3804566

7/30/2019 3804566

1/22

Bioprospecting: From Theory to Practice (And Back Again)Author(s): Noel CastreeSource: Transactions of the Institute of British Geographers, New Series, Vol. 28, No. 1 (Mar.,2003), pp. 35-55Published by: Wiley on behalf of The Royal Geographical Society (with the Institute of British Geographers)Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/3804566 .

Accessed: 23/04/2013 03:05

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at .http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

.JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of

content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms

of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected].

.

Wiley and The Royal Geographical Society (with the Institute of British Geographers) are collaborating with

JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Transactions of the Institute of British Geographers.

http://www.jstor.org

This content downloaded from 14.139.62.114 on Tue, 23 Apr 2013 03:05:05 AMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

7/30/2019 3804566

2/22

Bioprospecting: rom heory opractice and back again)Noel CastreeThispapercriticallyssessesthe theorynd practice f biodiversityrospectingnthedevelopingworld.Taking hecase ofperhaps hemostfamousbioprospectingroker- CostaRica'sNational nstitutef Biodiversity rival heoreticaliscourses n the'sellingnature o save it' approachtoenvironmentalonservationreunpacked.Thisapproach, urrentlye rigueurnmainstream lobalenvironmentalrganizations,stoutedby tsadvocates nthe cademicand policyworld as an effectiveoolfor'greendevelopmentalism'.ora cohort funiversity-basedeft ritics, owever,bioprospectings onemore roublingxampleof post-moderncological apital' naction, epresentinghefurtherommodificationfnature orprofit urposes.Bytreatinghe rivaltheoreticaliscourses nbioprospectingroducedbydifferentlysituatedknowledge ommunitiess objects f analysis, hepaperasksfundamentalquestions boutthegrounds nwhich valuations fbioprospecting ight e made.It s arguedthat heradicalcritique uys ts ogicalandmoralpowerat theexpenseof tspractical elevance,while advocatesofsellingbiodiversityave made their asewithonly imited mpirical ersuasiveness. n thebasisof a heuristic istinctionbetween mmanentnd external ritique,hepaperseeksto puttheevaluation fbioprospectingnparticular,nd greendevelopmentalism oregenerally,n a newcognitivend normativeooting.n so doing t mpinges n recent ebatesoverthewiderrelevance f critical' hinkingnhumangeographynd cognate ields nthecurrent onjuncture.keywords bioprospectingbiodiversityCostaRica INBio theoreticaldiscourses internalnd externalritique situatedknowledge ommunitiesevaluative tandpoints policyrelevanceSchoolofGeography,UniversityfManchester,ManchesterM13 9PLemail: [email protected] manuscript eceived22 October2002

IntroductionThis essay has a dual purpose. n the first lace, tinterrogateshe oftenheated argumentsmade forand against ioprospecting.his nterrogationocusesspecifically n how bioprospecting'sdvocates anddetractorsmake links between heoreticalroposi-tions of an explanatorynd normative ind andempirical vidence.Secondly, he conflictingrgu-mentsover bioprospecting re used to raise somewider questions about the relevance of 'critical'thinkingn human geography nd cognate fields.My principal rguments that critiques f biopro-specting i) take the formof external nd overly

abstractvaluations nd (ii) in both heexplanatoryandnormativeenseare weaklygrounded nempir-icalevidence. ronically,hey hare his atterweak-nesswith he nalysesprofferedybioprospecting'scheerleaders. s a result, hese heerleaders o not,in myview, findthemselves onfronted iththekindofcompellingritique hatmight nsettleheirconfidencen itsbenefits. his matters, ecause anawful ot is at stake nbioprospecting both n itsownright nd because of the alternativeso itthatare disbarred r permitted ependingon whetherandwhere hepractices promoted. ccordingly,nthe atter art f he ssay suggesthowevaluationsofbioprospectingythose n the cademic eftmight

Trans nstBr GeogrNS 28 35-55 2003ISSN 0020-2754 Royal Geographical ociety withThe Institutef British eographers) 003

This content downloaded from 14.139.62.114 on Tue, 23 Apr 2013 03:05:05 AMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

7/30/2019 3804566

3/22

36 NoelCastreebe made morerigorous. hisspeaks to thebroaderissue ofhow critical'cademicsmightormight ot)'makea difference'othatwhich hey tudy.Bioprospectings one of themostcontroversialconservation racticescurrently eing toutedbywhat Neil Smith 1998, 272) calls 'establishmentenvironmentalists'.ike ecotourism, t offers io-logically ich uteconomically oorcountriesntheSouth meansto savenature yselling t' McAfee1999).Bioprospecting,o use a minimalistefinition,involves the systematicearch forgenes, naturalcompounds, esigns ndwholeorganismsnwild-life with a potential for product development'(Mateoet l.2001, 71).1More mbitiously,t aims toreturnenefitso the tewards fbiological esources... [establishing] contractualelationshipetweenthosewho provide these].. resources.. andotherswhouse [them]'Brush 999, 36)- a combinationfconservation,evelopmentndequitable haring fbenefits hatMcAfee 1999) calls 'greendevelop-mentalism'. or tsmany dvocates nthe cademicand environmentalolicyworld,bioprospectingsregarded s a potentiallymportantmechanism ordeliveringreen evelopment ntheground. or tscritics, y contrast,t is regardedas conceptuallyflawed, racticallyneffectualndmorally ankrupt.While othershave tried oweighthe rgumentsnbothsides (Moran et al. 2001),my aims here areavowedly partisan.Writing s someone broadlysympathetico the critics'viewpoints, wish toinquire into the mechanics of explanatoryandnormativergumentationather han ryingo deter-minewho s right' nd wrong' boutbioprospecting(as ifthere s some neutral latformromwhichtoview t).As alreadymentioned,my argument s thatthetheory-evidence ink is insufficientlyigorous nthe criticaliterature,n partbecause thecriticismsmade are not immanent o theobject ofanalysis.Empirically,he focusof myconcernwillbe CostaRica'sNationalBiodiversitynstituteINBio). Thisis because bioprospecting'shampions nd criticshavebothused INBio as a 'master xample' o maketheir ases. As withEmilia-Romagna r RiversideCounty n writings bout new industrial istrictsand workfaretatesrespectively,he Institute asassumed conic tatus ndebates boutbioprospect-ing- if, ndeed, one can call them debates', sinceI will go on to argue that t s more a case of rivalconstituenciesalking astoneanother. ounded n1989, NBio has acted as a broker etweenoutsideparties - such as transnationalpharmaceutical

companies and CostaRica'suntapped ioticwealth.Though by no means the only bioprospectingagency n the South, t has becometheprivilegedcase studyfor thosewho wish to recommend rreject ioprospecting.mongadvocates, NBio hasbeen touted s 'a model' (Reid et al. 1993),as 'themost dvancedcase' (Barbier tal. 1994,194) or, nthemoremodestwordsof ts enior mployees, s 'apilotproject' Gamez et al. 1993)and 'an importantexample' Naderand Mateo2001,183).Bycontrast,for ritics fbioprospecting particularly coterieof left cademics n geography, nthropologyndsociology e.g. Brush 1999; Escobar 1996; Flitner1998;Frow1996) - INBio's relianceon the marketmechanism ltimatelyervesup biodiversitys yetanother accumulation trategy orcapital' (Katz1998,47). orbetterrforworse, hen,NBiohascometo standfor' he upposedwidermerits/illsf bio-prospecting. ather han speakingforthemselves,the facts'oftheINBio experimentre thus beingsubject o conflictingnterpretationsmongdiffer-ent knowledgecommunities ituatedwithinandbeyond he cademy.Accordingly,hey re made toperform wo roles simultaneously:heyserve asempirical nstantiationsfa supposed largerphe-nomenona particular-generalelationship)ndtheyvouchsafenormative laims about bioprospecting(an is-oughtrelationship).

In sum, treatboththe widerargumentsboutbioprospectingnd thespecific laims made aboutINBioas objects f nalysis n their wnright.n thissense,though write s someonewithrealreserva-tions boutthetheory nd practice f bioprospect-ing, heessay treats hediscourses f tschampionsand detractorsnepistemicallyqual terms. oth is-courses,far frommirroringeality, ndeavour toconstructt in the maginationnd in practice.Ofcourse, nrecent earsthose on the academic eftacross the social sciencesand humanities havefeverishlyoughtto deconstructll manner flayand elite discourses.On environmentalmatters,'secondgeneration' hird Worldpoliticalecology(e.g.PeetandWatts 996) ndnew workonthecul-tural olitics f cience e.g.Hajer1995)have blazedsomething fa trail n thisregard.But, s Gibson-Graham1996) sright opoint ut, he eft asbeenless willingto strain ts own discourses throughthe deconstructiveieve.This s unfortunate,ot tomentionnconsistent,incethese discourses re asperformatives those hey reranged gainst. heyare, notherwords, implicatedn the worldstheyostensibly epresent'Gibson-Graham996, x).

This content downloaded from 14.139.62.114 on Tue, 23 Apr 2013 03:05:05 AMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

7/30/2019 3804566

4/22

Bioprospectinq 37If, hen, take tas axiomatic hatdiscoursesarenotonlyproducts utproducers, apable ofdecis-ively lteringhevery orces hat rought hemntobeing' Greenblatt991, ),this s notto say that lldiscourseshave the sameeffectivity.orone ofmy

claims s that herelativelyneffectualanguage hatleft riticsfbioprospecting avedeployed sboundup with heir ighly cademic nstitutionalround-ing.By ineffectual',meanthat his anguage sthe-oretically bstract, s well as taking the formof'external' riticism.heorymatters,fcourse, nd itisprecisely or his eason hat hetheoreticistatureof leftcriticisms f bioprospectingannot be leftunchallenged.Likewise,thoughthere s nothingwrong - indeed many things right- with critiquesthatproceedfrom ifferentremises nd have dif-ferent ormative tandardsto theobjectsof theircensure, think t worthrecallingTrevorBarnes'(1988) argument hat nternal riticisms usuallythemoreexacting orm fcognitive nd normativeanalysis.This s especially o in thecase ofbiopro-specting ecausemany f ts dvocates unlike heirleft ritics are partly rwhollygrounded n theworldofenvironmentalolicyformation.As a resultofthiscombination ftheoretic ndexternal ritique, contend hat thearguments fbioprospecting'setractorsave lackedcritical ite.Indeed, believethiscombination as led to argu-mentativempasse oupledwithmissed pportunitiesfor onstructiveritique. yargumentativempasse,I meanthatbioprospecting'sritics ave routinelyframed heir nalyses o thatfewviable theoreticalorpractical lternativesanbe imaginedondebatesinneo-Marxistevelopmentheory, f.Booth1985).By missedopportunities or onstructiveritique,mean hat ioprospecting'seft etractorsavetendedtospeak na language hatsunlikely o nfluencetsfarmorepolicy-savvyndpolicy-powerfuldvocates(oncriticalconomic eography,f.Markusen 999).The ntellectualntegrityf his anguagehas, wanttosuggest, eenbought tthe xpense f tspracticalrelevance. et f urrentioprospectingracticesreto be effectivelyvaluatedand practically ltered(evenover-turned),riticsmust, oborrowRichardHandler's 1991)metaphor,peak a languagethatpowerunderstands'.neffect,his ssayendeavoursto do justthat, herebyalling ntoquestionnot ustthe heoryndpracticefbioprospectingut lso thedominantdiomsfavoured y a cohort funiversity-based leftists ho arecritical f t.Thearguments structureds follows.nthenextsection,he nstitutendits ctivitiesre ntroduced,

