Hostname: page-component-8448b6f56d-xtgtn Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-19T11:08:45.050Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Protecting Traditional Knowledge Holders' Interests and Preventing Misappropriation—Traditional Knowledge Commons and Biocultural Protocols: Necessary but Not Sufficient?

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  07 December 2012

Krishna Ravi Srinivas
Krishna Ravi Srinivas*
Affiliation:
Research and Information System for Developing Countries (RIS), New Delhi, India, krsriniv@gmail.com; ravisrinivas@ris.org.in
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

The experience of the indigenous communities regarding access and benefit sharing under the national regimes based on provisions of Convention on Biological Diversity and Bonn Guidelines has not been satisfactory. The communities expect that noncommercial values should be respected and misappropriation should be prevented. Some academics and civil society groups have suggested that traditional knowledge commons and biocultural protocols will be useful in ensuring that while noncommercial values are respected, access and benefit sharing takes place on conditions that are acceptable to the communities. This proposal is examined in this context in the larger context of access and benefit sharing under the Convention on Biological Diversity and implementing prior informed consent principles in access and benefit sharing. This article examines knowledge commons, provides examples from constructed commons in different sectors and situates traditional knowledge commons in the context of debates on commons and public domain. The major shortcomings of traditional commons and bicultural protocol are pointed out, and it is suggested that these are significant initiatives that can be combined with the Nagoya Protocol to fulfill the expectations of indigenous communities.

Type
Research Article
Information
International Journal of Cultural Property , Volume 19 , Special Issue 3: Intangible Property at the Periphery: Expanding Enclosure in the 21st Century , August 2012 , pp. 401 - 422
Copyright
Copyright © International Cultural Property Society 2012

