Argues that biotechnology should be applied in ways that lower costs to farmers, reduce chemical dependency, increase production efficiency, broaden genetic diversity, and enhance biological and economic stability. However, many of these goals are unlikely to be achieved without policy changes.
Drahos, P. (1997). “Indigenous Knowledge and the Duties of Intellectual Property Owners.” Intellectual Property Journal11(2): 179-201.
This paper argues that in a world of global production indigenous peoples should embrace the western commodity form, otherwise their knowledge will simply function as a free input of production. In order to ensure that the western commodity form is consistent with their version of community, indigenous peoples should draw on those theories of property that link property to freedom of personality. This line of argument the author contends will make it easier to establish the idea that intellectual property owners owe other duties.
Drahos, P. (2000). “Indigenous Knowledge, Intellectual Property and Biopiracy: Is a Global Bio-collecting Society the Answer?” European Intellectual Property Review(6): 245-250.
Finding ways to encourage mutually satisfactory contractual arrangements between life science companies and indigenous groups over the use of traditional knowledge has become a major regulatory challenge. Part of the solution, it is argued in this article, lies in the creation of a global bio-collecting society (GBS). A GBS will overcome some of the problems of uncertainty and enforcement that confront contracting parties in this area. The first section of the article sketches the problems that need to be addressed. The second part outlines the role that the GBS could play.
Dublin, H. T., T. O. McShane, et al. (1997). Conserving Africa’s Elephants: Current Issues and Priorities for Action. Gland, WWF.
This document attempts to identify and examine the current issues and priorities relating to the conservation and the management of the African elephant at local, national, continental, and international levels. This report will enable the conservation community to conduct a more informed and balanced debate on the issues. A list of some 70 recommendations for action at all levels is presented.
Dudley, N., D. Gilmour, et al. (1996). Forests for Life: The WWF/IUCN Forest Policy Book. Gland, Switzerland, WWF/IUCN.
Presents the joint WWF/IUCN position regarding forest problems and the appropriate responses. It summarises the problems facing forests today, discusses how these have come about and looks at why forests are important. Suggested responses to the crisis facing global forests are outlined.
Dudley, N., S. Stolton, et al. (1997). Protected Areas for a New Millennium: The Implications of IUCN’s Protected Area Categories for Forest Conservation. Gland, IUCN and WWF International.
The theory and practice of protected area management have both undergone dramatic changes in the last few years. Changing priorities have contributed to a general confusion about the definition and purpose of protected areas. To address this, the World Commission on Protected Areas has drawn up a modified set of six IUCN Protected Area Management Categories, which was adopted by IUCN in 1994. These developments, and the new Categories, have profound implication for the forest conservation work of WWF and IUCN. The implications are explored in the paper with respect to interpretation, design, management, and assessment and verification.
Duessing, J. H. (1996). The Role of Intellectual Property Rights in the Exploitation of Plant Genetic Resources and for Technology Transfer under the Convention on Biological Diversity. Valuing Local Knowledge: Indigenous Peoples and Intellectual Property Rights. S. B. Brush and D. Stabinsky. Covelo, CA, Island Press.
Analyses CBD from pro-business perspective. National sovereignty is now a kind of property right, but it does not adequately protect a biological resource once it leaves the legal domain or control of a culture (for example through the CGIAR system). This makes it difficult to implement important parts of the convention. Standardised international IPRs with acceptance of national sovereignty over genetic resources points to a solution.
Duke, J. A. (1996). The Role of Medicinal Plants in Health Care in India. Medicinal Resources of the Tropical Forest: Biodiversity and Its Importance to Human Health. M. J. Balick, E. Elisabetsky and S. A. Laird. New York, Columbia University Press: 266-277.
India is a large exporter of medicinal plants. It is very necessary to record traditional and tribal medicinal knowledge before it is lost. Also, overharvesting is endangering some medicinal plants. Contains discussions on neem and taxol.
Dumoulin, J. (1998). Pharmaceuticals: The Role of Biotechnology and Patents. Biotechnology and Development Monitor: 13-15.
