Protecting Traditional Knowledge: Lessons from Global Case Studies

Abstract

At a time when our globalised world continues to have its focal point in capitalism, people who do not wish to assimilate into a dominant world seek ways to preserve their traditions. While there is no consensus on how to protect indigenous and local communities’ threatened traditional knowledge (TK) in a place where there are diverse national legal systems and a conflict between international instruments, Evana Wright sheds new light on the subject by arguing why sui generis regimes are the best protection for TK. This book serves as a handbook and a starting point for those intending to preserve TK, either with or without the explicit objective of preventing bio-piracy, including academics seeking ways to protect Indigenous and local communities’ rights to culture and self-determination. As Wright writes, protection needs to encompass a holistic concept of TK, and not limit the concept to a specific resource, which calls for transdisciplinary research on the subject. To summarise, Wright stated that the need to protect Indigenous and local communities’ TK comes from the continued acts of bio-piracy – bio-colonialism – around the world (14). The case studies in the book are Peru and India, two countries with a long history of having indigenous and local communities being exploited by industries and others who want to use and, in many cases, be granted patents for the use of their resources for different purposes (47). As contracting parties to the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) and the additional Nagoya Protocol, Peru and India have established regimes for protecting TK with respect to the sustainable use and development of biological resources (61). Free prior informed consent before accessing resources associated with TK and equitable sharing of benefits arising from such access is essential to international instruments and, thus, should permeate the national regimes, Wright states (196–197). As an attempt to argue for sui generis regimes as the best protection of TK and the possibility for diverse countries to establish them, Wright analyses the regimes in Peru and India through the lens of self-determination and applies the findings to an Australian context. Before moving on to its highlights, I will outline the book. In the introductory chapter, Wright explains the importance of protecting TK and discusses the essential international instruments, such as the CBD, the Nagoya Protocol, and the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples. She also provides reflections on the relevance of selfdetermination as a lens to look at the need to protect TK. Furthermore, Wright defines TK according to the World Intellectual Property Organization as ‘the know-how, skills, innovations, practices and teachings and learnings of Indigenous people and local communities’ (11). The four following chapters present a comparative analysis of the central aspects of the regimes in Peru and India: historical legal backgrounds, institutions and funds, access and benefit sharing, and databases and registers. Whereas Peru has established a regime that focuses on and allows Indigenous and local communities to influence decisions regarding