Common Approaches to Access to and Benefit Sharing of Genetic Resources and Associated Knowledge Some Examples from India

vinegaryellowwaterBiotechnology

Oct 23, 2013 (3 years and 10 months ago)

155 views

Common Approaches to Access to and Benefit Sharing of Genetic
Resources and Associated Knowledge


Some Examples from India

P. Pushpangadan & K. Narayanan Nair

National Botanical Research Institute

Lucknow
-
226001, India

Introduction

Genetic resources are
biological materials of animal, plant, microbial or
other origin that contain functional units of heredity and of actual or potential
values for humanity
1
. They constitute an integral component of biological
diversity and provide the basis not only for the

continuous evolution and
maintenance of the life


supporting systems on earth, but also for the
sustainable economic, scientific, technological, cultural and spiritual development
of humankind. There is a growing body of information on the significant
co
ntributions that genetic resources make to global economy and global
intellectual property regimes (ten Kate & Laird 1999, Dutfield 2000, Laird & ten
Kate 2002). Ranging from subsistence uses by indigenous and local
communities for their livelihood securit
y to the high


tech research and
development programmes on bioprospecting, genetic resources and associated
traditional knowledge find an ever increasing demand and utility in a diverse
array of sectors such as biopharmaceuticals, biotechnology, including

agricultural
biotechnology and health care, crop protection, agricultural seed production,
horticulture, phytomedicines, cosmetics and personal care, and a myriad of other
areas of products and processes development based on wild and domesticated
genetic
resources and their derivatives.

The rapid developments in biotechnology (particularly molecularly biology
and genetic engineering), herbal technology, information technology, and the
liberalized global trade policies and emerging intellectual property re
gime provide
umpteen opportunities to the multinational pharmaceutical, biotech and seed
companies, both in public and private sectors, to venture into promising
bioprospecting programmes, based on genetic resources and the associated
traditional knowledge
. According to a recent survey by Laird & ten Kate (2002),
the global estimate on the annual sale values of the following selected products
derived from genetic resources amounts to about US $ 500 billion.



Sectors

Annual sale values

Pharmaceutical
s

US $ 300 billion (1998 figures)

Crop protection

US $ 30 billion (1997 figures)

Agricultural Seed

US $ 30 billion (1997 figures)

Horticulture

US $ 16


19 billion (1998 figures)

Botanical Medicines

US $ 20 billion (1999 Jan


Nov. figures)

Cosmetic
and Personal care

US $ 75 billion (1998 figures)

Total

US $ 471


474 billion




1

See definitions of “Genetic Material” and “Genetic Resources” given in Artic
le 2 of Convention on
Biological Diversity (CBD).


2


Such estimates reflect only the consumptive use value of those
genetic resources and their derivatives that are being marketed globally
through major multinational companies
. Estimation of the total economic
values accrued from multifarious uses of genetic resources at local and
national level is, however, a complex process as many countries do not
maintain adequate data and information records on the source of
extraction, qu
antum of resources extracted, utilization patterns,
consumption level, marketing channels, market prices, demand and
supply of the resources, and conservation and regeneration potentials of
the extractive sources, etc. The economic evaluation of genetic re
sources
becomes far more cumbersome when the environmental, existence,
cultural and aesthetic values of such resources are to be estimated along
with their direct consumptive economic values. Furthermore, human have
tapped economic potentials of only about

10


20 % of the biological
resources of the world. The focus of biotechnologists and bioprospectors
today is on the as yet untapped genetic resource wealth that holds many
untold promises and potentials for several key sectors of food, agriculture,
medic
ines, pharmaceuticals and other biotech industries. Genetic
resources and associated knowledge thus represent two invaluable
resource bases for bioprospecting, sustainable economic development
and for conservation of biological diversity.

The recent trend
s in bioprospecting in the biotechnology


rich but
biodiversity


poor nations of the North necessitate an ever increasing
demand for access to genetic resources and traditional knowledge that
are available in the biodiversity


rich but biotechnology


p
oor nations of
the South. This has also triggered conflicting interests and common
concerns among all stakeholder states, organizations, institutions,
individuals, and communities involved in collection, characterization,
conservation, sustainable utilizat
ion, and documentation of genetic
resources and traditional knowledge at local, national, regional and global
levels. Several international conventions, treaties, legal and policy
instruments are in position today, which provide for transparent
mechanisms
and measures for regulated access to and equitable sharing
of benefits arising out of sustainable use of genetic resources and
traditional knowledge. The United Nations Convention on Biological
Diversity (CBD
-
signed by 150 countries at the Earth Summit in
Rio de
Janeiro, 3
-
14 June 1992) is the first international legal instrument that
brought out a radical change from the then prevailing common perception
on genetic resources as “common heritage of mankind” to a legally
binding regime that confers “soverei
gn rights” to the states over their own
biological resources (including genetic resources and traditional
knowledge).




3

Access and Benefit Sharing (ABS): International Scenario

Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD)

CBD is a dynamic international law (ca
me into force since
December 29, 1993 and ratified by 188 countries as on 12
th

October 2004)
founded upon the three main objectives: (i) conservation of biological
diversity, (ii) the sustainable use of its components, and (iii) fair and
equitable sharing
of the benefits arising from the use of genetic resources,
including by appropriate access to genetic resources and by appropriate
transfer of relevant technologies (Article 1). CBD has triggered a renewed
impetus on the Contracting Parties or States to de
velop appropriate
measures to regulate access and to promote benefit sharing in relation to
genetic resources and traditional knowledge. The most relevant provisions
on access to genetic resources, traditional knowledge and benefit sharing
are stipulated i
n Articles 8 (j), 15, 16, and 19 of the Convention:


CBD Provisions for Access, Benefit Sharing and

Protection of Traditional Knowledge

Article 8 (j):


Protection of
Traditional
Knowledge

Promote the wider application of
the knowledge, innovations and
pr
actices of indigenous and local
communities with their approval
and involvement and encourage
the equitable sharing of the benefit
arising out of sustainable use of
the knowledge, innovations, and
practices of indigenous and local
communities.

Article 15.
1:


Authority to
determine access

Party has the authority to
determine access to genetic
resources, subject to national
legislation.

Article 15.2:

Access for
environment
-
friendly uses

Each Party shall endeavor to
facilitate access to genetic
resources for

environmentally
sound uses by other contracting
Parties and not imposes
restrictions that run counter to the
objectives of the Convention.

Article 15.4:

Mutually Agreed
Terms

Access to genetic resources shall
be on mutually agreed terms.

Article 15.5:

P
rior Informed
Consent

Access shall be subject to Prior
Informed Consent of the

4

Contracting Party providing such
resources, unless otherwise
determined by that Party.

Article 15.6:

Scientific research
and development

Party receiving genetic resources
from
another Party shall endeavor
to develop and carry out scientific
research based in genetic
resources provided by other
Contracting Parties with full
participation of, and where
possible in, such Contracting
Parties.

Article 15.7:

Equitable Benefit
Sharin
g

Parties to take legislative,
administrative or policy measures,
as appropriate, with the aim of
sharing in a fair and equitable way
the results of research and
developments and the benefits
arising from the commercial or
other utilization of genetic
reso
urces with the Contracting
Party providing such resources,
and such sharing shall be upon
mutually agreed terms.

Article 16.3:

Transfer of
Technology

Access to and transfer of
technology using genetic
resources to countries providing
the genetic resources
.

Article 19.1:

Participation of
genetic resource
providing countries
in biotechnological
research

The Contracting Party receiving a
genetic resource shall take
legislative, administrative or policy
measures as appropriate, to
promise effective participat
ion by
providers of genetic resources,
especially developing countries in
biotechnological research
activities.



CBD thus provides a fundamental framework for the Parties to
develop appropriate national legislations and policy guidelines to facilitate
f
air and transparent means and mechanisms for access to and equitable
sharing of benefits accrued from the use genetic resources and traditional
knowledge. Immediately after the CBD came into being, another

5

international body called the World Trade Organiza
tion (WTO) was
established in June 1994 for streamlining and regulating the trade
relations of the world. Most of the countries have signed both CBD and
WTO. But there arose certain contradictions in the Trade Related
Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPs) u
nder the WTO with those of CBD.
The ministerial conference of the member countries of WTO was
constituted to iron out the contradiction and to harmonize TRIPs and CBD,
and thereby to create a fair and enabling situation for all countries of the
world. Simi
larly CBD has also constituted Conference of Parties (COP) to
streamline and implement the CBD directives. Access and benefit sharing
issues have become the central themes for subsequent detailed
discussions and decisions
-

making under CBD, TRIPs, and the
World
Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO). CBD began to address the
ABS issues and their implementation since Fourth Meeting of the
Conference of Parties (COP


IV) held in Bratislava (Slovakia) in May
1998.

In its efforts to evolve an internationa
l regime for access and benefit
sharing based on genetic resources and traditional knowledge, CBD has
constituted two separate working groups and one Expert Panel viz. (i) Ad


hoc Open


ended Working Group on Traditional Knowledge {CBD/COP
IV/9/1998} (ii
) Ad


hoc Open


ended Working Group on Access and
Benefit Sharing {CBD/COP V/6/2000} and (iii) Panel of Experts on Access
and Benefit Sharing (CBD/COP IV/8, 1998). The terms of references of
these Working Groups and Expert Panel included mainly the devel
opment
of a framework that would help assist Parties to develop national and
regional regulations or guidelines on ABS, with special focus on evolving
standards and principal elements of “Prior Informed Consent (PIC)”,
“Mutually Agreed Terms (MAT)”, “Mater
ial Transfer Agreements (MTA)”
and Monetary and Non


monetary Benefit Sharing Agreements.

