PERSPECTIVES
Protection of
Traditional Knowledge
Role of the National IPR Policy
Indrani Barpujari, Ujjal Kumar Sarma
The new National Intellectual
Property Rights Policy advocates
an aggressive, neo-liberal agenda
of commodification of knowledge,
and extends this to traditional
knowledge as well. However,
there is a need to revisit the
primary, still unresolved issues
regarding the protection of
traditional knowledge and their
tentative solutions. Considering
the inevitability of participation
in the global trade order, a case is
made for equipping traditional
knowledge holders and indigenous
and local communities with the
wherewithal to participate in the
market economy, proactively
assert their rights over their
traditional knowledge, and derive
benefits from its use.
Indrani Barpujari (indranib22@gmail.com)
works with the Atal Bihari Vajpayee Institute of
Good Governance and Policy Analysis, Bhopal.
Ujjal Kumar Sarma (uksarma.iifm@gmail.com)
teaches at the Indian Institute of Forest
Management, Bhopal.
Economic & Political Weekly EPW OCTOBER 13, 2018
W
hile protection of traditional
knowledge within the ambit of
the conventional intellectual
property rights (IPRs) regime is fraught
with difficulties owing to the inherent
mismatch between the two, there is some
sort of consensus on the imperative of
extending the reach of IPR and/or spe-
cially designed sui generis regimes to
traditional knowledge, primarily as a
key strategy to prevent misappropriation
(CBD 2007; WIPO 2008). In line with this
perspective, traditional knowledge and
the interests of the “less-visible intellectual
property generators and holders” have
found space in the new National IPR Policy
released by the Department of Industrial
Policy and Promotion (DIPP), Government
of India in May 2016. The policy, while
recognising that the “monetisation of
knowledge” is not a part of the Indian
ethos, argues that this does not fit with
the global regime, thereby necessitating
a transformation of knowledge into in-
tellectual property assets, for which
“value” and “economic reward” could be
obtained through commercialisation.
The policy advocates an aggressive,
neo-liberal agenda of commodification of
knowledge (including traditional know-
ledge), seeking to bring about “a major
paradigm shift of how knowledge is
viewed and valued—not for what it is, but
for what it can become.” The imposition of
market values upon traditional knowledge,
enforced through international agree-
ments and national laws enacted in con-
formity with the former, has been per-
ceived by many as antithetical to the
normative ethos of traditional knowledge
and the “lifeworlds” of indigenous and
local communities (ILCs), for whom tra-
ditional knowledge is intrinsically linked to
their sustenance: economic, cultural and
vol lIII no 41
spiritual. At the same time, the inevitability
of participation in the global trade order
strengthens the case for equipping tradi-
tional knowledge holders with the legal
tools and wherewithal to participate in
the market economy, proactively assert
their rights over their traditional know-
ledge and derive benefits from its use.
It is in the above context that the pre-
sent article seeks to revisit the primary,
still unresolved issues regarding the pro-
tection of traditional knowledge and
their tentative solutions, as the provisions
of the National IPR Policy have a direct
or indirect bearing on the issue. The
discussion is rooted in the context of the
key theoretical perspectives, and national
and international frameworks, initiatives,
and debates in the arena.
Contestations on Commodification
The issue of commodification of traditional
knowledge, which the National IPR Policy
seeks to promote, can be approached
through the theoretical lens of Foucauldian
neo-liberalism as well as that of Gramscian
“cultural hegemony.” When bolstered by
empirical evidence, this attests to the
incongruity of imposing market values on
traditional knowledge, which is priceless,
usually held collectively and generated
in “simple societies,” subscribing to a
completely different world view and
rationality, apart from that of profit-
making. It can be challenged on the
grounds of ethical correctness in put-
ting a price on something which is price-
less, or whose value is more than merely
monetary, which, according to Karl Polanyi
(2001), produces “fictitious commodities.”
The processes of commodification of bio-
resources and associated knowledge,
unleashed through world trade and IPR
regimes, are but an integral facet of
neo-liberalism, which, according to Michel
Foucault, is characterised by
the consistent expansion of the economic
form to apply to the social sphere … trans-
pose economic analytical schemata and cri-
teria for economic decision-making onto
spheres which are not, or certainly not ex-
clusively, economic areas. (Lemke 2001: 197)
The playing out of these forces leads
to the unfolding of a situation which can
29
PERSPECTIVES
be construed as that of Gramscian “cul-
tural hegemony,” where the dominant
world view of the neo-liberal trade order
is imposed and prevails as the norm for
the culturally diverse ILCs or the holders
of traditional knowledge, who are now
required to protect their knowledge
under the terms of an entirely alien
regime. This reflects, in the words of
Morgan Robertson (2004: 371), “a success-
ful attempt by capital to colonize and
dominate the rationalities of other sys-
tems, with which it articulates.” Further,
the promise of socio-economic develop-
ment, which is the standard bait for
participation in the neo-liberal regime,
remains unrealised in most instances.
