Indigenous Knowledge and Development
Monitor, March 1999 Indigenous Knowledge and Development
Monitor, March 1999
Contents IK Monitor (7-1) | IKDM Homepage | Suggestions to: ikdm@nuffic.nl | (c) copyright Nuffic-CIRAN and contributors 1999.
Ethnobotany, IPR and benefit-sharing: the Forest People's Fund in
Suriname
by Edward C. Green, Kenneth J. Goodman, and Martha Hare
The Forest People's Fund provides a concrete example of how local people who share their own knowledge can also share the benefits that accrue from that knowledge. The Fund is a mechanism by which the Maroons and Amerindians of Suriname receive 'up-front' compensation and will share in a pharmaceutical company's future earnings from new drugs found with their help. It could serve as a model for the compensation of intellectual property rights, and help to secure a legal status for indigenous knowledge.
The issues involved in
securing a legal status for indigenous knowledge and compensating 'tribal'
people for that knowledge are highly complex (Laird 1993; Greaves 1994). There
is no consensus among anthropologists and others who work with indigenous people
on how this can be achieved. Some argue that any compensation or
'benefit-sharing' flowing from the legal recognition of intellectual
property rights (IPR) would actually be a new--legal--form of colonization or
'biopiracy', or that it is detrimental to tribal people in other ways. 1
Others hold that, whatever its limitations, IPR is an important legal
instrument by which indigenous people can be protected from exploitation
(for overviews, see Greaves 1994; Brush and Stabinsky 1996; FSI &
Kothari 1997; IUCN 1997).
In the present context, IPR encompasses what
the Convention on Biological Diversity referred to as the 'knowledge,
innovations and practices' (UNEP 1992) of indigenous peoples, but which
scientists-- and increasingly international development specialists as
well--call indigenous knowledge systems. The Inter-Commission Task Force on
Indigenous Peoples provided the following definition:
One prominent arena in which IKS, IPR, and compensation or
benefit-sharing arise is in the ethnobotanical search for new drugs in rain
forests. The key issues here are: How can the cooperation of indigenous
groups in bioprospecting be secured? How should royalties be shared with
entire tribal societies? Should compensation be given directly to the
indigenous healers whose medical knowledge leads to profitable new drugs?
What if no commercially successful new drug can be developed? How can
benefit-sharing be made fair and equitable? Who decides what to do with
future royalties and other benefits?
These questions are being debated
by legal experts, leaders of indigenous groups, anthropologists, and
others concerned with conservation and indigenous rights. There are a
number of benefit-sharing models which may shed some empirical light on
the debate. One of the few models currently in operation was developed in
Nigeria, by the Healing Forest Conservancy (HFC), an independent
non-profit organization founded by Shaman Pharmaceuticals, Inc. which helped
to launch the Fund for Integrated Rural Development and Traditional
Medicine (FIRD-TM) in October 1997 (see IK&DM 5(3)).
The pilot project was designed to promote the conservation of
biodiversity, drug development, and the socioeconomic well-being of
local people, and at the same time to test the benefit-sharing process.
Following the pilot, the HFC and its partners developed a 'Constitution
for Benefit-Sharing through Trust Funds Under the Convention on
Biological Diversity' (Moran 1998).
This article focuses on a fund which
is similar to FIRD-TM and which has operated in Suriname since 1993. As
part of an ICBG project (see box), Conservation International
developed the Forest People's Fund (FPF), a mechanism through which
'up-front' compensation and future royalties from new drugs developed by
the participating multinational pharmaceutical company can be returned
to the Maroons and Amerindians of Suriname. The authors conducted a global
evaluation of this ICBG Suriname project (see Betts et al. 1997
for the full evaluation), and the present article focuses on the Forest
People's Fund, a concrete case of benefit-sharing and compensation for
IPR.
