Skip to main content

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

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Indigenous Forest Management In the Andaman and Nicobar Islands, India
  • 272 Accesses

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.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

eBook
USD 16.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Hardcover Book
USD 109.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Notes

  1. 1.

    ILO Convention No. 169 of 27 June 1989, into force on 5 September 1991, UNTS 1650, 383.

  2. 2.

    On 13 September 2002, the General Assembly adopted the Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, A/RES/61/295.

  3. 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. 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. 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. 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.

    Google Scholar 

  • Article 12. (n.d.). Article 12 of ITPGRFA.

    Google Scholar 

  • Article 2. (n.d.). Article 2 of ITPGRFA.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • 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 

  • 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 

  • Kohli, K. (2004, July). Biodiversity ruled out!, India Together.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kohli, K. (2007, June). The Biodiversity Act: A Review, India Together.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kothari, A. (1995, December). Will India protect tribal biodiversity rights?, Seedling.

    Google Scholar 

  • Norchi, C. H. (2000). Indigenous knowledge as intellectual property. Policy Sciences, 33(3/4), 387–398.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Seeland, K., & Schmithusen, F. (Eds.). (2000). Man in the Forest (p. 34). New Delhi: D.K. Printworld (p) Ltd.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • 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).

    Google Scholar 

  • WIPO. (n.d.). WIPO/GRTKF/IC/7/9.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2018 Springer Nature Switzerland AG

About this chapter

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

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

Publish with us

Policies and ethics