Acta Botanica Brasilica
On-line version ISSN 1677-941X
Acta Bot. Bras. vol.29 no.2 Belo Horizonte Apr./June 2015
http://dx.doi.org/10.1590/0102-33062014abb0007
Heitor Suriano Nascimento Liporacci 1
2
*
, Tatiana Mota Miranda 1
3
, Natalia Hanazaki 1
2
, Nivaldo Peroni 1
1Laboratório
de Ecologia Humana e Etnobotânica, Departamento de Ecologia e Zoologia,
Centro de Ciências Biológicas, Universidade Federal de Santa Catarina,
88040-900, Florianópolis, SC, Brazil
2Programa
de Pós Graduação em Biologia de Fungos, Algas e Plantas, Centro de
Ciências Biológicas, Universidade Federal de Santa Catarina, 88040-900,
Florianópolis, SC, Brazil
3Programa
de Pós-Graduação em Desenvolvimento Rural, Departamento de Economia e
Relações Internacionais, Universidade Federal do Rio Grande do Sul,
90040-060, Farropilhas, Porto Alegre, RS, Brazil
Legal
measures, such as the use of free or prior and informed consent, return
of research results to communities (which can be understood as "sharing
of benefits," according to Brazilian legislation), and research
authorization by governmental bodies, are mentioned and regulated in
various documents, either governmental or specific, within the area of
ethnobiology. This study aims to explore how these matters are
considered in the scope of published ethnobotany articles in Brazil, as
well as whether the creation of the Provisional Measure 2.186-16/2001
has contributed to the national advance of these matters. The
methodology comprised a literature review of articles focusing on
medicinal and food plant resources in the prominent Brazilian journals
which publish ethnobotany studies. From 137 articles analyzed, 8
mentioned the return of research results to the community; 21 explicitly
cited the use of free or prior and informed consent; and 13 mentioned
the authorization of governmental bodies. We expect that the present
study will contribute to the debate regarding the necessity of
reformulation of the current system, which would guarantee a more
effective rapport between the government, researchers, local
communities, and society and contribute to the development of
ethnobotany in Brazil.
Introduction
The
use of genetic resources and associated traditional knowledge has been
conducted for a long time in an asymmetric manner. Historically, many
natural resources have been appropriated by developed countries without
proper access request from, prior consent of, or benefit-sharing with
countries and communities, which originally provided and detained such
resources (MMA 2013).
This reality was justified by the ease of facilitated access to genetic
resources before the Convention of Biological Diversity (CBD) (Cunha 1999; MMA 2005; Andrade et al. 2013; Ferreira & Sampaio 2013).
In addition, within the realm of science, during the pre-CBD phase,
interactions between researchers and the use of biodiversity was not
regulated by specific norms regarding access to resources and associated
traditional knowledge as well as potential political, economic, and
social implications resulting from some studies (Albuquerque et al. 2013).
In contrast, intellectual property and patents have been regulated by
international mechanisms, which are not often compatible with the free
circulation of local knowledge (Cunha 1999).During the 1980s, the first international regulatory body for the access of phytogenetic resources was created: The International Treaty on Plant Genetic Resources for Food and Agriculture (ITPGRFA) was adopted during the 22nd Food and Agriculture (FAO) conference in 1983 and signed by 133 countries (Santilli 2009). According to Cunha (1999), strong resistance to the generalized privatization of resources (the principle of free access without restrictions) during the 1970s and beginning of 1980s was the reason for instituting such a regulatory body.
The United Nations Conference on Environment and Development/Earth Summit in Rio de Janeiro, in 1992, approved the CBD text signed by 157 countries, including Brazil (Santilli 2009), and projected changes in the manner biodiversity would be used and explored (MMA 2005; Andrade et al. 2013). The CBD recognized the sovereignty of the signatory countries over their biological resources (MMA 2000; Ferreira & Sampaio 2013), and established that the authority to govern access to genetic resources belongs to national governments under national legislation (MMA 2000; Santilli 2009). Moreover, it was decreed that researchers have a duty of sharing the benefits of their research, and acknowledged that local and indigenous communities have rights over their knowledge (MMA 2013) and therefore researches should always respect an established prior consent process (Santilli 2009; Bernardocki 2013).
Among CBD participant countries, Brazil was one of the first megadiverse countries that attempted to implement the convention objectives and to adopt an internal regimen for protecting and controlling the access of genetic resources and associated traditional knowledge, through the draft bill 306/1995 (Santilli 2013; Ferreira & Sampaio 2013). Three years later, in 1998, two other bills, including Brazilian genetic assets under the Union's authority were presented (MMA 2005). In the early 2000s, after a series of accusations of biopiracy involving a Brazilian association and a pharmaceutical company (Ferreira & Sampaio 2013), the federal government released the Provisional Measure (PM) 2.052 on June 29, 2000 (Andrade et al. 2013). This bill was modified and reedited as the PM 2.186-16 on August 23, 2001; it is still in force today, and establishes norms for regulating access to genetic resources and associated traditional knowledge in Brazil (MMA 2005).