The Bonn Guidelines
:

One of the significant outcomes of CBD’s work on
ABS is the development of the “
Bonn Guidelines on Access to Genetic
Resources and Fair and Eq
uitable Sharing of the Benefits Arising out of
their Utilization
” at the October 2001 meeting of the Ad


hoc Open


ended Working Group on Access and Benefit Sharing held in Bonn, which
were adopted at the Sixth Meeting of the Conference of Parties held i
n
April 2002 in the Hague (COP Decision VI/24). The Bonn Guidelines are
voluntary in nature and are a useful first step of an evolutionary process in
the implementation of relevant provisions of the CBD related to access to
genetic resources and associated

traditional knowledge and sharing of
benefits arising from the commercial or other utilization of such resources,
with the exclusion of human genetic materials. The Guidelines are
intended to provide the Parties and Stakeholders with a transparent
framewo
rk to facilitate access to genetic resources and ensure fair and
equitable sharing of benefits through standard practices and procedures of
PIC, MAT, MTA, and other relevant agreements. The Guidelines provide
details of an overall strategy and the essentia
l steps, elements and

6

principles to be adopted in developing access and benefit sharing regimes
by the Parties and Stakeholders. Several countries have already
incorporated the key elements as suggested in CBD and the Bonn
Guidelines in to their national/r
egional policies and legal framework.
(UNEP/CBD/COP3/20/1996; GRAIN/BRL/Access & Benefit Sharing


www.grain.org
, accessed on 12/10/2004). Some examples of such
important national or regional laws on biodiversity, traditional knowledge
and ABS are:

1.

Andean
Community

(Effective in five countries: Bolivia, Colombia,
Ecuador, Peru and Venezuela)


Andean Community Decision
391: Common Regimes on Access to Genetic Resources

(2 July
1996).

2.

ASEAN



The ASEAN Framework Agreement on Access to
Biological and Genetic
Resources (24 Feb. 1996).

3.

Bangladesh



Draft Biodiversity and Community Protection Act of
Bangladesh (29 September 1998).

4.

Bolivia



Supreme Decree No. 24676 Regulation Of Decision 391
on the Common Regimes for Access to Genetic Resources (21
June 1997)

5.

Bra
zil



Provisional Measures on Access to Genetic Resources
and Traditional Knowledge No. 2: 186.16 (23 August 2001).

6.

Costa Rica



The Biodiversity Law No. 7786 (30 April 1998);
Presidential Decree on ABS No. 31


514 (3 April 2003).

7.

India



Biological Diver
sity Act (11 December 2002); Biodiversity
Rules (15 April 2004).

8.

Organization of African Unity



African Model Legislation for the
Protection of the Rights of Local Communities, Farmers and
Breeders and for the Regulation of Access to Biological Resources
(2000).

9.

Pakistan



Draft Legislation on Access to Biological resources and
Community Rights (2004).

10.

Peru


Law Introducing a Protection Regime for the Collective
Knowledge of Indigenous People Derived from Biological
Resources (10 August 2002).

11.

Philippines



Department of Environment and Natural Resources
Administrative Orders 96


20 (9 July 1996).

12.

South Africa



National Environmental Management: Biodiversity
Act (7 June 2004).


The access norms in the regional or national legislations may vary
primarily
on the procedures of Prior Informed Consent, particularly on the
authority(ies) entitled to grant such consents. The Andean Pact Common

7

Systems on Access, the Philippines Access Regulations, Costa Rican
Laws, Bangladesh Biodiversity Law require that the a
pplicant seeking
access to genetic resources and traditional knowledge obtain the PIC from
the National Competent Authority as well as the Indigenous or Local
Communities; whereas the Biological Diversity Act of India, ASEAN
Framework Agreements on ABS req
uire PIC from the National Authority.
While there is broader consensus on appropriate methods for involvement
of the indigenous and local communities and other relevant stakeholders
in the negotiations of ABS arrangements, the legislations in many
countrie
s do not provide exclusive rights or ownerships on genetic
resources and traditional land resources to the community stakeholders.
In many such cases the States have complete authority over the
biogenetic resources and all other related matters, whereas th
e local or
indigenous communities are often alienated from their traditional lands
and community resources. Protection of the customary rights of the
traditional communities and also the intellectual property wealth ingrained
in their traditional knowledge
, practices and innovations is an important
adjunct to achieve the CBD objectives.


FAO
-

International Treaty on Plant Genetic Resources for Food and
Agriculture (ITPGR
-

(2001) and ABS process


The Treaty, which has come into force since 2001, aims at
co
nservation and sustainable use of plant genetic resources for food and
agriculture (PGRFA) and the fair and equitable sharing of the benefits
arising out of their use for sustainable agriculture and food security. The
Treaty provides for an efficient, effe
ctive and transparent multilateral
system to facilitate both access to and fair and equitable sharing of
benefits arising from the utilization of PGRFA on a complementary and
mutually reinforcing basis (Article 10.2).


In accordance with Article 10.1 of th
e Treaty, 64 plant genetic
resource groups (35 food crops + 29 forage crops) for the food and
agriculture have been currently brought under the Multilateral Systems of
Access and Benefit Sharing (
Annex I

of the ITPGR). The treaty also
obliges its Parties t
o take necessary legal or other appropriate measures
to provide access to other Contracting Parties through the Multilateral
Systems, and insists that the facilitated access shall be provided pursuant
to a standard Multilateral Transfer Agreement (MTA), co
ntaining all access
& benefit sharing provisions under 12.3 a, d and g and 13.2 d (ii) of the
Treaty. The Treaty also restricts the recipient Party to claim any
intellectual property or other rights on the genetic resources or their
genetic parts or compon
ents in the form received from the Multilateral
System (Article 12.3 d).


The Benefit Sharing Provisions under the Treaty enables the
Contracting parties to facilitate fair and equitable benefit sharing through
the following mechanisms: (a)
Exchange of

I
nformation
(e.g. catalogues

8

and inventories, information on technologies, results of technical, scientific
and socio


economic research, including characterization, evaluation and
utilization) (b)
Access to and transfer of technology

(e.g. technologies fo
r
the conservation, characterization, evaluation and use of plant genetic
resources for food and agriculture, including technologies transformed
through genetic materials, improved varieties and genetic materials
developed through the use of PGRFA accessed

under Multilateral
System) (c)
Capacity building

(Proposed measures include: (i)
establishing and/or strengthening programmes for scientific and technical
education and training in conservation and sustainable use of PGRFA, (ii)
developing and strengtheni
ng facilities for conservation and sustainable
use of PGRFA in developing countries and countries with economy in
transition, and (iii) carrying out scientific research preferably in developing
countries and countries with economy in transition, in coopera
tion with
institutions of such countries, and capacity building in relevant research
fields when they are needed (d)
Sharing of monetary

and other benefit of
commercialization
: (commercial benefit sharing through involvement of
private and public sectors t
hrough partnerships and collaboration in
research and technology development; deposit of an equitable share of
the benefit accrued from the commercialization of a product from the
accessed PGRFA to the ‘Trust Fund’ to be established under the provision
of
19.3 (f) of the Treaty; the level, form and manner of the payment to be
decided by the Governing Body that has been established under the
Treaty comprising all Contracting Parties; mechanism for direct or indirect
flow of the shared benefits to and from in

all countries, especially the
developing countries and countries with economy in transition (Article
13.3); modalities for voluntary benefit sharing contributions to the
multilateral systems by the food processing industries that benefit from
the PGRFA a
ccessed from other Contracting Parties.

In essence the ITPGR and CBD contain complementary provisions
on access and benefit sharing based on the standard principles and
procedures of PIC and MTA.

TRIPS Agreement and ABS Issues

Interactive

discussions on the relationship between the Agreement
on the Trade Related Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPs) and CBD’s ABS
Work Group and also about the ways to harmonize intellectual property
issues related to biological and genetic resources and asso
ciated
knowledge with the core CBD objectives have been taking place since
1999. Despite several meetings of the TRIP Council, COPs to CBD, and
other relevant organizations and agencies, no consensus has been
reached as yet on the prevailing issues of acco
rding legal intellectual
property protection to genetic resources and associated traditional
knowledge. Article 27.3 (b), particularly the clauses of patenting on life
forms and developing a
sui generis
system for protection of plant varieties,
is the main

bone of contention of the ongoing debate between WTO

9

members from the developing countries and those from the industrialized
developed countries. The Group of developing countries has made nine
submissions to the TRIPs Council for reviewing the Article 27
.3(b) and
other relevant provisions of TRIPs and makes them supportive to the CBD
objectives. In a recent submission to the Council, the developing country
group comprising Bolivia, Brazil, Cuba, Ecuador, India, Peru, Thailand,
Venezuela, raised the follow
ing three demands for incorporation in to the
provision mandating applicants for a patent relating to biological resources
or traditional knowledge to: (i) disclose the source of origin of biological/
genetic resources, (ii) provide evidence on prior infor
med consent, and (iii)
evidence on benefit sharing agreement (IP/C/W/403 of 4 June 2003;
IP/C/W/420 of 12 March 2004; IP/C/W/429 of 20 September 2004). These
issues adequately express the concern of the mega
-
biodiversity countries
that are rich in genetic
resources and traditional knowledge, but poor in
their biotechnologies. However, the debate on TRIPs

CBD
harmonization is still continuing without having reached any conscientious
decisions. The developed countries’ argument is that integrating
intellect
ual property issues with CBD provisions is unnecessary and
unwarranted. An alternate suggestion to the debate by some of the
European Countries is to include, in appropriate cases, declaration of the
origin of genetic material in patent applications as a
voluntary requirement
and include penalty system for failure to comply with the declaration, in
which case the patent would be rejected or withdrawn. The Like Minded
Megadiverse Countries (LMMC) in the developing countries and the
countries with their ec
onomy in transition are pushing ahead with their
demands to meet a legally binding solution to the three major issues
raised by them.

World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO) and ABS & Article 8 (j)

The CBD Secretariat and ABS Work Group have been
studying the
possible mechanisms to address the ABS issues regarding prior informed
consent, benefit
-
sharing agreements, technology transfers on the basis of
mutually agreed terms and other relevant provisions with reference to
WIPO, UNCTAD, and other orga
nizations. The LMMC Group, who was
the first to raise these issues for discussion in the context of CBD,
however, objects any idea of a strong collaboration with WIPO due to the
apprehension that the interests of these countries would not be addressed
app
ropriately at WIPO, whose prime concern is to negotiate and
implement the IPR policies concerning the monopolistic rights of individual
or corporate innovators. The WIPO’s Intergovernmental Committee (ICG)
on Intellectual Property and Genetic Resources
and Traditional
Knowledge and Folklore is now examining the issues of ABS and
traditional knowledge (WIPO, 2001).


