Ethnopharmacology, Traditional Knowledge and Intellectual Property Rights

  • P. Pushpangadan
  • V. George
  • T. P. Ijinu
  • S. Rajasekharan
Chapter
First Online:
Part of the Environmental Challenges and Solutions book series (ECAS, volume 3)

Abstract

Over the last three decades, a great awakening on the link between sustainable livelihood and ecological health has emerged. Access and Benefit Sharing (ABS) was conceived as a tool for equity and as an opportunity for sustainable development. In India, the authors have developed the first model of benefit sharing that implemented in letter and spirit Article 8 (j) and Article 15.7 of the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD). The authors, while at the Jawaharlal Nehru Tropical Botanic Garden and Research Institute (JNTBGRI), demonstrated that indigenous knowledge systems merit support, recognition and fair and adequate compensation. 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. The major challenge is to develop appropriate national policies and legal framework to provide a conducive and enabling environment to undertake bioprospecting and biotechnological innovations, giving adequate attention to the administrative as well as the legal aspects of IPR protection, benefit-sharing procedures and conservation and sustainable use of biodiversity and the associated traditional knowledge. The chapter details the development of ethnobiology in India, bioprospecting and national legislations for the protection of traditional knowledge and sustainable utilization of bioresources.

Keywords

Ethnobiology Sustainable use IPR Bioprospecting Sui generis system Ayurveda 
This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.

Notes

Acknowledgements

The authors express their sincere thanks to Dr. Ashok K. Chauhan, founder and president, RBEF and Amity Group of Institutions, and Dr. Atul Chauhan, president, RBEF, and chancellor, AUUP, Noida, for the facilities and encouragement.

References

  1. AICRPE (All India Coordinated Project on Ethnobiology). Final technical report 1992–1998, Ministry of Environment & Forests, Government of IndiaGoogle Scholar
  2. Bigoniya P (2008) Ethnopharmacological approach in herbal drug development, the pharma review. KONGPOSH Publications Pvt. Ltd, New Delhi, pp 109–116Google Scholar
  3. Bruhn JG, Helmstead B (1981) Ethnopharmacology: objectives, principles and perspectives. In: Beal JL, Reinhard E (eds) Natural products as medicinal agents, Suppl. Planta Medica. Hippokrates Verlag, Struttgart, pp 405–430Google Scholar
  4. Dutfield G (2005) Harnessing traditional knowledge and genetic resources for local development and trade. Draft paper presented at the International Seminar on Intellectual Property and Development Organized by WIPO jointly with UNCTAD, UNIDO, WHO and WTOGoogle Scholar
  5. Efron DH, Holmstedt B, Kline NS (1967) Ethnopharmacologic search for psychoactive drugs. U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington, DCGoogle Scholar
  6. Eisner R (1989) The total incomes system of accounts. The University of Chicago Press, ChicagoGoogle Scholar
  7. Gadgil M, Devasia P (1995) Intellectual property rights and biological resources specifying geographical origins and prior knowledge of uses. Curr Sci 69(8):637–639Google Scholar
  8. George V, John JA (2008) The role of ethnomedical leads in drug discovery. In: Pushpangadan P, George V, Janardhanan KK (eds) Ethnopharmacology: recent advances. Daya Publishers, New Delhi, pp 79–85Google Scholar
  9. Gupta AK (2001) Framework for rewarding indigenous knowledge in developing countries: Value chain for grassroots innovations. Paper presented at WTO Expert Committee, 3 September 2001Google Scholar
  10. Hansen K, Nyman U, Smitt UW, Adsersen A, Gudiksen L, Rajasekharan S, Pushpangadan P (1995) In vitro screening of Indian medicinal plants for anti-hypertensive effect based on inhibition of Angiotensin converting enzyme (ACE). In: Pushpangadan P, Nyman U, George V (eds) Glimpses of Indian ethnopharmacology. Tropical Botanic Garden and Research Institute Publication, Thiruvananthapuram, pp 263–274Google Scholar
  11. IISD (International Institute for Sustainable Development) (2009) A brief introduction to the CBD, including the COP, SBSTTA, and Working Groups on Access and Benefit-Sharing, Article 8(J), Review of Implementation and Protected Areas. Accessed from http://www.iisd.ca/process/biodiv_wildlife-cbdintro.htm on May 20 2015
  12. Laird SA, ten Kate K (2002) Linking biodiversity prospecting and forest conservation. In: Pagiola S, Bishop J, Landell-Mills N (eds) Selling forest environmental services. Earthscan, London, pp 151–172Google Scholar
  13. Mashelkar RA (2001) Intellectual property rights and the third world. Curr Sci 81(8):955Google Scholar
  14. Mateo N, Nader WF, Tamayo G (2000) Bioprospecting. In: Levin R (ed) Encyclopedia of biodiversity. Academic, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  15. Mehta S (2014) The nagoya protocol-convention on biological diversity. IIPRD Blog-Intellectual Property Discussions, Monthly Archives: July 2014. Accessed from https://iiprd.wordpress.com/2014/07/ on 20.04.2015
  16. Ministry of Environment and Climate Change (National Biodiversity) (2014) Notification, New DelhiGoogle Scholar
  17. Morgera E, Tsioumani E, Buck M (2014) Unraveling the Nagoya Protocol: a commentary on the Nagoya Protocol on access and benefit-sharing to the convention on biological diversity. Martinus Nijhoff Publishers/Brill, LeidenGoogle Scholar
  18. Pushpangadan P (1993) Ethnobiology in India, a status report, AICRPE (All India Coordinated Project on Ethno biology), Ministry of Environment and Forest, Govt. of India, New DelhiGoogle Scholar
  19. Pushpangadan P, Pradeep PRJ (2008) A glimpse at tribal India-an ethnobiological enquiry, joint publication of Amity Institute for Herbal and Biotech Products Development, Thiruvananthapuram 695005 and Ministry of environment and Forests, Government of India, pp 1–167Google Scholar
  20. Reid WV, Laird SA, Gamez R, Sittenfeld A, Janzen DH, Gollin MA, Juma C (1993) A new lease on life. In: Reid WV, Laird SA, Meyer CA, Gamez R, Sittenfeld A, Janzen DH, Gollin MA, Juma C (eds) Biodiversity prospecting World Resources Institute, pp 1–52Google Scholar
  21. Rivier J, Bruhn JG (1979) Editorial. J Ethnopharmacol 1Google Scholar
  22. Shiva V (1994) The need for sui generis rights. Seedling 12:11–15Google Scholar
  23. Tsioumani E (2015) Moving towards fair and equitable benefit-sharing in research and development: the Nagoya Protocol on access and benefit-sharing to the convention on biological diversity. Accessed from http://www.benelexblog.law.ed.ac.uk/2015/02/18/nagoya-protocol/ on 20.04.2015
  24. Tvedt MW, Schei PJ (2014) The term ‘Genetic Resources’: flexible and dynamic while providing legal certainty? In: Oberthür S, Rosendal GK (eds) Global governance of genetic resources: Access and Benefit Sharing after the Nagoya Protocol. Routledge, LondonGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing Switzerland 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  • P. Pushpangadan
    • 1
  • V. George
    • 1
  • T. P. Ijinu
    • 1
  • S. Rajasekharan
    • 2
  1. 1.Amity Institute for Herbal and Biotech Products DevelopmentThiruvananthapuramIndia
  2. 2.Jawaharlal Nehru Tropical Botanic Garden and Research InstituteThiruvananthapuramIndia

Personalised recommendations