The world market for pharmaceuticals shows a clear division: products are developed for industrialised countries promising high profits whereas developing countries are still in need of basic health care. While advancements in biotechnology have a drastic impact on drug development in general, changes in IPR protection will especially influence the health care policies of developing countries.
Dunster, J. (1989). “Concepts Underlying a Community Forest.” Forest Planning Canada5(6): 5-13.
Around the world, forests have served multiple purposes for many aboriginal peoples, and in many cases, have been under various forms of local control at some point in history. However, the development of centralised government control has imposed bureaucratic rules and regulations on many aspects of life, and the use and control of forested areas is no exception. In this context, the author considers concepts underlying community forestry in the North as well as in the South.
Durning, A. T. (1992). Guardians of the Land: Indigenous Peoples and the Health of the Earth. Washington DC, The Worldwatch Institute.
Explains why indigenous peoples have an important role to play in managing fragile ecosystems. In spite of this, they are still victims of severe abuses of their basic rights.
Dutfield, G. (1993). Conservation of the Tropical Rainforests and the Pharmaceutical Industry. Department of Geography. Cambridge, University of Cambridge.
Study of bioprospecting that examines the activities of three well-known bioprospecting institutions and considers the question of whether bioprospecting can generate sufficient conservation incentives to save the tropical forests.
Dutfield, G. (1997). Beyond Article 27[3b]: Can the TRIPs Agreement Conserve Biological and Cultural Diversity. Bridges. 1: 5-6.
Frequently, discussion on TRIPS as it relates to biodiversity and the interests of indigenous peoples and local communities focus on patents. However, the Agreement provides a variety of IPRs. This article examines the relevance of geographical indications, trademarks, and trade secrets to biodiversity conservation and traditional knowledge.
Dutfield, G. (1997). Can the TRIPS Agreement Protect Biological and Cultural Diversity? Nairobi, African Centre for Technology Studies.
Criticism of TRIPs is fully justified. However, creative interpretations of TRIPs that comply with its requirements but also address issues outside the remit of the WTO, such as protecting traditional knowledge and supporting the aims of the CBD, are not precluded. Neither is the development of laws that go beyond the agreement’s requirements. While acknowledging that TRIPs contains no panaceas whatsoever for communities whose basic human rights are being abused, this paper seeks to fill a gap in the critical literature by considering options that TRIPs allows for laws that protect traditional knowledge while addressing the ‘biodiversity-related aspects of intellectual property rights’.
Dutfield, G. and U. Ghate (1997). Implementing Article 8(j) of the CBD Through Peoples Biodiversity Registers. Bulletin of the Working Group on Traditional Resource Rights: 14-16.
Discussion of the merits and pitfalls of India’s people’s biodiversity registers programme, which seeks to document local biodiversity-related knowledge.
Dutfield, G. (1997). The World Trade Organization, TRIPs and the Biodiversity Convention. Bulletin of the Working Group on Traditional Resource Rights: 7-9.
Presents IPR-related discussions at the CBD-COP and the WTO and argues that there is a tendency for environmental concerns to be subordinated to the interests of multinational companies whose main motivation is profit not conservation.
Dutfield, G. (1997). Is Novelty Still Required for Patents in the United States? The Case of Turmeric. Bulletin of the Working Group on Traditional Resource Rights: 9-10.
Criticism of the patent awarded for the ‘invention’ of turmeric as a wound healing agent even though such a use is common knowledge in India.
Dutfield, G. (1997). Beyond a Rock and a Hard Place: Indigenous Peoples, Multinationals and the Nation State. Medicinal Plants for Forest Conservation and Health Care. G. Bodeker, K. K. S. Bhat, J. Burley and P. Vantomme. Rome, FAO. 11: 24-33.
Argues that indigenous peoples are potentially threatened by governments claiming sovereignty rights over resources and knowledge belonging to indigenous peoples and also by multinational companies. The INBio case is considered and found to be an inappropriate model for other developing countries. Indigenous groups are demanding recognition of their right to self-determination before entering into negotiations over access to their resources and knowledge.