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Allarakhia, Minna, Kilgour, D. Marc, and Fuller, J. David. “Modelling the Incentive to Participate in Open Source Biopharmaceutical Innovation.” R&D Management 40, no. 1 (2010): 50–66.Google Scholar
Anderson, Jane. “Indigenous/Traditional Knowledge and Intellectual Property: Issue Paper.” Durham: School of Law, Duke University, 2010.Google Scholar
Aoki, Keith. Seed Wars. Durham, NC: Carolina Academic Publishers, 2008.Google Scholar
Bavikkate, Kabir, and Robinson, Daniel F.. “Towards a People's History of the Law.” LEAD: Law Environment & Development Journal 7, no. 1 (2011): 35–50.Google Scholar
Blais, Francois. “The Fair and Equitable Sharing of Benefits from the Exploitation of Genetic Resources.” In Governing Global Biodiversity, edited by Le Prestre, Philippe G., 145–58. Aldershot, UK: Ashgate, 2002.Google Scholar
Bolin, Elois Ann, and Bolin, Brent. “Prior Informed Consent and Bioprospecting in Chiapas.” In Indigenous Intellectual Property Rights, edited by Riley, Mary, 341–70. Walnut Creek: Alta Mira (Sage), 2004.Google Scholar
Boyle, James. “The Second Enclosure Movement and Construction of Public Domain.” Law and Contemporary Problems 66 (2003): 33–74.Google Scholar
Brand, Ulrich, Görg, Christoph, Hirsch, Joachim, and Wissen, Markus. Conflicts in Environmental Regulation and Internationalization of the State. New York: Routledge, 2009.Google Scholar
Brown, Michael F.Who Owns Native Culture? Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 2003.Google Scholar
Cassier, Maurice. “New ‘Enclosures’ and the Creation of New ‘Common Rights’ in Genome and Software.” Contemporary European History 15, no. 2 (2006): 255–71.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chander, Anupam, and Sunder, Madhavi. “The Romance of the Public Domain.” California Law Review 92 (2004): 1331–37.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Coombe, Rosemary J. “The Expanding Purview of Cultural Properties and Their Politics.” Annual Review of Law and Social Science 5 (2009): 393–412.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Coriat, Benjamin. “From Natural Resource Commons to Knowledge Commons.” LEM Working Paper 2011/16, Sant'Anna School of Advanced Studies, Pisa (2011).Google Scholar
Cullet, Philippe. “Environmental Justice in the Use, Knowledge and Exploitation of Genetic Resources.” In Environmental Law and Justice in Context, edited by Ebbesson, Jonas and Okowa, Phoebe, 371–89. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, 2009.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dedeurwaerdere, Tom. “The Role of Law, Institutions and Governance in Facilitating Access to the Scientific Research Commons.” In Gene Patents and Collaborative Licensing Models, edited by Van Overwalle, Geertrui, 365–80. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, 2009.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dedeurwaerdere, Tom, ed. “Microbial Commons.” Special issue, International Journal of the Commons 4, no. 1 (2010), http://www.thecommonsjournal.org/index.php/ijc/issue/view/16.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
De Jonge, Bram. “Plants, Genes and Justice.” PhD thesis, Wageningen Agricultural University, 2009.Google Scholar
Dolsak, Nives, and Ostrom, Elinor, eds. The Commons in the New Millennium. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 2003.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dutfield, Graham. “Protecting the Rights of Indigenous People: Can Prior Informed Consent Help?” In Indigenous People, Consent and Benefit Sharing: Lessons from the San-Hoodia Case, edited by Wynberg, Rachel, Schroeder, Doris, and Chennells, Roger, 53–67. Berlin: Springer, 2010.Google Scholar
Eisenberg, Rebecca. “Reaching through the Genome.” In Perspectives on Properties of the Human Genome Project, edited by Kieff, Scott. F, 209–30. Amsterdam: Elsevier Academic Press, 2003.Google Scholar
Gibson, Johanna. Community Resources. Aldershot, UK: Ashgate, 2005.Google Scholar
Hess, Charlotte, and Ostrom, Elinor. “Introduction: An Overview of the Knowledge Commons.” In Understanding Knowledge as a Commons, edited by Hess, Charlotte and Ostrom, Elinor, 3–26. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 2007.Google Scholar
Jonas, Harry, Bavikatte, Kabir, and Shrumm, Holly. “Community Protocols and Access and Benefit Sharing.” Asian Biotechnology and Development Review 12, no. 3 (2010): 49–76.Google Scholar
Kamu, Evanson C., and Winter, Gerd, eds. Genetic Resources, Traditional Knowledge and the Law: Solutions for Access and Benefit Sharing. London: Earthscan, 2009.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kansa, Eric, Schultz, Jason, and Bissell, Ahrash N.. “Protecting Traditional Knowledge and Expanding Access to Scientific Data: Juxtaposing Intellectual Property Agendas via a ‘Some Rights Reserved’ Model.” International Journal of Cultural Property 12, no. 3 (2005): 285–314.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kloppenburg, Jack R., ed. Seeds and Sovereignty. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, 1987.Google Scholar
Kloppenburg, Jack R.First the Seed: The Political Economy of Plant Biotechnology. Madison: University of Wisconsin Press, 2005.Google Scholar
Kloppenburg, Jack R. “Impeding Dispossession, Enabling Repossession: Biological Open Source and the Recovery of Seed Sovereignty.” Journal of Agrarian Change 10, no. 3 (2010): 367–88.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Koutouki, Konstantia. “The Nagoya Protocol: Status of Indigenous and Local Communities.” Montreal: Montreal Center for International Sustainable Development Law, 2011.Google Scholar
Lane, Eric. Clean Tech Intellectual Property. New York: Oxford University Press, 2011.Google Scholar
Long, Andrew. “REDD and Indigenous Peoples in Brazil.” In Climate Change, Indigenous Peoples and Search for Legal Remedies, edited by Abate, Randall S. and Kronk, Elizabeth Ann, Cheltenham, UK: Edward Elgar, 2013. Forthcoming.Google Scholar
Manson, Neil C., and O'Neil, Onora. Rethinking Informed Consent in Bioethics. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, 2007.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McCool, Stephen F.“Distributing the Benefits of Nature's Bounty.” In International Symposium on Managing Benefit Sharing in Changing Social Ecological Systems, 5–7 June 2012, Windhoek, Namibia, 2012.Google Scholar
