Governance and Micropolitics of Traditional ... - IPRsonline.org

(Ruamraksa, Wiboonlasana. cited by Bangkok Post, 26 th May 2005). Department officials
have noted that this database has primarily received registrations relating to designs,
handicrafts and folklore, rather than relating to genetic resources. The DoA and DPH have
databases on plant varieties and herbs, however it is unclear to what extent ethno-botanical
information or related traditional knowledge has been included in these.
Although some press releases have been made, and there has been significant media coverage
of these developments, many farmers are no doubt at a loss as to how they would go about
protecting local varieties at this stage, or how they can register traditional knowledge. On
visits to local communities some NGO workers thought it strange when questions were asked
of local communities about protection of traditional knowledge and local varieties. The
response from local farmers and villagers were largely blank stares and confusion because
they know little about the PVP Act, the Act on Traditional Thai Medicinal Intelligence or
about means of registration. 42 In effect there is no designated ‘TK database’, but rather several
that contain only elements of relevant TK, or are primarily devoted to genetic resources. The
process is currently not transparent, and in the case of the PVP Act and TTMI Act the
regulations are pending approval from the Council of State, before registration of local
varieties and herbs will become more feasible. These considerations point to a potential
problem of poor direct representation of farmers and local communities, yet it is perhaps only
a matter of patience before Ministerial Regulations are completed and a broad education
campaign can be started.
Throughout this paper, it has been suggested that in the development of TK regimes, there has
been a tendency to focus on developing mechanisms to control the scientific and commercial
use of TK, with the apparent aim of enabling indigenous and local communities to capture the
anticipated benefits of the commercialisation of TK. As Tobin (2005) notes, this has often
conflicted with the expressed desire of indigenous and local communities to protect the
integrity of traditional knowledge, as part of cultural heritage, rather than allowing it to
become another marketable good. Despite progress in certain aspects relating to the protection
of genetic resources, and ABS regimes in Thailand what is additionally needed is a more
coordinated strategy towards respect, understanding and promotion of TK. The Community
Forests Bill may act towards the strengthening of related systems of traditional resource
management and customary land tenure to help secure the promotion of TK. However there
are aspects of TK that lie outside community forestry per se, and thus a coordinated strategy
that also involves databases may be beneficial. Again, a single body would help facilitate such
coordinated activities, provided that it operated with decentralised elements and in a
participative manner. This is a very difficult task to coordinate however.
42 This refers to a small sample set of approximately 20 farmers and villagers from the Khan Watershed, Chiang
Mai Province; in Ku Ka Singha, Roi Et in the Issan Region (Northeast); and in a village on the outskirts of
Suphan Buri (town), Central Thailand. Some farmers were asked individually and some were asked as part of a
small forum.
73