Many
people working at a grassroots level feel
the debate about protecting land, rights
and resources is getting beyond them,
especially when the talk turns to
international conventions, national
legislation and legalistic concepts. Here
are some perspectives that bring the
legal and ethical implications of
ethnobiology down to earth, with
practical suggestions for local
communities, conservationists and
researchers. -GJM
Resources:
Research Agreements
The technologies, expertise
and changes in thinking resulting from
biodiversity prospecting will likely far
outweigh in importance the commercial
revenues. What this means is that a great
deal more attention must be paid to the
R&D [research and development] phase
of biodiversity prospecting relative to
the commercial phase. Although the
appropriate commercial relationships must
be in place, a research relationship
reflecting the best possible terms for
local communities must be established
long before commercialization.
Tropical country research institutes and
conservation projects have long
collaborated with outside scientists, and
have relied heavily on their expertise to
develop [a] research and knowledge base,
and management plans for conserved areas.
Tropical countries will continue to
depend upon outside expertise, but
increasingly this will be done on terms
set by tropical country institutions. In
order to set out these terms, research
agreements must be put in place which
clearly outline the responsibilities and
expectations of each party. The point is
not to burden researchers with
unnecessary bureaucracy, or to tax
research programmes to the point that
they cannot function. Rather, it is to
create a framework in which all research
whether academic or commercial
contributes in some way to
conservation and development activities
in the areas in which it takes place, and
to transfer the power to determine the
nature of these contributions from
researchers to local communities,
projects, research institutes or, in some
cases, governments. These two elements
form the basis of research agreements:
control by local projects and communities
over the nature of research projects, and
the use of resulting information, whether
commercial or academic (including the
choice not to commercialize); and the
contribution of research programmes to
the management costs or needs of
conserved areas, and the equitable return
of benefits to local projects and
communities from any commercial
activity.
It is important for conservation and
development projects to tackle the
implementation of research agreements as
a precursor to any biodiversity
prospecting-related programme. The manner
in which research is conducted within a
conserved area creates a framework of
community, project, or governmental
control over resource use which is often
carried over into commercial resource
use. If communities or other interested
parties are not consulted and do not have
control over the manner in which academic
research is conducted, then they are
unlikely to have any say in the extension
of this research into commercial areas,
or any control over the indirect
commercialization that often occurs
through academic publications, databases
and other forms of distribution common to
pure research.
From:
Laird, S.A. 1995. Fair Deals in the
Search for New Natural Products. WWF
Discussion Paper. WWF, Gland. One of
a number of WWF Discussion Papers on
biodiversity prospecting and
intellectual property rights, this
publication addresses the roles which
WWF and other conservation
organizations should play in the
exploration of biodiversity for
genetic and biochemical resources of
commercial value. It is available in
English and Spanish. Contact:
WWF-International, Avenue du Mont
Blanc, CH-1196 Gland, Switzerland;
Tel. +41.22.3649111, Fax
+41.22.3645358.
Back
Land:
Salvaging Nature
Conservationists who worry that
indigenous conservation systems will
break down with the failure of belief
systems may be focusing on the wrong
risk. The main threats will come from the
breakdown of community political systems,
systems of land tenure and rights
allocations. Certainly such systems
cannot be divorced from the peoples
beliefs and value systems but many
societies, notably those in Africa, show
a remarkable continuity in their
political and land management systems
after undergoing fundamental religious
conversions.
These conclusions may likewise be
relevant to progressive conservationists
and community development specialists who
have begun to step up their efforts to
secure indigenous resource management
systems in changed circumstances. These
attempts have, in general, focused
principally on technical innovations -
agroforestry systems, non-timber forest
product exploitation, etc. - or have
focused on the documentation of
indigenous knowledge systems. Their
efforts would be better directed towards
understanding the politics of community
resource management ...
It is time that conservationists began to
start their work in areas inhabited by
indigenous peoples from the assumption
that they are dealing with local people
with legitimate rights to the ownership
and control of their natural resources.
The creation of protected areas may not
be the most appropriate option in such
circumstances, as in most cases
indigenous ownership rights are denied by
protected area legislation. However,
there will be cases, especially in
countries which do not respect indigenous
tenure or traditions, where the creation
of protected areas may offer the only
legally available means of securing
indigenous occupancy and use rights, if
not ownership.