Dutfield, G. (1999). Protecting and Revitalising Traditional Ecological Knowledge: Intellectual Property Rights and Community Knowledge Databases in India. Intellectual Property Aspects of Ethnobiology. M. Blakeney. London, Sweet and Maxwell: 101-122.
While scientific and commercial interest in traditional knowledge and resource management practices have never been greater, human cultural diversity is eroding at an accelerating rate. Concerned scientists are calling for the documentation of such knowledge before it disappears. But some indigenous peoples’ organisations worry that documentation initiatives are likely to be top-down and exploitative. This article consists of five sections: (a) the growing interest in and respect for traditional knowledge; (b) the protection of traditional knowledge as an IPR issue;(c) case studies of patents and traditional knowledge; (d) the protection of IPRs and traditional rights in India; and (e) an evaluation of Indian initiatives to document traditional knowledge.
Dutfield, G. (1999). Sharing the Benefits of Biodiversity: Access Regimes and Intellectual Property Rights. Cambridge, Center for International Development and Belfer Center for Science and International Affairs, Harvard University.
Two types of legal regime have emerged to regulate the allocative aspects of the trade in biogenetic resources and products derived from them: access and benefit sharing laws and IPRs. This paper describes both, but IPRs are emphasised because: (1) the acquisition by firms of patent and plant variety right portfolios appears to influence the unequal allocations of benefits obtained from industrial use of biogenetic resources; (2) the number of countries allowing strong IPR protection for life-science products and technologies is increasing rapidly. The effect may be to reinforce this asymmetry of benefit allocations; (3) patents and plant breeders’ rights have been accused of encouraging biodiversity-erosive breeding and cultivation practices; and (4) just as inappropriate IPRs may harm the interests of developing countries, well-designed IPR systems could conceivably be highly
beneficial, helping such countries to add value to their biogenetic wealth. Unfortunately, the global IPR system has become increasingly inflexible in recent years, reducing such opportunities for developing countries.
Dutfield, G. (2000). Intellectual Property Rights, Trade and Biodiversity: Seeds and Plant Varieties. London, Earthscan and IUCN.
Plant genetic resources are crucial for world agriculture, food security and the global economy. They are vital for the pharmaceutical industry and important assets of biodiversity-rich developing countries. The patents and intellectual property rights IPRs associated with the development of new products are critical to trade in these resources. This book examines the relevant international agreements: the CBD, TRIPS and the UPOV Convention. It provides an account of how to integrate the requirements of the CBD into an equitable global IPR regime, taking into account ethical concerns, environmental and social impacts, technology transfer and traditional knowledge.
Dutfield, G. (2000). “The Public and Private Domains: Intellectual Property Rights in Traditional Knowledge.” Science Communication21(3): 274-295.
IPR law contains an in-built bias that protects the intangible assets of companies while failing to recognise traditional knowledge as protectable subject matter. The rapid globalisation of high-level IPR minimum standards is certain to exacerbate the situation. The main reason why IPRs are unfair is not that they are explicitly discriminatory, but that they treat all knowledge in the world as the intellectual commons except that which is protected under patent or other mainstream IPRs. This situation is unjust to indigenous people and contrary to the interests of everybody except those who profit from exploiting traditional knowledge unfairly.
Duvick, D. N. (1991). “Industry and Its Role in Plant Diversity.” Forum for Applied Research and Public Policy(Fall): 90-94.
Agribusiness involvement in plant genetic resources is grounded on three essential factors: the availability of germplasm, the willingness of farmers to pay for the value bred into the improved varieties, and the likelihood of maintaining market control of the products derived from investments in R&D. Because all three factors have rarely been in place at the same time, the involvement of seed companies with plant genetic resources has been limited to a relatively small number of species. Also, commercial breeding and sales within crop species often have been restricted to a small number of localities. Nevertheless, in many countries, commercial seed companies play a key role in the use, evaluation, diversity, and conservation of genetic resources.
Duvick, D. N. (1993). Goals and Expectations of Industry for Intellectual Property Rights for Plant Materials. Intellectual Property Rights: Protection of Plant Materials. C. S. S. o. America. Madison, CSSA: 21-27.
