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

More documents

Recommendations

Info

e understated. The principle of PIC, for it to be something more than a superficial obligation, should apply to both national jurisdictions and local communities (in a two-tier mechanism of consent application). On-the–ground practicalities for PIC (such as the often broad distribution of genetic resources and associated knowledge) have however limited progress on development of national and international consent mechanisms. A model guideline for PIC has been included in the Appendix for consideration and possible implementation into Ministerial Regulations or as appropriate. The guidelines could supplement a requirement for the disclosure of the source of origin of biological resources and associated TK. Local actions such as the facilitation of meetings to inform local groups of their rights of PIC, as well as a possible handbook could assist this practically. The provision of information to local groups is a crucial element in the exercise of a right of PIC. Ongoing work will be made in this regard. Of further relevance to policy-makers, this study suggests that due to the aforementioned different knowledge systems and prevailing discourses on TK, as well as differences in the situatedness of such fora within their associated worldviews, the promotion of traditional knowledge has been sidestepped. In other words facilitated access to genetic resources is driving much of the agenda on international and national levels. Facilitating access to genetic resources no doubt has beneficial aspects to the advancement of science and technology. However ‘access’’ twin principle of benefit sharing (often narrowly thought of as profit sharing), while necessary, is perhaps wrongly looked towards as a protective mechanism for biodiversity and traditional knowledge. Whilst benefit sharing may in theory be important for the compensation of the custodians of local ecosystems and associated genetic resources; in practice it is not clear how it may provide for the promotion or protection of traditional knowledge. There are a number of means which may be more appropriate than profit sharing, including the transfer of appropriate technologies, training and education, and the establishment or support of networks of traditional healers/agriculturalists. As a further note, the use of intellectual property (such as geographical indications) and disclosure of the source and country of origin as a patent requirement may protect traditional knowledge from ‘biopiracy’ or related unethical proprietary acts, but these both do not promote the dynamism of local practice where traditional knowledge is embodied and situated in local social, cultural, religious, and environmental conditions. It should be noted that the scope of such mechanisms would be limited if such local practice was lost altogether. All that would remain would be static records of traditional knowledge in databases and genetic resources isolated in genebanks and herbariums. In Thailand the primary laws of relevance are the Plant Variety Protection Act and the Act on the Protection and Promotion of Thai Traditional Medicinal Intelligence. These two Acts have notable access and benefit sharing mechanisms, (limited) means for prior informed consent, and relate to other policies and actions being taken to protect traditional knowledge and genetic resources. The normalisation of these activities has a long road ahead yet, and the Acts are currently just being implemented in stages. The Constitution of the Kingdom of Thailand provides for the rights of communities to continue their traditional practices including natural resource management. However this right is not easily applied and communities have had to continue to struggle to assert their rights to utilise their local environments as they have for generations. Over more than a decade, the Community Forests Bill has been pursued by these communities, NGOs, academics, a few sympathetic members of the bureaucracy and politicians. It is often suggested that more than 50,000 people were involved in its drafting. This unique bill represents an opportunity to balance traditional utilisation and custodianship of local environments, with broader conservationist ambitions. The Bill could be the first step towards securing broader community rights, however the vi
