Commercialization of Tibetan medicine in China

Below are two brief articles that were published in Trin-Gyi-Pho-Nya [སྤྲིན་གྱི་ཕོ་ཉ་]. The first article by Tashi Tsering expresses concerns for the social, environmental and the long-term sustainability implications of the Tibetan medical system due to its commercialization. In response, Tsultrim Gyaltsen provides some thoughtful suggestions on dealing with the situation, including payment of royalty fees for using plants from the Tibetan environment and the necessity of regulation being in the hands of people who possess the knowledge system.

Designing Modernization To Promote Traditional Tibetan Medicine
By Tashi Tsering
Source: Trin-Gyi-Pho-Nya [སྤྲིན་གྱི་ཕོ་ཉ་], Tibet Justice Center, Vol. 2, No. 6, January 2005.

Tibetan medicine has become a lucrative business yielding million-dollar profits to large pharmaceutical companies in China. Various new policies have been instituted to standardize the production and distribution of Tibetan medicinal products, mainly for commercial and bureaucratic reasons. These new policies are proving to be a debilitating legal framework for the persevering practitioners of the unique Buddhist healing tradition.

According to a study, there are 75 pharmaceutical companies dealing with Tibetan medicine in various corners of the Tibetan Plateau, out of which 30 are run by Tibetans. While the spiritual guidelines of making medicine according to the Buddhist medical texts – Gyushi – are increasingly compromised with the onslaught of industrial production of Tibetan medicine, an interesting issue that comes to point is regarding the efficacy of the healing powers of these medicine. “Amchi (Tibetan doctor) makes medicine to heal the patient but the pharmaceutical companies make medicine to reap profits,” explained a concerned Tibetan doctor from Amdo (now incorporated in Qinghai Province).

New government regulations require all Tibetan doctors to go through a cumbersome registration process. When approved, they are allowed to sell medicine, but only to their private patients. Rinchen-Tsotru-Dashel, a pill that normally costs 20 yuan, is now being sold for 50 yuan by pharmaceutical companies.

“Soon, we will be barred from producing these medicines as Chinese companies are gaining patents over different Tibetan medicines,” said the doctor. To the Tibetan people, the long-term issues involve the survival of this centuries-old healing tradition, as well as the access members of the community have to the tradition. Surely the ultimate subversion of the Tibetan medical tradition would be if the Tibetan people themselves were forced to purchase medicine invented by their own culture and made from their own land, at a higher cost, and from a Chinese company because of a contrived patent system set-up to benefit large industries to the exclusion of local practitioners.

Commercialization of Tibetan medicine also has environmental consequences. Most of Tibetan medicine’s plant ingredients are rare herbs that are endemic to Tibet’s high mountains. Currently, there are no mechanisms in place to check indiscriminate harvesting of these species. The commercialization of Tibetan medicine has dramatically increased demands for these ingredients, resulting in the widespread, unsustainable removal of certain plant species. Utpal Ngonpo (Blue poppy, meconopsis sp.), marketed as a cure for Hepatitis B by Chinese companies, is one such rare plant species that the Tibetan doctor fears might not survive if the current rate of harvesting continues.

The challenge for policy makers in China is not just the integration Tibetan medicine into the mainstream economy and modes of production, but also the preservation and promotion of a unique tradition of medical knowledge and expertise. While greater access to, and availability of, Tibetan medicine is a worthwhile goal, it will mean very little if the tradition which produced it is swallowed up and destroyed in the process.
===================================

Response from Tsultrim Tsering Gyaltsen
Source: Trin-Gyi-Pho-Nya [སྤྲིན་གྱི་ཕོ་ཉ་], Tibet Justice Center, Vol. 3, No. 1, March 2005.

Regarding your last editorial, "Designing Modernization To Promote Traditional Tibetan Medicine," there are some issues that should be given consideration for all parties involved at the practice or production level in "traditional" Tibetan medicine.

The plants and substances used in Tibetan medicine are also part of the fabric of life particular to Tibet and therefore a part of the heritage of the Tibetan people. The fact is that companies selling Tibetan medicines are not only profiting from the knowledge of Tibetan medicine but are also using the actual plants integral to the wholeness of the land. In consequence, I suggest the following two conditions.