afterwhich showhow itsbio-contractingxperi-ences have been assimilated to rival theoreticaldiscourses about market-led nvironmental on-servation. avingunpacked hesediscourses, thentake closer ookat NBio,not norder ogetbeyondtheputative eneer f hese iscourses, ut o nquireabout the groundsfor evaluatingbioprospecting.Thepenultimateection ffersn internalritique fINBiothatdisputes heclaimsofboth he nstitute'schampions nd critics,with a view to placingthelatter na firmerpistemicndnormative ooting.The National InstituteofBiodiversityA privilegedignifierThe circumstancesn which bioprospectinghasarisen s a concept nd a practice re well known.First, cepticsnotwithstandinge.g.Lomborg 000),recent earshavewitnessed nprecedentedatesofspecies ndhabitat oss,especiallynthedevelopingworld.Second, t is the open-accessnatureof thelocal, national and global 'biological commons'that s seen as the root cause ofthis- at leastbyenvironmentalconomists. hirdly,his pen-accessarrangementhas been seen to resultnotonlyin'a tragedy f thebiodiversityommons'but,his-torically,ohave allowed Western ations o steal'resourcesfromthe world's biological 'hotspots':that s,economically oortropical nd sub-tropicalcountries. n this context, NBio has become analmostobligatory assage-point n evaluations ofbioprospecting'success/failurend thereforetsfuture s a 'greendevelopment' ractice.Established ust a year after he publicationofEdward0. Wilson t l.'s 1988)germinal iodiversity- a bookwhich,n an actof emantic onsequential-ity,more-or-lessnventedhe erm hatwas its itleINBio's missionwas 'to know,to save and to use'CostaRica's argely nknown, nsavedand ill-usedbiodiversity. oreparticularly,hismissionwas tobe realized ymerchandizingreviouslyn- runder-priced lants,nimals,nsects,microbes,acteria ndgenes.Following ornellUniversityhemist homasEisner's (1984) injunction,NBio's intent statedexplicitlyyitsdirector,irologist odrigoGamez(Gamezet l. 1993) was to prospect' or iologicalresources.notherwords, yundertaking 'system-atic earch or ew commercial]pplicationsfhith-ertounstudied iological pecies' Weissand Eisner1998, 82) the nstitute as,formorethan decadenow, servedas the middle-mann betweenCostaRica'sbiodiversitynd internationalioprospectors.

This content downloaded from 14.139.62.114 on Tue, 23 Apr 2013 03:05:05 AMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

7/30/2019 3804566

5/22

38 NoelCastreeThoughno longerunique, twas - and remainsprecedent-settingn severalways. It was the firstnon-statenstitution2nthedevelopingworld etupwith he xpress urposeofbothunderstandingndmarketing nation'sbiodiversity. s JohnTakacs

(1996, 92)puts t nhis rathercerbic ssessment fthe nstitute,biodiversitys theproduct ine,CostaRica Inc. is thecorporation,nd RodrigoGamez isthe CEO'. Secondly, NBio's first nd muchpub-licized bioprospecting greement with the USpharmaceuticaliantMerck ndCo. in 1991 renewedtwicethereafter)was amongthe first n moderntimes to redress the long history f what criticslike Shiva (1997) regard as 'biopiracy': hat s theunlicensed and uncompensatedexpropriation fthe South'sbiologicalwealthbythe North.Finally,as I will explainlater, heagreementwith Merckwas bothprecocious nd prescient: or tevidentlyput to workmanyoftheprinciples hat, 8monthslater,were rticulatednthemultilateralonventiononBiologicalDiversityCBD).The fact hat NBiocouldanticipate globalenvir-onmentalccord nthisway sarguably ttributableto thefact hat thas been hard-wired o a set ofkeyplayers n transnationalnvironmentalolicy-making since its inception.For instance, whenWalter eidof heWorldResourcesnstituteo-editedBiodiversityrospecting:sing enetic esourcesor us-tainableevelopmentn 1993- a veritablemanifesto-cum-DIY-manualorny nd allpotentialiodiversitysellers nd buyersworldwide, ublishedunder theauspices f heWRI/IUCN/UNEPGlobalBiodiversityStrategy Gamez was one of the principalcon-tributors.ndeed, NBio serves as thebook's maincasestudy or good practice'. ne reason or ts ent-rality n Biodiversityrospectingas Gamez's closepersonalssociation ith heUSbiologist anJanzen,who,alongwithEdwardWilson,was oneof smallcohort fbiologistswho helped invent nd popu-larize the dea ofbiodiversity rom hemid-1980s(Takacs1996, h.2).Janzen,ditor f he ompendiousand meticulousCostaRica naturalhistory1983),has builthisacademic areer ponresearchesmostlycarried ut inCosta Rica and, in the ate 1980s,heused hisconsiderable nfluencenUS conservationcircles ogarnernternationalupport nd fundingfor he NBioexperimentTakacs1996, 91). ndeed,alongwithReid,he wasone of he ditors fBiodivers-ityprospectingnd has since been a key advisor nsuccessivemeetingsf heCBDparties.Morerecently,anotherditor fbioprospecting'snaugural ublica-tion, arahLaird,4 asco-writtenbroader uccessor

volume ntitled he ommercialseofbiodiversitytenKate and Laird 1999) in which,not surprisingly,INBiofeaturess oneofthemaincase studies 1999,253-7). LiketheReidet al. tome, hebook is essen-tially a bioprospectingmanual forcountrieswhowant oselltheirgreen old'andorganizations hoseekto buy t.Virtually o post-1989 ublicationnbioprospect-ing is without eferenceo INBio. Similarly,moregeneraldiscussions f thefree-marketpproachtobiodiversityonservationcurrentlyerigueurithinnational nd global environmentalolicycirclessingle t out for pecialmentionsee, for xample,Barbier tal. 1994,194-5; Pearceand Moran 1994,102;McAfee 999, 50).As alreadynoted, art f hereasonfor hisprivileged tatus s thefact hat heInstitutendits enior mployees re inked irectlyto a networkfglobalenvironmentalolicymakers.In ight f his,tmay eemodd towant o add to thewealth fwordswrittenboutNBio.True,t s undeni-ablyan importantxample indeed,for riticsndadvocates likeno ess than n exemplar ofbiopro-spectingn action.Butfor his ery eason nemightsupposethat thas,bynow,beenanalysed o death.In fact, espite ts starring-rolen boththe aca-demic and policyliteraturen bioprospectingheexisting nalysesof NBio are remarkablyhallow.One ismore ikely oencounter side-bar r throw-away linethana sustained nd considereddiscus-sion of he nstitute'sctivities.t snot o much hatthe 'facts' of INBio's several bioprospectingon-tracts re notknown though herehasbeen undueobsessionwiththe Merck greement s ifthiswasthemain or onlyone INBio has entered nto since1989). Rather,t is that some commentatorsavebeen obviously electiventheir iftingf hese acts,whilerarely ausingtoreflect n thecomplex ues-tionofwhattheymight ignifyndhowtheymightbe evaluated.AsIwill how ater, thasbecome om-mon- andnodoubtunconscious practice or na-lysts nwhatever ide of thebioprospectingebatetoassimilateNBio to their referred orldview.nsayingthis, am not for minute uggesting hatthere s a 'right'wayto evaluate he nstitute's ork,if nly necould ay side the iltersheseworldviewsput nthewayofour currentnd futuressessmentsof t.What amarguing,hough,s that oth dvoc-ates and critics ave tooreadily ssumedthatNBiois an empirical nstantiation fbroaderprinciplesand logics.These are, respectively,he logics andprinciplesf positivelyoded freemarketnviron-mentalism'i.e.McAfee'sgreen evelopmentalism')

This content downloaded from 14.139.62.114 on Tue, 23 Apr 2013 03:05:05 AMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

7/30/2019 3804566

6/22

Bioprospecting 39and a negativelycoded 'post-modern cologicalcapitalism'. n effect,heyrepresentwo differentperspectivesn thesamething: hat s,theattemptto extendthelogic of commodificationo solvinglocalandglobalenvironmentalroblems. heworkofDavid Pearceand Arturo scobar- to taketwonotablecases - is a measure of usthow faraparttheseperspectivesre intellectuallynd politically.Theyare perspectiveso be scrutinizedn thesub-sequent ections fthis ssay.This said, not all assessments of INBio are ascursoryand reductive as I am suggesting.Forinstance,espite ts stensiblyroselytizingunction,theabove mentionedBiodiversityrospectingReidet l. 1993)offers detailedand candidassessmentofINBio's likely ontributionso Costa Ricancon-servation and development.Likewise, a recentattempt y INBio to takestockof tsfirst ecadeofwork Zeledon2000)paints fairlyreciseif ose-tinted)picture, s does a recentrelatedessay byformermployeesWerner ader andNicolasMateo(2001).But hree hings renotable bout hese xcep-tions.Thefirsts just howexceptionalhey re.Thesecond is thatthey re pennedby bioprospectingenthusiasts,meaning thattherangeof evaluativeframes ne mightplausibly use to assess INBio'sactivitiesrenotbeingput to work.Andthe hird,sthatnone ofthemhavebeen written ythecohortofbioprospecting ritics.This latterfact, s I willgo on toshow,reflects situationwhere hecritics'theoreticalaseagainst ioprospectings muchmoreconvincing han heirmpirical ase.Beforedetailinghow the INBio experiment asbeen interpretativelyramed,t is necessary o layoutsome facts' bout the nstitutend its ctivities.This,ofcourse, equires s tograspan epistemolo-gicalnettle. f, t some level, truths conventional,then tseems llicit,ontradictoryr ustplain naivetowant o tate he acts f he NBiocase.Unless, hatis,we acceptthat hesefacts rethemselves lreadyrepresentedy others in previousresearch, r insecondary nd primary ata sourcesupon whichthat esearchs based) and that,nturn,hese facts'aresubject ofurtherayers f nterpretationyana-lystsikemyself.5t sneither ossiblenornecessarytocircumventhedouble-hermeneutic.heparticu-lar evidenceupon whichthisessay is based com-prisesbothpreviously ublished nd unpublishedstudies f NBioandbioprospectingstudieswhich,as I havesaid,willbe subject o criticalnalysis andmyown engagementwiththewholerangeofbio-diversitytakeholdersnCosta Rica.Thecombination