Drying herbal medicines in Suriname prior to chemical analysis in America. Photo: Edward C. Green
| International Cooperative Biodiversity Groups (ICBG)
The multi-country ICBG programme was launched in 1992 with funding from
the U. S. National Institutes of Health (NIH), the National Science
Foundation (NSF), and the U. S. Agency for International Development
(USAID). At present, there are six ICBG projects involving ten
countries: The ICBG employs an experimental, multi-disciplinary, relatively
large-scale approach to drug discovery. From the outset it was envisioned
that future royalties from lucrative new drugs could promote new,
equitable, and ecologically sustainable economic development in source
countries. The programme has three inter-related goals: to improve
health through the discovery of new drugs from natural sources; to conserve
biodiversity, while developing local capacity to manage natural
resources; and to promote sustainable economic development (targeted
mainly at capacity-building in drug discovery and biodiversity
conservation in the source countries themselves).
|
The ICBG project in Suriname
The Suriname branch of Conservation
International (CI/Suriname) took the lead in developing the ICBG
proposal for that country. The pharmaceutical partner of ICBG/Suriname was
Bristol-Myers Squibb. The Suriname ICBG project allowed for two
processes of drug discovery: the ethnobotanical route, in which discovery
was assisted by information provided by traditional healers; and the
random route, in which no such assistance was involved. CI/Suriname
persuaded Bristol-Myers Squibb to provide 'up-front' or 'good-faith'
funds (USD 50,000, later increased to USD 60,000) to local forest-dwelling
groups, as an incentive to participate in joint drug discovery and
develop a workable mechanism for benefit-sharing. After consultations within
and between indigenous groups, CI/Suriname helped broker the
establishment of the Forest Peoples Fund (FPF). It was agreed that the funds
would be used for projects involving community development, biodiversity
conservation, and health care.
The Forest People's Fund
A Board of Directors consisting of two members from indigenous
communities, two from CI/Suriname, and one from the Department of the
Interior was set up to review proposals for the allocation of 'advance
payment' and any future royalties from drug sales.
It was agreed between
the ICBG partners and the Suriname government that if a drug is derived
from ethnobotanical collections, 50% of Suriname's share of any future
royalties would go to the FPF and the other 50% to various ICBG partners in
Suriname, including CI (10%). If a drug is derived from random
collections, the FPF's share would be reduced to 30%, while 70% would go to
other ICBG partners.
Evaluation
The ICBG evaluation was carried out between March
and December 1997, and included a site visit in June. Information was
collected by questioning the ICBG Group Leaders and Associate Program
Heads about their program, its goals and its organizational structure.
Interviews were conducted with representatives of the ICBG source-country
partners, with other relevant organizations and institutions, and with
local leaders, traditional healers, and members of the Saramaka village
communities. After the site visit, additional information was obtained
not only from interviews but also from archival sources and electronic data
collection tables.
The site visit team consisted of three persons,
all medical anthropologists with experience in evaluation research,
ethnobotany, indigenous medical practice, Maroon societies, and sustainable
development. One team member (Green) had extensive ethnographic field
experience in Suriname and was able to carry out interviews in local
languages (Saramakan and Sranan Tongo).
The site visit took five days: three
days in the capital city Paramaribo and two days in the Saramaka
villages Asindoopo and Akisiamao. One team member stayed behind in Suriname
to interview non-Saramakan indigenous and tribal leaders about their
awareness and perceptions of the ICBG project.
Findings
Participation
Although the FPF was set up to work
with any of the indigenous or tribal peoples of Suriname's interior rain
forest, at the time of evaluation only the Saramaka Maroons were
participating in the project. Maroons are descendants of escaped African
slaves who have lived in the Suriname rain forest for nearly three
centuries (see, for example, Green 1977; Price 1976). They are tribally
organized and forest-dwelling, but not indigenous to Suriname, although
they are related to indigenous Amerindians in various ways.
CI/Suriname
gave two reasons for working with the Saramaka people: First, Maroons
generally live closer to the capital city Paramaribo than most of the
rain forest Amerindian groups. In view of current funding levels and
expected constraints on travel costs, it would not feasible to work with
Amerindians. Second, CI believed the Saramakas to be the most
traditional of the six Maroon societies, so that their traditional
ethnomedical knowledge might be more extensive than that of other
Maroons.
Allocation of benefits
Saramaka leaders had previously had numerous palavers
('kutus') about how to use the donated funds in ways that would
provide on-going income generation and benefit entire communities.
Conservation International (both in Washington, D.C. and in Paramaribo)
had played a crucial role in steering these discussions. By the time of the
evaluation, about half of the available USD 60,000 had been spent on
local income-generating projects. The funds had been used to:
- purchase
outboard motors and develop a canoe taxi service to transport people and
goods upriver to Saramaka territory;
- train local people in catering,
for the benefit of ecotourism;
- purchase sewing machines and train
women to sew school uniforms, to sell to parents;
- supply tools and
training for a commercial gardening project;
- train people in
woodcarving, carpentry, and furniture-making.
