A Successful Model of Bioprospecting

Features

Bioprospecting

          

The International Collaborative Biodiversity Groups: Panama Bioprospecting Agreement

            The ICBG, as mentioned before, is a jointly sponsored organization. They have come under scrutiny for some of their other projects, but the project they manage in Panama has been localized, thus providing benefits to the Panamanian government, government sponsored research funds, and local indigenous knowledge.

          

           The ICBG is an American organization, so even though they have localized the knowledge and practices, there is still an outsider presence. The biological focus of the work there is on young plants with hearty chemical defense mechanisms. Locally trained, resident botanists collect the biological samples. There is a list of 600 species cleared by the Panama government, and all of them are processed fresh and locally in Panama. Most bioprospectors export the collected materials back to the United States or other developed countries, but thanks to a contract negotiated by principal investigators (PIs), the Panama case is unique in its locality.

            This is made possible and rational by the unique approach that the PIs are taking. They emphasize the respect of ecology in determining safe and responsible practices. This is one reason why this example also falls nicely into the political ecology framework; it actually values the ecological scale of researching and negotiating policy. Processing the samples locally keeps the potency of the samples higher, and it keeps the work localized. This satisfies many opponents of the work, because it legitimizes the organization's commitment to revitalizing the communities by providing work. Also, it ensures that processing and extractive processes aren't too harmful to the environment; the people processing are able to see how samples are collected, too. Also, the community is able to claim the work that they do with pride and authority. Instead of being bystanders to the work of other scientists, they have employed their own people to do the scientific studies. This has garnered substantial media attention, and has encouraged subsequent investment from outsider sources.

            The economics of bioprospecting in Panama are complicated and unique because they favor the host country and conservation. Usually, economic agreements favor the corporations that sponsor the research, and provide some support to the host country secondarily. The division of money was the most obvious divergence from previous frameworks. When money came into Panama, it is split three ways. 30% go to an environmental Panamanian trust fund. 20% go to the Panama national parks authority. The remaining 50% is split equally between groups who have chosen to be part of the economic 'club'. Ideally, any new members who want to join this club do so painlessly and then the pot is divided equally. One of the members of this group is a sponsor organization from the US, but they receive no more money than the Panamanian research organizations.

            Since research is kept local, sophisticated infrastructure has been developed to support scientific advances, leading to international students coming to study conservation biology. The capacity to process samples on-site also gives Panama higher standing as a valuable location, rather than just a source for raw materials. Astrid Scholz, a lead researcher in bioprospecting, realized the problem of most bioprospecting agreements that send raw materials off-site:

            The lack of key technologies is both caused by and perpetuates the               perceived backwardness of a country. It is by countering these                      dynamics that the actors involved in crafting multilateral agreements             such as the Panamanian ICBG can have real impact on framing the            global management of biodiversity. Scholz 232 

            Positive benefit-sharing helps the host country economically and changes the image of the host country. This has far reaching consequences, for it can garner technological and scientific economic investment in the future, promoting a 'forward-looking' image.

            In the Panama example, the localization of processing led to increased political and economic support. However, there are some outsiders who still see the example as colonialistic and paternalistic. This raises the question of whether or not a bioprospecting agreement can ever be free of colonialist associations and implications. Inherently, the role of the US in facilitating and initiating research in Panama is reminiscent of imperialistic, raw-material exploiting relationships of colonialism. However, the PI's in Panama made concerted efforts to communicate with local communities such as the Naso. Instead of being involved directly with the collection processes, the Naso community chose to have support of their shaman apprenticeship program, which provides health care to remote communities. In this instance, the group is concerned with preserving their local knowledge. In many ICBG cases, opponents have criticized the lack of indigenous knowledge respect. By allowing the Naso to not participate directly in the research, but still offering them economic funds for their own knowledge preservation, the Panama project demonstrates an ongoing commitment to aiding local communities.

 

            Perhaps it is impossible to free bioprospecting agreements of colonialist associations, but the Panama case has surely tried to overcome those attacks. By including indigenous knowledge respectfully, not forcibly, encouraging local scientific development, and splitting economic profits equally among all invested parties, the Panama case certainly holds weight as a positive model of bioprospecting agreements.

          The model was successful even without immense pressure from local communities, showing that successful models, in the eyes of outsiders at least, can be implemented by power holders from the research institution. By arranging the transfer of local knowledge to a global application, scientists and negotiators are crossing scale and influencing the future of global science. Bioprospecting agreements therefore have implications beyond their individual cases and into the understanding of scales of knowledge.

 

Macalester College · 1600 Grand Avenue, St. Paul, MN 55105  USA · 651-696-6000
Comments and questions to egordon@macalester.edu