There is already mounting evidence that
the neo-liberal environmental policy
frequently tends to disadvantage the
poor and the powerless with the oppor-
tunities being “more apparent than real”
(Castree 2010: 31).
According to Foucault, the hallmark of
neo-liberalism is that the market serves
as the organisational principle for state
and society, and the individual is now
expected to be an “autonomous entre-
preneur,” with full responsibility for his
own investment decisions (Lemke 2001).
In a situation where an individual is
bereft of the wherewithal required to
participate as an “autonomous entrepre-
neur,” it is but expected that they will
not be able to reap the benefits of the
commodification of traditional knowledge.
Saskia Vermeylen (2008), in her case
study of the San in Southern Africa—
who had entered into a benefit-sharing
agreement for the commercialisation of
the Hoodia cactus—argues that com-
modification had transformed the very
nature of the traditional knowledge from
being “a life force” to a “slimming aid,”
while not doing anything substantial for
the traditional knowledge holders for
whom these were merely “desperate ex-
changes as the last resort to improve
their lives.”
At the same time, the idea that com-
modification is in sharp variance with
the ethos of traditional knowledge and
ILCs is countered by a large body of
work, particularly that of anthropologists
working on the cultural study of commo-
dities. As Arjun Appadurai (1986) points
30
out, there is a misplaced tendency to
romanticise small-scale societies and
the proclivity to marginalise and under-
play the calculative, impersonal, and
self-aggrandising features of non-capi-
talist societies. Further, Igor Kopytoff
(1986: 68) shows that commodities con-
stitute “a universal cultural phenomenon,”
with societies differing only in the ways
“commoditization as a special expres-
sion of exchange is structured and related
to the social system, in the factors that
encourage or contain it, in the long-term
tendencies for it to expand or stabilize, and
in the cultural and ideological premises
that suffuse its workings.” The cultural
study of commodities further indicates
that things can move in and out of the
commodity state, that such movements
can be slow or fast, reversible or terminal,
normative or deviant and, often, dealings
with strangers may provide the context for
commoditisation of things that are other-
wise protected from commoditisation
(Appadurai 1986).
In a similar vein, studies have indicated
that the idea of the San of the Kalahari
desert (the holders of traditional knowl-
edge associated with the Hoodia cactus)
as “pristine hunter-gatherers” is a myth.
Over time, their cultural identity has
become multilayered and complex, and
they have become increasingly drawn
into the local, if not the world, economy
as a result of which commodification
of their traditional knowledge through
a benefit-sharing agreement is widely
accepted (Vermeylen 2005, 2008). The
present authors’ own research among
the members of the Karbi tribe of Assam
shows that there are marked intergen-
erational differences within the same
community regarding perceptions about
knowledge, knowledge-sharing and IPRs
(Sarma and Barpujari 2012). The study
found that the younger generation, par-
ticularly the educated youth, exhibit less
reverence for the traditional knowledge of
the tribe and tend to dismiss many indig-
enous healing practices as superstitions.
However, ironically, they display consid-
erable enthusiasm for the potential com-
mercialisation of this knowledge, and the
idea of IPR over the ideas of knowledge-
and benefit-sharing. On the other hand,
the older generation, particularly those
OCTOBER 13, 2018
possessing specialist knowledge, express
a reluctance to share the knowledge,
owing to its being embedded within the
socio-religious beliefs of the community
and their allegiance to its traditional ethos,
which permits the use of the knowledge
only for the welfare of the society and
not for profit.
Protecting Traditional Knowledge
Developing countries, traditional know-
ledge holders and ILCs largely realised
the imperative for the protection of tra-
ditional knowledge under the IPR regime
administered internationally through
the Agreement on Trade Related Aspects
of Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPS),
1992, in the wake of certain cases of
biopiracy of plants such as neem, turmeric,
and ayahuasca. In these cases, patents
were obtained in developed countries on
genetic resources and associated tradi-
tional knowledge from the developing
countries, without prior informed consent
of and benefit-sharing with the traditional
knowledge holders, and without any
significant innovation (TRIPS Secretariat
2002). While certain patents could be
revoked through costly litigation in the
courts of the United States (US), develop-
ing countries stepped up defensive meas-
ures through changes in their national
IPR regimes, which parties to the TRIPS
were also mandated to amend, to bring
the same in line with the minimum
standards laid down by TRIPS.