All of these small-scale projects were thought to have the potential to generate much-needed cash for the Saramakas, in any case those of the upper Suriname river area, where the ICBG is being implemented.
Sketch map
of Suriname showing area of current benefit-sharing.
Special arrangement for shamans?
The agreements between the
ICBG/Suriname and the FPF did not provide specifically for the sharing
of royalties with shamans (traditional healers). As noted above, (see
p. 8) this is one of the most important questions related to IPR and
benefit-sharing in the context of ethnobotanical drug discovery. For
the most part, the ethnobotanical information obtained during the Suriname
project was not derived from general or popular plant knowledge, but was
made available to the ICBG project by healers. As one lineage chief
observed to evaluators, should there not be some kind of special
compensation for healers? One factor that had to be taken into
consideration was the fact that it challenged Maroon tradition for healers
to sell knowledge about medicines to outsiders, or even to share it with
them. It was no doubt for this reason that many healers had initially been
reluctant to participate in the ICBG, even though their Paramount Chief
and local chiefs ('Kapitenis') voted in favour of participation.
As ethnobotanical collecting began to develop, traditional healers
expressed a preference for being paid about five dollars a day for their
participation. Given the advanced age of most of the participants, this
may have been not only the best, but also the only, way to compensate them.
Why royalty-sharing?
The healers questioned understood and fully
supported local development initiatives. Since it was locally recognized
that the ICBG and the Forest People's Fund came to Saramaka territory
because of the wisdom of local healers, the presence of the ICBG project
and, in particular, the funds made available through the FPF, appear to have
boosted the prestige of healers within the community. This observation
should be taken as a hypothesis for testing during longer periods of field
research in Suriname and in other ICBG country sites.
The leaders gained
a better understanding of the biodiversity conservation goals and approved
them. Indeed, the Saramaka Paramount Chief (the 'Gaanmam', or 'Gaama'),
was willing to sign a contract with Conservation International even
before the Suriname government did so. This covered a period of ten
years, as opposed to the one-year renewable contract offered by the
government.
The Maroons themselves seemed to understand and accept the
broader ultimate objectives of the ICBG. Saramakas at all levels were
quick to appreciate the immediate, here-and-now benefits of CI's work in
their territory, although the rank-and-file Saramakas did not understand the
specific purpose of the project. Some saw the ICBG project as a
benevolent American project whose goal was 'to bring goods, jobs, and
development' ('tja bunu, tja wooko; mbei de konde ko bigi, go a fesi'),
rather than something concerned with biodiversity conservation
(described in Saramaka as 'mbei di sembe an lasi di matu, solgu di pau
matu', meaning: 'not losing the forest, taking care of the virgin
forest').
Prospects
It was clear that the community had an interest in
local economic development. Given the limited funds available,
CI/Suriname was perhaps raising the expectations of Saramakas too high. It
focused on bioprospecting, conservation, and making use of funds in ways
that would have maximum, sustainable impact. In fact, however, the limitations on funds had kept
CI from responding to frequent requests from other tribal leaders to bring
the project to other parts of Suriname. There was the case of the
Matawai Maroons, whose Paramount Chief was interviewed and confirmed that he
would very much like the ICBG to come to Matawai territory. He made such
a request to CI and was reportedly told that there were insufficient funds
to expand the project into new areas. This chief observed to the
evaluator that Maroon and Amerindian villages have become depopulated in
the last 25 to 35 years as a result of general economic forces. He felt
that the ICBG project could provide an infusion of cash into tribal areas
that might slow this process.
| Indigenous peoples
Various definitions of indigenous peoples
have been proposed, none of them completely satisfactory. The most
useful definition would be based on that provided by the World Watch
Institute:
|
Conclusion
The Suriname ICBG project appears to have developed
a workable mechanism and model for equitable benefit-sharing, involving a
single ethnolinguistic group and a low level of funding. This mechanism
was developed by a tribal--but not strictly speaking indigenous--group that is
assisting an international conservation organization and a multinational
pharmaceutical company in drug discovery.
