The Global Quest for Green Gold: Implications of Bioprospecting and Patenting for Indigenous Bioresources and Knowledge

Abstract

The article focuses on the commoditisation and appropriation of indigenous bioresources and knowledge under bioprospecting, as facilitated by the Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPS). TRIPS has not only broadened the scope for patenting, including patenting of life forms, but also threatened to appropriate and not acknowledge contributions of indigenous communities. There is an asymmetrical economic and legal relationship between communities in the global South and corporates in the global North mediated by a host of institutions, including the states, with their own agendas. The promise of the patenting system is spurring the race for collecting bioresources and knowledge through bioprospecting agreements. As databases of plants used by indigenous communities are established, biological parks are created to sequester regions rich in genetic resources and profits are disproportionately distributed, bioprospecting agreements appear to have heralded a new kind of expropriation. The article critically analyses the ramifications of bioprospecting and subsequent patenting on indigenous community ownership rights over bioresources and knowledge. It also examines indigenous resistance; how communities have asserted their rights to culture as a property against corporate interventions.

Criteria for the selection, evaluation and application of traditional knowledge in contemporary health practice, education, research and policy: A systematic review

“…While the exploration of natural resources has the potential to identify solutions to problems arising from climate change and shifts in socioeconomic needs (Purkayastha, 2016; Vuong et al, 2022), it is essential that bioprospecting be accompanied by safeguards to ensure environmental responsibility and protection of intellectual property rights. For example, the patenting of natural products used in traditional medicine systems has been argued to infringe upon the intellectual property rights of indigenous people and incentivises the commoditisation of natural resources which can lead to environmental exploitation or damage (Das, 2020; McGonigle, 2016). While guidelines relating to bioprospecting highlight the importance of addressing factors such as environmental impact, equitable benefit sharing and recognition of IP held by indigenous groups and other traditional communities (Soejarto et al, 2005), reality can fall short of these goals (Amusan, 2008; Rose et al, 2012).…”

Data considerations for predictive modeling applied to the discovery of bioactive natural products

“…42 While mechanisms exist for the harmonious management of knowledge transfer between indigenous communities and pharmaceutical companies, these are fraught with inherited imbalances and disagreement, and more work needs to be done to ensure protection of indigenous rights. 43…”

Enacting a depoliticised alterity: law and traditional medicine at the World Health Organization

“…The position of healers was slowly transformed: they were gatekeepers of plant knowledge that was not necessarily seen as valuable in its own right, but could provide a useful stepping stone for researchers seeking to access powerful plant resources. That many global southern countries were potentially sitting on ‘green goldmines’ generated further tensions between governments, communities, healers and scientists – and between global northern and global southern states ( Hayden, 2003 ; Das, 2020 ). It also highlighted that plants were a finite resource in need of protection, leading to new international conservation efforts such as 1988’s Chiang Mai Declaration on Biodiversity – a collaboration between WHO, the World Wildlife Foundation (WWF) and the International Union for the Conservation of Nature (IUCN).…”