Bioprospecting, Traditional Knowledge, and Benefit Sharing
Topic Guide for Policymakers

Abstract: The rules that govern the collection and use of biological matter have changed dramatically in the last 15 years. Arising out of the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD), the Access and Benefit-Sharing (ABS) project applies to research carried out for either purely scientific or commercial reasons, for which organisms or parts thereof and/or related traditional knowledge are obtained from countries that are party to the CBD and their local and indigenous communities. Other agreements have added new ABS legislation to govern the acquisition and use of biological material and related information. Everyone—including tourists, nature conservationists, scientists, photographers, and journalists—is subject to these new regulations. But scientists and researchers who seek to access and use proprietary genetic resources, biological matter, and related information (such as traditional knowledge and farming know-how) are especially affected by the ABS project. It is essential for scientists and researchers to understand the fundamental principles of ABS. This includes knowing the relevant rules, regulations, laws, customs, and conditions for benefit sharing in the country where one intends to conduct research and/or collect samples. One must carefully plan ahead for any such activities by contacting key organizations and filing the proper documentation. Lack of planning may lead to unfortunate and undesired outcomes, including fines, imprisonment, deportation, and denied future access. Planning is critical.

Abstract:

Abstract: How do biotech patent systems affect indigenous peoples, particularly in relation to health products? This question raises two distinct issues. First, the question of biopiracy—to what extent do patent systems necessarily exploit traditional indigenous knowledge to produce valuable medicinal products? Second, the question of patenting gene-sequence and gene-product information taken from living organisms, especially human beings—how can we justify patenting naturally occurring substances? And how should we negotiate the myriad ethical issues that arise from doing so? This chapter argues that the core of the biopiracy problem is not the availability of patents based on traditional indigenous information but rather the unfair acquisition of knowledge and the inequitable sharing of profits derived from developing such information into a valuable product. Solving this problem requires ensuring that traditional information is fairly acquired and that fair compensation is paid to the group from which the information derives. In regards to patenting gene-sequence and gene-product information, this chapter concludes that such issues equally affect indigenous and nonindigenous populations and that the best way to address them is by making policy changes.

Abstract: Traditional knowledge (TK) is the information that people in a given community, based on experience and adapted to local culture and environment, have developed over time and that continues to develop. This knowledge is used to sustain the community and its culture, as well as the biological resources necessary for the continued survival of the community. Since 1948, international human-rights standards have recognized the importance of protecting intellectual property. Yet, to date, intellectual property (IP) rights are not adequately extended to the holders of TK. The requirements for IP rights protections under current IP regimes remain largely inconsistent with the nature of TK. As a result, it is neglected and considered part of the public domain with no protections or benefits for the knowledge holders, or expropriated for the financial gains of others, often referred to as biopiracy. This chapter presents basic IP concepts in the context of TK with specific attention to identifying, classifying, and protecting elements of TK. The advantages and disadvantages of the various IP protection options are discussed, and a number of case studies are presented to facilitate a better understanding of each option or issue.

Abstract: In the years since the Convention on Biological Diversity was adopted, issues of traditional knowledge have come to affect the legitimacy of the multilateral trading system, in general, and its IP (intellectual property) aspects, in particular. In order to engage indigenous knowledge in furthering socio-economic development, policy-makers will need to reconsider the prevailing notion of a fundamental dichotomy between indigenous and scientific knowledge and begin to challenge both types of knowledge. This chapter concentrates on traditional knowledge—and how it relates to the ecology of agriculture, in all of its variants—and compares it to recent advances in scientific knowledge and the resulting applications of biotechnology in global agriculture.

The chapter argues that this dichotomy between traditional and scientific ways of knowing is not only artificial but problematic, in that it hinders exchange and communication between the two. The dichotomy between traditional knowledge and scientific knowledge is most apparent in, and lies at the root of, perceived differences between the approaches of today’s organic farming and technology-intensive farming systems. While indeed there are important differences, traditional knowledge and scientific knowledge share important similarities. Knowledge, in both cases, is based on human observation and experience and is tested, replicated, and transmitted within its respective community through social institutions and mechanisms put in place for that purpose. Moreover, deeper examination of the genetic integrity of plants used within organic and biotechnology-based agricultural systems shows that the respective crop varieties being used under each system are more similar than they are different. Increasingly, organic farming is building on scientific knowledge, and agricultural biotechnology is seeking to draw on traditional knowledge.

This chapter challenges policy-makers and scientists to examine and, ultimately, to move beyond those conceptual worldviews, or constructs, that maintain the current divide between traditional knowledge/organic agriculture and scientific knowledge/agricultural biotechnology.

By building the bridge between traditional knowledge and science and becoming free to draw upon the best existing ideas and practices from both, a larger palate is available to draw from. But, more importantly, by integrating the innovation systems of both traditional and scientific communities, a much larger range of new ideas and practices could be generated. The chapter calls such dynamic integration the “participatory approach” to agricultural innovation, building upon the “unifying power of sustainable development” and leading to balanced choices in agricultural production chains and rural land use.

Such an integration would require adaptations of Western social institutions and mechanisms of intellectual property in order to interface in a more nuanced fashion with quasi-public-domain knowledge that is external to the published records of Western science and IP systems. At the same time, indigenous communities will need to learn to adapt their social institutions and mechanisms that govern what is, in a sense, sovereign or communal property to coexist with and at times be translated into formal IP rights and practical uses that are external to their traditional systems.