Saving traditional knowledge from the ‘biopirates’

Indigenous peoples’ traditional knowledge about the use of natural resources is vital for conserving biodiversity. This knowledge is now under threat from intellectual property systems and globalisation. A new legal framework is needed to protect traditional knowledge.

Traditional knowledge has helpedto develop millions of crop varieties, along with techniques for sustainableagriculture and resource use. A report from the International Institute forEnvironment and Development in the UK examines the threats to traditionalknowledge, emphasising the need to rethink the legal status of this knowledge.

Giving traditional knowledgebetter legal protection will help to secure the cultural and economic future ofindigenous and local communities. It will also sustain their knowledge base ofbiological diversity and natural resources. The Convention on BiologicalDiversity (CBD), signed in 1992 and ratified in 1993, requires member countriesto maintain traditional knowledge systems and encourage the sharing of benefitsfrom their use. This policy has fallen short of these goals, however.

Instead, traditional knowledgehas been used by technologically advanced countries to develop commercialproducts, such as pharmaceuticals, herbal medicines, seeds and cosmetics.Commercial users often use patents to establish intellectual property rights (IPRs) over a resource. This means that they have exclusivemarket rights over their ‘discoveries’, while the contribution of indigenouspeoples – the innovations and resources used to develop the product -gounrecognised. This is sometimes called ‘bio-piracy’ because commercial usersrarely seek prior and informed consent from communities or share commercialbenefits with them.

The CBD is developing aninternational system to protect traditional knowledge and share benefits fromthe use of bio-genetic resources, but there are significant obstacles:

• IPRs are designed to protect commercial inventions and mostlygrant individual and exclusive rights.
• Traditional knowledgeis mainly for subsistence and is mostly held by groups, not individuals orcompanies.
• More than 35 countrieshave introduced laws to encourage companies to share benefits with communities.However, these are largely ineffective because they are not enforceable inindustrialised user countries and do not recognise communities’ rights overbiological and genetic resources.

The CBD process has not fullyinvolved indigenous peoples or local communities. It risks undermining theirrights if it develops a legally binding regime that only recognises theirrights over traditional knowledge, but not over the associated bio-geneticresources that these groups have developed and conserved.

Faced with both ‘bio-piracy’ anda rapid loss of knowledge and culture, indigenous and farmers’ organisationsare calling for broader protection that incorporates the many aspects oftraditional knowledge systems, such as bio-genetic resources, territories,culture and customary law. Such an approach, which focuses on the protection of‘collective bio-cultural heritage’, would depend on:

• acknowledging localcommunities’ indigenous and customary rights over their traditional resourcesand territories
• strengtheningcommunity natural resource management, and customary laws and institutions
• strengthening collectiveland tenure as the basis for local control over traditional knowledge andresources (for example by introducing indigenous-managed Bio-Cultural HeritageAreas)
• improving community accessto genetic resources held outside natural territories, for example in genebanks and botanic gardens
• actively involving indigenous and local communities in negotiationson traditional knowledge, perhaps through the United Nations Permanent Forum onIndigenous Issues.