of he wooffersairlyetailed nsightsnto heprac-ticalmechanics fbioprospectingnCosta Rica.6 utthepicture huspainted s,clearly, either ompre-hensive r value-free.am emphaticallyot,n otherwords, resentingsetof baseline vidence' gainstwhichthe respectivede)merits fbioprospecting'scheerleadersnd criticsan beobjectivelyomparedfor ccuracy.Rather, am seeking o explicate herange f ctivitieshat NBiohas undertaken ithoutpresuming hat theseactivities an ever speak forthemselves.ndeed, t spreciselyhewhole ssueofhowthese actsmight est sic)be spokenfor' hat satstake ndebatesoverbioprospecting.7INBio: national io-contractorWhen,n1987, resident scarAriascommissioneda 'Strategyor ustainableDevelopment'he furthercontributedowhatCushman2000, 12)calls CostaRican xceptionalism'nenvironmentalffairs.8 ithover 18 per centof the nationalterritorylreadygrantedprotected rea status a figure hat odayis reputedly 5 per cent,9 yfarthehighestn thedevelopingworld Arias ought omakeCosta Ricathefirst ountry o acton therecommendationsfthe BruntlandReport.One of the Strategy'skeyrecommendations,ithJansennd Eisnerworkingbehind he cenes,was the etting pof n nstitutiondevoted osaving, nowing ndusing hebiodivers-ity f he greenRepublic'. hat nstitutionas INBio,'a scientificbody] .. with ocialorientationwhichis] ... non-profitnd forthepublicgood' (INBio2001,1). Endowed through debt-for-naturewap,its im was and sto ink cience nd commercentheinterests f a market-ledmodalityof 'sustainabledevelopment'.n otherwords, NBio's philosophywas that avingthe nation'sbiodiversity as bestachievedby selling t forothers o use - the riderbeing hatwithout systematicffortoknowCostaRica's argely nknown io-resourceshe onnectiveimperative etween avingand selling ouldnotbeestablished. s the nstitute'sormerioprospectingdirectorsut t,INBio works nder hepremise hata tropical ountrywillbe able to conserve majorportion f ts wild biodiversityf[it] .. generatesenough ntellectualnd economicbenefits omakeup for tsmaintenance'Mateoet l.2001, 83).Locatednearthegeographic ndpoliticalheart fthecountry,hecapitalcitySan Jose, he nstituteconsists ffourdivisions taffed y someofCostaRica's most highly ualifiedscientists,echniciansand administrators.hey retheNationalBiodivers-ity nventory ivision, heBiodiversitynformation

This content downloaded from 14.139.62.114 on Tue, 23 Apr 2013 03:05:05 AMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

7/30/2019 3804566

7/22

40 NoelCastreeManagement Division, the Biodiversity nforma-tion DisseminationDivision and the BiodiversityProspectingDivision. The first hreeendeavourto systematically ather, dentify nd catalogueCosta Rica'sbiodiversity, ith particular ocus narthropods, lants,molluscs and fungi.By 1996,INBio housed over3 million pecimens, houghessthan 0 percenthadbeen dentifiednd entered ntothe nstitute's wocustom-designedatabases.Thishighly mbitiousprocess of gathering nd trans-forminghysical its fnaturento ites f lectronicinformationxtends ar eyond NBio'spremisesnSan Jose.Since 1989, the nstitute as trained ndemployedover40 'parataxonomists' orking romsome23research tations overing hewholerangeofCostaRica'sremarkablyiversewild ands.ThesetaxonomistsreordinaryuralCostaRicanswho aregivena six-monthourse on thefundamentals fbiology nd specimen ampling devisedoriginallybyDan Janzen) rior o beingreleased nto hefield.Once labelled and properly ackaged, hecollectedspecimens re sent nbatches o NBio for atalogu-ing ndfurthernalysis. f, nce nSanJose,amplescannot e dentifiedy n-house iologists,hen therexperts ationallyndglobally at,for xample, heUniversity f Costa Rica or Kew Gardens,London- are invited o offer axonomic ssistance.n turn,once initialcataloguinghas occurred,NBio staffhave the expertiseand equipmentto undertakesecondarynalysis for xample, yrunningamplesorcomponentshereofhroughnarray fbioassays,which creenforpotentiallyuseful'characteristics.Thesebioassaystypicallyearchfor eatureschem-ical,genetic rmechanical) hatmaybecommerciallyvaluable to (largelyWestern) harmaceutical,gro-foods ndcosmeticsompanies.Thisattempto linkknowledge fbiodiversityothecommercialnterestsf outsideparties s facilit-ated largely y theBioprospectingivision,whichactively eeks out nterestedartieswilling opayafeefor ccessto NBio's product': amely combina-tion real'biodiversitynd 'data-diversity'Bowker2000). ndeed, hemonetaryndnon-monetaryeturnsfrom bioprospectingagreements have formedINBio'sprincipalncome tream ince1991, heyeartheMerckcontractwas signed.Thesereturns er-form dual role:theymustpay for NBio and its160-plus staffwhile serving the wider goals ofbiodiversityonservationn Costa Rica.Giventhebillions fdollarspotentiallyvailablefrom ommer-cialapplications fbiodiversityinthe orm fdrugs,new cropvarieties, enes for ransgenicrganisms

and so on- therere, t eems, ealmonetaryains obehad from ioprospecting.10ndeed, NBioregardsit as 'the industry of the [21st] ... century ... [inwhich]CostaRicahas a uniqueopportunityo eadtheprocess' INBio 2001, ).Though, s mentioned arlier, heMerckagree-menthasreceivedexceptionalttention'Reidet l.1993,2) from ritics nd advocates of INBio/bio-prospecting,t s in fact nlyone ofalmost20 bio-contracts ntered nto over thelast decade by theInstitute nd variousparties eeking o profit rombiodiversityseeTable 1).Virtually oneof thecrit-ical literatureobe discussed nthenext ectionhasscrutinizedhis rray fbio-contracts,hileonlyafractionfpro-prospectingriters,s we will see,have considered hem n anydetail.OnlyZeledon

(2000),Nader and Mateo (2001) and Mateo et al.(2001)consider he whole spectrum fbioprospect-ing agreementsNBio has enterednto since1991.This said, it is no surprise hat heMerckcontractreceived o muchattentionuring he early-to-late1990s in the publishedliterature e.g. Blum 1993;SittenfeldndVillers 993;Takacs1996, h.6;Flitner1998). It was, after ll, a 'pioneering greement'(Weiss ndEisner 998,482)nthati) itwasvirtuallythefirst etween majorWestern ompany nd adevelopingnation, ii)Merckpaid a not nconsider-able US$1.3million or xclusiverights f ccesstoa specifiednumber nd rangeofsamples,plus anundisclosed percentageofroyalties estimated t1-3%) for any commercial products ultimatelydevelopedfrom hese samples, iii) the agreementwas not imited omonetaryxchange ut extendedto Merckproviding uch things s equipment ndtraining o INBio and its staff nd (iv) it was aprecedent orfuture io-contracts,othfor NBioand bioprospectorslsewhere ookingforpracticalguidance.Nonetheless, hetheory nd practice fbioprospectinglearlycannotand should not beevaluatedon thebasis of ustonebio-contract,ow-everpioneeringtmayhavebeen.That INBio has managed to attract range ofclients incethe Merck ccord s hardly urprising.Merck'sprominencen thepharmaceuticalndustryhas meantthat otherfirmsn the so-called 'life-sciences sector'could scarcelyfail to take notice.Additionally, ioprospecting ffers rivatesectorpartnershe chanceto earn somegreencredentials(Merck,t sworthnoting, eceived heUS NationalWildlife ederation'sEnvironmental chievementAward' in 1993 on thestrengthf ts NBio agree-ment)whilepotentiallyurning profit. utmost f

This content downloaded from 14.139.62.114 on Tue, 23 Apr 2013 03:05:05 AMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

7/30/2019 3804566

8/22

Bioprospecting 41Table I INBio's bioprospecting agreementsPartner Year started RemitUniversity f Costa Rica 1991 Generalagreement1998 Operationof an NMR unitUniversity fStrathclyde UK) 1991 New pharmaceuticalproducts from lant sourcesMerck & Co. (New Jersey, SA) 1991/1994/ Pharmaceutical nd veterinary roductsfrom lants1996/1998 and microbial ourcesBTG/ECOS-Costa Rica 1992 Developmentofa bionematicidefromLonchocarpus

sp.CornellUniversity 1993 Drug discoveryUniversidadNacional, Costa Rica 1993 General agreementBristolMyers Squib/Cornell University 1994 Insects as sourceof new compoundsforpharmaceutical ndustryInstituto ecnol6gicode Costa Rica 1994 GeneralagreementGivaudan Roure (New Jersey, SA) 1995 Fragrances nd aromas fromCosta RicanbiodiversityUniversity fMassachusetts 1995 New insecticidesDiversa (San Diego, USA) 1995/1998 New enzymesfrom xtremophilic nd othermicro-organsimsGovernment f Canada 1996 Debt fornatureswapINDENA (Italy) 1996 New antimicrobials ordermatologicaluse from lantsourcesEARTH/NASA/Other Latin 1997 Chaga Space Project: ompounds against regulatoryAmerican nstitutions enzymesUniversity fStrathclyde UK) 1997 PharmaceuticalproductsOffice or cientific, echnical and 1998 MOSAICC projectCulturalAffairs Belgium)Phytera Massachusetts,USA) 1998 Pharmaceuticalproductsfrom lantsources

all Costa Rica offersbioprospectors xceptionalopportunities or ccess to in-situbiodiversity. tis, in Takacs' (1996,289)words, a Canaan forbio-diversity'. hough thefigures re imprecise, t isestimated hatthis one, small, CentralAmericancountry ontains alf million pecies, rsome5percentof global biodiversity. hough much of this'mega-diversity's under hreat romogging, anch-ing ndcoffee/bananarowing, he argepercentageof national erritoryesignated s nature arks ndreservesmeans hat gooddeal of tremains ctuallyor potentially ntact. More particularly, NBio's'cooperationgreement'withCosta Rica'sMinistryof NaturalResources, nergy nd Mines (MINAE)gives tdirect ccess to allpublicly rotected reas ofwildbiodiversityn the ountry.achandevery imeINBio collectsbiodiversityamples, t does so byapplying n writing o theMinistry nd by givingnotice o governmenttaffn the relevantnationalConservationAreas (thecountrys split nto11).Furthermore,NBio's activities re undertaken naccordancewithCosta Rica's impressive atteryfenvironmentalaws, especially the WildlifeLaw(Ley de laVidaSilvestre) f1992 nd, more ecently,theBiodiversityaw of 1998.11This is important,

because all the state bureaucracy hatfirms ikeBristolMyersSquibbor INDENA - twoof NBio'sprivateectorlientsnrecent ears mighttherwisehavetowade throughs dealt withbythe nstitute.In effect,NBio is Costa Rica's 'biodiversity lear-inghouse': by standing etweenthenation'sstateapparatus,populace and wild biodiversityn theone side, and various clientorganizations n theother,toffers legaland efficient eansofbringingsellers ndbuyers fbiological esources ogetherna newmarketplace."2Allthis aid, twouldbe wrong othink hatbio-prospectings theonlyway NBioseekstoconservebiodiversity.he nstitute'snformationissemina-tionDivision also has an active Social OutreachProgramme'withtwo mainarms,one educationaland focusedon 'knowingbiodiversity',he otherpractical nd focused n usingbiodiversity'INBioZeledon,100 7).Despitebeing enyears ld,most fCostaRica's estimated .6 million nhabitants aveneverheardof NBioortheconcept f biodiversity.Thoughwealthy ydevelopingworld tandards,hemajority f thecountry's eople remainpoor andreceive basic if ny)education.TheInstitute husruns an educational campaign, largely through

This content downloaded from 14.139.62.114 on Tue, 23 Apr 2013 03:05:05 AMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