Presents the position of the seed industry with respect to IPR protection for its products. It is argued that for plant genetic supply companies to operate successfully, competitively, and ethically, proprietary rights to germplasm are necessary. Such rights need to be clearly delineated and broadly observed.
Duvick, D. N. (1993). Possible Effects of Intellectual Property Rights on Erosion and Conservation of Plant Genetic Resources in Centers of Crop Diversity. International Crop Science I. D. R. Buxton, R. Shibles, R. A. Forsberget al. Madison, WI, Crop Science Society of America.
Discusses relationship between IPRs and erosion of genetic diversity by comparing the two kinds of plant breeding - by trained scientists and by traditional farmers. The latter make use of in field genetic diversity while the former depend on global exchange of genetic resources. Professional breeders supply farmers, not with internally variable varieties, but with variable arrays of uniform cultivars. Recently interest has grown on the fate of the small farmers in developing countries, and also on the fate of the banked germplasm collections.
Eaton, P. (1997). Reinforcing Traditional Tenure: Wildlife Management Areas in Papua New Guinea. Conservation Through Cultural Survival. S. Stevens. Washington DC & Covelo, Island Press: 225-236.
In Papua New Guinea, the customary tenure system has proved a major constraint to the development of national parks, but has provided the basis for the establishment of other types of protected areas, in particular the wildlife management areas. Experience shows that the success of wildlife management areas will depend on their capacity to achieve improvement in the quality of life of these people and achieving development without environmental degradation.
Ecologist, T. (1993). Whose Common Future? Reclaiming the Commons. London, Earthscan Books.
A diagnosis of the world’s environmental problems, which uses a range of examples to demonstrate the diversity of commons regimes. The authors trace environmental degradation to the enclosure of the commons and the domination and dispossession of local communities. Communities depend on the shared resources of the commons for their autonomy and even their identity. Under the guise of ‘nation building’, ‘economic growth’ and ‘development’, the commons are being ever more rapidly eroded. With them go the land, skills and traditions of the people they support. The 1992 Earth Summit was thought to have tackled these problems, but the solutions proposed there simply handed more power to the agencies and forces causing the damage. Power is the central issue - who holds it, how it is exercised and for whose benefit. What communities need is not outside ‘management’, but control over their own resources and the scope to run their own affairs.
Economic and Political Weekly (editorial) (1998). Looking Beyond Basmati. Economic and Political Weekly: 371-372.
Criticises the Indian response to RiceTec’s basmati rice patent as being too late and out of touch with reality. The failure of the Indian government to enact appropriate legislation such as an act on geographical indications makes it very difficult to take effective action.
Economist, T. (1991). Should Trade Go Green? How to Stop Protection for the Environment Becoming Protectionism in Trade. The Economist: 13.
Warns against the perecived danger that environmental regulation will become a barrier to international trade.
Economist, T. (1994). Seeds of Discord. Economist: 66.
Critiques India’s opposition to GATT, some of which is based on myth and misunderstanding. For example GATT will not force the government to cut farm subsidies and subsidised ration shops. Moreover, most farmers will not be seriously affected by the higher prices of patented seeds.
Economist, T. (1995). Patent Blather. The Economist: 140.
Criticises the international campaign to oppose the patenting of human genes as ‘swimming against the tide’.
Economist, T. (1995). A Survey of Biotechnology and Genetics. The Economist.
Surveys trends in biotech research and the biotechnology industry.
Economist, T. (1998). A Survey of the Pharmaceutical Industry. The Economist.
Surveys trends in pharmaceutical research and the pharmaceutical industry.
Ecumenical Coalition on Third World Tourism (1995). Tourism and Indigenous People: A Resource Guide. Bangkok, Ecumenical Coalition on Third World Tourism.
Collection of articles on tourism and indigenous people, which show the negative social, cultural and economic impacts that local people are often left to deal with.
Edwards, R. (1996). Biotech Firm ‘Embarrassed’ by the Leaked Plant Deal. New Scientist: 7.