10

Access and Benefit Sharing: Common Approaches



CBD and ITPGR, and the Bonn Guidelines provide a broad
framework for ABS procedures. The main

features of ABS mechanisms
include: (i) Prior Informed Consent (ii) Mutually Agreed Terms (iii) Material
Transfer Agreements, and (iv) Benefit


sharing agreements through
monetary and non
-
monetary means. Apart form the frameworks as
suggested in the above

international policy documents and guidelines,
several other national, international, and regional institutions, agencies
and community organizations have developed different models of access
and benefit


sharing agreements, MTAs, MATs, etc. (Laird, 20
02). A few
examples of such model agreements on ABS contracts, bioprospecting
partnerships include:
The Andean Pact Decision 391 and Contracts
(1996);

The Pew Conservation Fellows Biodiversity Research Protocols
(1996);

Royal Botanic Garden Policy on Acces
s to Genetic Resources and
Benefit Sharing
(RBG, Kew 1998);

Common Policy Guidelines for
Participating Botanic Gardens on Access to Genetic Resources and
Benefit Sharing
(Cartagena 2000);

The Limbe Botanic Garden Policy on
Access to Genetic Resources and B
enefit Sharing
(2001);

Community
Biodiversity Registers and Honey Bee Network for chronicling and
protection of Local People’s Innovations (India); Draft Research Policy for
Protected Areas in Cameroon
(
www.wwf.c
ameroon.org
); etc. Although
these frameworks and models are useful in developing appropriate ABS
agreements, they cannot serve as absolute or comprehensive
mechanisms as the objectives, standards and procedures of ABS will vary
considerably from Partie
s to Parties. As outlined in the Pew Conservation
Fellows Biodiversity Research Protocols (1996), any biodiversity research
contract in general and the ABS agreements in particular may cover the
following five categories: (1) Non


extractive, non


commer
cial research
(2) Extractive but primarily non


commercial research (3) Non


extractive
research with possible commercial potentials (4) Extractive research
intended for commercial development, and (5) Conservation research
intended for protection of bio
diversity (Laird, 2002).

Before framing an ABS agreement, each Party, State, organization,
institution, individuals or local and indigenous communities should ponder
over some of the following pertinent questions like, (i) What resources and
knowledge ar
e to be accessed? (ii) What for these are accessed? (iii)
Where from these have to be accessed and in what forms and what
quantities? (iv) Are these resources owned by the State, local and
indigenous communities or other stakeholders? (v) Does the national

law
in the country from which the resources are to be accessed permit such
access for the purpose indented by the Party? (vi) Who the national
authority to grant the access and prior informed consent to the Party
seeking the resources and TK? (vii) What

access norms and benefit

sharing agreements are mandated in the country providing the resources
and TK? (viii) What are the technological and human resource capabilities
available in both the resource provider and user Parties? (ix) Is the access

11

is made

with a predetermined plan of any product development and /or its
subsequent commercialization? (x) Is the access made directly or through
intermediaries? (xi) What precautionary measures are planned to avoid
any legal or ethical entanglements between the
resource/ knowledge
provider and user during the entire course of the access
-

benefit sharing
deal? (xii) Does the access
-

benefit sharing deal reflect mutual concerns
and respect to the Parties’ constitutional, environmental, ethical and other
codes of co
nduct? (xiii) Does the access and subsequent uses and
commercialization of the products or technologies derived from them
cause any infringement to the environmental safety, ecological balance,
conservational ethos, traditional wisdom, equity and moral pri
nciples and
intellectual or other forms of individual or collective rights of any person or
community or organization? (xiv) What are the domestic and global
benefits to be accrued from transnational access of genetic resources and
TK?

These are only some
general thoughts on the whole process of
access and benefit sharing, but these would help one to adhere to the
principles of ethics and equity in striking a harmonious and transparent
ABS agreement. Regulated access to genetic resources and traditional
kno
wledge for any environment
-

friendly and sustainable use needs to be
promoted as long as the access is made subject to the national
legislations and the relevant international laws and treaties to which the
country is a Party. However, illegal plunderin
g of any country’s biological
or intellectual wealth through stealthy ways and means amounts to bio
-
piracy and bio
-
imperialism. Many examples of such piracy are available
today, which have only helped to deepen the conflicts between the
biodiversity
-
rich
nations of the South and the biotechnology

rich nations
of the North (Shiva, 1998; Shiva
et al.

2002). Despite having introduced
the “doctrine of sovereign rights”, CBD’s attempts to harmonize the
international trade and intellectual laws have not been s
uccessful. This
situation has led to a kind of insecurity among many of the biodiversity


rich countries in dealing with the issues of transnational access and
bioprospecting partnership with multinational companies and institutions.
Eventually these cou
ntries often have to assume a defensive position
rather than focusing on to build up their technological capabilities to
prospect their valuable resources and knowledge for their economic well
being and sustainable development. The current situation is su
ch that
both the developing countries and the developed industrialized countries
cannot simply do away with their own strengths. What the former lack is
the biotechnological capabilities for which they are largely dependent on
the developed countries, whi
le the developed countries look up to the
developing countries for new sources of genetic resources and associated
knowledge required for their bioprospecting and biotechnological
programms. Coming in terms with each other through a harmonious but
mutually

acceptable legal mechanism is the only possible way out to
overcome the current dilemma between the South and North. CBD is the

12

most relevant legal instrument that has set forth the most enabling
provisions for fair and transparent mechanisms for access

to and transfer
of biological and genetic resources and relevant technologies among the
Parties of the Convention. If all the Contracting Parties adhere to the
ethical and equity principles for facilitating fair, transparent and regulated
access to and
transfer of genetic resources and technologies it would help
greatly to resolve most of the unresolved issues related to ABS and
protection of intellectual property rights and customary rights of the
traditional communities.

So, most of the biodiversity
-
r
ich countries like India are addressing
the issues of ABS in relation to genetic resources and traditional
knowledge in the face of a contemporary complex situation as mentioned
above. Given the international guidelines such as the Bonn Guidelines
and oth
er model frameworks, one of the serious concerns for
implementing uniform standards and elements is the absence of
appropriate definitions of various terms related to genetic resources and
traditional knowledge and other components of biodiversity in the n
ational
legislations and other documents on biodiversity. Through a decision
taken at its Seventh Meeting of the COP in Kuala Lumpur in 2004, the
CBD secretariat has initiated a process to compile the national definitions
that each Party has accorded to th
e following terms:
access to genetic
resources, benefit sharing, commercialization, derivatives, provider, user,
stakeholder, ex situ collection, voluntary nature, and other relevant terms
(CBD/COP 7/19/2004).

Another concern in relation to developing AB
S
procedures at national or institutional level is the lack of adequate capacity
and experience in evolving equitable bioprospecting partnerships that
would cover all essential steps of PIC, MTA, MAT, and agreements for
sharing the benefits arising from th
e production and commercialization of
any product or technologies derived from the genetic resources, its
components and/or derivatives and the associated knowledge. The
disproportionate distribution of biodiversity and biotechnology across the
world, and
the North
-
South divide in policy and legal issues related to
biodiversity, biotechnology, traditional knowledge, global trade and
intellectual property protection are other reasons that cause delay in
implementing a transparent and comprehensive internatio
nal regime on
access and benefit sharing.

Prior Informed Consent (PIC)

The provisions of Prior Informed Consent (PIC) as stipulated in
Article 15.5 of CBD is the first essential step in the best practice for any
Access and Benefit Sharing involving genetic

resources and indigenous or
traditional knowledge. PIC helps the Parties and other participating
stakeholders involved in an ABS contract/agreement to take informed
decisions pertaining to all administrative, legal and ethical matters on
access, benefit s
haring, technology transfer, capacity building and other
relevant matters with greater transparency and accountability. PIC also

13

helps facilitate prior negotiations and structured discussions on the shared
objectives, scope, duration, legal certainty and c
larity on ABS process,
benefit sharing and other agreements based on mutually agreed terms
among all relevant stakeholders.

While the basic principles and over all strategic approach to PIC
procedures of ABS at national or institutional level show uniform
ity, the
specific terms and conditions as well as the over all structure of each ABS
contract/agreement will vary significantly depending up on: (a) the specific
purpose of an applicant seeking access to genetic resources and TK from
another contracting Pa
rty, (b) the administrative, legal and policy
frameworks on ABS as well as the scientific and technological capabilities
of the Parties in facilitating a fair and transparent ABS deal, (iii) the
mutual concerns of the Parties for conservation of biodiver
sity and
equitable sharing of all kinds of benefits arising from the sustainable use
of the resources and associated knowledge, data and information
accessed. The Bonn Guidelines suggest that the basic principles of a PIC
system on ABS at national level sh
ould include:

(a)

Legal certainty and clarity

(b)

Minimum transition cost for access

(c)

Restrictions on access based only on legal grounds and subject to
national legislations and CBD

(d)

Consent for access to be obtained from the competent national
authority and where r
equired from other relevant stakeholders such
as indigenous and local communities, subject to the national
legislations of the provider country.

The Guidelines recommend that the PIC system may include the following
key elements:

(a)

Competent authority (ie
s) granting or providing for evidence of PIC
:
i.e. Prior informed consent of the competent national authority (ies)
and other relevant stakeholders, as appropriate, should be obtained
for accessing genetic resources from either ‘
in


situ
’ or ‘
ex


situ

s
ources, subject to the national legislations in the provider country.
The PIC process, where appropriate, should ensure active
involvement of all relevant stakeholders from indigenous and local
communities to the government levels. PIC process should also
respect the provisions of CBD Article 8 (j), national legislations and
customary laws, in obtaining the PIC and approval of indigenous or
local communities for accessing their traditional knowledge,
innovations and practices.

(b)

Timing and Deadlines
:
The PIC
systems should accord appropriate
time frame and deadlines for both applying and granting of access
by the provider and user countries respectively.


14

(c)

Specification of use
:

The application for PIC should clearly spell out
the specific uses for which the cons
ent has been granted. The
competent authority of provider country may stipulate in clear terms
the permitted specified use(s) while granting access permit to the
user country, so that further prior informed consent could be sought
for any change in the us
es of the resource being accessed or for
which the consent was already granted. The applicant for access to
genetic resources and/or associated traditional knowledge may
clearly spell out the special needs for using the resources or
knowledge being accesse
d for taxonomic, systemic or conservation
research, etc.

(d)

Procedures for obtaining PIC
:

PIC may be obtained through an
application in a format as prescribed by the provider country, and
may contain the following information, which are only indicative and
ma
y vary depending upon the type of ABS processes and
stakeholders involved:

(i)

Legal entity and affiliation of the applicant and/or collector
and contact person, when the applicant is an institution.

(ii)

Type and quantity of genetic resources to which access is
so
ught.

(iii)

Starting date and duration of the activity.

(iv)

Geographical prospecting area.