7/30/2019 3804566

9/22

42 Noel Castreeschools,designed to teachpeople aboutthenatureand value (economic, estheticnd practical) fthecountry's iodiversity.he mostrecent, xpensiveand spectacular dditionto thiselementof socialoutreachwas theopening of NBioparque n 2000.Situated djacentto INBio, thisnaturepark repro-duces inminiature ostaRica's severalbiomes andoffers ee-payingntrants moralityesson in bio-diversityonservation. he practical rmof socialoutreach,whichhas grown ver theyears,nvolvesINBio staffupportingheconsiderablenumber fnational nd internationalon-governmentalnvir-onment rganizationsn Costa Rica in theirmulti-plicitousffortsoconserve iodiversityractically.'3These effortsnclude bothwild and anthropogenicbiodiversity,nd extendbeyondthecountry's ro-tected reas.Examples togivea sense of therangeinvolved include nitiatives o getcampesino ndindigenous armerso grow nd sellhithertonmar-keted natural oods' and attempts opreventllegallogging ndwildlife oachingnprotected reas.Framingbiological prospecting: a conflictof interpretationsI have spent ometime iscussingNBiospecifically,rather hanbioprospectingmoregenerally,ecauseI wanttochallenge nassumptionhathas, t eems,become commonplacena gooddealof ontempor-arywritingbout ocial,political ndenvironmentalissues. This assumption s that certainempiricalparticularsan represent'nmicrocosmhe upposed'wider'benefits/drawbacksfgeneralphenomenathey re supposed to instantiatecf.Poovey 1999,ch.1). It s an assumption, s I willnowshow, thatis made on both ides ofthebioprospectingebateviz. INBio.Anditarguably ompromises herigourofattempts o evaluate bioprospecting n action(a point shallpursue nthenext ection).Bioprospectings 'green evelopmentalism'Bioprospectings a modalityof what Eckersley(1993) calls freemarket nvironmentalism',houghits aims are notsimply nvironmental. dvocatedbya relativelymall coterie fnationallynd inter-nationallynfluentialheorists nd policymakers,tis an approach onature onservation hatproposestoenact remarkableransformation:amely,o turnan ecologically estructivemarketnto co-saviour.Withmissingmarkets'nd nadequate ropertyightsseenas theroot auseof plethora fenvironmentalproblems,ts conceptual rchitects suchas David

Pearce,Charles Perrings, dward Barbier,DieterHelm,Timothy wanson and JeffreycNeely"4argue thatprivatizingnd pricing ature s thekeyto protectingt.More ambitiously,hey uggest hatmerchandizingreviously npriced nvironmentalassetsmight lso help economically oor butbio-logically ich ommunitiesndcountrieso develop.Furthermore,he market s seen to possess thecapacityto divertthe benefits f development oespecially eedy rworthyonstituenciesithinhedevelopingworld (such as thosegroupswho areactivelyconservingbiodiversity).With develop-ment' ere efined erymuchwithinhe onstrainingcontextf global apitalistconomy,his spirationtocombine onservation,rosperitynd equity singmarketmechanisms s nonetheless n optimisticand positiveone. Indeed, over a decade of debt-for-nature-swaps,co-touristentures,rganic gri-cultureand the like have demonstratedhattheprinciples ffreemarket nvironmentalisman berealizedempiricallyna rangeofdevelopingworldcircumstances. hat is, these principles videntlycombine flexibilitywith the capacity forbroadapplicability. s such, hey reprincipleshat ttestto whatculturalnalysts rewont o callthemater-iality fdiscourse'Dryzek 997, h. 6).Codifiedn aset ofbooks,papersand policydocuments ennedbyPearce, errings,arbier,elm, wanson,McNeelyand others,hey ctas immutablemobiles, irculat-ing mongnational nd nternationalnvironmentalpolicymakers heretheyhave had global impacts(witnessthe property-pricingexus underpinningtheKyotoProtocol nd the CBD) and local expres-sions as intherashofbig-game unting enturesnseveralAfrican ountries).In the case ofbioprospecting,herehas arguablybeen a self-perpetuatingrocesswhere exampleslike NBioare mplicitlyupposedto represent'hewiderprinciplesf ellinggenetic esources or on-servationnd developmentwhile, n turn, he spe-cifics f NBio aretaken o demonstratehebroadervirtuesofprospecting orbio-resources. s I willshowbelow, hishermetic acking etween hegen-eral and theparticulars notundertaken rudely rmechanically.ut t does,nonetheless,onvenientlyserve to ustify oththe merits fbioprospectingtlarge and INBio specifically. his argumentativeoscillationargely xists, think,ecauseof he loselink between senior INBio employeesand thoseadvocatinghe heoryndpractice fbioprospectingmoregenerallynacademiaand the environmentalpolicyworld.As notedearlier, odrigoGamezwas

This content downloaded from 14.139.62.114 on Tue, 23 Apr 2013 03:05:05 AMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

7/30/2019 3804566

10/22

Biovrosvecting 43a keycontributorothe firstnternationalmanual'on bioprospecting ince when the likes of Pearce,Barbier nd Laird have all been quick to cite theINBio case. But morerecently, ormermembers fINBio's Bioprospecting ivision - notablyMateoandWerner,ited arlier,ndAnaSittenfeld"5havepenned string fpublicationsornternationalca-demic ournals, ollaborativeooks onbiodiversity,and internationalnvironmental olicygatheringsinwhich NBio serves s theprincipal xample.Themutually nforcingases forbioprospectingingeneral nd INBiois particular o somethingikethis.According o Reid et l. Done well,biodiversityprospectingan contributereatly o environment-ally sound development nd return enefits o thecustodians of genetic resources ...' (1993, 2). Inessence,Reid and other rospectingnthusiastseeit as a vehiclefor xpressinghe tenets f the CBD:namely, hatbiologicalresources e conserved ndsustainably sed,whilethe benefits eriving romtheir ale be equitably hared.To realizethis rinityof aims, the CBD specified thatbiodiversitybeprivatized ndthat eveloped ountriesupplynewand additionalresources' o enable poorernationsto save - byselling their iological esources. io-prospectings, nterlia, boutenforcingroprietaryclaims to genes, biochemicals nd species,whileensuringhat rivate apital intheformfWesternmultinationalompanies and wealthyuniversitiesor researchnstitutes comes forward o 'reward'biodiverse ountries nd communitiesntheSouth.As Brush ightlybserves,Bioprospectingives usa blueprint or mplementingheCBD's mandates'(1999, 36).But why, t may be asked,has bioprospectingeentouted as such a blueprintas opposed to, say,ecotourismr someother ommodity oadtogreendevelopment?heanswer stwo-fold.irst,s men-tionedearlier, hebioprospectingmarkets poten-tially ery arge. n The ommercialseofbiodiversity,tenKate and Laird (1999, 3) statethat combinedannualglobalmarkets or heproducts erived rom[biological] resources ... lie between US$500 andUS$800billion'."6 s Nader and Mateo (2001,183)pointout, thiscolossal sum dwarfs the revenuesgenerated y mostpresent nd future otential sesofbiodiversity.hissaid, t does not, fcourse, ep-resent he eturnshat countryikeCostaRicamightreceive romelling amples of tswildlife.As eventheterm'snventor, homasEisner, oncedes, hereis only one ina thousand hanceofany biologicalsampleprogressingo theresearchtage,whilefinal

productdevelopmentypicallyakes10-15years.17Eventhen, ew iodiversity-basedrugs, ompounds,organisms nd designsbecomemarket eaders, othat ourcecountries orbio-resourceswill rarelyseemore han fractionf themonies enKateandLairdsay arepotentiallyvailable.Butthese aveatsnotwithstanding,nvironmentalconomistFrankMullernonethelessppearsright oargue hat Giventhe[ir]magnitude,vena relativelymallpercentageof these revenuescould still mean substantial..[earnings] or eveloping ountries'2000, 4-5).Thisbrings s to the econdsupposedstrengthfbioprospecting:hat, side fromhemonetaryene-fits,t bringsunique non-monetarydvantagestosourcecountries. iotechnologys amongthe mostresearch-intensivef ll ndustries,ndthe conomicvalue attached o biodiversityncreases n propor-tion o the ophisticationithwhich t sunderstoodandused.ThismeansthatwhatcountriesikeCostaRica are really elling s not raw biodiversity'utknowledge fbiodiversityJanssen999). his smostobvious nthose aseswhere, ay, pharmaceuticalcompany aysfor ccessto folkknowledge ftrop-icalmedicinal lants. ut vennewly iscovered io-diversityas a major ctual ndpotential nowledgecomponent ttached oit.Thegreaterhedegreeofsampleanalysis bioprospectingroker an under-take using, or xample, ioassay rrays thegreaterthefeepersample t cancharge obuyers.As Weissand Eisner ut t n their roselytizingssay Partner-shipsfor alue-addedthrough ioprospecting',

Developingcountries aturallywish to begintheir ..prospectingctivitiest as high technologicalevel aspossible,so as to maximise heirvalue-added and toavoid relegatinghemselveso their raditional olesassuppliers frawmaterials o ndustriesn more dvancedcountries.Eisner 998, 89)So, ntheoryt east, ioprospectinggreementsanbring apacity-buildingf a potentially ighorderto source countries throughadvanced scientifictrainingnd smartmachinery einga partof the'value-addedchain'.The activitiesof INBio evidentlybear out thespecific dvantagesofbioprospectings a mode ofgreen evelopmentnpractice. orNaderandMateoit smaking 'significantontribution'2001, 81) toconservationnd socio-economic evelopment; orWeissandEisner t s an institutional odel' 1998,482); nd n tenKate nd Laird'sglobal urvey fbio-commercet s thefocus fone of smallnumber f'bestpractice' asestudies.ThoughMateoavers hatINBio, nfact,does not ntend obe a model' 2000,

This content downloaded from 14.139.62.114 on Tue, 23 Apr 2013 03:05:05 AMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

