ABSTRACT
Why did an early effort to build an ethical bioprospecting relationship with indigenous people in Peru survive, when a more sophisticated approach with arguably better opportunities for indigenous communities in Mexico later foundered in a sea of criticism? Two projects funded under the International Cooperative Biodiversity Groups (ICBG), one working with Aguaruna people in Peru and another working with Maya people in Chiapas, Mexico, have both struggled with identification of appropriate representation of community interests, and with concerted campaigns by NGOs to halt their efforts, despite broad interest among indigenous communities they contacted. The Peru ICBG ultimately succeeded in developing credible, working partnerships, and carrying the project through to completion, while the Maya (Mexico) ICBG became mired in defence of its approach to prior informed consent (PIC) and ultimately was terminated early. In this chapter I summarize relevant aspects of the history of these two landmark projects and draw some lessons about the role of culture, politics and local governance as they influenced the differing outcomes of their efforts. In particular, I point to the role of pre-existing and broadly representative indigenous governance as a key factor in determining the feasibility and integrity of PIC for use of traditional knowledge. This conclusion is important because it suggests a concerted movement away from the traditional model of individually oriented ethnobotany studies for bioprospecting involving indigenous communities, and towards one that is structured around institutional relationships.