(v)

Evaluation of any possible impact of the activity on
conservation and sustainable use of biodiversity (in both the
user and provider countries).

(vi)

Specification of intended use.

(vii)

Identification of place/institution where R & D on the
accessed resource will take place.

(viii)

Information on the R & D methods and schedules of
activities.

(ix)

Identification of local bodies (including indigenous and local
community organization) for collaboratio
n in R & D.

(x)

Possible third party involvement.

(xi)

Purpose of the collection, research and expected results.

(xii)

Kinds/Type benefits arising from the access, including
benefits from derivatives or products arising from the
commercial and other utilization of the ge
netic resources.

(xiii)

Indications of benefit sharing arrangements.

(xi v)

Budget.

(xv)

Treatment of confidential information.


15

(e)

Mechanism for consultation of relevant stakeholders
:
Subject to the
merit of the PIC application and also in terms of the relevant
national and c
ustomary laws, the provider country may facilitate
negotiation and detailed discussions on the access programme and
all proposed activities, including possible benefit sharing
mechanisms, with all relevant stakeholders, involving local or
indigenous commun
ities.

(f)

PIC Processes
:
The application for access through PIC and
granting of access by the competent national authority (ies) should
be documented in written form through an easy and transparent
process. The grant of access could be in the form of a permit

or
license

or any other means as decided by the national authority.
The provider country may record all such issuance of all permits or
licenses through a national registration system.

Mutually Agreed Terms (MATs)

Article 15.7 of CBD stipulates that the
results of scientific research
and development and any other benefit arising from the sustainable use of
a genetic resource accessed by a Party shall be shared with the
Contracting Party providing the resource in a fair and equitable manner
based on “mutua
lly agreed terms”. The basic principles for developing
MATs are almost the same as discussed above under PIC, but may focus
more specifically on terms and conditions that both the Parties will agree
up on for an effective and transparent, legally binding A
BS process. The
Bonn Guidelines suggest the following basic requirements for arriving
“mutually agreed terms” between the provider and user countries for
access and granting of genetic resource:



(a)

Permitting only use of resources in order to take into ac
count
ethnical concerns of the particular indigenous and local
communities concerned.

(b)

Ensuring continued customary use of genetic resources and
associated knowledge.

(c)

Provisions for IPR use through joint research and claims on the
rights on inventions obtai
ned and to provide licenses by common
consent.

(d)

Provisions for joint IPR rights according to degree of contributions.

MATs in written formats may contain the following indicative parameters
and terms:

(i)

Type and quantity of genetic resources, and the
geograph
ical/ecological area of activity.

(ii)

Any limitation on the possible use of the material accessed.

(iii)

Recognition of the sovereign rights of the country of origin.


16

(iv)

Capacity


building in various areas to be identified in the
agreements.

(v)

A clause on renegotiation
for any change of use for which the
consent was granted.

(vi)

Whether or not to transfer genetic resources to third parties
without ensuring the third parties enter into similar agreements
except for taxonomic and systematic research that is not related
to
commercialization.

(vii)

Protection to local knowledge, innovations and practices of
indigenous and local communities and promotion of customary
use of biological and genetic resources in accordance with
traditional practice of local and indigenous communities.

(viii)

Treatment of confidential information.

(ix)

Provision for benefit sharing resulting from the commercial or
other utilization of genetic resources and their derivatives and
products.

Benefit


Sharing Agreements related to Access to Genetic Resources

“Mutually
agreed terms” in accordance with Article 15.7 of CBD
should pay adequate attention to reaching an agreement on fair and
equitable sharing of benefit arising from the commercial or other utilization
of the resources accessed. The terms and conditions for be
nefit sharing
may vary from case to case depending up on the type of the access deal
that has been agreed up on by the Parties/stakeholders concerned. Bonn
Guidelines provide the following the conditions, obligations, and
mechanisms of benefit sharing:

Typ
es of Benefits:

The types of benefits may include monetary and non


monetary
benefits. The
monetary benefits

may broadly cover the following as per
mutually agreed terms:

(i)

Access fees.

(ii)

Up


front payments.

(iii)

Milestone payments.

(iv)


Sharing of Royalties.

(v)

Licen
se fees in case of commercialization.

(vi)

Special fees to be paid to trust funds supporting conservation and
sustainable use of biodiversity.

(vii)

Salaries and preferential terms on mutually agreed terms.

(viii)

Research funding.


17

(ix)

Joint ventures.

(x)

Joint ownership of relevan
t intellectual property rights.

The
non


monetary

benefits may include:

(i)

Sharing of research and development results.

(ii)

Collaboration, cooperation and contribution in scientific research
and development programme, particularly biotechnological
research acti
vities, where possible in the provider country;

(iii)

Participation in product development.

(iv)

Collaboration, cooperation and contribution in education and
training.

(v)

Admittance to
ex


situ

facilities of genetic resources and to
databases.

(vi)

Transfer to the provider
of the genetic resources of knowledge
and technology under fair and most favorable terms, including
on concessional and preferential terms where agreed, in
particular, knowledge and technology that make use of genetic
resources, including biotechnology, or

that are relevant to the
conservation and sustainable utilization of biotechnological
diversity.

(vii)

Strengthening capacities for technology transfer to user
developing country Parties and to Parties that are countries with
economics in transition, and techno
logy development in the
country of origin that provides genetic resources. Also to
facilitate abilities of indigenous and local communities to
conserve and sustainably use their genetic resources.

(viii)

Institutional capacity


building.

(ix)

Human and material resou
rces to strengthen the capacities for
the administration and enforcement of access regulations.

(x)

Training related to genetic resources with the full participation of
providing Parties, and where possible, in such Parties.

(xi)

Access to scientific information re
levant to conservation and
sustainable use of biological diversity, including biological
inventories and taxonomic studies.

(xii)

Contributions to the local economy.

(xiii)

Research directed towards priority needs, such as health and
food security, taking into account
domestic uses of genetic
resources in provider countries.


18

(xi v)

Institutional and professional relationships that can arise from
an access and benefit


sharing agreement and subsequent
collaborative activities.

(xv)

Food and livelihood security benefits.

(xvi)

Social reco
gnition.

(xvii)

Joint ownership of relevant intellectual property rights.

Timing of Benefits
:

The time frame of benefit


sharing may be specified.
Benefits could be near
-
term, medium
-
term or long
-
term depending upon
the circumstances. These may include up
-

front

payments, milestone
payments and royalties.

Distribution of benefits
:
The benefits arising from the ABS contract should
be shared in a fair and equitable manner among all those who have
contributed to the resource management, R & D and commercialization
p
rocess, including governmental, non


governmental or academic
institutions and indigenous and local communities.

Mechanisms for Benefit


Sharing
:
This may vary from case to case
depending upon the types/kinds of benefits (monetary or non


monetary
ben
efits), specific conditions in the country and stakeholders involved. The
best benefit
-

sharing could be one that has been struck between the
participating countries/stakeholders through prior informed consent and
mutually agreed terms. Active participat
ion of all partners in the ABS
process, including R & D, marketing, and commercialization must be
ensured through development of joint ventures & license and creation of
trust funds, etc.

Material Transfer Agreements: Key Elements (MTAs)

All access pe
rmits or license or any other means of granting access
to genetic resources and associated knowledge should be appended with
a standard “Material Transfer Agreement” by the provider country to the
user as per prior informed consent and mutually agreed term
s. MTAs may
vary in their formats and contents depending up on the type of resources
and knowledge being accessed and the terms mutually agreed up on by
the participant countries.

Bonn Guidelines provide a framework for developing MTAs with
following ele
ments:

(a)

Introductory Provisions
:

(i)

Preamble with reference to CBD.

(ii)

Legal status of the provider and user of genetic
resources.

(iii)

Mandate and/or general objectives of provider and user.


19

(b)

Access and benefits


sharing provisions
:

(i)

Description of genetic resour
ces covered by the MTAs
with accompanying information.

(ii)

Permitted uses of genetic resources, their products or
derivatives under MTAs.

(iii)

Statement on any change of use that would require new
PIC and MTA.

(iv)

Statement as to whether IPR is sought and if so, under
what conditions.

(v)

Terms of benefits


sharing with details of the type/kind
of benefits to be shared.

(vi)

Clause on non
-
warranties guaranteed by provider on
identity and/or quality of the material provided.

(vii)

Statement on whether the genetic resources and/or
acco
mpanying information may be transferred to the third
parties and, if so, on what conditions such transfers
would be permitted.

(viii)

Definitions of various terms (in clear cut wordings so as
to avoid ambiguities and any possible misleads).

(ix)

Duty to minimize envir
onmental impacts of collecting
activities.

(c)

Legal provisions
:

(i)

Obligation to comply with MTA.

(ii)

Duration of the agreement.

(iii)

Notice to terminate the agreement.

(iv)

Statements on certain obligations in certain clause
survive the termination of the agreements.

(v)

Indepe
ndent enforceability of individual clauses in the
agreement.

(vi)

Events limiting the liability of either party (such as of God,
fire, flood, etc.).

(vii)

Dispute settlements arrangements.

(viii)

Assignments or transfer of rights.

(ix)

Assignments, transfer or exclusion of the r
ights to claim
any property rights, including intellectual property rights,
over the genetic resources received through the material
transfer agreements.


20

(x)

Choice of law.

(xi)

Confidentiality clause

(xii)

Guarantee.

