Abstract
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.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Notes
- 1.
ILO Convention No. 169 of 27 June 1989, into force on 5 September 1991, UNTS 1650, 383.
- 2.
On 13 September 2002, the General Assembly adopted the Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, A/RES/61/295.
- 3.
Article 8(j) refers to “knowledge, innovations and practices of indigenous and local communities embodying traditional lifestyles relevant for the conservation and sustainable use of biological diversity.” This clearly goes along with the notion of traditional knowledge.
- 4.
(IPR) Intellectual property rights is a generic term covering patents, copyrights, and trademarks. Recent additions to the category of intellectual property include industrial design and integrated circuit topography (the term used to describe the three-dimensional configuration of electronic circuits).
- 5.
Agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights, Marrakesh Agreement Establishing the World Trade Organisation, Annex 1C, 33 I.LM.81 (1994) (herein after the TRIPs Agreement).
The TRIPS—one of the main outcomes of the Uruguay Rounds of the General Agreement on Tariffs of Trade, concluded in 1994—is at present the important international agreement encouraging the compliance of national intellectual property rights (IPR) system. TRIPS is planned to present new guidelines and chastisements for international trade regarding (1) the setting up of satisfactory criterions and doctrines about the provision, possibility, and procedure of trade-related intellectual property rights; (2) effective and suitable resources for the implementation of trade-related intellectual property rights; and (3) operative and prompt processes for the multilateral preclusion and resolution of clashes between governments.
- 6.
Sui generis is a Latin phrase which means of its own kind of class; it is generally discussed in the context of TRIPS agreement, protecting the rights of indigenous communities and other international agreement like Convention on Biological Diversity. Sui generis system presents a framework of prospects for the developing countries to build their system of intellectual property to safeguard their genetic material, indigenous knowledge, ethnicity, and traditions.
References
Agrawal, A. (2002). Indigenous knowledge and the politics of classification. Oxford: UNESCO, Blackwell Publishers.
Article 12. (n.d.). Article 12 of ITPGRFA.
Article 2. (n.d.). Article 2 of ITPGRFA.
Best Practices on Indigenous Knowledge. (n.d.). Best practices on indigenous knowledge. Retrieved from http://www.unesco.org/most/bpindi.htm.
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.
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).
GRAIN and Kalpvriksh. (2002, November). Traditional knowledge of biodiversity in Asia-Pacific: Problems of piracy and protection GRAIN and Kalpvriksh (pp. 4–5).
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.
Kohli, K. (2004, July). Biodiversity ruled out!, India Together.
Kohli, K. (2007, June). The Biodiversity Act: A Review, India Together.
Kothari, A. (1995, December). Will India protect tribal biodiversity rights?, Seedling.
Norchi, C. H. (2000). Indigenous knowledge as intellectual property. Policy Sciences, 33(3/4), 387–398.
Seeland, K., & Schmithusen, F. (Eds.). (2000). Man in the Forest (p. 34). New Delhi: D.K. Printworld (p) Ltd.
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.
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 www.dfat.gov.au/publication/biotech/index.html.
WIPO. (2005, June). Document WO/GA/32/8 Annex, para. 74, concluded following an Ad Hoc Intergovernmental Meeting (WIPO/IP/GR/05/1).
WIPO. (n.d.). WIPO/GRTKF/IC/7/9.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2018 Springer Nature Switzerland AG
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Arora, K. (2018). Indigenous Knowledge and Intellectual Property Right: A Discussion in the Context of Andaman Tribes. In: Indigenous Forest Management In the Andaman and Nicobar Islands, India. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-00033-2_6
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-00033-2_6
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Cham
Print ISBN: 978-3-030-00032-5
Online ISBN: 978-3-030-00033-2
eBook Packages: Biomedical and Life SciencesBiomedical and Life Sciences (R0)