McMannis, Charles, ed. Biodiversity and the Law: Intellectual Property, Biotechnology and Traditional Knowledge. London: Earthscan, 2007.Google Scholar
Medaglia, Jorge Cabrera, Perron-Welch, Frederic, and Rukundo, Oliver. “Overview of National and Regional Measures on Access to Genetic Resources and Benefit-Sharing: Challenges and Opportunities in Implementing the Nagoya Protocol.” Montreal: Montreal Center for International Sustainable Development Law, 2011.Google Scholar
Mgbeoji, Ikechi. Global Biopiracy: Patents, Plants and Indigenous Knowledge. Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 2006.Google Scholar
Millum, Joseph. “How Should the Benefits of Bioprospecting Be Shared.” Hastings Center Report 40, no. 1 (2010): 24–33.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Nakagawa, Melanie. “Overview of Prior Informed Consent from an International Perspective.” Sustainable Development Law and Policy, (Summer 2004): 4–8.Google Scholar
Ni, Kuei-Jung. “Legal Aspects of Prior Informed Consent on Access to Genetic Resources: An Analysis of Global Lawmaking and Local Implementation toward an Optimal Normative Construction.” Vanderbilt Journal of Transnational Law 42 (2009): 227.Google Scholar
Nonini, Donald M. “Introduction: The Global Idea of ‘the Commons.’” Social Analysis 50, no. 2 (2006): 164–77.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Noyes, Dorothy. “The Judgment of Solomon: Global Protection for Tradition and the Problem of Community Ownership.” Cultural Analysis 5, no. 1 (2006): 27–56.Google Scholar
Oldham, Paul. “An Access and Benefit-Sharing Commons? The Role of Commons/Open Source Licences in the International Regime on Access to Genetic Resources and Benefit-Sharing.” In Initiative for the Prevention of Biopiracy: Research Documents, Year IV, No. 11, Access & Benefit Sharing Research Project, Fridtjof Nansen Institute, Lysaker, Norway, 2009.Google Scholar
Onwuekwe, Chika B. “The Commons Concept and Intellectual Property Rights Regime: Whither Plant Genetic Resources and Traditional Knowledge.” Pierce Law Review 2 (2004): 65.Google Scholar
Patlak, Margie, Nass, Sharyl J., and Balogh, Erin. Precompetitive Collaboration in Oncology Research. Washington, DC: National Academies Press, 2010.Google Scholar
Posey, Darrell Addison, ed. Cultural and Spiritual Values of Biodiversity. London: Earthscan, 1999.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Posey, Darrell Addison, and Dufield, Graham. Beyond Intellectual Property: Towards Traditional Resource Rights. Ottawa: International Development Research Center, 1996.Google Scholar
Raustila, Kal, and David, Victor D.. “The Regime Complex for Plant Genetic Resources.” International Organization 58 (2004): 277–309.Google Scholar
Reid, Walter, Laird, Sarah A., Meyer, Carrie A., Gámez, Rodrigo, Sittenfeld, Ana, Janzen, Daniel H., Golin, Michael A., and Juma, Calestous. “A New Lease on Life.” In Biodiversity Prospecting: Using Genetic Resources for Sustainable Development, edited by Reid, Walter, et al., 1–52. Washington DC: World Resources Institute, 1993.Google Scholar
Richerzhagen, Carmen. Protecting Biological Diversity. London: Routledge, 2010.Google Scholar
Riley, Mary, ed. Indigenous Intellectual Property Rights. Walnut Creek, CA: Alta Mira (Sage), 2004.Google Scholar
Roa-Rodriguez, Carolina, and van Dooren, Thom. “Shifting Common Spaces of Plant Genetic Resources in the International Regulation of Property.” Journal of World Intellectual Property 11, no. 3 (2008).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Robinson, Daniel. Confronting Biopiracy: Cases, Challenges and International Debates. London: Routledge Earthscan, 2010.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rose, Carol. “The Several Futures of Property: Of Cyberspace and Folk Tales, Emission Trades and Ecosystems.” Minnesota Law Review 83 (1998): 129–82.Google Scholar
Rosendal, Kristin G.The Convention on Biological Diversity and Developing Countries. Aldershot, UK: Ashgate, 2000.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Salazar, Rene, Louwaars, Niels P., and Visser, Bert. “On Protecting Farmers' New Varieties.” CAPRi Working Paper 45, International Food Policy Research Institute, Washington, DC (2006).Google Scholar
Samuelson, Pamela. “Enriching Discourse on Public Domains.” Duke Law Journal 55 (2006).Google Scholar
Santilli, Juliana. Agbiodiversity and Law. London: Routledge, 2012.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schroeder, Doris. “Informed Consent: From Medical Research to Traditional Knowledge.” In Indigenous People, Consent and Benefit Sharing: Lessons from the San-Hoodia Case, edited by Wynberg, Rachel, Schroeder, Doris, and Chennells, Roger, 27–52. Berlin: Springer, 2010.Google Scholar
Schroeder, Doris, and Lasen-Diaz, Carolina. “Sharing the Benefits of Genetic Resources: From Biodiversity to Human Genetics.” Developing World Bioethics 6, no. 3 (2006): 135–43.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Srinivas, Krishna Ravi. “Intellectual Property Rights and Bio Commons and Beyond.” International Social Science Journal 58, no. 188 (2006): 319–34.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Srinivas, Krishna Ravi. “Traditional Knowledge and Intellectual Property Rights: A Note on Issues, Some Solutions and Some Suggestions.” Asian Journal of WTO & International Health Law and Policy 3, no. 1 (2008): 81–120.Google Scholar
Stenson, Anthony J., and Gray, Tim S.. The Politics of Genetic Resource Control. New York: Macmillan, 1999.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tsikun, Marina, and Ni, Kuei-Jung. “Using Licensing Contract to Protect Holders of Traditional Knowledge and Related Genetic Resources—a Reflection on ICBG Projects.” IIC: International Review of Intellectual Property and Competition Law 42, no. 3 (2011): 299–315.Google Scholar
Tully, Stephen. “The Bonn Guidelines on Access to Genetic Resources and Benefit Sharing.” Review of European Community and International Environmental Law 12, no. 1 (2003): 84.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wynberg, Rachel, and Laird, Sarah. “Bioprospecting, Access and Benefit Sharing.” In Indigenous People, Consent and Benefit Sharing: Lessons from the San-Hoodia Case, edited by Wynberg, Rachel, Schroeder, Doris, and Chennells, Roger, 69–86. Berlin: Springer, 2010.Google Scholar
Wynberg, Rachel, Schroeder, Doris, and Chennells, Roger, eds. Indigenous People, Consent and Benefit Sharing: Lessons from the San-Hoodia Case. Berlin: Springer, 2010.Google Scholar