7/30/2019 3804566

11/22

44 Noel Castree54),this srather isingenuous. yvirtue fbeing hemostdiscussed of all bioprospectingodies, t hasinevitablyeen forced o standfor hewidervirtuesofmarket-ledustainabledevelopment. his said,none of thosecommenting avourably n INBio dosouncritically.or nstance,Mateoet l.observe hat'it s not hegoldmine hatwas originallynvisaged'(2001, 86), whileNader andMateoemphasizethatthe nstitute as only urvived ecauseof a signific-ant amount fflexibility'2001, 89).Provisos side,these uthors ll base their ssessments f the nsti-tuteon thewholespectrum f tsactivities, rovid-ing an element fcomprehensiveness issing romthecritiques o be discussed nthenext ub-section.Their ssessments omprise hefollowinglaims.First,NBio has generated eal revenueby sellingbio- and data-diversity. sum of US$2635 611(Mateo2000,54) was realizedfrom ioprospectingover the1991-8 period,an amountnow certainlyover theUS$3millionmark. hough derisoryuminglobal erms, hen onvertedoCostaRican olon-ies ittranslatesnto onsiderable urchasing ower.As, fnotmore,mportantly,ll INBio's agreementswith ompanieshave royalty ntailmentshat ouldultimatelyranslatento ens rhundreds fmillionsofdollars. ince heMerck ontract,NBiohas becomeincreasinglydept tspecifyingmilestoneayments'in these agreements.These involve the partnercompany/researchnstitutionayingthe Instituteprogressively igher ees f a sampleprogresses ovariousresearchtages tertiarynalysis, rototype,clinicaltrialsetc.)."8 econd,bothnon-royaltyndroyaltymonies are directlyinked to conservationin the INBio case. The Institute'sgreementwithMINAEspecifieshat 0percent f ts nnualbudgetgo to heMinistry'sational ark rogrammeSINAC),while 50 per centofany future oyalties esultingfrom NBio's almost20 bio-contractsre to go toMINAE also. Between1991 and 1998,MINAE andCostaRica'sprotectedreas eceivedverUS$1181000in this way. Thirdly,INBio has progressivelyprovidedto clientsmore specializedserviceswithhigherddedvalue . .' (Mateo2000, 0).For nstance,the agreementswith biotech firmsDiversa andINDENAwere asedexplicitlyntechnologyransfer,withthetwocompanies bligedto supply cutting-edge equipmentand training hatwould allowINBio tohave fully unctional icrobiologyaborat-oryby1998.Consequently,he nstitute ow has thetechnology nd expertiseto subject compoundsfrom acteria, ungi nd insects obio-assayguidedfractionation.ourthly, hisoverallcombination f

monetary nd non-monetaryompensation aisesthe controversialssue' (Mateo et al. 2001, 481) ofbenefitharing. he controversy,ot ustin CostaRica but in all cases of bioprospecting,elatesnotonly to identifying ho the relevantbiodiversitystakeholdersre,but also tohowbenefitshouldbedistributedmongthem. NBio soughtto sidestepthis controversyrom he outsetby collecting nly'wild'not nthropogeniciodiversity,ndbydoingso only n protected atureparksand reserves.nthisway, thas been ble toequate he enefit-sharingissuewith hequestion fwhatCosta Rican societyat arge' Mateoet l.2001, 81)receives romNBio'sworkon biodiversitys a national esource' Naderand Mateo 2001, 193). These aggregatebenefitsincludeall thosementioned bove, plus theaddeddistributional onus that40-plus otherwisepoorcampesinos avereceivedhe ducationalnd ncomebenefitsfbeingfull-timearataxonomists.19Finally,NBio's role n knowing, singand sav-ing'biodiversityna fairndequitable'way eems obe self-sustaining.houghCostaRica's bio-reservesarefinite, nowledge boutthem s not.Giventhatwhat ounts s a 'resource's always socio-technicalquestion Spoehr1956), NBio has shownthatbothnowand in the future hemarket orbio-resources/seems nexhaustible' (Nader and Mateo 2001,192).As newmachines nd techniques ermit vermorecomplexstudy and manipulation f myriadbiological amples,NBio stands o market ew andexisting amples repeatedly. ndeed, the nstitutehas been careful olimit heelement f exclusivityinall itscontracts,o that ampleshave as longandbroad commercialalue aspossible. ioprospecting,then, ppearsto be at once commerciallyaluableand commerciallyustainable.Insum, hough ynomeansnaive n their ssess-ments, hosewho advocatebiodiversityrospectingas a toolfor quitable onservation-ledevelopmentinthe Southdraw argely ositive essonsfrom hepioneeringwork f NBio. n usttenyears,thas intheirstimationurned osta Rica'spreviouslyfree'biodiversityntoa streamof compensationwhilebuildingfuture apacity o enhancethat tream.nshort, t has come to 'epitomizethepotentialformutual ain' Pearce nd Moran1994, 02)that reendevelopmentalisms supposedto be all about.Bioprospectings 'post-moderncologicalcapitalism'Thecritics' eading fbioprospectingnd its CostaRicanexemplar ould hardly e moredifferent.n a

This content downloaded from 14.139.62.114 on Tue, 23 Apr 2013 03:05:05 AMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

7/30/2019 3804566

12/22

Bioprospectinq 45seriesofplenary tatements,tephenBrush,ArturoEscobar,MichaelFlitner,ohn row, indiKatz,JoanMartinez-Aliernd KathleenMcAfee (hereafter,Brush etal. unless named individually)have pre-senteda battery fdevastating rguments gainstthe heory ndpractice fpricing iodiversity.rush(1999) makes themostdetailedcase againstpro-specting roper,whileFlitner1998),Martinez-Alier(1996)andMcAfee 1999)tackle iodiversityrivat-izationmoregenerally. heother uthors,workingon a broadercanvas,present ritiques f the free-market pproachtoconservation nd developmentofwhichbioprospectings a part.Thoughhardlyof a piece, these critics ll write out of a post-Marxist erspectivebroadly onceived), xtendingthenormativeoncerns fpolitical conomy o ssuesofecology.Escobar (1996 1999) has coined the neologism'post-modernecological capitalism' to describepejoratively hat havedepictedbove s freemarketenvironmentalism/greenevelopmentalism. here'modern',wentiethenturyapital argelyxploitednature s a freegood (with ncreasinglyostly on-sequences); wenty-firstenturyapital eeks omakenature meanstothe ndofprofit-makingithout,in theprocess,destroyingt. n thisnewregime faccumulation,nature asundergonen"involution"'(Katz 1998, 7) suchthatunlockingts nner ecretsandremakingtsvery abric ffersapital n environ-mentalfix'.According oMcAfee 1999), thepricecapital must pay to access hitherto conomicallyunvaluedenvironmentss seen essas a 'reward'tothestewards fthoseenvironmentsnd more as anecessarycostofproduction'. or her hediscoursepeddledby theorists f thisversion fcapitalismthat s, Pearce,Barbier nd others lulls us into afalse sense of the conservation nd developmentbenefitstmight ring outhernountries nd com-munities. s sheobserves, hisdiscourse

attemptsomaintain separation etween nvironmentalproblems nd broaderpolitical-economicssues. t pro-motes a bias towardtechnologicalolutions nd awayfromocial-structuralhange. McAfee 999, 35)Consequently, itsembodiment in global policies likethe CBD and myriad local initiatives ike INBio doesnothing to address deeper questions concerningwhat 'conservation' and 'development' actuallymeanwithin the context of a capitalist world economy.In its capitalist form, herefore,green developmentis only 'green' and 'developmental' in the strictlylimitedterms pecified by itspredominantlyWestern

theoreticiansnd policygurus.That thas, narounda decade, become 'the ... environmental-economicparadigm' (McAfee 1999, 136, emphasis added)worldwides,forMcAfee, estamento thewaythesethinkersndpractitionersave nsinuatedhemselvesintotransnationalnvironmentalrganizationsiketheGlobalEnvironmentalacility, NEP, theFAO,the UCN, the WWF,theNature ConservancyndConservationnternational.ndeed,theseorganiza-tionshaveforFrow aid thefoundation ornothinglessthan n ecologicalnew worldorder' regulatedbythepayment frent' 1996, 9).The merchandizingfbiodiversity,s one nstanceof thisglobalproject oprivatize heenvironmentalcommons, as beencriticizedyBrush t l.preciselyinrelation othe onservation-development-equitytrinitytpromises o deliver n. Letme take achpartofthis rinitynturn. orMartinez-Alier,hemarketis ecologicallyrrational'nsomethingikeDryzek's(1987)sense of theterm.That s, itis a poor socialchoice mechanism ormakingreasoned decisionsaboutthetype,magnitudend spatio-temporalis-tributionf conservation fforts,ot to mention hetime-scale verwhichthey hould extend.This isbecause the market xpressescurrent referencesrather han he uncertainnddiverse enefits f ..long-term.. conservation'nd also because thesepreferenceseflectcurrent istributionsfpowerand ncome'Martinez-Alier996, 1,47). nthe on-text f n unevenglobalpolitical conomy,his atterfactmeans thatdeveloping ountrieswill typicallypricetheirbiodiversityheaply not because theyattach ittle alue tothebenefitsf it] .. butbecausethey re poor' (Martinez-Alier996,47). Thus the'true' ecologicalvalue of in situ biodiversity orpresent nd future enerationss not captured nbioprospectinggreements.orMartinez-Alier1996,51) the worse-case and likely)scenario s that nthenear futuretwill be 'economically ational' oconvertmost emainingreasofwild andcultivatedbio-resourceso otheruses - withpotentially is-astrous cologicalutcomesntheongererm. notherway of phrasingthis is to say that for ts criticsbioprospectingwill almostcertainly ot generatethe revenuesrequiredfordevelopingcountries oproperlyonserve iodiversity.Similarly iting riticismsavebeenmade aboutbioprospecting'sevelopmentredentials.Develop-ment' s, of course,a weasel-word.Whatever heactual rpotentialenefitsfdenominatingt ntermsofmonetaryndnon-monetarycompensation',hequestiondevelopmentorwho?' s nsistentlyegged

This content downloaded from 14.139.62.114 on Tue, 23 Apr 2013 03:05:05 AMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

7/30/2019 3804566

13/22

46 NoelCastreeinbio-accords. orMcAfee he marketmodality fdevelopmentntrinsic o bioprospectingresumesto answer this question while side-stepping hecomplex ntellectualndmoral ssues tposes. Twoissues oom argehere.First, ioprospectingeneral-izes thenorms fWestern ropertyights s global'common-sense'.evelopmentshere oded as prim-arilypecuniarybenefitsderived fromenclosingthe public biodiversity omain (local and trans-national).As Brush 1999,542) observes, his s 'amomentoustep', ntrudingnto he ocio-ecologicalspaces of those cultures nd communitiesn theSouth who do not conceptually nd practicallysequester aturenthisway.Secondly, ioprospect-ingfixes he erms fdevelopmentnanother rucialrespect. ecause the value' ofbiodiversitys meas-ured ndollars, ounds,yenoreuros, he uestion fwhat ype fbenefitshosewhomeet ntheprospect-ing marketplace hould receive has alreadybeenforeclosed. s McAfee emarks,

It is simplynotmeaningful oweigh the amount hat[transnationalompany] .. is 'willingto pay' for thecontinued xistence f a tropical cosystem gainstthe'willingness o acceptcompensation' or he ost ofhisor her ancestralhomelandof a resident f that sameecosystem hohas little r no cash ncome, nd a vastlydifferentorldview. McAfee 999, 39)Even if one were to accept the terms n whichdevelopment is defined within bioprospectingaccords,critics oubtwhether hebenefitswill bemore than 'modest' (Flitner1998, 158). Worse,McAfee ears hat

bioprospecting illgo through cycleof .. boom, . .saturation,nd then bust ... becom[ing]yet anotherinstance fthe oft-tried and always failed strategyof exportdependentdevelopmentn whichprioritiesaredeterminedyoutsiders.... (McAfee 999, 47)Theseconcerns boutthe nframingfdevelopmentrelate,finally, o several incisivecriticisms f thedistributional onsequences of bio-resource on-tracts. irst, rush 1999) pointsoutthat he CBD'sdeclaration fbiodiversity s 'nationalpatrimony'only egins otouch pon the omplex ndcontestedprocessof dentifyingtakeholders nd sharing hebenefitsfbioprospectingmong hem. his s morethan a technical ssue because knowledgeof bio-resourceswild nd improved' in source' ountriesisprotean,nter-generational,collective,ncremental,ambiguous,tacitand socially distributed' Brush1999,548).Given that he possessive ndividualismimplicit n the contractmodel s notappropriate ocompensatewhole communities f bio-guardians'

in theSouth, hequestionof how to operationalizethe dea that iodiversity ight e cultural ropertyintrudessee Posey 1999).This becomesespeciallytrickywhen who counts as a biodiversitytake-holder s contested themostnotablecases in theSouth being the ongoingattempts f indigenouspeoplesto re)claim ights ver and and resources.Even thenthere re ethicalobjections o puttingpriceon knowledge nd biodiversityhat re com-munallyowned'.Oneof hese oncernshe roprietyofgrantingmonopolyprivileges o one country rcommunity henthe bio-resources eingsold arenot xclusive o them.As Brush rgues,