However, there is a risk that the
pendulum could swing too sharply the
other way, towards an assumption that
once an area is under indigenous
ownership and control the problem is
solved and that all indigenous systems of
land use are inherently sustainable. This
is patently not the case. Indeed, many
indigenous communities are fully aware of
the fact that as pressure on their lands
from outside intensifies and as their own
economies and social organization change
to accommodate their increasing
involvement in the market economy, they
need to elaborate new mechanisms to
control and use their resources.
Ecologists, social scientists, lawyers
and development advisors may have
relevant knowledge to contribute to such
indigenous communities to help them
achieve this transition. Their role,
however, is to act as advisers to
indigenous managers rather than as
directors of indigenous ventures.
In Amazonia, for example, the practice of
recruiting technical advisors to
indigenous organizations already has a
20-year history and has led to some
notable successes in securing lands
against outside intrusions. They have had
somewhat less success in promoting
verifiably sustainable
systems of resource management while
generating a surplus for the
market.
From:
Colchester, M. 1994. Salvaging
Nature: Indigenous Peoples, Protected
Areas and Biodiversity Conservation.
Discussion Paper DP55. UNRISD, Geneva
and WWF, Gland. Part of a series of
discussion papers that UNRISD began
to produce in 1987, this provocative
view of local people and protected
areas covers a broad range of issues,
ranging from the perspectives and
desires of local communities to the
history, politics, social impact and
future of conservation. It is
available in English and French.
Contact: United Nations Research
Institute for Social Development,
Palais des Nations, 1211 Geneva 10,
Switzerland; Tel. +41.22.7988400 or
7985850, Fax +41.22.7400791.
Back
Intellectual
Property Rights:
Gifts From Our
Creator
My community has become
particularly interested in the issues of
intellectual properties in the past three
years after the establishment of a Zuni
Community Seedbank and after recently
published books written by non-Zunis
described secret Zuni religious practices
...
The scholarly contributions to the
discussion of intellectual property
rights and indigenous knowledge (IK) are
very useful ... and I sincerely hope the
discussions will extend in all directions
to communities and governments. In my
community and in other indigenous
communities, property issues are gaining
attention. Because of these rapid changes
I worry that the valuable words I hear or
read in journals seem so far removed from
the feelings people have in their
villages. I wonder how I could explain to
my family and fellow tribal members what
these discussions are saying and what
they mean. The translations alone would
be difficult due to the esoteric nature
of property law language.
Writing from the perspective of a tribal
member, a practitioner of my religion and
culture of land use, I always find
discussions of intellectual property
rights both encouraging and
disappointing. I am encouraged that the
rights of native peoples IK is
reaching a higher profile albeit limited
to academic and legal forums. I am
equally disappointed in the increasing
distance between native peoples
voices and theorists and lawyers
...
However, indigenous people are changing
as they always have and many marginalized
people are developing and supporting
their own human resources capable of
interacting with outsiders. As we have
seen, the problem of affiliating IK with
western cultures terms of ownership
and protocols lies mainly in the
antiseptic environment of western law
which does not recognize indigenous terms
of ownership. It is a challenging
dilemma, but the problem is not
insurmountable.
Protecting indigenous peoples
cultures shouldnt necessarily be an
assumed obligation for social scientists
or anthropologists either. What many
native peoples agree on is protection of
their culture in a context they can
control and participate in. As indigenous
societies have been stating repeatedly,
what they need is empowerment and
recognition on a par with western
priorities and rules of conduct. What is
lacking in the effort to involve
indigenous peoples in the intellectual
property rights dialogue is grassroots
information and participation. We need to
learn more about the issues and our
options so we can decide the best course
of action for our communities. We have
our own people who have tremendous
potential to represent us appropriately,
who live in our villages and who can
begin a dialogue within and outside our
communities.
Our established systems of property need
to be seen on equal terms as those
assumed by plant geneticists, marketers
and others of industrialized cultures. As
indigenous groups learn to face problems
with more self-determination and
hopefully with more sovereignty, the
potential exists for our people to
negotiate paradigms among ourselves
before we negotiate with the outside ...
What I hope to see in a convention is an
acceptance of indigenous ownership values
... I believe if we de-emphasize any
cultures terms of ownership we
de-emphasize the entire concept of
ownership for everyone.