Botanic gardens in Europe are selling rare tropical plants to a US company which hopes they will yield new drugs. Conservationists warn that the deals highlight a loophole in efforts to preserve biodiversity.
Egan, K. (1993). “Free Trade’s Assault on Indigenous Rights.” Abya Yala News7(3-4): 15.
Critique of NAFTA from the indigenous viewpoint. The removal of barriers to trade may lead to infringement of indigenous peoples’ land rights.
Egede, I. (1994). On Development. 18 January. I. G. Assembly. Buenos Aires.
Criticises conservationists for putting welfare of animals (e.g., whales) before the legitimate rights of indigenous peoples, which is contrary to the principles of IUCN’s ‘Caring for the Earth’.
Egziabher, T. B. G. and S. Edwards (1996). The UNCED Process, Intellectual Property Rights, the Conservation of Biological Diversity, and the Interests of the Owners of Biological Diversity. Valuing Local Knowledge: Indigenous Peoples and Intellectual Property Rights. S. B. Brush and D. Stabinsky. Covelo, CA.
Analysis of CBD from ‘dependencia’ perspective. Includes checklist of steps to help develop an ICIPR (Indigenous Community Intellectual Property Rights) protection system.
Egziabher, T. B. G. and V. Shiva (1996). What Are We Doing with Plant Genetic Resources for Food and Agriculture? Addis Ababa, Institute for Sustainable Development & Research Foundation for Science, Technology and Natural Resource Policy.
Paper which argues that governments should recognise and support local and indigenous communities; implement farmers’ rights; ensure that farmers share the benefits that accrue from the commercialisation of their own biodiversity; and reorient agriculture, agricultural research and industry to become biodiversity friendly.
Ehrenfeld, D. (1988). Why Put a Value on Biodiversity? Biodiversity. E. O. Wilson. Washington DC, National Academy Press: 212-216.
Argues against dependence on economic valuation of biodiversity as a means of justifying its conservation.
Ehrhardt-Martinez, J. Lisansky, et al. (n.d.). Versao Preliminar: Diretrizes Para A Comercializacao de Produtos Florestais Nao-Madereiros, USAID Office of Women in Development, Bureau for Research and Development, Bureau for Latin America and the Carribean, USAID/Brazil.
Advises communities and NGOs involved with developing alternative strategies to improve the lives of forest dwellers on how to understand and improve the commercialisation of NTFPs. In addition to marketing techniques strategies must take social and environmental factors into account.
Eilers, H. (1985). “Protected Areas and Indigenous Peoples.” Cultural Survival Quarterly9(1): 6-9.
Considers the various categories of protected areas in terms of the extent to which they restrict access for local communities.
Eisner, T. (1990). “Prospecting for Nature’s Chemical Riches.” Issues in Science and Technology6(2): 31-34.
One of the first calls for setting up bioprospecting and plant screening programmes in developing countries, which could be linked to conservation and species inventorying programmes.
Eisner, T. (1994). “Chemical Prospecting: A Global Imperative.” Proceedings of the American Philosophical Society.
Argues for the vigorous promotion of bioprospecting to discover new drugs and protect biodiversity.
Eisner, T. and E. A. Beiring (1994). “Biotic Exploration Fund-Protecting Biodiversity through Chemical Prospecting.” BioScience44(2): 95-98.
Proposes extending the INBio-Merck contract model to a multilateral programme by establishing an international fund and brokering agency for bioprospecting.
Elisabetsky, E. (1991). “Folklore, Tradition, or Knowledge?” Cultural Survival Quarterly15(3): 9-13.
The ethnopharmacology approach to drug discovery depends on our ability to value non-Western knowledge of medicinal plants. Tropical plants make a huge contribution to our drug supply. Ethnobiology can reveal many more, but there are ethical issues to consider. Medicinal plants have enormous economic value, but we need the cooperation of indigenous people. Therefore they must be compensated in various ways.
Elisabetsky, E. (1991). “Sociopolitical, Economical and Ethical Issues in Medicinal Plant Research.” Journal of Ethnopharmacology