If knowledgeand geneticresourcescollectedundercontractead to a patentable roduct, ommunitieshatare not partofthe contractuthave the ameresourcescan be deprivedof the opportunityo commercialisetheir nowledge.Brush 999, 39)

These several ndictmentsfbioprospecting ave,withminor exceptions, een brought o bear bycriticsnthe NBiocase. tserves hese riticss 'themodel' Brush 999, 37), s a 'rare xample . .wheresomedetail s known' Flitner 998,157), s 'much-touted' McAfee 999,150) and,at thevery east, stheprincipalrelevant.. example' Martinez-Alier1996, 7). neachcasetheMerck ontracteceives lltheattention. ather han showhow all the abovecriticismsan be appliedto NBio whichwouldnotbe difficult),etme dwell brieflyn those hat eemless obviouslyrelevant.The main ones are thoserelating o indigenousrights nd the distributionofbenefits mongvarious stakeholders.As notedearlier,NBioandMINAE havesought obypass hestakeholderssuebycollectingnlywild' biodivers-itynprotected,on-settledreasandbyaggregatingbenefits o thattheybecome an abstractnational'quantity.However, McAfee (1999) argues thatINBio's role as representativef national nterests'simply bscures set of real concerns verthewhoandthehow of adequate ompensation'.or nstance,theancestors fCosta Rica's terriblymarginalized30000 indigenous peoples - represented y thepoliticallyweakMesa Indigena used manyof thecurrentlywild' areasprotectedyMINAE prior oSpanish conquest. Yet they are subsumed andeclipsed nthehomogenizing ormula f the CostaRican public'that NBio putativelyerves.As such,the nstitute's ontractsrguably gnore he vexedpolitical ssue ofrights f access and ownership othe country'sbio-resources. ven the undeniablebenefits njoyedby parataxonomists rawn from

This content downloaded from 14.139.62.114 on Tue, 23 Apr 2013 03:05:05 AMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

7/30/2019 3804566

14/22

Bioprospectin,Q 47communitiesdjacent onatureparksand reservescannoteasily serveto nip the stakeholder-equityissue n thebud.Why?Becausethese axonomistsreemployedand interpellated s 'individuals',thusbrushing nderthecarpetdeeperquestions boutcommunity ights,culturalproperty nd prior-informedonsent.Situatingcritique: evaluative standpoints,theoreticalessences and practical(ir)relevanceIt would be naive indeedto ask who is 'right' ndwho is 'wrong' in thecontrastingssessmentsofbioprospectingnd INBio presented bove. As tenKate and Laird (1999,293) observe,thedebate ..hasbecomehighly olarised' so much o that t sless a debateandmore conflict fdefinitionsverwhatbioprospectingreally s' and whatempiricalinstancesof it 'actuallyrepresent'. here is littledoubtthat herivalconstituenciesnthisdiscursivecontesteethemselves s making ruth-claimsbouttheworld.Butrather hanfathomheir eracity, emightnstead nquire boutthetruth-effectsfthesediscourses, hat s,thewaytheyhelp to create inboth houghtndpractice the ealitieshey urporttore-presentcf. t Martin 001). t s notnecessaryorehearse ebates ntherealism-relativism'uestionto nsist hat iscourses matter'nthedual sense oftheirocial mportancendtheir hysicality.ndeed,theway that he ikes ofPearceand McNeelyhaveparlayed their free-market/greenevelopmenttheories nto nvironmentalracticeends credenceto thisnow familiar laim about thematerialityflanguage.But, nthecontext fthis ssay,we mightextend his laim ntwoways.First,lldiscourses re clearly ot qual interms fthemagnitude nddistributionf heir ffects.ome'matter'more han thers. econd,while hose n theacademic lefthave been quick to dissect the dis-coursesof allmanner f elite nd layconstituenciesin a host ofcontexts,heyhave arguably een lessprepared odeconstructheir wn.Thesetwopointsconvergenthebioprospectingaseinconsequentialways. To begin,though considerthe case madeagainstbioprospectingo be a powerful ne, t s acase thathas largely eenmadebyandfor cademicleftistsike Brush,Escobar, McAfee and, indeed,myself.notherwords, t merges rom knowledge-communityorkingn universityector hat ffordsitthe pacetomakefar-reachingriticismsfothers'theories and practices. These criticisms irculate

within that specifically ituatedcommunity ndthose e.g. graduate tudents, cademicpublishers)associatedwith t.But, rguably, he pricepaid formembership fthisacademic network s thatthecriticismsailtomake a meaningfulmpacton thevery people, ideas and policies theyare rangedagainst.This is a bold statementnd so I shouldimmediatelyualify t.Some critics f bioprospect-ing e.g.Posey1999)have combined herolesof ca-demic nalystsnd political ctivistsffectively.20ssuch theyhave tried omaketheir ritiquesmatteroutside he eminar oom ndthepagesof cademicjournals.But these ndividuals re arguably n theminority nd, in any case, normally arremovedfrom he powerbrokersn decisionmaking odieslikenational nvironmental inistries rUNEP ortheGEF. By ontrast,he ikes fPearce,Reidand thestaff f NBioare far loser o- indeed attimes re-these powerbrokers. his is because they eitherstraddlethe 'divide' between academia and thepolicyworldorelse iewholly nthe atter.But there s arguably second reason why thepowerful ritiques fthetheorynd practice fbio-prospectingemainmmurednthe cademy: amely,theparticular ature fthese ritiques.What meanhere s three hings: hatBrushetal. offer argelyexternalriticismsfbioprospecting;hat he ttemptto apply thesecriticismso INBio amountsto theInstituteeing mplausibly ortrayeds anempiricalembodimentfthesupposed beastiary hat s 'post-modern cological apital'; ndthat ew iable oliticalalternativesre suggestedby critics f biodiversityprospecting.etme explain.Barnes 1988)makes auseful if otentiallyverdrawn) istinctionetween'internal'nd external' ritique,ne explicatedmorefully yBenhabib1986,pt I) and McCarney 1990,ch. 1). ForBarnes, heformers themoreexactingform f criticism ecause it tacklesopponentsontheir wn cognitive nd normative round,ratherthanbringingxternalriteriao bear.Though omeof the several chargesBrush,McAfee and otherslevel againstbioprospecting o take the formofinternal riticism,hey rearguably utweighed yobjectionsaunchedfrom platformifferentothatoccupied by pro-prospectingheorists ike Pearceand practitionersike Mateo and Nader. True,thepowerofexternal ritiques, precisely,hat ttakesissuewith hatwhich eems obvious' or common-sense' rwhichs otherwiseegemonic.ut his owerarguablywanes in proportionohow far-removedsuchcritiques from he norms f tsobject. n thecase ofbioprospectingnd INBio,thepost-Marxist

This content downloaded from 14.139.62.114 on Tue, 23 Apr 2013 03:05:05 AMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

7/30/2019 3804566

15/22

48 Noel Castreesensibilities rush t l.bring obearhaveundoubtedlogical ndmoralforce. utthis orce nlyregisters,ofcourse, fonealready hares hese ensibilities rcanbe persuadedof their aradigmatic ower.Thecapacityfor n external ritique o alter hetheoryand practice fbioprospectingmust husremain ndoubt. Because it speaks a different iagnostic-normative anguage to those drivingthe biopro-specting gendaforward,trisks alling ndeaf ars.2'Thisweakness, n turn, elates ohow the prin-ciples' of bioprospecting are connected with'examples' ike NBio. nreading scobar ndMcAfeeparticularly,nemight e forgiven or hinkinghatcapitalism,n its post-moderncological' i.e. free-market/greenevelopment)mode, s a juggernautrentingllexistingocio-ecologicalelationssunder.Thoughthese uthorsmight easonably etorthatintheirworkpost-moderncological capital s butan ideal-type r a heuristic, heworry s thatthistheoretical onstruct akes on a certain ife of itsown. True, s a theoreticalonstructt is perfectlylegitimateindeed, lluminating tomake heoreticalcriticisms f it (whether nternal r external).Asphilosopher ohnO'Neill (1998,7-15) argues n hisqualified efence f marketssentialism',hepowerof conceptual abstraction ies in its capacity toidentify hecorecharacteristicsfcapitalismwhilerememberinghat heynever xist n a pureform nthe real world. In thebioprospectingase, Brushabove all others dentifieshesecharacteristicsn aparticularlylear ndcomprehensive ay.Butwhenbioprospecting'sriticseek opass, nanunmediatedmanner, rom heoreticaloempirical ritique rob-lemsarise.There s, mostobviously,theproblemof conflating he theoreticalwith the empirical,notwithstandingthe impossibility of makingtheory-neutraltatementsbout thematerialworld.Relatedly, here s also the problemof depicting'post-moderncologicalcapital'as a 'global' entitythat overs bove, nd then ntersnto,myriadlocal'situations. s Gibson-Grahamuts t,

when we refer to an economy-wide mperativeofcapital ccumulation, e standon . . unsafeground ..[assuming] ts local manifestations.. are alwaysonly... elaborations f a dominance hat lready abstractly)exists.Gibson-Graham 996, 6,15)Both heseproblems, wouldargue, pplytocriticsof bioprospecting xplicitly nd implicitly. heyapply explicitly nthat ntherelativelyfewempiricalcases cited as illustrationswider arguments are nottreated in any detail.22Of the authors mentioned,

Flitneroffers he most detailed consideration fINBio, extending o just fourparagraphs closelyfollowedbyMartinez-Alier'shree), nd eventhenthe evidence ppearsto be selectively resented obolster hebroadercritique f bio-commerce. heimplication,hen,sthat ases ike NBioarecapsuleillustrationsftheflawsof transnationalrocessesof nature ommodificationcf.O'Neill and Gibson-Graham1999). There s, in short, ittle ense thatexperimentsike NBiomight ecomplexndspecific,not empiricalrealizations f theoretical r globalimperatives.eft ritics eally ught odo better.'rigorous'critical nalysisof INBio and bio pro-specting to returnothe oaded term used inmyintroductoryomments would thushave to takethis complexity nd specificityeriously,not tomentionvaluate t mmanentlycf.Blommaert001;Theodore and Peck 1999).23Finally,t seemsto me that heabovementionedcombinationfexternal ritique nd theoreticismscloselytied to the conspicuousfailureof biopro-spectingriticso offerlausible racticallternativesto thatwhich hey riticize. s Sayer rgues, ll criti-cism presupposes hepossibilityfa betterwayoflife' 1995, 3).But thispossibilityemains nactual-ized if t is leftmplicit r else linkedto infeasibleprojects or ocialorecological ransformation.hereis, of course,a normative ension endemicto allexercises n critique:namely,between tinkering'with heworldwithin he imits mposedby prevail-ing normsand structuresnd betweenremakingtheworld in some fundamentalway. The former'politicsof fulfilment's Benhabib terms t is, bydefinition, oretractablehan he atter politics ftransfiguration'1986, 20).But tbuys tsfeasibilityat theexpenseof tspractical ndmoralradicalism.There sno easy waytoexit hisdilemma.This said,one shouldnot think hat politics ffulfilmentsnecessarily'status uo' endeavour cf.Harvey 001,ch. 2). There s,we shouldnotforget, oom for llmanner fpracticalmeasures oimprove heworldwithin hereal,butnonetheless ot pre-determined,conditionsnwhichpeoplemaketheirhistoryndgeography.Alas, criticsof bioprospectinghave generallyfailedto elaboratewhatsuchmeasuresmightooklike.Escobar, litnernd McAfeework t a levelofabstractionhat mpliesa notional post-capitalist'relationwith nature n the North and South butnothingmore oncrete han his. ndeed, heir mageof hegemonic,ampantgreen apitalism' eemstooffer ittlehope for ttaininguch a post-capitalist

