UNCTAD-Government of India Seminar New Delhi, April 3-5, 2002 Traditional Knowledge Vijaya Kumar Sri Lanka

TK in Medicine in Sri Lanka Mainly codified traditional knowledge –Part of Government Health Strategy Modified over the years to use some local plants Documented – Ayurveda Pharmacopaeia Desiya Chihitsa (National Treatment) –A few diseases e.g. Fractures and Dislocations –Some highly reputed physicians - often first choice –TK – Secret maintained in immediate family

Indigenous Knowledge-TK of communities Few Isolated Communities in Sri Lanka –Island too small, Good Social infrastructure –Veddahs, Rodiyas, Gypsies Little documentation of their indigenous knowledge Leakage of TK (IK) to society at large, others –TK (IK) largely lost through modernization

Preserving TK (IK) Should lifestyles of TK(IK) holders be preserved ? –Denial of ‘benefits’ of modernization Comforts of modern life, Social mobility Should TK (IK) be preserved by documentation ? –Otherwise Indigenous Knowledge permanently lost –Placed in public domain–Loss of benefits to source of IK –Mechanism to preserve rights of IK holders needed

IPR and Indigenous Knowledge Conventional IPR methods –Patents – novelty factor –Trade secrets – Impracticable, except in TK based industry –Copyrights –Trademarks/Geographical Indicators/Industrial designs Folklore expressions ? Art, Music, Indigenous Products, Textile designs –Not very useful for TK (IK) in Medicine –Debate has affected social transmission of knowledge

Research on Plants used in medicine Most TK (IK) based on medicinal plants Drug research often TK (IK) based Research aims at developing Western drugs –Allopathic drug rarely natural material - analogue –No benefit to traditional medicine system –No benefit to TK/IK holders

IPR Protection through Plants used Could the plants used be IPR protected ? –Plant variety protection (UPOV) – New varieties –Source to be disclosed – Indian legislation Limited use unless universally followed Convention on Biological Diversity –Can help prevent illegal removal of plants

Convention on Biological Diversity Biodiversity recognised as a national heritage CBD legislation in force in few countries –Philippines, Andean countries, etc –Not fully implemented in most countries Has CBD helped at all ? Often local biodiversity freely accessible –Also IK on uses of biodiversity

CBD laws to protect TK/IK holders’ rights CBD Laws –Access only through Material Transfer Agreements –Prior informed consent –Guarantees of Benefit sharing Motivate Countries to legislate on CBD –Restrict access only to countries ratifying CBD Environment where CBD laws in most countries –Source disclosure can prevent piracy

Problems of Benefit Sharing Very little benefit to provider of TK/IK –Country, State, Community or Individual Uneven nature of Property Relationships –Devloped/Developing countries –Towns/Village Elite/Communities holding IK Trust/Community Funds for TK holders –High Overheads – Little seeps down to IK holders

Sui generis system for IK holders’ IPR Global Biocollecting Society –P. Drahos, Europ. Intellect. Prop. Rev., 22, 245 (2000) Similar to Copyright Collecting Societies Community/Country Biodiversity Registers –Automatic Registration with Global Society Licenses IK to potential users-Non-exclusive ? Monitors use of IK, receives, distributes royalties Dispute settling mechanism

Problems of Global Biocollecting Society Similar medicines/sources in different systems –Benefit for whom ? –Priority date ?/More common use ?/Division of benefits Synthetic analogues developed from IK –Extent of benefit ? Monitoring of TK usage difficult Period of protection should be extended –Patent years insufficient, Copyright 75 years