passing of the Bill has suffered from polemics over a range of issues, at the core of which is a question of State-minority power relations, different perceptions of how biodiversity should be conserved and consequently a lack of political will to ‘de-centralise’ forest management. The Thai-US Free Trade Agreement (FTA) currently under negotiation represents a considerable threat to the progress made and could undermine the democratic processes and cooperation that has occurred to date. Essentially, participative processes were removed from the Thai public when the current Thai Government signed a confidentiality agreement on the FTA negotiations with the US. Past bilateral FTAs sought by the US have established a template for such negotiations, one consistent factor of which is the pursuit of higher standards of patent and/or plant variety protection than that required of WTO member states by the TRIPS Agreement. This is indicative that the outcome of the FTA could go against the wishes of the broader Thai public and may have considerable effects on economic development, science and technology, Thai society, and most pertinent to this study, on biodiversity and traditional knowledge. Although the consequences are unclear, if Thailand were forced to remove patent exemptions on life forms under the FTA, it is evident that many Thai’s would view this as an action that could accelerate biopiracy. It could also make the Acts that have been developed either partially or completely redundant. On the other hand, the FTA represents an opportunity for Thailand to attempt to convince the US to implement requirements such as disclosure, PIC and ABS to their patent laws or other respective (eg biodiversity) laws. This however seems unlikely given the stance the US has taken in recent FTAs. The political and economic bargaining power, and even the negotiating terms of the FTA are clearly in the US’ favour. Thailand is currently the only country pushing for such provisions in the bilateral arena. Further, it has been demonstrated by numerous authors that the actions of the US Trade Representative have increasingly been subject to the will of large corporate interests. Such actors have successfully manipulated official policy discourse to enrol the USTR and consequently other countries to their standards. It is important to recognise that these corporate interests are the ones driving the recent FTA negotiations, and Thailand needs to decide if it wishes to compromise its own sovereign state laws to their interests. vii
Page 1 and 2: Governance and Micropolitics of Tra
Page 3 and 4: CONTENTS List of Tables, Figures an
Page 5 and 6: Abbreviations and Acronyms ABS ARCB
Page 7: Executive Summary (Thai translation
Page 11 and 12: policy and law in this study. The u
Page 13 and 14: cases 3 , particularly where a reso
Page 15 and 16: 2. INTERNATIONAL DEVELOPMENTS, AGRE
Page 17 and 18: institutionalised in many developin
Page 19 and 20: germplasm originating in their gene
Page 21 and 22: e subject to exclusive intellectual
Page 23 and 24: guide for countries attempting to i
Page 25 and 26: described in section 2.7. The lates
Page 27 and 28: Switzerland took an alternate posit
Page 29 and 30: enefit sharing; (ii) protection of
Page 31 and 32: 2.8 International Treaty on Plant G
Page 33 and 34: Drawing upon these and the highly r
Page 35 and 36: The current Draft ASEAN Agreement a
Page 37 and 38: The use of such bilateral trade pre
Page 39 and 40: A leaked version of the US FTA posi
Page 41 and 42: 3. GOVERNANCE IN THAILAND There are
Page 43 and 44: articles). The advocacy of groups s
Page 45 and 46: in some areas and stronger IPRs in
Page 47 and 48: is opposed to ex situ resources whi
Page 49 and 50: Licence Office. This has been sugge
Page 51 and 52: capita greenhouse gas polluters on
Page 53 and 54: Pennapa et al, 2001). It is claimed
Page 55 and 56: 3.4 Alleged Biopiracy Episodes and
Page 57 and 58: While the use of geographical indic
Page 59 and 60:
were then taken by a Portsmouth Uni
Page 61 and 62:
A number of subsequent Thai patents
Page 63 and 64:
Of the biopiracy cases discussed he
Page 65 and 66:
that was investigated by WIPO and U
Page 67 and 68:
3.5 Legislation and Bureaucratic Mi
Page 69 and 70:
There are several aspects of the Pa
Page 71 and 72:
Table 5: Development and Operation
Page 73 and 74:
• twenty percent is allocated to
Page 75 and 76:
Chapters Seven and Eight essentiall
Page 77 and 78:
Furthermore he notes that it is not
Page 79 and 80:
esources. A Community Forest Manage
Page 81 and 82:
There have been ongoing meetings at
Page 83 and 84:
3.8 The Role of Civil Society, NGOs
Page 85 and 86:
3.9 Summary: Participation, Impleme
Page 87 and 88:
Box 4: Indigenous Peoples and Local
Page 89 and 90:
4.2 Traditional Knowledge and Local
Page 91 and 92:
Box 5: Methods of Karen Pest and We
Page 93 and 94:
Table 6: Description of Threats Aff
Page 95 and 96:
Traditional Medicines of Baan Sopla
Page 97 and 98:
Although a full ethno-botanic inves
Page 99 and 100:
Baan Khun Khlang, Hmong Village, Kh
Page 101 and 102:
Rather than applying customs and ri
Page 103 and 104:
developing and many ‘Eastern’ c
Page 105 and 106:
This section provides an explanatio
Page 107 and 108:
5. DISCUSSIONS AND CONCLUSIONS The
Page 109 and 110:
PIC requirements should however be
Page 111 and 112:
Drahos, P. (2005) ‘Intellectual P
Page 113 and 114:
TK-FL Working Group (2005) A summar
Page 115 and 116:
IRRI, IRRI Welcomes Rice Research D
Page 117 and 118:
APPENDIX ONE Chronology of the Comm
Page 119 and 120:
It is recommended however that due
Page 121 and 122:
c. The PIC Coordinators are respons
Page 123 and 124:
. If the original source owners or
Page 125 and 126:
SECTION SIX - ABS-PIC FUND a. An
Page 127 and 128:
APPENDIX THREE - List of Relevant W
show all

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

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?