This content downloaded from 14.139.62.114 on Tue, 23 Apr 2013 03:05:05 AMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

7/30/2019 3804566

16/22

Bioprospecting 49future,ther hanthrough hedispersed, ocalizedeffortsfnon-mainstreamGOs, consumer roupsorcharitiessee also Gibbs2000).Frow,working ta similarly bstractevel,does at least attempt oaddressnormativessuesheadon 1996, 9-100). Buthisdefence fthe ocalandglobalbiodiversityom-mons gainst hepressure oprivatizendsell snotaccompaniedby any discussionof what, if any,measuresmight npractice eepthe ommons pen.Finally,Brushand Martinez-Alier,n theirmoregroundedcontributions,nvisagemechanisms or'social goods' compensation ordevelopingcoun-tries nd ecologicallyorrected'io-contractsespect-ively.24ut, gain, thefeasibilityfboth s scarcelyexplored.One shouldfurtherote thatnone of thecritics havementionedonsiderhowbioprospect-ingcontractsmight e improved r superseded nspecificocio-ecologicalontexts,ike theoneINBiofunctionsn.25Towards an alternativecritiqueI am arguing,then,that if the critiqueof bio-prospectings toreally ite tneeds tobe immanent,contextuallyrounded ndpolicyrelevant thoughnotexclusively o. Inthispenultimateection f theessay wantto work owards hefirst wo elementsof such a critique, n an illustrative ather hanexhaustivewayand, as a corollary,he hird lementalso.Biodiversityrospectingoes notprecede ndpre-emptpecificmpiricalinstances' f t.Thoughdocuments ikeReid et al. (1993) and ten Kate andLaird 1999) dumbratebstract/idealizedheoreticalprinciples, ioprospecting likeanysocialpractice- does not entailtheseprinciples eing grounded'in actual contextsand surviving ntact.Rather,bioprospecting onsists f an iterative elationshipbetweentheseprinciples as theycirculaten keytexts nd documents) nd theirmessy ctualizationin distinct ocio-ecological ontexts.Though onemight esitate osay that hese ontextsresingular,theyare, at thevery east,unique. This unique-ness shouldnotbe effaced nanyassessment f thetheory nd practice fbioprospecting.ndeed,as Iwillnowsuggest, n appreciation funiqueness anstrengthenhe case leftwing criticsmightmakeagainstprospecting's rchitectsnthe cademic ndpolicyworld.Inthe econd ection,referrednpassing o CostaRica's exceptionalism'nenvironmentalffairs.NBioisone of everal lementsomprisinghat xception-alism.Theother lements ave arguably resented

the nstitute ith specially ropitious onditionsnwhich ofunction:amely, n elaboratenature on-servationnfrastructure,nthusiastictate upport,an establishedegalframework,nd a priorhistoryofWesternponsorship fnational onservationni-tiatives.n short,f omethingike NBiowas goingto originate nywhere,t is no surprise hat any-where' turned ut to be Costa Rica. Though otherdevelopingnationsnow have INBio-like rganiza-tionsfor xample,Mexico), tmust eacknowledgedthat NBio has enjoyedrealadvantagesbecause ofthe peculiarly avourable ocio-politicalonditionsprevailingn CostaRica seeCampbell2002).In thissense defenders fthetheory nd prac-tice of bioprospectingre absolutely ighto insistthat he nstituteannot asilyserve as a model orexemplar. ut, ontraryotheirntentions,uch aninsistencean n fact e usedtodemonstratehereallimitations f NBio and, byimplication,f biopro-spectingnstitutionsndeveloping ountries fferingfar ess favourableonditionsor uch nstitutionsofunctionn.Thislast commentmayseem immedi-atelyto contradictmy claim that one should notdraw putativelywider lessons' from upposedly'representative'local examples'.Butwhat amargu-ing is that the veryuniquenessof the INBio casemakes tveryhardto see howitsparticularircum-stances ouldbe replicated lsewhere.Because, s Iwill now show, INBio has failed to deliver evengiventhepropitious onditions revailingnCostaRica, hen nemusthave real doubts boutthe bil-ity fother ioprospectingontractorso deliver oo.What, hen, o 'failure odeliver' nd real imita-tions'meanhere?As we havealready een,there sclearly oabsolutebenchmarkr scale one can referto norder oprovide n answer othis uestion.Wearethus eftwith he ask f stablishinghegroundsfor n internalssessment fthe NBio experiment.Though tmay eemthat hese rounds avealreadybeen laid inmyearlierpresentationf how advoc-atesmake their ase forbioprospectingnd INBio,I suggest hat his snot he ase.Though hese dvoc-ates,betweenthem,drawupon a rangeof criteriaand indicators omake their rguments,woprob-lems oom arge. irst,t s mplicithat hese regen-eralcriteriahat recede ny mpiricalnstantiationsof them.But this s arguablyproblematic,ecausecriteria electionmust,at some level,be context-dependent.To abstractly ositstandards hat pe-cific asesmust oncretelyiveup to s, urely,oputthe proverbial artbeforethe horse. Secondly, tremainshighlyunclearhow one decides at what

This content downloaded from 14.139.62.114 on Tue, 23 Apr 2013 03:05:05 AMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

7/30/2019 3804566

17/22

7/30/2019 3804566

18/22

Bioprospecting 51clear-cut xample .. [of] MINAE us[ing] ts share [ofINBio's contracts] o support the management ndupkeep of Coco Island National Park, a unique anddiversity-richarine anctuary.Mateo 2000, 3)

As withSittenfeld t al., the veryfact of moneyhavingbeenraised and then pent on Coco Islandserves,mplicitly,s a proxy or discussion fwhatconservationctually s in this ontext.Meanwhile,INBio's development redentials re affirmed ithmentionof the 'significant'ums raised throughbioprospecting nd the 'significantlynhancedknowledge, training nd transfer f technologyachieved. .' (Mateo2000, 3).Asidefrom he mplicitreduction fdevelopment omoneygeneration erse and lldefinedknowledge,rainingndtechnology',therepetitionfthe ermsignificant'ubstitutes orany properanalysis ofwhat it actually means inpractice.This ast omment rings s to the econdproblemwith hewayaffirmativessessments f NBiohavebeenpresented. et us suppose that he criteria ormeasuring he achievements f INBio were fullyexplicatedythe ikes fMateo,Nader ndSittenfeld.Forexample, etus imagine hatMateoet al. - whostate hat access', compensation',transferftech-nology', training' nd 'sustainableuses' are thekey riteria2001, 85-6) - specify hat he ubstant-ive content f the criteria re. The question stillremains: owdoes onedemonstrateowandtowhatextenthese riteria avebeen met npractice?fwetakecompensation' nd,for implicity,efine hisnterms fmoneyreceivedbyINBio forbioprospect-ing, hen ow muchmoney s enough' oensure hatcompensation as beenadequate? s itmoney uffi-cientto pay for heprotectionf all or justone ofCostaRica'sprotected ildlife reas? f o,overwhattimescale?Or is adequate compensation chievedwhenenoughmoney s recoupedto pay formoreINBio staffnSan Jose ndthe ural esearchtations?Ifso, howmany taff nd at whatskill nd incomelevel?WhatI am driving owards here is nottheconclusionhat riteriameasurements impossibleit is, in fact,quite possible depending on hownumerous ndprecisely efined he riteriare- butthat t is undeniablydifficultnd fraught, ot tomentionvowedlypoliticalPorter 994).That hosetouting ioprospectingnd INBio have not, s yet,comeevenclose totacklinghe ssue of riteriameas-urement,ot omention he ssue of riteriapecifica-tion,must be counted as a profoundweakness ntheir ase. In effect,hebest thesebio-advocates ansay is thatbecause bioprospecting as, as INBio

shows,done somethingather hannothing or on-servation, evelopment nd benefit-sharingn theSouth, tshouldbe applaudedand perpetuated.In the case of INBio, then, n internal ritiquepointsup an exceptionalackofrigourn thewaybioprospectingasbeen evaluated.The ssue s notlackoffactual nowledge boutthenature nd out-comeof the nstitute'slmost20 bio-contractshislastdecade,butrather hat hat nowledge ignifiesin the specific ontext f Costa Rican society ndecology.Quitesimply,he nternalriteriaor valu-ationdo not xistwhilethe ssuetheirmeasurementis ducked.Of course, fone were to tackletheserelated oncernsnrealdepth nddetail, nequicklybecomes embroiled n intellectually, orally ndtechnicallyomplex uestions.Tackling heseques-tions (even superficially) ill be time-consumingand necessitate ialoguebetween nalysts f NBioand variousbiodiversitytakeholdersnCosta Rica.But, these challengesnotwithstanding,t is notunreasonable o demand that hosesympatheticobioprospectingo at least some waytoestablishingand measuringontextualriteriaor vidence valu-ation n an explicitway.Without uchan effort fcontextual pecification,laims bout NBio'sworkwill remain mprecise o thepointofbeinghollowand rhetorical.In theCosta Rican case,criteria pecificationndmeasurementwould have to reckonwitha set ofdiverse actorsndconditionshatwill notbe collig-ated in the same way elsewhere n thedevelopingworld. For instance,to make judgementsaboutthe wildlife onservationenefitsfbioprospectingalone, we would have to defineconservation nrelationo omeofthefollowing ighly pecific on-siderations:the number and diversityof genes,species nd habitatsn the ountryraising heques-tionof how much' conservation s 'good'?); thefact hatbiodiversityoss is currentlyeryhigh nCosta Rica,despiteall the conservationegislationexistingnpaper raising hequestion fhow muchconservationis, pragmatically, chievable anddesirable?);ndthefact hat nunusually ighnum-ber ofbiodiversitytakeholdersn Costa Rica arelocaland internationalnvironmentalrganizations(which iases he uestion fhowmuch onservationis enough?'fromhe tart).Whatcan one say in the absence of a fully on-textual evaluationof the INBio experiment? neresponse s to arguethatuntil uchan evaluation sundertaken he verdicton the Institute emainsopen.Another esponse s tosaythat ince such an

