keep all of the information.

46. A fiduciary fund will be given to the indigenous persons; that is to say, conditional and on credit.

47. The United States has not signed the Convention on Biological Biodiversity.

48. The project is rejected by the majority of farmer organizations in Chiapas.

49. The payment to the campesinos for their collaboration, will be discounted by royalties.

50. Indigenous knowledge is not taken into account in the royalties, only the plants.

b. Looking for Alternatives

We believe that the problems that arise from the ICBG-Maya project should be confronted with proposals like that from COMPITCH, coming from the grassroots level and made in open consultation with civil society, academics, and indigenous, farmer, and non-governmental organizations. Thus, we cannot venture on our own to propose solutions to this case; these must come from popular analysis. All that we can offer are ideas to contribute to this way of resolving the problems; the majority of which have already been clearly set out.

For example, these ideas have been developed in information and analysis workshops. However, the ongoing problem is how, with what human and other resources, to support this process. These activities require many hours of work and contact with the communities; while the majority of civil organizations have their time assigned to other activities and their work base and resources are limited. Perhaps this is a good opportunity to integrate little by little more organizations into this common project to defend biodiversity and sovereignty. Answers to these problems will be easier to achieve if we rely on our ingenuity, creativity, and dialogue.

Some questions that can be reflected upon include: How many disadvantages can you add to the list of 50? Which of the 50 reasons seems most important? How many times greater is the income of a single biotechnology business than of an entire community? What changes should be made to the convention? What do you propose for a law about access to natural resources?

Note: This study came about thanks to the collaboration of the Red Mexicana de Acción Frente al Libre Comercio (RMALC), the Centro de Investigaciones Económicas y Políticas de Acción Comunitaria (CIEPAC), and the Consejo Estatal de Organizaciones de Médicos y Parteras Indígenas Tradicionales de Chiapas (COMPITCH). Soon you will be able to find a complete version of this study on our web page.