ABS Policies and Programmes: The Indian Ini
tiatives


India has always been playing a proactive role in the development
and implementation of several global, international, regional and national
policies and programs related to environment, biodiversity, trade,
intellectual property rights and other

relevant areas. Biodiversity and
associated traditional knowledge are two capital resources of India, and
they form the prime focus of all the sectoral and cross
-
sectoral programs
centered on sustainable development. The significant initiatives that India

have taken in enacting several national legislations and in developing
strategic action plans are examples to demonstrate the country’s
commitment to the major international conventions, treaties, laws,
strategies such as The World Heritage Convention (
1972); Convention on
International Trade in Endangered Species of Flora and Fauna (CITES
1975); Ramsar Convention on Wetlands (1975); FAO’s International
Undertaking on Plant Genetic Resources (FAO 1983); Convention on
Biological Diversity (CBD 1992); Agen
da 21 (1992); UN Framework
Convention on Climate Changes (1992); UN Convention to Combat
Desertification (1994); The Trade Related Intellectual Property Rights
(WTO
-
TRIPs 1994); Cartagena Protocol for Biosafety to CBD (2000);
FAO International Treaty on P
lant Genetic Resources for Food and
Agriculture ( FAO, 2001), Global Strategy for Plant Conservation ( GSPC
2002); the Bonn Guidelines on

Access to Genetic Resources and Fair and
Equitable Sharing of the benefits Arising out of their Utilization (2002), et
c.
CBD is the most comprehensive legal instrument that addresses the
issues of access and benefit sharing involving genetic resources and
traditional knowledge. Consequent to the ratification of CBD by India on
18 February 1994 and in pursuance of the CO
P decisions of CBD that
followed, the Government of India, particularly the Ministry of Environment
& Forests (MoEF)
-

the national focal point of CBD, has taken several
steps in implementing the CBD provisions through interactive
stakeholder consultation
s and integrated cross
-
sectoral planning and
decision


making processes. While the specific details of such initiatives
are available in the various reports, publications and web sites of nodal
agencies such as MoEF (
please see
www.envfor.nic.in
; www.envis.nic.in
),
the discussion below will be precisely on those initiatives focused on the
access and benefit sharing of genetic resources and traditional
knowledge.

The Biological Diversity Act 2002 (No.18 of 2003)

The

core of the ABS provisions and their effective implementation
in the territorial jurisdiction of India is dealt with in the Biological Diversity

21

Act 2002(enacted on December 11, 2002 and received the assent from
President of India on February 5, 2003) and

in the Biological Diversity
Rules 2003 (in force since April 15,2003). The Act provides for regulated
access to biological and genetic resources by bonafide end
-
users for
different purposes, including scientific research, commercial uses,
biosurvey, bio
-
u
tilization, conservation and other sustainable uses, etc.
The over all implementation of the Act will be coordinated by three
functional bodies viz. The National Biodiversity Authority (NBA), the State
Biodiversity Boards (SBB), and the Biodiversity Manage
ment Committee
(BMC). NBA is the national competent authority to discharge all decisions
pertaining to ABS, including prior informed consent process, approval for
access to and transfer of biological resources and scientific research
results & technologies

to foreign citizens, companies and non
-
resident
Indians (NRIs), prior approval for applying for IPRs based on biological
resources or traditional knowledge obtained from India, fixing criteria for
benefit sharing, approval of third


party transfer of acc
essed biological
resources and traditional knowledge, and several other matters related to
ABS.

Procedures for Access to biological resources and associated traditional
knowledge
:


The Act stipulates norms for access to biological resources and
traditiona
l knowledge based on three ways:

(i)

Access to biological resources and traditional knowledge to
foreign citizens, companies and NRIs based on ‘prior
approval of NBA’ (Section 3 of the Act).

(ii)

Access permits to Indian citizens, companies, associations
and other

organizations registered in India on the basis of
‘prior intimation to the State Biodiversity Board’ concerned
(Section 7 of the Act).

(iii)

Exemption of prior approval or intimation for local people and
communities, including growers and cultivators of
biodive
rsity, and
vaids

and
hakims,
who have been
practicing indigenous medicines (Section 7 Of the Act).

The key procedures to be followed for access to biological
resources and traditional knowledge are dealt with under Rule no 14 (1


10 sub rules) of the Biod
iversity Rules 2003. These provisions are laid
down to ensure effective, efficient and transparent access procedures
through written agreements and applications in prescribed formats.
Applicants seeking access to biological resources and traditional
knowle
dge are required to submit an application in
FORM I
(annexed to
the Biodiversity Rules 2003) along with an application fee of Rs. 10,000/
-

The NBA through appropriate consultation mechanisms shall dispose of
the application and communicate its decision to
grant access or otherwise

22

to the applicant within a period of six months from the date of receipt of
the application. The Authority is required to communicate the grant of
access to the applicant in the form of a written agreement duly signed by
an authori
zed official of the Authority and the applicant. The rule 14 also
stipulates the Authority to provide reasons in writing in cases of rejection
of an application and give reasonable opportunity to the applicant to
appeal. The Authority shall publicize the

approval granted through print or
electronic media and also shall monitor the compliance of the conditions
agreed up on by the Party and the applicant when the approval for grant
for access was accorded. The access procedures are only regulatory in
nature
, but are not prohibitive in any manner to any applicant irrespective
of their nationalities, affiliations, origin, etc.

Revocation of access
:


Revocation of access or approval granted to an applicant will be
done only on the basis of any complaint or
suo

moto
under the following
conditions: (i) violation of the provisions of the Act or conditions on which
the approval was granted (ii) non
-
compliance of the terms of the
agreement (iii) failure to comply with any of the condition of access
granted (iv) on a
ccount of overriding public interest or for protection of
environment and conservation of biodiversity (Rule 15, Sub rule 1). After
having withdrawn the access permit, the Authority is required to send an
order of revocation to the concerned Biodiversity M
anagement Committee
and the State Biodiversity Board for prohibiting the access and to assess
the damage, if any, caused, and steps to recover the damages (Rule 15,
Sub rule 2).

Restriction for access
:

The Act imposes certain restrictions on request relate
d to access to
biological resources and traditional knowledge if the request is on: (i)
endangered taxa (ii) endemic and rare taxa (iii) likely adverse effects on
the livelihood of the local people (iv) adverse and irrecoverable
environmental impact (v) c
ause genetic erosion or affect ecosystem
function (vi) purpose contrary to national interests and other related
international agreements to which India is Party (Rule 16, Sub rule 1).


Transfer of research results
:

The Act does not pe
rmit any person to transfer the results of any
research relating to biological resources obtained form India for monetary
consideration to foreign nationals, companies or NRIs without the prior
approval of the Authority. Approval for such transfers shall b
e done on the
basis of an application to authority in FORM II along with the payment of
an application fee of Rs 5000/
-
. The Authority within a period of three
months from the receipt of an application shall take a decision on it. As in
the case of access
permits the Authority shall communicate the approval
for transfer of research results to the applicant in the form of a written

23

agreement duly signed by an authorized official and the applicant. The
authority shall communicate the reasons in case a request

for transfer of
research results was not granted and shall give reasonable opportunity
and time to the applicant for an appeal, if any (Rule 17, Sub rules 1
-
6).


Procedure for prior approval before applying for IPR
: (Rule 18, Sub rules
1
-
6)




All the con
ditions for granting approval for transfer of research
results shall be applicable to any person desirous of applying for a patent
or any other intellectual property rights, based on biological resources and
knowledge obtained form India. The Format for ma
king such applications
(FORM III) is annexed to the Biodiversity Rules 2003.


Procedures for third
-
party transfer of accessed biological resources or
knowledge
: (
Rule 19, Sub rules 1
-
6
)



The Act permits transfer of accessed biological resources or
tradit
ional knowledge to a third party on the basis of the prior approval of
the Authority through a process of submitting an application in FORM IV
along with the payment of an application fee of Rs 10,000/
-
. The other
procedures remain the same as those stipul
ated for access to biological
resources and traditional knowledge under Rule 14.

Criteria for benefit sharing
:


The Act, subject to Section 21 and Rule 20 of the Biodiversity
Rules, insists up on including appropriate benefit sharing provisions in the
acc
ess agreement and mutually agreed terms related to access and
transfer of biological resources or knowledge occurring in or obtained from
India for commercial use, bio
-
survey, bio
-
utilization or any other monetary
purposes. The Authority shall develop guid
elines and shall notify the
specific details of benefit sharing formula in an official gazette on a case
-
to
-
case basis. The suggested benefit sharing measures may include
“monetary benefits” such as royalty, joint ventures, technology transfer,
product dev
elopment, and “non


monetary benefits” such as education
and awareness raising activities, institutional capacity building, venture
capital fund, etc. The time frame and quantum of benefits to be shared
shall be decided on case
-
to
-
case based on mutually a
greed terms
between the applicant, Authority, local bodies, and other relevant
stakeholders, including local and indigenous communities. One of the
suggested mechanisms for benefit sharing includes direct payment to
persons or group of individuals through
district administration, if the
biological material or knowledge was accessed from specific individuals or
organizations. In cases where such individuals or organizations could not
be identified, the monetary benefits shall be paid to the National
Biodiver
sity Fund. Five percent of the benefits shall be earmarked for the
Authority or State Biodiversity Board towards the administrative service
charges.


24


Biodiversity Management Committee
:



The main function of the Biodiversity Management Committee
(BMC) cons
tituted under each local body as per Section 41 (1) of the Act
and Rule 22, Sub rules 1
-
11 of Biodiversity Rules, is to prepare People’s
Biodiversity Registers, which shall contain comprehensive information on
the availability and knowledge of local biolog
ical resources and medicinal
or any other traditional knowledge associated with them. Another
important functions of the BMC are to advise the State Biodiversity Board
and the National Biodiversity Authority on matters for granting approval, to
maintain da
ta about the local
vaids

and practitioners using the biological
resources, besides maintaining a register containing information on
access to biological resources and knowledge granted, details of
collection fee received and details of benefit sharing deri
ved and mode of
the sharing.

The ABS procedures stipulated under the Biodiversity Act 2002 are
in line with the provisions of international laws and policies, particularly
CBD and the Bonn Guidelines. The entire procedures as described in the
Act can contr
ibute substantially to facilitate an international regime of ABS
on genetic resources and traditional knowledge. However, the efficiency of
the Rules framed for the Act can only be judged on the transparency and
accountability with which these will be impl
emented.

The Protection of Plant Varieties and Farmers’ Rights (PPVFR) Act, 2001
(Act 53 or 2001)

The PPVFR Act 2001 and the Rules framed under this Act, called
the PPVFR Rules 2003, deal primarily with the protection of plant
breeder’s rights over the ne
w varieties developed by them and the
entitlement of farmers to register new varieties and also to save, breed,
use, exchange, share or sell the plant varieties, which the latter have
developed, improved, and maintained over many generations. The Act is a
deviation from the 1991 UPOV Model and can be regarded as an alternate

sui generis’

system that accord protection of the rights of the formal
innovations of a plant breeder and the informal knowledge system and
traditional plant varieties of the farmers a
s well (Sahai, 2003b). The
important provisions contained in this Act relevant to ABS are those on the
protection of farmers rights and the mechanisms suggested for
compensation or benefit
-
sharing (Brahmi
et al.
2004) for the contributions
of local communi
ties or farmers in the development of a new plant variety
(Sections 39, 40 & 41 of the Act and Rules 33 and 66). The section 40 of
the Act requires that the breeder or any applicant for registration of a new
plant variety shall disclose any information reg
arding the use of genetic
material conserved by any tribal or rural families in the breeding or
development of such variety. Willful non
-
disclosure of such information will
lead to rejection of the application for registration. Similarly, the Act also
ensu
res compensation of the contributions of any village or local

25

communities to the development of a variety registered under this Act.
Such compensation will be deposited to National Gene Fund. Another
important provision in support of the farmers’ conservat
ion efforts is the
recognition or rewards for a farmer who is engaged in conservation of
genetic resources of land races of wild relatives of economic plants and
their improvement through selection and preservation. The rewards will be
made from the Nation
al Gene Fund.