This content downloaded from 14.139.62.114 on Tue, 23 Apr 2013 03:05:05 AMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

7/30/2019 3804566

19/22

52 NoelCastreeevaluation ould determinetsown criteria,hen twould be 'biased' from hestart nd thusbe essen-tiallymeaningless. his secondresponsewould not,I think, e ncorrect,xcept hatt mplies hepossibil-ity f a putativelyun-biased' i.e.value-free)valu-ation.One can conceive f a case wherethe criteriaare set o narrowlyndselectivelyhat he nstitute'sbioprospectingctivities ould be made to look'good' or bad' depending. ut third esponse andone that s I think lausible is to saythat contex-tual evaluation f NBio bythose upportive f bio-prospectingsnecessary ecause twilldemonstratewith clarityhow limited the Institute's ctivitieshave been.This snot odiminish heunprecedentedgains INBio has made in thebioprospecting ieldand, of course, realize that one can only define'limited' nrelational otabsoluteterms. ut whenoneis presentedwith ll the facts' bout NBio,onesuspects hat rigorous valuationwillonly xposehowmeagre hebenefits avebeen relative o evenminimallyndnarrowlyefined riteriafdevelop-ment, onservationnd equitablebenefitharing.Conclusion: makingcritique matterINBio will doubtless ive on well intothe twenty-first entury nd new bioprospecting rokerageswill doubtless continue o be established n otherdeveloping ountries.Withintsown broad terms freference,hemarket oute o green evelopment, fwhich NBio is a part, an deliver omeundoubtedgains witness herevenues ndassociated pin-offsresultingfromeco-tourismworldwide this lastdecade orso). But fbioprospectings toamount oanythingmore han elling io-resourcesheaply orlimited eturns,hen ts dvocateswillhave tothinkmorerigorouslybout the ize, nature nd distribu-tion of the several benefits t potentially rings.Aside from he ssue ofdefining enefits whichhave focusedon in theprevioussection), his alsoraisesthe ssue of whatpositivepolicy uggestionscan be offered o contextuallyailorprospectingpracticeso yield hebestpossiblebenefits.It is herethat he eft hould have something osay,and activist cademics ike DarrellPoseyshowthatpolicy researchdoes not automaticallymakeonecomplicitwith heneo-liberalstablishment.ycomparison, he combination f theoreticismndexternal riticismharacteristicf thebioprospect-ingcritics haveconsiderednthis ssay eaves themvulnerable to the chargeof politicalirrelevance.Ironically oo, byseeing NBio as one instance fa

rampant co-capitalismittle pace is leftfor nvi-sioninghow bioprospectingmightbe practicallyreplaced r elsealtered odelivermoreprogressive'benefits. he left f human geography as,of ate,beenagonizing verthequestion ftherelevance fcriticalntellectual ork.Though here s no simplewayto makeacademic nquirymattern theworldbeyond universities,here s arguablysomethingglibaboutcritiquewhich,whateverts ogicalandmoral ower, emainstoneremove romtsobjects.Changing heworld ntails nderstandingheworldfromwithin otfrom hedizzy heights f abstracttheorynd ethical ppositionality.atherhan ejectbiologicalprospectingn groundsof principle,weneed instead o ask:what ind fbioprospectingorwhatkind fbenefitsnwhich ontexts?n answer-ing such a complexquestionwe may stillend uprejecting ioprospecting,ut at leastwe do so onimmanent rounds, oththeoreticallynd empiric-ally.Wemay, qually, indwaysto redefinend alteritsbenefitsnthe nterestf certain otions f eco-logical ndsocial ustice.n either asethe cademicleftwill ertainlyind ts maginationaxed nmakingpracticaludgementsbout specificontexts egard-ingparticular ioprospectingractices. his is whymyall-too-briefritiqueofhow bioprospecting'sadvocatesmaketheir aseempiricallynsisted ponattentiono conjunctural articulars otunspecificexplanatoryr moralgeneralities.here s, nshort,a world of engagedcritique o be had ifonlyonemakesthe ffortoembracet.AcknowledgementsI would like to thankRonMartin nd Adam Tickellfor heirveryhelpful omments n thefirst raft.This paper draws on field research conductedin Costa Rica and I therefore ffer collectivethankyou to themanypeople who gave of theirtimeand expertiseduring myfield visits. wishto acknowledge he financialssistance f theRSG-IBG,whopart-funded yCosta Ricatrips hroughtheir mall grants cheme.Finally, 'm grateful oRamon Ribera fortranslatingpanish to Englishbetter han can.Notes1 There re threemain types f bioprospecting:enetic,chemicaland mechanical/bionicMateo et al. 2001,473).These canbe appliedto both wild' and anthro-pogenic'biodiversity.

This content downloaded from 14.139.62.114 on Tue, 23 Apr 2013 03:05:05 AMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

7/30/2019 3804566

20/22

BiovrosvectinQ 532 There s someambiguity ere s several ommentators(e.g. Flitner 998, 157) have described t as a quasi-statebody. n strictlyegal termsNBio s a non-profit,private nstitution.However, in practice t retainsa formal ink to the national state because it has

procedural nd financial ies toMINAE,Costa Rica'senvironment inistry. hisdoes not mply ny directcontrol n thepart of MINAE but, rather, hat NBiohas certain ommitmentsoMINAE that tmustfulfil.3 A book that,prior to the foundation f INBio, wastheunrivalled ourceof nformationn Costa Ricanwildlife.4 Laird,formerly f the Rainforest lliance, s now afreelance esearcher ith policy nterestsn access toand controlover biodiversity. he wrote a chapterexplaining owbioprospectingontractsmightworkinpracticentheReidet l. (1993) book, nd has sinceundertaken etailed nvestigations fbio-contractinginCameroon nd SouthAfrica.5 And, ofcourse, nthropologistse.g.Clifford 988) ndsociologists f science e.g. Woolgar1988)who havewrestledmost ntensively,nd at times ortuously,iththis ssue of how theempiricalworld s re-presentedinthought.6 Thisessay, s stated,weds a critical nalysisof exist-ing theoretical nd empiricalclaims about biopro-spectingn published cademic and policy iteratureto insightsplucked from body of secondaryandprimary ata on INBiogathered y the uthor. uringtwo researchripsMay andAugust-September001),23face-to-facenterviews ere onducted ith varietyofbioprospectingtakeholdersn Costa Rica. Theseincluded senior figures n INBio, parataxonomists,seniormembers f environmental on-governmentalorganizations international nd local), indigenousorganizationsnd representativesfMINAE. In addi-tion,a large volumeof secondary nformationnlynominallynthepublicdomainwas assembled, nclud-ing unpublishedreports n bioprospectingn CostaRica, copies of INBio's contracts, nd untranslatedgovernmentocuments, dicts nd laws. Phone nter-viewswereconductedwithrepresentativesf all butone of NBio'sprospectingartnersrom he astdecade.This essay is not, hough, systematic resentationandanalysis fthedatagatheredy the uthorfor hatsee Castree npublished).ather,his ssay eflects oreon thebroaderquestionofevidence evaluation.Thisis less an issue of thequantity nd quality fevidenceand moreone ofwhatevidence s madeto tand-forcognitivelyndnormatively by thoseusing t.7 Das's (2002)recent ssay oncontrastingnterpretationsof the Green Revolution s an interestingounter-point to thepresentpaper in thisregard. mplicitin his analysis is the idea thatone can adjudicatebetween ivalperspectivesn an issuebyrecourse oseemingly heoreticalvidence.Though doubtverymuch he would want to defend uch a position, yavoiding the difficultssue of the theory-evidence

relationship, e exposes himself o criticism n thisverypoint.8 Costa Rica is a country fexceptions nd contradic-tions. t s a biodiversity otspot,ontainingn estim-ated one twentieth f global biodiversitydespiteonlybeing the size of West Virginia.On paper, atleast, a quarterof the countryhas protected reastatus nd yetratesof deforestationnd biodiversityloss are amongthe highestn thedevelopingworld.Finally, he countrys amongthemost table n LatinAmerica nd its close cultural nd trading inkswiththe USA no doubtpartly ccountsfor heunusuallylarge number of English-speaking nvironmentalNGOs active n thecountry likeConservationnter-national, the RainforestAlliance, and the WorldResources nstitute). orbasic introductionso CostaRica ee Baker1993)TheCosta icaHandbook,arry1989)CostaRica:A CountryuidendDaling 1998)CostaRica.

9 I sayreputedlyecausethefigures arydepending nthe source.Mateo (2000,45), for xample, nsists hatsome34percent f thecountrys protected henoneincludes public lands, privatereserves nd indigen-ous territories. owever,figuresike thisare almostcertainly aper figuresonly. In practicetherearedoubts boutMINAE'scapacityoprotectoftenemote)designatedreas,whilemanyprivatenature eservesand indigenous reas are subjectto illegal logging,poaching, anchingndmining. hisperhaps xplainsNygren's 1998,202) low estimate hatonly 12 percentof thecountry's aturereserves nd parksarebeingeffectivelyrotected.10 In a well-known nd contentious aper in Nature,Costanzaetal. (1997) tried o place monetary alueson thevarious services' urrently rovidedgratis ythe world's biodiversity,osting hem ntotrillionsfUS dollars.11 AmongCostaRica's everal laims ofamenthe nvir-onmental ield s that thas perhaps he most ompre-hensive nvironmentalaw ofanydeveloping ountry,with evenActs overing range fnature-relatedssues.12 Though NBio does not,de ure,have exclusive ightsto access and sell Costa Rica's biodiversity,t has amajordefacto dvantagesince no other rganizationlike it exists n the country,with the exceptionofCATIE - a tropical esearch entren Turrialba anduniversityiologydepartments.13 Costa Rica is something f a conservation avouriteamong governmentalnd non-governmentalnviron-mental agencies world-wide.Virtually very inter-nationalenvironmental GO has a presence n thecountry,while the US government as for decadesused thecountrys a test-bed ornew eco-initiatives.14 SeePearce 1989), errings1995),Helm 1991), wanson(1997)andMcNeely 1988).15 Tamayoet al. (1997);Nader and Mateo (2001);Mateoet al. (2001);Mateo (1997, 2000); Nader and Rojas(1996); ittenfeld1996);Sittenfeldnd Lovejoy 1998);Sittenfeldt l. (1999);Sittenfeldt l. (2000).

This content downloaded from 14.139.62.114 on Tue, 23 Apr 2013 03:05:05 AMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

7/30/2019 3804566

21/22

54 NoelCastree16 This is an estimate forthe revenuesgeneratedbythefollowing iotechnologyectors: harmaceuticals,botanicalmedicines, eeds,horticulture,rop protec-tion, natural oods' and cosmetics.17 For instance, ccording o Nader and Mateo (2001,

187) the US National Cancer Institute ested over114000 extracts rom ome 35000 plantspecies fornewanti-cancerrugsbetween 960 nd 1982 ndonlyone- taxol is beingused clinically oday.18 The precise payments remainundisclosed so thatINBiodoes nothobble tself nfuture ontract egoti-ationswithnewcompanies nd researchnstitutions.19 Thoughno publishedfigures xiston salariespaid toparataxonomistsincebioprospectingeganat INBio.20 Of theprincipal ritics fbioprospectingcite n thisessay,Martinez-Aliertandsout as arguably he east'acad