University of Nebraska - Lincoln DigitalCommons@University of Nebraska - Lincoln Environmental Studies Undergraduate Student Theses Environmental Studies Program Spring 5-2011 Understanding Bioprospecting: Can Indigenous Populations Benefit from the Search for Pharmaceuticals in Areas of High Biodiversity Emily Schwindt University of Nebraska-Lincoln Follow this and additional works at: https://digitalcommons.unl.edu/envstudtheses Part of the Agricultural and Resource Economics Commons, Biological and Physical Anthropology Commons, Environmental Health and Protection Commons, Ethnic Studies Commons, Natural Resource Economics Commons, Natural Resources and Conservation Commons, Natural Resources Management and Policy Commons, Other Environmental Sciences Commons, Place and Environment Commons, and the Sustainability Commons Disclaimer: The following thesis was produced in the Environmental Studies Program as a student senior capstone project. Schwindt, Emily, "Understanding Bioprospecting: Can Indigenous Populations Benefit from the Search for Pharmaceuticals in Areas of High Biodiversity" (2011). Environmental Studies Undergraduate Student Theses. 46. https://digitalcommons.unl.edu/envstudtheses/46 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Environmental Studies Program at DigitalCommons@University of Nebraska - Lincoln. It has been accepted for inclusion in Environmental Studies Undergraduate Student Theses by an authorized administrator of DigitalCommons@University of Nebraska - Lincoln. UNDERSTANDING BIOPROSPECTING: CAN INDIGENOUS POPULATIONS BENEFIT FROM THE SEARCH FOR PHARMACEUTICALS IN AREAS OF HIGH BIODIVERSITY? by Emily Schwindt AN UNDERGRADUATE THESIS Presented to the Faculty of The Environmental Studies Program at the University of Nebraska-Lincoln In Partial Fulfillment of Requirements For the Degree of Bachelor of Arts Major: Environmental Studies With the Emphasis of: Anthropology Under the Supervision of Dr. David Gosselin Lincoln, Nebraska May, 2011 1 Abstract Bioprospecting is a controversial issue, and anthropologists and other scientists are quick to take sides. The idea of large corporations pumping money into conservation and development programs, while developing what could be the latest life-saving drug simply sounds too good to be true, and often times is. However, if all parties work together and proceed with caution, these benefits could become more than a fantasy. Looking at case studies from Costa Rica, India, South Africa and Panama this paper attempts to find patterns among successful bioprospecting agreements and note shortcomings and identify risks. This information will be used to suggest how indigenous communities can maximize benefits while protecting their rights in bioprospecting relationships. 2 Introduction Biodiversity prospecting, or bioprospecting, is “the exploration of biological material for commercially-valuable genetic and biochemical properties” (Laird and Wynberg 2008). Bioprospecting is used by a number of industries, from cosmetics to agriculture to biotechnology. The focus of this thesis is on the role of bioprospecting in the pharmaceutical industry. Currently, a large number of drugs on the market require natural-compounds for their production. In fact, “a third of the products that comprise the US$ 200 billion plus prescription drug industry” (Onaga 2001) are naturally based compounds, meaning they came from plants, invertebrates, fungi or microorganisms. The majority of these compounds are found in areas of high biodiversity, such as rainforests or coral reefs, typically located in Third World countries along the equator or in the Southern Hemisphere, where a high concentration of remaining indigenous populations live. There is a long history of the wealthier northern hemisphere companies taking advantage of its neighbors in the South leading some anthropologists to wonder if bioprospecting is just another form of colonialism, or “bioimperialism” (Moran, King and Carlson 2001). Shiva (2007) argues that bioprospecting is simply a sophisticated form of “biopiracy”, a practice that “creates impoverishment within donor communities by claiming monopolies on resources… and forces communities to pay for what was originally theirs.” International agreements have been developed in recent years to protect the traditional knowledge of local peoples. The Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) has had a particular focus on the legal issues concerning bioprospecting (Kursar et al. 2006). According to Zedan (2005), “the Convention is the first international instrument to take a holistic view of the conservation of biological diversity by integrating ecological, social, and economic perspectives. 3 Indeed, the core bargain between the North and the South in the negotiation of the Convention is the South’s commitment to conserve biological diversity and the North's to share in the costs and benefits of sustainable use.” The CBD serves to ensure that developing countries benefit from the “exploitation of their genetic resources” (Zedan 2005). Pharmaceutical companies have an economic interest in protecting areas of high biodiversity, as these areas are most likely to produce the compounds that could be used in future drugs, and thus future profits for drug corporations. If proper regulations are in place, local indigenous people may also gain from benefit-sharing agreements and new technologies brought into the country from pharmaceutical companies and their profits. An example of a positive benefit-sharing approach is Merck’s contractual agreement with Costa Rica’s National Biodiversity Institute (INBio). Under the agreement, Merck paid $1 million over two years to INBio for the right to collect soil, insect and plant samples. INBio scientists process the samples before sending them to researchers at Merck, who then test the samples for chemical activity. “If INBio can create more jobs, profits, and a better-educated constituency by cataloging and selling rights to the country's natural resources than by destroying its resources, it makes economic sense to keep the resources intact” (Blum 1993). This approach has been fairly limited thus far, but could be modified for further research. In contrast to the success of INBio and Merck’s agreement, consultations between South Africa’s Council for Scientific & Industrial Research (CSIR) and the San of the Kalahari Desert, which is the oldest surviving ethnic group living in Southern Africa, paint a less rosy picture of bioprospecting. In the late 1990s, the CSIR began negotiations with US pharmaceutical giant Pfizer to commercialize the appetite suppressant qualities of a flowering, cactiform plant, Hoodia gordonii . This plant is important to the culture of the San and has been used traditionally for 4 thousands of years. The negotiations began without involving the San. The two parties did eventually sign a benefits-sharing agreement, although it is often met with criticism for limiting the San’s legal claim on Hoodia and providing little in terms of actual payout (Wynberg 2004). These two examples indicate that bioprospecting has potentially significant benefits to alleviate poverty and to protect areas of the world’s richest biodiversity. However, bioprospecting also can be viewed as just another way for the modern capitalist economy to exploit indigenous populations. The purpose of my thesis is to examine four specific cases from the literature and conduct a comparative analysis of the potential impact of bioprospecting on indigenous people and specifically address the degree to which prospectors have negotiated or have not negotiated with native peoples, how agreements have been forged, what role national governments played in the agreements, how native people have profited, and how profits have been used by native peoples. Materials and Methods The issue of bioprospecting and benefits-sharing is broad . To narrow the focus of this paper, four case studies were looked at in depth. These studies were chosen because they represented a spectrum of user/provider relationships and they each showed a unique approach and result. Studies from South Africa, Costa Rica, Panama and India were examined. These studies were readily available in the literature and provided different perspectives on the issue . The cases also show both positive and negative consequences from which suggestions will developed as to how future bioprospecting agreements can maximize benefits and minimize risks for local parties. The provider community is not indigenous in each example, though that is where the focus of the thesis lies. The current working definition provided by the UN states, “Indigenous 5 communities, peoples and nations are those which, having a historical continuity with pre- invasion and pre-colonial societies that developed on their territories, consider themselves distinct from other sectors of the societies now prevailing on those territories, or parts of them. They form at present non-dominant sectors of society and are determined to preserve, develop and transmit to future generations their ancestral territories, and their ethnic identity, as the basis of their continued existence as peoples, in accordance with their own cultural patterns, social institutions and legal system.” There are unique challenges that indigenous people face that other local communities may not, yet most of the successful relationships that appear in the literature did not involve indigenous populations. There may still be something to learn from