The Patent (Amendment) Act 2002 (Act 38 of 2002) (except provisions
relating to Appellate Board) and the Patent Rules 2003

This Act, which is an amendment to the Patent Act of 1970, is
significant in the sense that it stipulates disclosure o
f the “source and
geographical origin of the biological materials in the specification, when
used in an invention”. This issue of disclosure of source and geographical
origin is a contentious one that the LMMC and other developing and least
developing coun
tries are still pushing ahead with the WTO
-
TRIPS. The
new Patent Act of India includes two important clauses for revocation of a
patent on the grounds that: (i) the “complete specification does not
disclose or wrongly mentions the source of geographical or
igins of
biological materials used for the inventions”; (ii) the invention so far as
claimed in any claims of the complete specification is anticipated having
regard to the knowledge, oral or otherwise, available within any local or
indigenous community in

India or elsewhere”. These two provisions make
the Act TRIPs complainant and thus ensure protection of the rights of the
source country of a biological material or traditional knowledge of local or
indigenous community, and thereby enabling recognition an
d reward of
source countries and traditional knowledge holders through appropriate
benefit sharing mechanisms.


India has now the above three important national legislations
(pending the Patent (Amendment) Bill 2003) that address, among others,
the issues
of access and benefit sharing related to biological resources
and traditional knowledge. The Rules to implement these Acts are in place
or are in the process of finalization. Mutual synergies among the
implementing authorities of these would help achieve n
ot only an effective
implementation of the provisions of these Acts in the country but also in
defending India’s position in the international forums such as WTO
-
TRIPS,
WIPO, etc.

Prior Informed Consent System and Benefit
-

Sharing Procedures: The NIF
Model

The National Innovation Foundation (NIF), an autonomous society
established under the Department of Science and Technology,
Government of India in 2000, works for recognizing, respecting and
rewarding innovations and outstanding traditional knowledge at t
he grass
roots. NIF and the HONEY BEE Network under SRISTI (Society for
Research and Initiatives for Sustainable Technologies and Institutions), an

26

NGO based at Ahmedabad, have been scouting for documenting local
innovations and linking their innovations f
or further valorization with
Science and Technology experts, investors and entrepreneurs. NIF
maintains a separate National Register for green Grassroots
Technological Innovations and Traditional Knowledge. Until 2003, NIF has
scouted about 37000 innovatio
ns and traditional knowledge examples
from over 350 districts of India. Scouting and documentation; value
addition and R&D through a network of S&T experts, institutions, people’s
organizations, and rural and urban innovators for developing business and
mi
cro
-
ventures at local levels based on valorization of grass root level
innovations; intellectual property rights management; information and
technology dissemination; and benefit sharing are the various steps
involved in the NIF Programme on building of va
lue chain of grass root
innovations (Gupta 1999, 2001, 2003).


NIF has developed a model for facilitating the Prior Informed
Consent (PIC) system for local innovators and traditional knowledge
holders (see website
ww
w.nifindia.org
,
www.sristi.org/honeybee.html

for
NIF Update and Explanatory note for PIC addressed to the Innovators and
the Traditional knowledge holders). The PIC models seek the innovators’
or tradit
ional knowledge holders’ consent for partial or full disclosure of
their innovation and disseminate them through print and web media, and
provide NIF mediation for value addition, patenting or other kinds of IPR
generation based on the local innovation or
traditional knowledge, and for
fixing criteria and the terms and conditions for sharing monetary or non
-
monetary benefits, if any, arising from the value addition, micro
-
venture
development, patenting on a local innovation or traditional knowledge. The
PIC

process with regard to traditional knowledge holder and other grass
root innovations is a quite complex one. This cannot be compared with the
formal PIC process recommended for other ABS model involving
Government agencies, R&D institutions and other orga
nizations. The
awareness, capacities and exposure level of the local innovators to the
modern regimes of IPR scientific validation, management, trade policies,
etc. is either minimum or low. Empowering these communities with
knowledge and awareness on the
values and potentials of the rich
treasure
-
trove of knowledge they hold is an important exercise, which NIF
has been successfully accomplishing through their scouting programmes,
awareness campaigns, competitions and awards distribution conducted
for succe
ssful innovators. NIF suggests the innovator or the knowledge
holder to share their information on the following conditions:

a)

With restrictions imposed

b)

On commercial basis on terms for technology transfer, up front
payments, royalties, license fees, etc.

c)

On

non
-
cost basis for personal application or household use only.

d)

With further research and value addition in it


27

e)

Any other conditions


The PIC model of NIF has both advantages and disadvantages.
The whole process of disclosure and dissemination of the l
ocal
innovations, either partially or fully, needs to be examined, whether they
affect adversely in eventual exclusion of potential innovations from
possible valorization and IPR claims and also any possible
misappropriation of such potentially useful inno
vations by others, and
thereby depriving the local innovator of his/her intellectual property and
customary rights.


The benefit sharing mechanism suggested by NIF’s PIC models
include four kinds of benefits viz. 1.
Monetary
-
Individual (MI
)
-
includes:
mone
tary awards, license fees or royalty from commercial exploitation of
technology or traditional knowledge, or any other monetary gain by
entrepreneurial process. This will be firstly paid to the individuals, who
may in turn share part of this with the commu
nity, innovation promotion
fund and institutions helping the value chain 2.
Monetary Collective
(MC)
-

covers: trust funds, micro
-
venture funds, common property
infrastructure, etc to be shared with the communities 3.
Non
-
Monetary
Individual (NMI)

such as r
ecognition, a citation in a public function,
dissemination of one’s creativity through media or in workshops or other
public function, or using appellation on the product developed, business
venture, etc 4.
Non
-
Monetary Collective (NMC)
-

includes: recognit
ion to
communities at appropriate levels for their collective wisdom, knowledge
and social or cultural organizations, etc.

The NIF benefit
-
sharing procedures also suggest separate formula
and modules for each kind of innovation on a case
-
to
-
case basis. Ben
efit
sharing formula involving valorization with public or private R&D and the
community or individual innovators needs to be evolved based on
stakeholder consultations and on the degree of contributions by each
stakeholder through an effective cost
-
benefi
t analysis. The existing
complexities in the structure of the traditional knowledge domain itself, and
also the very nature of the existing IPR system that accord protection only
for the formal innovation based on the criteria of novelty, non
-
obviousness
a
nd utility, are some of the major impediments in evolving any uniform
guidelines or model for access protection and benefit sharing involving
traditional knowledge systems held in traditional communities or the grass
root level innovators. However, NIF’s e
fforts to networking with the grass
root innovators so as to promote the local innovation and valorization of
such knowledge, protection of the intellectual property rights, and
equitable benefit sharing are gaining wider acceptance and credibility both
na
tionally and internationally.

Community Registers and Peoples’ Biodiversity Registers

The community gene bank and community agro biodiversity
register programmes and Peoples Biodiversity Register (PBR)

28

spearheaded by the MS Swaminathan Research Foundation
(MSSRF),
Chennai, the Foundation for Revitalization of Local Health Traditions
(FRLHT), Bangalore, and the Centre for Ecological Sciences at Indian
Institute of Science, Bangalore are examples of other useful mechanisms
and methods to chronicle the biogene
tic resources and associated
knowledge systems of the traditional communities and local or rural
people of the country. PBR is now accepted as a viable mechanism for
documenting people’s knowledge and biological resources under the
Biodiversity Management
Committees established under the Indian
Biological Diversity Act 2002. Development of comprehensive PBRs at
local level is a highly rewarding exercise which would not only help to
inventory and document the local biological and genetic resources along
with

the various actual uses and potential values of such resources, but
also to conserve and sustainably use the biocultural diversity for gainful
income generation and IPR generation through value addition and benefit
-
sharing processes (MSSRF, 1998; Ghate
et

al.

2001; Kumar
et al.

2003;
Sahai 2003a). PBR also ensures active involvement of the local and
traditional communities in all decision
-
making processes related to
biological diversity and traditional knowledge, including issues of access
and benefit shar
ing. BMCs are entrusted with the preparation of PBRs and
to assist the SBBs and NBA in matters on ABS related to local biogenetic
resources and traditional knowledge.


The success story on compilation of community biodiversity
registers and community gene
bank programmes involving tribal
communities of the Jeypore tracts of Orissa with the guidance and support
from MSSRF is a good case study that demonstrates how the potential
benefits of such community biodiversity programmes help enhance the
livelihood op
tions and security of the local and traditional people. This
model of community agro
-
biodiversity programme has won the UN
-
Equator initiative Prize for poverty eradication and community
empowerment at World Summit for Sustainable Development (WSSD) at
Joha
nnesburg in August 2002 (see
www.undp.org./equator

initiative/
/equator prize_2002 html).


Another community
-
based participatory conservation programme
that has won international acclaim through the Equator Awa
rd of 2002 is
the medicinal plant conservation and cultivation work achieved by
Medicinal Plants Conservation Centre, (MPCC), Pune with the support of
FRLHT ( see
www.undp.org./equator

initiative/ /equator priz
e_2002 html).
.

The MPCC with an effective involvement of local communities has
developed a decentralized system of nurseries, raising 50,000 plants of 50
different species and linking them with a network of herbal production
centers. The propagation and cu
ltivation of medicinal plants in nurseries
have helped to reduce the pressures of collection from the wild and hence
promoting the conservation of such valuable resources. The linkage with
herbal production centers has helped provide economic incentives to

the
communities involved in the MPCC programme. Such community network

29

programmes on bio
-
resources conservation and management contribute
to significantly to the implementation of national policies and programmes
on biodiversity, and intellectual property

rights and access and benefit
sharing involving genetic resources and traditional knowledge.