This process may or may not
lead to commercially viable drugs, the sale of which would generate
royalties that would benefit Saramaka and other forest peoples. To date, the
establishment and operation of the FPF provides evidence of popular
participation and sustainable small-scale economic development, as well
as cultural and financial appropriateness. One of the advantages of
developing and testing a benefit-sharing mechanism, even on a very
limited scale, is that it can increase the possibility that larger sums of
money will be put to good use, should they become available through drug
royalties.
The advance-payment, benefit-sharing experiences of both Suriname and
Nigeria should be followed closely, as they may shed light on the
complex questions that arise in connection with the sustainable
development of bioresources, the recognition of the intellectual property
rights of indigenous peoples, and the provision of compensation to
indigenous peoples for help in drug discovery.
Edward C. Green
Independent Consultant
2807 38 th st, NW
Washington, DC 20007 USA
E-mail: egreendc@aol.com
Kenneth J. Goodman
Health Researcher Battelle Centers for
Public Health Research and Evaluation
2101 Wilson Blvd., Suite 800
Arlington, VA 22201 USA
Tel.: +1-703-875 2101.
Fax: +1-703-527
5640.
E-mail: goodmanj@battelle.org
Martha L. Hare
Battelle Centers for Public Health Research and
Evaluation
2101 Wilson Blvd., Suite 800
Arlington, VA 22201 USA
Tel.: +1-703-875 2949.
Fax: +1-703-527 5640.
E-mail:
hare@battelle.org
References
- Betts, Claude, Mary Odell Butler, Patricia Godoy-Kain, Kenneth J.
Goodman, Edward C. Green, Martha L. Hare, Ann Lesperance, Edward B.
Liebow, Richard Weller, and Valerie F. Williams (1997) Evaluation of the
International Cooperative Biodiversity Groups Program. Report to the
John E. Fogarty International Center, NIH. Arlington, VA: Battelle.
- Brush, S.B. and D. Stabinsky (1996) Valuing local knowledge.
Washington, D.C.: Island Press.
- Durning, A.T. (1993) 'Supporting
indigenous peoples', in Worldwatch Institute, State of the World
1993. New York: W.W. Norton.
- FSI (Fundación Sabiduría Indígena) and Brij
Kothari (1997) 'Rights to the benefits of research: Compensating
indigenous peoples for their intellectual contribution', Human
Organization Vol. 56, No. 2: 127-137.
- Greaves, Tom (ed.) (1994)
Intellectual property rights for indigenous peoples. Oklahoma City:
Society for Applied Anthropology.
- Green, E.C. (1977) 'Social control in
tribal Afro-America', Anthropological Quarterly Vol. 50(3):
107-116.
- IUCN (Inter-Commission Task Force on Indigenous Peoples)
(1997) Indigenous peoples and sustainability: Cases and actions.
Utrecht: International Books.
- Laird, S. (1993) 'Contracts for biodiversity prospecting', pp. 99-130 in:
World Resources Institute, INBio, Rainforest Alliance and ACTS/Kenya,
Biodiversity prospecting: Using genetic resources for sustainable
development. Washington, D.C: World Resources Institute.
- Moran, Katy
(1998) Mechanisms for benefit-sharing: Nigerian case study for the
Convention on Biological Diversity. Washington, D.C.: the Healing
Forest Conservancy.
- Posey, D. and G. Dutfield (1996) Beyond
intellectual property: Toward traditional resource rights for indigenous
peoples and local communities. Ottawa: IDRC.
- Price, R. (1976) The
Guiana Maroons. Baltimore: The Johns Hopkins University Press.
- United Nations Environment Program (UNEP) (1992) Convention on
Biological Diversity. Rio de Janeiro, Brazil, June 5.
Endnote
1 Some scientists prefer the term traditional resource
rights (TRR) to IPR since it is more inclusive, embracing 'bundles of
rights' beyond those pertaining to knowledge such as religious freedom,
land rights, rights to privacy, etc. (IUCN 1997:99-100; Posey & Dutfield
1996). However, we wish to restrict discussion here to rights related to
knowledge.
Back to: top of the page | Contents
IK Monitor (7-1) | IKDM Homepage
Suggestions to: ikdm@nuffic.nl
(c) copyright Nuffic-CIRAN and contributors 1999.