Tony Bennett, Differing diversities - Council of Europe

Differing diversities– how surveys of domestic biodiversity which aim to protect domestic traditionalknowledge could involve the participation of older members of the localpopulations in order to obtain and incorporate undocumented traditionalknowledge about local biospheres and involve younger generations so as toincrease their appreciation for such knowledge;– what type of support is needed for organic plant breeding, the development oforganically produced seed, and in situ management of a plant diversityamongst different farmers and in different landscapes;– the propriety of claiming IPRs in varieties and technologies developed fromCGIAR germplasm developed by indigenous peoples and local communitiesas well as compensatory mechanisms for farmers’ communities of origination;– the degree to which development initiatives in eastern Europe could be linkedto efforts to document and preserve ITKIP;– how the relationship between natural resource management and ITKIP can berecognised to develop sustainable development initiatives that support thepreservation of cultural diversity;– the desirability of making government research funding and publication subventionscontingent upon the repatriation of research information to localinformants and host governments and how this could be funded by CouncilParties as one way of assisting developing countries in joint efforts to preservecultural diversity.The contested role of intellectual property protectionsObligations under the CBD that serve to protect cultural diversity by preservingITKIP relevant to biological diversity are congruent with the Council Parties’ obligationspursuant to international environmental commitments and human rightscovenants as well as domestic foreign aid policies oriented towards sustainabledevelopment. They are also in accord with the current agenda of the WIPO whichhas made the protection of traditional knowledge a priority. WIPO’s 1998 factfindingmissions on traditional knowledge, innovations, and culture involvedholders of ITKIP in consultations regarding the dimensions of regional ITKIP, thedevelopment of research protocols to govern scholarly and research access toITKIP, the need to distinguish between sacred and secular dimensions of ITKIPwhen considering dissemination and reproduction, and the need for recognition oftraditional knowledge in policy-making processes for sustainable resource management.25 The lack of any such fact-finding mission to European countries wasunfortunate as these missions have raised consciousness about the significance ofITKIP around the world and have helped to mobilise traditional communities andindigenous peoples to document and protect such knowledge and to consider theappropriate means for its valuation and exchange.The active role of WIPO in raising public awareness of the significance of ITKIPdoes not, however, indicate any broad consensus that the intellectual propertyframework is appropriate for recognising, valuing, and compensating ITKIP.176