Indian Experiment in Benefit Sharing: “TBGRI Model” or “Kani
Model” or “Pushpangadan Model”


India has the distinction of being the first country in the world in
experimenting a benefit
-
sharing model that implemented the Article 8(j) of
CBD, in letter and spirit. It was the Tropical Botanic Garden and Research
Institute (TBGRI) in Kerala (where Dr. P. Pushpangadan was director)
that demonstrated indigenous knowle
dge system merits support,
recognition and fair and adequate compensation. The model, which later
on came to be known as “TBGRI Model” or “Kani Model” or
“Pushpangadan Model”, relates to the sharing of benefits with a tribal
community in Kerala, the Kanis
, from whom a vital lead for developing a
scientifically validated herbal drug (Jeevani) was obtained by scientists of
TBGRI. The TBGRI Model has got wider acclaims, acceptance and
popularity the world over, because it was the first of its kind that
recogn
ized the resource rights and IPR of a traditional community by way
of sharing equitably the benefits derived out of the use of a knowledge that
has been developed, preserved and maintained by that community for
many generations (Anand 1998, Anuradha, 1998,

Bagla 1999, Gupta,
2002, Mashelkar, 2003). Further, it demonstrates the vast and as yet
under
-

explored or untapped potentials of the Indian traditional knowledge
systems, particularly the traditional health care practices of the local and
indigenous peo
ple in India. It would, therefore, be interesting to give brief
background information regarding the traditional medicine system of India
and the genesis and operation of an ambitious programme
-

“All India
Coordinated Research Project on Ethnobiology (AIC
RPE), which led to
the TBGRI Benefit
-

sharing Model.

The Tribal Settings in India and their Knowledge Base

There are about 70 million tribes belonging to over 550
communities. They are in possession of a treasure of rich traditional
knowledge system assoc
iated with the conservation and use of wild flora,
fauna and other natural resources. The inroads of modernization are
presently posing imminent danger to this rich and varied knowledge
system of these communities, and it is likely that it may be complete
ly lost
to the humanity for all time to come. Recognizing this danger, Prof. M.S.
Swaminathan, the then Director General of Indian Council of Agricultural
Research (ICAR) mooted the idea of starting a research programme to
document the knowledge system of

the tribal communities of India in
1976. Consequently, an All India Coordinated Research Project on
Ethnobiolgy (AICRPE) was prepared under the guidance of Dr T.N.
Khoshoo, the then Director of the National Botanical Research Institute

30

(NBRI) at Lucknow.
Government of India finally launched the AICRPE
under the Man and Biosphere (MAB) Programme in 1982. The overall
objective of AICRPE was to make an in
-
depth study and analysis of the
multidimensional perspectives of the life, culture, tradition and knowl
edge
system of the tribal communities of India. Initially the project was under
the Department of Science and Technology, but later transferred to the
Ministry of Environment and Forests, Govt. of India. The author, then a
senior scientist at Regional Res
earch Laboratory (RRL), Jammu (a
constituent laboratory of the Council of Scientific and Industrial Research


CSIR), was appointed as the chief coordinator of this massive
programme in 1983. It was operated at 27 centres in the country and
about 600 scie
ntists drawn from botany, zoology, sociology, anthropology,
ayurveda, chemistry and pharmacology worked in this project that lasted
for 16 years (1982
-
1998). AICRPE project documented various aspects of
the life, culture, tradition and knowledge systems i
ncluding those
associated with the use of over 10,000 wild plants used by tribes for
meeting a variety of their requirements (AICRPE Final Technical Report
1982
-
1998; Pushpangadan 2002).

The Kani tribe and Arogyappacha (=Elixir of health)


The Kanis, a s
emi nomadic community, is the predominant tribe
inhabiting the forests of the southern most parts of the Western Ghats in
Kerala (in the districts of Thiruvananthapuram, Kollam and
Pathanamthitta), India. Traditional occupation of Kanis includes craftwork
like basket making, mat making using
Ochlandra

stem, cane works, etc.
They are also engaged in collection of non
-
timber forest produces
(NTFPs) like honey, bee wax, medicinal plants, python fat, etc. The Kanis
are well known for their rich knowledge on med
icinal plants of the region.

In one of the field expeditions in the mountainous forests of the
Southern Western Ghats in Kerala, a few young Kani men accompanied
the AICRPE team led by its Chief Coordinator. During the arduous
trekking across the forests

the scientists noticed that the tribals frequently
ate some fruits, which kept them energetic and agile. The Chief
Coordinator and the accompanying scientist (Dr. S. Rajasekharan, an
Ayurvedic specialist) were almost exhausted at one time when they were
o
ffered these strange seeds. After consuming the same the scientists also
felt a `sudden flush of energy and strength’. When asked about the
source of the fruits, the Kani young men were first reluctant to reveal their
secret. The team convinced the Kani
men that if they passed on the
information to them they would not misuse it and that they would conduct
scientific investigation and, if found promising, a drug would be developed
for the welfare of the humanity. As the team leader Dr Pushpangadan also
ass
ured the Kanis that if any marketable drugs/products were developed
from this plant, the financial benefits accrued from the same would be
equally shared with them and their community. The Kani men then
showed the plant to the scientists from which the fr
uit was obtained. The

31

scientists identified the plant as
Trichopus zeylanicus.
subsp.
travancoricus
Burkill ex Narayanan. The Kanis call it

as `Arogyapacha’,
meaning evergreener of health or elixir of health.

Scientific investigation on Arogyappacha & dev
elopment of the herbal drug
‘Jeevani’

Dr. Pushpangadan collected samples of this plant and took it to his
ethnopharmacology laboratory.at RRL, Jammu where he was working at
the time. He and his team at RRL carried out phytochemical and
pharmacological eva
luation of this plant. The study revealed that the plant
contained various biodynamic compounds notably certain glycolipids and
non
-
steroids compounds with profound adaptogenic and immuno
-
enhancing properties. RRL has filed two patents on the same. In the
meantime in 1990, Dr. Pushpangadan moved to Trivandrum to assume
the position of Director, Tropical Botanical Garden and Research Institute
(TBGRI). At TBGRI, he organized an ethnopharmacology division and
recruited a multidisciplinary team of scientists d
rawn from Ayurveda,
ethnobiology, biochemistry, phytochemistry, pharmacy and pharmacology.
Dr. Rajasekharan also joined this team as an Ayurvedic scientist. This
Division developed a scientifically validated and standardized herbal
formulation
-

‘Jeevani’
with Arogyappacha as one of the constituents. This
drug after necessary clinical trials was transferred to Arya Vaidya
Pharmacy (AVP) Coimbatore Ltd. against a
license

fee of Rs. 10 lakh
(US$ 25,000) and a royalty of 2% at ex
-
factory sale rate. While
trans
ferring the technology, TBGRI with the approval of its competent
authority agreed to share the
license

fee and royalty received from AVP
with the Kani tribe.

Kani tribe is an unorganized forest dwelling semi
-
nomadic tribe.
Our prime concern in the beginni
ng was therefore to evolve a viable
mechanism for receiving such funds and utilizing the same for the welfare
of the community. Several ways of sharing the benefits were discussed at
many levels and it was finally decided to set up a trust fund of the trib
e.
The very idea of the trust fund had originated from very useful and
protracted discussion Dr Pushpangadan had with Prof. Anil K. Gupta, the
founder and coordinator of SRISTI and Honey Bee Network. It took
however, almost two years to transfer the benef
its to the tribe. With the
help of some local NGOs, TBGRI scientists and some motivated
government officials, the tribes were encouraged to form a registered trust
with Kani adults as its members. The trust was fully owned and managed
by the Kani tribe.

About of 60% of the Kani families of Kerala are now
members of this Trust. In February 1999, the amount due to them (Rs.
6.5 lakhs) and which was till then kept by TBGRI in a separate account
was transferred to the Trust. As per the rules of the Trust t
he license fee
and royalty received on account of the sale of `Jeevani’ drug will be in a
fixed deposit and only the interest accrued from this amount will be utilized
for the benefits/welfare of the members of the Kani tribe.


32


This model was thus develop
ed and perfected over a period of
about 12 years starting from 1987 to 1999 in full consultation with the Kani
tribe. In fact, the whole process of this benefit sharing started much
before the CBD was evolving. It took almost 3 years for the Kani tribe t
o
receive this benefit. The delay was mainly due to the inherent inability and
absence of any organized mechanism for Kani tribe to receive such
benefit. The secretary of Tribal and Scheduled Caste Department of
Government of Kerala played a crucial role

in the formation of the Kani
Trust and also in effecting a smooth transfer of the amount due to the
Kanis from TBGRI to the Kani Trust. The Kani Trust now continues to
receive the royalty.

All along these years, starting from 1987, it was the mutual trust
,
respect, transparency and frequent interaction and communication
between TBGRI and the Kani tribe that contributed to the success of this
benefit
-
sharing model.

In addition to the
license

fee and royalty that Kani Trust is receiving,
a large number of
Kani families are now getting benefit from the cultivation
of Arogyapacha and supply of the raw
-
material (i.e. the leaves of the
plant) to the pharmaceutical company for the production of the drug.
TBGRI has trained many tribal families for the cultivatio
n of `Arogyapacha’
in and around their dwellings in the forest.

Outcome and Lessons Learned

The sharing of benefits with the Kanis and formation of the Kani
trust fund have started showing positive impacts in the sense that the
tribal community is now beco
ming conscious about the values of and
rights over their knowledge system and associated biological resources.
These developments also have helped in bringing the Kani families to a
single organizational framework, so that the benefits accrued from the
tru
st fund could be utilized for the economic well being and social
development in the Kani tribal hamlets. The benefit sharing experiments
like the TBGRI Model will help empower the traditional communities not
only to preserve their traditional knowledge sys
tem but also to encourage
them to bring in more innovations and value additions to their knowledge
and resources.

The TBGRI Model is perhaps a unique experiment ever done,
wherein the benefits accrued from the development of a product based on
an ethno
-
bot
anical lead were shared with the holders of that traditional
knowledge. Considering the significant outcome of this model in
community empowerment, income generation and poverty eradication of a
tribal community, Dr. Pushpangadan was awarded with the UN
-
E
quator
Initiative Prize (under individual category) at the World Summit on
Sustainable Development held in Johannesburg in August 2002. Now
with the CBD
-
Bonn guidelines and our national legislation on Biodiversity
in position, the TBGRI or Kani case study

could be taken as an ideal

33

model of equitable benefit sharing involving genetic resources and
associated traditional knowledge.