1) There should be strict limits established regarding the sustainable harvest of these plants and that all companies, in some fair way, should share in that supply and those restrictions.
2) Non-Tibetan owned companies should pay a royalty fee for using plants from the Tibetan environment. When companies substitute foreign plants for native Tibetan plants then the resultant production should not be called Tibetan medicine.

Such measures could insure benefit for future generations in three ways.

1) The integrity of the environment would be assured by mitigating potential environmental damage from overuse.
2) They would create an economic basis for the enforcement of those regulations.
3) There would be an ongoing source of funds to support further research and training in all aspects of the tradition of Tibetan medicine.

Furthermore regarding the production of medicines the traditional texts often specify many conditions under which the ingredients for the medicines were to be collected, handled, and prepared. The texts may state, for example, that certain plants are to be collected only in certain months because their medicinal properties are then active, or that some medicines were only collected from north facing slopes, or in a certain season, or at night, or during a certain phase of the moon. These are some of the many subtleties that, in combination, make Tibetan medicine effective. It does not suffice for a manufacturer to have a list of ingredients that can be haphazardly combined to hopefully produce a positive result.

If what is called a "Tibetan medicine" is in the sole judgment of physicians, fully qualified in the Tibetan medical tradition, to be found to be of diminished quality, efficacy, or that it has a negative consequence for the environment as a result of its production, that product and its producer should be made to conform to traditional practice or the production should be discontinued.

Furthermore if the Tibetan medical system is to be regulated it should be done from the bottom up, not the top down. It must be put under the supervision of those who are intimately familiar with the traditional training and all of the prerequisites for the qualification of doctors and the production of the medicines. In such case, there should be assembled a congress of knowledgeable and qualified Tibetan doctors to establish the requirements for the formulation of the compounds used and the practice of the traditional medicine.

Regulation should come only from within the ranks of those who have an intimate understanding of the tradition and not by governmental officials or profit driven companies who know little or nothing of its nuances. The members of that congress should provide certification for a qualifying product that the product has been produced in accord with tradition and is an "authentic Tibetan medicine." This is the only way to insure the continued efficacy of the medicines and to prevent the bastardization of the Tibetan medical tradition for profit.

With this approach the twin goals of establishing standards of practice and production would be accomplished along with the guarantee of the preservation of all of the many nuances of understanding that are critical to the authentic continuation of the tradition.

A final point is that all names traditionally used for medicines should be part of the public domain. They should be available for use to anyone who produces medicines in accord with the above standards. They must not belong to any single company who could disenfranchise other legitimate producers of traditional medicines simply by controlling the rights to the names.
Read more on this article...

"Climate Change as a Human Rights Issue for Subsistence-Based Societies"

Is it fair if the climate costs of development of industrialized economies such as US and China are borne by subsistence-based societies like those of Tibetans and the Inuits? Should the victims of climate change be compensated by its perpetrators? What if Tibetan nomads and pastoralists are being blamed and forcefully relocated for grassland degradation that is caused by global warming? Read an article by Professor Julia Klein of Colorado State University addressing some of these issues.




Climate Change as a Human Rights Issue for Subsistence-Based Societies
By Julia Klein
Source: ource: Trin-Gyi-Pho-Nya [སྤྲིན་གྱི་ཕོ་ཉ་], Tibet Justice Center, Vol. 2, No. 6, January 2005.

In December 2004, a meeting of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change took place in Buenos Aires, Argentina, in anticipation of the upcoming entry into force of the Kyoto Protocol. At the same time, the Inuit -- 155,000 seal-hunting peoples scattered around the Arctic -- announced they were preparing a petition to the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights stating that the United States, by contributing substantially to global warming, is threatening their existence. The Inuit people's lives and culture depend upon the Arctic ice. Scientists have concluded that climate change caused predominantly by human influences is causing that ice to melt and causing other impacts to the Inuit way of life. In their petition, the Inuit assert that because the United States is responsible for 25% or more of the greenhouse gas emissions that are contributing to climate change, the United States has an international obligation to prevent these human rights violations. The Inter-American Commission will forward the petition to the United States, which is the respondent, hold a series of hearings on the matter and determine whether this constitutes a violation of human rights.