The PM 2.186-16/2001 also created the Council of Genetic Heritage Management (CGEN). This council is responsible for deliberating processes related to access to genetic assets for bioprospecting and technological development, access to associated traditional knowledge for any objective, and accreditation of depositary institutions (MMA 2005). Ethnobiologists who already followed the Code of Ethics from the International Society of Ethnoecology, which was drafted in 1988 through the Declaration of Belém, now had to prove their ethical integrity and validate their work before conducting any research activities (Albuquerque et al. 2013). In addition to creating the PM 2.186-16/2001 and the CGEN, it is important to emphasize that during 2001, the International Treaty on Plant Genetic Resources for Food and Agriculture was expanded to focus on conservation and sustainable use of plant genetic resources, agriculture, and the fair and equitable sharing of benefits, thus guaranteeing the rights of farmers to agrobiodiversity (Santilli 2009).
The use and application of prior and informed consent, benefit-sharing with involved communities, and project authorization by governmental bodies are legal measures guided and shared not only by the CBD norms, PM 2.186-16/2001, and CGEN but also by the Brazilian Society of Ethnobiology and Ethnoecology. In addition, prior informed consent is also required by the Health National Council's resolution 196/1996. Moreover, there is extensive literature published in Brazil and other countries highlighting the importance of abiding by these legal measures. In Brazil, for example, prior and informed consent is regarded as a fundamental aspect in the methodology of scientific activities (Albuquerque & Hanazaki 2006; Albuquerque et al. 2010a); others emphasize the importance of returning results to communities and the sharing of benefits (Patzlaff & Peixoto 2009; Albuquerque et al. 2010b).
In this article, we consider that access authorization is regarded as authorization granted through the process of submitting projects, which involves providing access to genetic resources and associated traditional knowledge to governmental bodies designated by the PM 2.186-16/2001 and later norms related to this PM, such as CGEN, Brazilian Institute for the Environment and Natural Resources (IBAMA), Indian National Foundation (FUNAI), National Council for Scientific and Technological Development (CNPq), National Historic and Artistic Heritage Institute (IPHAN), and Research Ethics Committees of the Universities, which could vary depending on the theme and objectives of the research (MMA 2005; Ferreira & Sampaio 2013). It is important to emphasize that our focus is on the traditional knowledge associated with genetic resources and not on the authorizations required in the context of bioprospecting and technological development. In addition, according to the National Health Council's Resolution 196/1996, all research directly or indirectly involving humans is subject to the approval of Ethics Committees (Albuquerque et al. 2010a).
Free or prior and informed consent is understood here as a mandatory document to be attached to the research project and sent to the appropriate regulatory institutions as a prerequisite for obtaining the authorization for research activities (MMA 2005). This document must include information regarding the main steps of the research, such as the objective, methods, and techniques to be employed, as well as other information important to clarify and anticipate questions from the participants (Albuquerque et al. 2010a). In addition, the document must address identity protection for participants in the processes of collecting data and publication (Albuquerque et al. 2010a).
With regard to returning information to the people or sharing the results with the groups or communities studied, it is important to highlight that this measure can be a dynamic process that can also be seen as more applied activities, achieved by returning information in a systematic manner, in the forms of field guides and talks, among others (Patzlaff & Peixoto 2009; Albuquerque et al. 2010b) or actions developed to contribute to local development, considering their problems, demands, and collective interests (Albuquerque et al. 2010b). Moreover, returning and sharing information can involve participatory research and educational approaches that may require a wide approach toward acknowledging traditional knowledge and culture.
Although there have been historical and political milestones and increased research on this theme (Bridges 2004; MMA 2005; Albuquerque & Hanazaki 2006; Patzlaff & Peixoto 2009; Albuquerque et al.2010b), some authors have expressed concerns regarding ethical conduct and practices by certain researchers in ethnobiology, an interdisciplinary field that originated between biological and human sciences.
In the context of how research has been conducted and the issue of compliance with legal norms, this study aims to analyze how the results of ethnobotany research are shared with communities and how prior and informed consent and authorization of governmental bodies have been considered in articles published in the prominent Brazilian ethnobotany journals, through a bibliographic review. In addition, we aim to discuss how the creation of the PM 2.186-16/2001 has contributed to advance and improve the maturity of the considerations regarding these issues in Brazil. Our objective is to foster reflection and debate regarding the interaction among research, government, and societal spheres in relation to legal aspects and involving access to genetic resources and associated traditional knowledge.
