How are legal matters related to the access of traditional knowledge being considered in the scope of ethnobotany publications in Brazil?

Abstract

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.

Challenges and Opportunities for Ethical Collaborative Research: Social Contours of A'uwẽ (Xavante) Ethnobiological Knowledge

“…Despite the numerous relationships the A'uwe ˜ have developed with scientists over the years, relatively few ethnobiological studies have been undertaken with this Indigenous group (as compared to the hundreds of non-ethnobiological articles and books published about them) (Azanha 2013;Fragoso et al 2000;Leeuwenberg 1997;Leeuwenberg and Robinson 2000;Marimon and Felfili 2001;Saito 2011, 2013;Prada and Marinho-Filho 2004;Urébété 2017;Vieira 1999;Villalobos 2002;Welch 2014Welch , 2015bWelch , 2020Welch et al 2013). This discrepancy may be due to the cultural limitations on who may legitimately have access to secret information, which entails a substantial portion of A'uwe ˜ ethnobiological knowledge, as well as the federal government's gatekeeping regulations, which serve to limit the ethnobiological research projects individual communities may come to consider.…”

“…Just meeting the requirements for obtaining formal research authorizations is often a daunting process. For example, in the case of an academic ethnobiological study conducted by a researcher at a Brazilian domestic institution with Indigenous Peoples living in a federally recognized Indigenous land (my situation), the formal authorizations required include: (1) ethics approval of the research project and informed consent form by an institutional review board (Comitê de Ética em Pesquisa) (Fonseca 2015); (2) ethics approval of the research project and informed consent form by the National Research Ethics Commission (Comissão Nacional de Ética em Pesquisa) (Barbosa et al 2014); (3) peer reviewed approval of the research project by the National Council for Scientific and Technological Development (Fundação Nacional do Índio and Santilli 1995); (4) evaluation and authorization of the project by the National Indian Foundation (Fundação Nacional do Índio), including consultation with community leaders, in order to legally enter a federal Indigenous land (Fundação Nacional do Índio and Santilli 1995); (5) registration and certification of the project and informed consent form via the National System for the Management of Genetic Heritage and Associated Traditional Knowledge (da Silva and de Oliveira 2018; Welch 2015a); and (6) community informed consent, usually granted during public meetings in local communities and/or with Indigenous associations representing communities, signed by locally recognized leaders (Liporacci et al 2015; Zank et al 2019). Additionally, researchers must follow ethical guidelines established by a home or sponsoring institution, all relevant academic associations, governmental regulations, and international treaties.…”

Indigenous and traditional knowledge, sustainable harvest, and the long road ahead to reach the 2020 Global Strategy for Plant Conservation objectives

“…These procedures are highlighted in International Labour Organization Convention 169, International Society for Ethnobiology Code of Ethics (ISE 2006), as well as in other conventions dealing with the rights of indigenous and local peoples (CBD 2012;Contreras et al 2015); and from another perspective, Prior Informed Consent is also supported by discussions on research with human beings as a whole. Ethical issues about access to IPLC knowledge in Brazil were discussed by Liporacci et al (2015) and Pedrollo & Kinupp (2015), showing fragilities and limitations of the procedures in operation from 2002 until 2015 under the guidelines of the provisional measure which was valid during those dates. The new regulations, framed by Law 13,123/2015, still appear to be of limited effectiveness in protecting the traditional knowledge associated with biodiversity (Moreira & Conde 2017); where access to associated traditional knowledge of identifiable origin is conditional on obtaining prior informed consent and associated traditional knowledge of non-identifiable origin (e.g., diffuse knowledge) is independent of prior informed consent .…”

Where are the Brazilian ethnobotanical studies in the Atlantic Forest and Caatinga?

“…According to Haverroth (2010), in Amazonia this scenario has also been observed and may reflect the lack of specialists in the region as well as laws that restrict access to genetic resources and associated traditional knowledge. Another factor that could be attributed to this is the time it takes to complete studies about indigenous groups, especially considering the large amount of legal bureaucracy involved and the significant amount of time needed for the researcher/indigenous person to build a working relationship, which is often incompatible with the time given to complete a master's or PhD degree (Liporacci et al 2015;Pedrollo & Kinupp 2015).…”

“…Advances in the development of ethnobotanical studies Liporacci et al 2015) have led to various literature reviews. Some of these are more descriptive (Vieira & Martins 2000;Guarim-Neto & Morais 2003;Agra et al 2007b;Agra et al 2008;) and others test hypotheses Santos et al 2008b;Albuquerque et al 2009;Morales & Ladio 2009), including the application of systematic reviews and meta-analyses (Medeiros et al 2013a;Medeiros et al 2013b).…”