[Photo by Raul Gutierrez]

Just as the Inuit rely on the arctic ice for their subsistence, Tibetan pastoralists depend on the alpine rangelands of the Tibetan Plateau for their survival. The pastoralists rely on the rangeland vegetation to convert the sun's energy into products - via domestic herbivores - that form the basis of their culture and subsistence. These products include food, clothing, housing, fuel, stored wealth, and transportation. The Tibetans also directly rely on vegetation for goods such as medicinal plants and other products.

Scientists, range managers and development personnell working on the Tibetan Plateau have primarily ignored issues of climate warming effects on the Tibetan rangelands. Rather, they have focused on the Tibetan rangelands with respect to grazing issues. The Tibetan rangeland debate is often couched in terms of whether the Tibetans are "rational" or "irrational" land managers, whether animal densities are increasing or decreasing on the Tibetan Plateau, the merits and drawbacks of fencing and sedentarization, and the effects of small mammal grazing on the rangelands. While most of these issues are very important, they should be studied in the context of a changing underlying climatic condition. These topics also highlight the propensity for scientists, range managers and development personnell working on the Tibetan Plateau to observe rangeland degradation, observe grazing animals (or fences or small mammals), and make a causal connection between the two based on observation rather than a valid scientific analysis of cause and effect.

While very little research has been conducted on how climate warming may affect ecosystem goods and services on the Tibetan Plateau, work has recently been published in the scientific literature (Klein et al. 2004) that shows climate warming could cause as much as a 36% decline in plant species diversity on the northeastern region of the Tibetan Plateau. This includes declines in medicinal plant species and palatable forage species richness. This work also indicates warming could reduce overall vegetative productivity and increase shrub encroachment in this region of the Tibetan Plateau (Klein 2003).

There is a consensus among the scientific community that much of the present climate warming on Earth is due to human activities (IPCC 2001). According to the New York Times, the United States was the only country at the climate meetings in Buenos Aires which continues to question the climate change science. There is also evidence that climate warming is occurring on the Tibetan Plateau (Thompson et al. 2000). China, which ratified the Kyoto Protocol in 1992, is the second largest emitter of greenhouse gases, but per capita emissions of global warming pollutants in China are just 15 percent of U.S. levels. China accepted no mandatory greenhouse gas emissions target under the Protocol -- only developed countries are subject to binding emission targets in the Kyoto Protocol's first emission control period, 2008 to 2012.

Climate warming is an unusual environmental problem because the primary actors driving the changes can be far removed from the most vulnerable recipients of the climate change effects. This large spatial disconnect between drivers and recipients is due to the nature of greenhouse gases, which mix relatively rapidly in the atmosphere across the globe. The Inuit people can assert their rights in the international arena because there has been careful documentation of climate change in the arctic, because the ecological and social impacts of climate change on the Inuit people have been rigorously studied for over a decade, and because supporters of the Inuit people recognize the links between politics, human rights and climate change. The Tibetan pastoralists, who are potentially highly vulnerable to climate change impacts, will also need to rely on rigorous science and an interested community to assert their rights to a resource base that is being affected by anthropogenic climate changes and to bring this issue to the attention of the international community.

References cited:
1. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) 2001. Climate change 2001: Summary for Policymakers. In: Climate Change 2001: The Scientific Basis. Contribution of Working Group I to the Third Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (ed. Houghton, J.T., Griggs, D.J., Noguer, M., van der Linden, P.J., Dai, X., Maskell, K., & Johnson, C.A.). Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
2. Klein, J.A., J. Harte & X.Q. Zhao. 2004. Experimental warming causes large and rapid species loss, dampened by simulated grazing, on the Tibetan Plateau. Ecology Letters 7(12) 1170-1179.
3. Klein, Julia A. 2003. Climate warming and pastoral land use change: implications for carbon cycling, biodiversity and rangeland quality on the Northeastern Tibetan Plateau, PhD Thesis, University of California, Berkeley.
4. Thompson L.G., Yao T., Mosley-Thompson E., Davis M.E., Henderson K.A. & Lin P.-N. (2000) A high-resolution millennial record of the South Asian monsoon from Himalayan ice cores. Science, 289, 1916-1919.

Read more on this article...