Conclusions



The issues of access, benefit sharing, technology transfers, and
intellectual property rights protection related
to genetic resources and
traditional knowledge are the most contentious ones that keep the
developed and developing countries divided in their attitude and
approaches. The intricate imbalance in the core objectives and directives
of CBD and TRIPs is a majo
r concern for the Parties or members of these
international laws. Among all the issues being debated between CBD
Secretariat and TRIPs Council, the question of providing legal protection
to genetic resources and associated traditional knowledge continues t
o
crop up at the inter
-
sessional meetings of CBD, TRIPs and WIPO. It is a
matter of grave concern that certain countries with powerful
biotechnologies are still reluctant to become a Party to CBD, but continue
to oppose the plea of the developing or the le
ast developed countries for
evolving an enabling and equitable legal mechanism for implementing the
international trade and intellectual property laws in relation to biodiversity,
genetic resources and traditional knowledge systems. The decision to
establi
sh the “Group of Like
-
Minded Megadiverse Countries (LMMC)” at a
meeting of the ministers of environment and representatives from 13
countries at Cancun in Mexico on 18
th

February 2002 is a welcome step to
consolidate the position of these countries in the
international forums
related to biodiversity, trade and intellectual property rights. The ‘Cancun
Declaration’ of LMMC is the clear expression of the alarming concerns
and priorities of LMMC with regard to conservation and sustainable use of
biodiversity a
nd other relevant objectives, including capacity building and
human resource development, information technology exchange and
dissemination, policy decisions, scientific and technology cooperation,
biopartnerships, etc.

Appropriate national laws and polic
y guidelines on biodiversity and
ABS on biogenetic resources and traditional knowledge are in place in
many of the 18 LMMCs. One of the priority actions for the LMMC would be
to evolve effective mechanisms for developing as well as implementing
relevant le
gal instruments that could facilitate regulated access and
benefit sharing regime with stringent provisions to prevent any illegal and
inappropriate access and transfer of genetic resources and associated
knowledge by the any individual or corporate bodies

with vested interests.
The second important priority of LMMC would be to concentrate their
efforts in developing national and regional S&T capacity building and
human resource development programmes for harnessing the wealth of
biogenetic resources and tr
aditional knowledge shared by these countries.
Building up equitable bioprospecting partnership among the LMMC based
on mutually
-
agreed terms and transparent legal and policy support will be
a promising area that will help multilateral exchange or transfer

of

34

biological resources and associated information and knowledge, relevant
technologies, besides helping to build up human resources in the most
advanced areas of biotechnologies, herbal technologies and information
technologies. Mutual trust and cooperat
ion built up through multilateral
stakeholder consultations between the LMMC and other group of
developing countries or countries with economies in transition can go a
long way in bringing a new era of bio
-
partnership. Since the LMMC have
shared concerns a
nd interests to protect their biodiversity and traditional
knowledge systems, any collective efforts of the Group will help them
challenge the threats of increasing incidences of bio
-
piracy and
misappropriation of intellectual property rights of their biod
iversity and
traditional knowledge systems by the powerful lobbies of biotechnologies.
What is more important at the national level for all LMMC is to reaffirm
their commitment to evolving a transparent and viable mechanism for
regulated access and benefi
t sharing of genetic resources and associated
traditional knowledge. And, the prerequisite for developing an effective
ABS regime is building up a comprehensive information system on all
pertinent aspects of availability, diversity, distribution, economic
uses and
potentials, conservation status of biogenetic resources and associated
traditional knowledge along with information on the existing S&T
infrastructure and capabilities, including human resource wealth, national
and international legal and policy f
rameworks, current achievements and
future plans and priorities for capacity
-
building for conservation,
sustainable use, bioprospecting and economic valuation of their great
wealth of bio
-
resources and traditional knowledge .

References

AICRPE (All India

Coordinated Project on Ethnobiology). Final Technical Report
1992
-
1998, Ministry of Environment & Forests, Government of India.

Anand, U. 1998 The Wonder Drug (UBS Publishers Ltd., New Delhi.)

Anuradha, R.V. 1998. Sharing with the Kanis; a case study from

Kerala, India,
Benefit
-
Sharing case studies, Fourth Meeting of the Conference of
Parties to the CBD, Bratislava, May, Secretariat of the Convention on
Biological Diversity, Montreal.

Bagla, P. 1999. Model Indian deal generates payments.
Science

283: 1614
-
1615.

Brahmi, P., Saxena, S., & B.S.Dhillon. 2004. The Plant Variety Protection and
Farmers’ Rights Act of India.

Current Science

86: 392
-
398.

Convention on Biological Diversity (2001) Thematic Report on Access and
Benefit Sharing

India, submitted by Min
istry of Environment & Forests
(MoEF) (
see www.biodiv.org/world/in/in
-
nr
-
abs
-
en.pdf
)

Dutfield, G. 2000. Intellectual Property Rights, Trade and Biodiversity

Seeds
and Plant Varieties. IUCN and Earthscan Publications Ltd., London.


35

FAO 1983. International U
ndertaking on Plant Genetic Resources for Food and
Agriculture. Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations,
Rome, Italy.

FAO 1996. Global Plan of Action for the Conservation and Sustainable Utilization
of Plant Genetic Resources for Food and A
griculture. Food and
Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, Rome, Italy.

FAO 2001. International Treaty on Plant Genetic Resources for Food and
Agriculture. Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations,
Rome, Italy.

Ghate Utkarsh, Madha
v Gadgil and P.R. Sheshagiri Rao 2001. Intellectual
property rights on biological resources: Benefiting from biodiversity and
people’s knowledge.
Current Science

77: 1418
-
1425.

Government of India 1998. Implementation of Article 6 of the Convention on
Biol
ogical Diversity in India
-

National Report. Ministry of Environment
and Forests, New Delhi.

Government of India 2002. National Biodiversity Strategy and Action Plan
-
India,
Ministry of Environment and Forests, New Delhi.

Gupta A.K. 1999. Conserving Biodiv
ersity and Rewarding Associated Knowledge
and Innovation Systems: Honey Bee Perspective. Paper presented at
First Commonwealth Science Forum


Access, Bioprospecting,
Intellectual Property Rights and Benefit Sharing and the Commonwealth,
Goa, 23
-
25 Septemb
er 1999.

Gupta, A.K. 2001.
Framework for rewarding indigenous knowledge in developing
countries: Value chain for grassroots innovations, Paper presented at
WTO Expert Committee, 3 September 2001.

Gupta, A.K. 2002. Value addition to local Kani tribal know
ledge: patenting,
licensing and benefit sharing, W.P.No.2002
-
08

02, August 2002, A
case study based on the data collected from Kani tribe, Kerala, India.

Gupta, A.K. 2003. Rewarding conservation of biological and genetic resources
and associated traditio
nal knowledge and contemporary grassroots
creativity IIMA W.P.No.2003
-
01
-
06, January 2003.

Kumar, N Anil, Balakrishnan, V, Girigan, G and T. Raveendran 2003. People’s
Biodiversity Registers: A Case from India. In:CIP
-
UPWARD, GTZ, IDRC,
IPGRI and SEARICE, C
onservation and Sustainable Use of Agricultural
Biodiversity
-

A source book, pp. 236
-
244.

Laird S.A. (ed.) 2002. Biodiversity and Traditional Knowledge


Equitable
Partnership in Practice, Earthscan Publications Ltd., London.

Laird, S.A. & ten Kate K. 199
9. The commercial use of biodiversity


Access to
genetic resources and benefit sharing. Earthscan Publications Ltd.,
London.

Laird, S.A. & ten Kate K. 2002. Biodiversity prospecting: the commercial use of
genetic resources and best practice in benefit
-
sha
ring In; Laird S. A. (ed.)
Biodiversity and Traditional Knowledge

Equitable Partnerships in
Practice. Earthscan Publications Ltd., London, pp. 241
-
286.


36

M.S. Swaminathan Research Foundation 1998. Voluntary code of conduct for
fostering biopartnerships, MSS
RF, Chennai.

Mashelkar, R.A. 2001. Intellectual Property Rights and the Third World,
Current
Science

81:955
-
965

Pushpangadan, P. 2002. Biodiversity and Emerging Benefit Sharing
Arrangements
-
Challenges and Opportunities for India,
Proc. Indian natl.
Acad. (
PINSA)

B 68: 297
-
314

Royal Botanic Gardens (RBG) Kew. 1998. Policy on Access to Genetic
Resources and Benefit Sharing, RBG, London.

Sahai Suman 2003a. Importance of indigenous knowledge.
Indian Journal of
Traditional Knowledge
2(1); 11
-
14.

Sahai, Suman 200
3b. India ’s Plant variety Protection and Farmers’ Rights Act
2001.

Current Science
: 84: 407
-
412.

Shiva, V. 1998. Biopiracy: the plunder of nature and knowledge, Green Books,
Devon.

Shiva, V., Bhar, R.H. & Jafri, A.H. 2002. Corporate Hijack of Biodiversit
y. How
WTO
-
TRIPs Rules Promote Corporate Hijack of People’s Biodiversity and
Knowledge. Navadanya, New Delhi.

TRIPS 1994. Agreement on Trade Related Aspects of Intellectual Property
Rights (Annex IC of 1994 Marrakesh Agreement Establishing the World
Trade
Organization; entered into force on 1
st

January 1995)

UNEP 1992. Convention on Biological Diversity, Rio de Janeiro.

UNEP 1999. The relationship between Intellectual Property Rights and the
relevant Provisions of the Agreement on Trade Related Aspects of
I
ntellectual Property Rights and the CBD. Inter
-
sessional Meeting on the
operations of the Convention, June 28
-
30, 1999 (UNEP/CBD/150/5),
Montreal.

UN
-
Equator Initiative Prize 2002.
w
ww
.undp.or
g/equatorinitiative/secondary
/

equator _prize2002.html

WIPO 2001. Report on Second Session of the Inter
-
governmental Committee on
Intellectual Property and Genetic Resources, Traditional Knowledge and
Folklore held in Geneva, December 10
-
14, 2001.

WTO 20
04. Elements of the obligation to disclose the source and country of
origin of biological resource and/or traditional knowledge used in an
invention. Submission from Brazil, India, Pakistan, Peru, Thailand, and
Venezuela, dated 20 September 2004. Ref. WTO/
IP/C/W/429, dated 21
September (
http://www.grain.org/rights_files/W429.doc

accessed on
14.10.2004)