[ These 'perspectives' are intended to provoke thought and stimulate debate within UNDP and partner organizations. They do not necessarily represent UNDP's final word on these issues. This website will soon feature a discussion forum in which staff will be able to exchange opinion on these and other biodiversity issues. In the meantime, please send any comments and suggestions to biodiversity@undp.org ]
TRADITIONAL KNOWLEDGE: RIGHTS & WRONGS
Context:
The important role of traditional knowledge in the conservation of biodiversity is broadly recognized. So too is the consequent desirability of ensuring the widespread utilization of such knowledge, provided the communities concerned are duly compensated. The Convention on Biological Diversity, for example, calls on nations to promote the “wider application” of the “knowledge, innovations and practices of indigenous and local communities […] relevant for the conservation and sustainable use of biological diversity.” (Article 8J) The rationale behind this stipulation is easily seen. Locally developed biodiversity management and conservation practices are typically as economical and easily replicable as they are effective. Consider, for example, the customary ‘taboo’ system of fisheries management practiced by coastal communities of the South Pacific. This simple expedient, which forbids fishing within certain areas for set periods of time, has helped to sustain biodiversity – and livelihoods – for generations.
The success of Tanzania’s Equator Prize-winning HASHI Soil Conservation Project is another example of the effectiveness of simple yet ingenious techniques that have evolved over generations to respond to the requirements of particular ecosystems. This community-based NGO has greatly improved the condition of its local environment by reviving the traditional ‘Ngitili’ system of land management: a time-honored (yet long neglected) rotational technique. A number of other East African communities have begun to follow HASHI’s example in reviving the Ngitili system. Given that HASHI’s host community has explicitly sanctioned the broad dissemination of their knowledge, the wider application of their techniques is greatly to be welcomed. The HASHI case is a good example of the CBD’s general principle that – all else being equal – the spread of traditional conservation know-how is to be encouraged as a good thing for biodiversity.
The following ‘perspectives’ do not stray beyond consideration of such practices as are relevant for the conservation and sustainable use of biodiversity. Neither do they touch upon questions of access to genetic resources (which are frequently considered in tandem with discussions of traditional knowledge). These broader issues of access and benefit sharing are discussed in a recent UNDP paper, entitled “Initial Analysis of Capacity Assessment Reports by Selected Countries on Access & Benefit Sharing and Traditional Knowledge”.
UNDP Perspectives:
>> Respecting the rights of ‘holders’
The appropriate application of traditional approaches to conservation and sustainable use has great potential for environmental sustainability. However, such an application should only occur, as the CBD states, “with the approval and involvement of the holders of such knowledge.” In other words, communities must have the right to decide whether or not to divulge their knowledge in the first place. A useful guiding principle here is the concept of Free Prior Informed Consent (FPIC), developed in part to protect people’s rights to the genetic resources within their territories. FPIC seeks to create the conditions of information equality that are needed to ensure a fair deal for local and indigenous communities. The successful application of this principle should help prevent the piratical exploitation of traditional knowledge by private companies, academic institutions or other interests for financial gain. In addition, by increasing communities’ understanding of and faith in the motivations of ‘non-piratical’ outside parties, respect for FPIC should also prevent communities from restricting access – for fear of exploitation – by such legitimate parties to potentially beneficial knowledge. Indeed, far from limiting the spread of traditional knowledge, the clarification of ownership rights should actually facilitate the widespread adoption of such knowledge by creating incentives for holders.>> Building capacity for rights protection: improving legal frameworks
The basic provisions of Free Prior Informed Consent are established by the CBD. However, an array of local, national, and international capacities will need to be developed if the principles of FPIC are to be rendered applicable. Local and national legal systems will require special tailoring to meet the unique challenges posed by traditional knowledge issues. In particular, many experts believe that current intellectual property rights regimes will need to be enhanced. In some cases, the development of an entirely new legal framework for the protection of traditional knowledge (separate from existing intellectual property regimes) may prove necessary. Such sui generis legal systems could proceed in part from the creation of ‘model’ agreements between local communities and outside interests. International treaties and conventions will also require strengthening with regard to the protection of traditional knowledge rights. It is widely recognized that current treaties and agreements such as TRIPS (Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights) are not quite equal to the challenges posed by traditional knowledge issues.>> Building capacity for rights protection: improving government-community relations
National capacities regarding government interface with local and indigenous communities will also need to be developed if traditional knowledge is to receive adequate protection. Currently, government relations with such communities are often conducted by several different agencies, creating an atmosphere of confusion and distrust. Greater regulatory coordination and the establishment of national agencies for traditional knowledge could help to amend this problem. UNDP’s SURFs and Country Offices are ideally placed for helping to develop such national and sub-national capacities through, for example, the provision of toolkits and the dissemination of best practice models.>> Preserving traditional knowledge
There is another fate, besides exploitation, from which traditional knowledge must also be protected: that of extinction. As traditional ways of life are eroded, traditional knowledge and practices (which are typically handed down by word of mouth) are lost – knowledge and practices which may represent our best hope for preserving much of earth’s endangered biodiversity while at the same time improving the lot of poor people. To guard against the further loss of unwritten knowledge, several countries are considering collecting their traditional knowledge into national databanks. Such documentation measures would not only safeguard traditional knowledge for posterity; they would also create the ideal conditions for a thorough scientific analysis of the accuracy and applicability of traditional practices. An analysis of this type is desirable because traditional knowledge is not invariably the most appropriate tool at our disposal. Some traditional knowledge may actually be bad for biodiversity. Scientific analysis of such destructive practices would in many cases establish a strong mandate for their discouragement. With these benefits in mind, traditional knowledge databank systems are viewed by many as an important tool for biodiversity conservation. Not surprisingly, however, many indigenous and local communities view the whole notion of such databanks with distrust because, in bringing traditional knowledge into the public domain, they could potentially erode communities’ ownership rights. Among other measures, ensuring the restriction of access to databanks of traditional knowledge might in part assuage these concerns. Databanks are not incompatible with ownership rights – provided these are established from the outset.
Traditional ecosystem management practices may represent our best hope for conserving much of Earth's endangered biodiversity>> Compensation rights and wrongs
Such restricted-access database schemes have also been suggested as a way to balance the need to protect the rights of holders of traditional knowledge with the need to ensure that humanity and biodiversity can benefit to the greatest possible extent from local wisdom. How best to achieve the equitable sharing of the benefits of traditional knowledge – how best to reward local and indigenous communities for use of their knowledge – is a difficult issue. The rights, wishes and needs of the holders (whether for monetary compensation or for simple recognition) should be the guiding principle here. However, care must be taken to ensure that payments to communities are managed in such a way as to discourage corruption and misuse. The creation of restricted access databanks could help to ensure that the holders receive their dues – without creating openings for traditional knowledge ‘pirates’. Within such schemes, rather than deal directly with communities, companies, academic institutions and other interested parties would be required to make public payments for the right to search the databank.[ These 'perspectives' are intended to provoke thought and stimulate debate within UNDP and partner organizations. They do not necessarily represent UNDP's final word on these issues. This website will soon feature a discussion forum in which staff will be able to exchange opinion on these and other biodiversity issues. In the meantime, please send any comments and suggestions to biodiversity@undp.org ]
Further information:
Online resources:
UNDP Civil Society Organizations and Participation Programme
Contains information on conserving indigenous knowledgeIndigenous Peoples Biodiversity Information Network
Centre for Indigenous Environmental Resources
Indigenous Knowledge and Development Monitor
World Intellectual Property Organization
>> Back to top