From:
Enote, J. 1995. Intellectual
properties and gifts from our
creator. The Common Property Resource
Digest 36:11-12. A quarterly
published for the International
Association for the Study of Common
Property by the Yale School of
Forestry and Environmental Studies,
the CPR Digest presents a forum for
discussion of theoretical and
practical topics concerning common
property resource management.
Contact: Editor, CPR Digest, Yale
School of Forestry and Environmental
Studies, 205 Prospect Street, New
Haven, CT 06511, USA; e-mail
cprdiges@minerva.cis.yale.edu To
contact the author: Jim Enote,
Project Leader, Zuni Conservation
Project, P.O. Box 339, Zuni, New
Mexico 87327, USA; e-mail jenote@aol.com
Back
Biodiversity
Prospecting: An
Effective Conservation Tool?
Biodiversity prospecting - the
search for economically valuable genetic
and chemical resources in nature - poses
several critical questions for the
conservation community. Most of these
questions revolve around whether active
exploration of these resources can and
will be done in a sustainable and
beneficial way.
Conservation is
closely tied to the ownership, control,
use and value of the habitat being
conserved. Bioprospecting will result in
conservation only if the people or
institutions who own or control these
environmental resources benefit from
prospecting to the extent that they are
willing to conserve rather than deplete
these resources for other purposes.
Hence, for bio-prospecting to be
successful as a conservation mechanism,
it will need to compete with other land
uses such as agriculture and cattle
grazing. Furthermore, simple compensation
schemes for nature-extracts can, in
certain cases, have a negative effect on
conservation: if resources are subject to
open access, monetary payments can result
in unsustainable harvesting and a decline
in biodiversity ...
For generations,
local peoples have used their knowledge
of plants and animals for curing
ailments. The current interest of
pharmaceutical companies in prospecting
for pharmacologically active compounds
can possibly both endanger and offer
potential economic gain to indigenous
peoples. The existence of an external
demand for biodiversity implies gains to
local users if economic rent can be
obtained for the use of local
environmental resources and the
traditional knowledge provided about
these resources. However, because of a
lack of well-established legal rights to
these resources, and because of
prevailing cultural and political
structures, commercial demand may be
detrimental to local peoples. For
instance, local knowledge of medicinal
plants could be utilized for identifying
natural extracts without appropriate
compensation.
In general, systems
of intellectual property rights (IPR) do
not offer protection to traditional
knowledge, nor is it clear that
establishing IPR regimes is the solution.
A plant or organism with medicinal
properties may have been discovered by
several different peoples in different
parts of the world at different time
periods, making it extremely difficult to
establish and reward rights
of discovery. Synthesis also complicates
this process by creating compounds that
are so far removed from the original
extracts that royalties and rights are
hard to claim. Furthermore, property
rights over traditional knowledge may be
inimical to certain cultures.
Prospecting could
also result in local peoples losing
future access to the resource in
question. Many communities around the
world are dependent on forest resources
for a variety of purposes. These
communities are likely to bear heavy
costs if bio-prospecting results in the
unsustainable harvesting of resources or
in the introduction of strict
conservation measures that restrict local
access.
There is a real
danger that future commercial gains from
pharmaceutical developments may never
trickle down to the community level.
There is, invariably, a period of several
years between the discovery of a
nature-based compound and the development
of commercially viable drugs based on the
discovery. The lack of immediate returns
makes it more difficult for local
peoples, who represent a single element
in a lengthy and complicated process, to
secure any benefits. Thus, renewed
interest in biological prospecting in the
pharmaceutical industry could result in
the further marginalization of local
peoples in tropical
countries.
From: Shyamsundar,
P. and G.K. Lanier. 1994.
Biodiversity prospecting: an
effective conservation tool? Tropical
Biodiversity 2(3):441-446. Tropical
Biodiversity, published by the
Indonesian Foundation for the
Advancement of Biological Sciences
(IFABS), appears three times a year.
It contains research articles,
research notes and short
communications on ecology,
systematics, biodiversity
conservation and related topics, with
a geographical focus on Southeast
Asia. Contact: Jatna Supriatna,
Editor-in-Chief, Tropical
Biodiversity, IFABS, Jl. Nusantara
174, Depok 16421 or P.O. Box 103,
Depok 16401, Indonesia.
Back
|