Indigenous Knowledge and Intellectual Property Right: A Discussion in the Context of Andaman Tribes

  • Kavita Arora


Indigenous knowledge is not merely a political slogan, but today it has become an economic commodity in the backdrop of WTO regime. At the same time, indigenous activities are understood potentially in a positive way to support conservation of nature. Thus, despite environmentalism being recognized as inseparable part of human life, existing development models offered by various national and international organizations are unable to control the threat to the identity and culture of indigenous people; rather continued destruction of global ecology is increasing. Many models of development using the term “sustainable” give satisfaction to environmentally conscious spirits but are unable to prevent rapid erosion of indigenous knowledge. Despite increasing emphasis on understanding indigenous knowledge as a “pre-existing” form as opposed to individual inventions, these are generally not protectable by patent and copyright protection, and regulation of defensive protection of indigenous knowledge by WTO and other international institutions is an emerging new problem. Defensive aspect of protection is protection claimed by indigenous people against acquisition of IPR by outsiders.

The old, innocent nineteenth-century notion that modern science and technology can provide solution for all our difficulties is not totally true, and it seems incomplete. People have started looking at its limitations and started exploring the indigenous knowledge too. Despite acknowledging the importance of indigenous knowledge, we have not been able to take full benefit of it. As in the case of Andaman and Nicobar, except Nicobarese and Great Andamanese, the rest of the communities are still in hunter-gatherers, and in spite of all the records of their knowledge, the question of learning from them is yet to be solved.


Indigenous Knowledge Sustainable Development Local Interaction Traditional Patenting Intellectual property Benefit sharing 


  1. Agrawal, A. (2002). Indigenous knowledge and the politics of classification. Oxford: UNESCO, Blackwell Publishers.Google Scholar
  2. Article 12. (n.d.). Article 12 of ITPGRFA.Google Scholar
  3. Article 2. (n.d.). Article 2 of ITPGRFA.Google Scholar
  4. Best Practices on Indigenous Knowledge. (n.d.). Best practices on indigenous knowledge. Retrieved from
  5. Doha Work Programme. (2006, July). Communication from Brazil, China, Colombia, Cuba, India, Pakistan, Peru, Thailand and Tanzania, ‘Doha Work Programme: The Outstanding Implementation issue on the Relationship Between the TRIPS Agreement and the Convention on Biological Diversity’, WT/GC/W/564/Rev.2,TN/C/W/41/Rev.2, IP/C/W/474.Google Scholar
  6. FAO. (2004). Food and Agricultural Organization, International Treaty on Plant Genetic Resources for Food and Agriculture 2004 (adopted in the FAO Conference on 3 November 2001, entry into force 29 June 2004).Google Scholar
  7. GRAIN and Kalpvriksh. (2002, November). Traditional knowledge of biodiversity in Asia-Pacific: Problems of piracy and protection GRAIN and Kalpvriksh (pp. 4–5).Google Scholar
  8. International Labour Conference. (1988). Report of the Meeting of Experts (1957) para 46, reprinted in: Partial Revision of the Indigenous and Tribal Populations Convention, 1957 (No. 107), Report 6(1), 75th Session, 1988, pp. 100–118.Google Scholar
  9. Kohli, K. (2004, July). Biodiversity ruled out!, India Together.Google Scholar
  10. Kohli, K. (2007, June). The Biodiversity Act: A Review, India Together.Google Scholar
  11. Kothari, A. (1995, December). Will India protect tribal biodiversity rights?, Seedling.Google Scholar
  12. Norchi, C. H. (2000). Indigenous knowledge as intellectual property. Policy Sciences, 33(3/4), 387–398.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Seeland, K., & Schmithusen, F. (Eds.). (2000). Man in the Forest (p. 34). New Delhi: D.K. Printworld (p) Ltd.Google Scholar
  14. Sunder, M. (2007, Spring). The invention of traditional knowledge. Law and contemporary problems (pp. 97–124), Vol. 70, No. 2, Durham, NC: Duke University School of Law.Google Scholar
  15. Taubman. et al. (2002) Intellectual property and biotechnology: A training handbook, module seven Plant Breeder’s Rights (7.6 the nature of the Plant Breeder’s Right), at 7–13, 2002, Retrieved from
  16. WIPO. (2005, June). Document WO/GA/32/8 Annex, para. 74, concluded following an Ad Hoc Intergovernmental Meeting (WIPO/IP/GR/05/1).Google Scholar
  17. WIPO. (n.d.). WIPO/GRTKF/IC/7/9.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  • Kavita Arora
    • 1
  1. 1.University of DelhiShaheed Bhagat Singh CollegeDelhiIndia

Personalised recommendations