Given this background, it is but obvious
that the National IPR Policy insistently
makes the case for defensive measures,
or measures which are primarily targeted
at preventing IPR claims on traditional
knowledge being granted to unauthorised
entities. It extensively advocates the use
of documentation (strengthening and
expanding the Traditional Knowledge
Digital Library [TKDL]), as a means to
establish prior art, made available to
patent examiners across the world, there-
by preventing IPR claims to traditional
knowledge being granted to unauthorised
entities, while also encouraging the pos-
sibility of its greater use for further re-
search and development. In line with
India’s efforts at the international level
to enhance such protection within exist-
ing international patent law standards
vol lIII no 41 EPW Economic & Political Weekly

through the expansion of the Patent
Cooperation Treaty’s minimum docu-
mentation to include TKDL (WIPO 2015),
the policy talks about the need to main-
tain sustained efforts in this direction
(Clause 4.9).
National Patent Laws
It has been recognised that there are
a number of gaps in securing positive
patent protection for traditional knowl-
edge, which includes both a formal gap
in the legal scope of possible protection
as well as practical gaps (WIPO 2008).
Concerns have also been manifest through-
out the world about persons other than
those belonging to ILCs or traditional
knowledge holders exploiting or abusing
the patent system to secure patents over
traditional knowledge which are legiti-
mately the property of the former (TRIPS
Secretariat 2002). The Indian Patents
(Amendment) Act, 2005, in conformity
with this line of argument, has kept
traditional knowledge out of the pur-
view of patents. There is some consensus
that defensive protection can be further
strengthened through the incorporation
of traditional knowledge-specific disclo-
sure requirements within the patent law
at the national level.
This has to be fortified through a corre-
sponding amendment of the TRIPS Agree-
ment to incorporate a disclosure require-
ment, regarding the origin of genetic
material and associated traditional know-
ledge used in the invention, which deve-
loping countries (including India) have
been pushing for in the TRIPS Council for
quite some time (WTO 2011). The incor-
poration of such a disclosure provision
in the IPR regime is considered essential
for achieving harmonisation of the TRIPS
with the Convention on Biological Diver-
sity (CBD) (1992) and the Nagoya Protocol
(2010) within the former, which man-
dates the fair and equitable sharing of
benefits arising out of the utilisation of
genetic resources and associated tradi-
tional knowledge. India, along with other
developing countries, has stressed at the
TRIPS Council that leaving the conse-
quences of disclosure of source of origin,
evidence of prior and informed consent,
and fair and equitable benefit-sharing
outside the realm of patent law would
Economic & Political Weekly EPW OCTOBER 13, 2018
render these requirements ineffective
and that there should, therefore, be pro-
visions in the patent law to ensure that
these requirements are not reduced to
just a formality (WTO 2003).
Accordingly, the Indian Patent Law has
a disclosure requirement with respect
to source or geographical origin of bio-
logical material used in the patent appli-
cation and whether the invention or any
claim under it is anticipated in tradi-
tional knowledge, oral or otherwise, the
non-compliance of which is a ground for
opposition and revocation of the patent
under Section 25 of the Patents (Amend-
ment) Act, 2005. The case has long been
advanced that these provisions in the
national patent legislation could be further
bolstered by the disclosure of evidence of
prior informed consent and benefit shar-
ing, as well as by harmoniously linking
the same with relevant provisions in the
Biological Diversity Act, 2002 (TERI 2013).
The Biological Diversity Act, 2002 is a
sui generis legislation enacted to honour
India’s commitments at the CBD for the
conservation of biological diversity, sus-
tainable use of its components, and the
equitable sharing of benefits arising out
of the commercialisation of biodiversity
and associated knowledge. Section 6(1) of
this act lays down that
no person shall apply for any intellectual
property right, by whatever name called, in or
outside India for any invention based on any
research or information on a biological resource
obtained from India without obtaining the
previous approval of the National Biodiversity
Authority before making such application.
The National Policy has taken cognisance
of the long-felt need for better harmonisa-
tion of the Patent Office with the National
Biodiversity Authority (NBA), constituted
under the Biological Diversity Act, 2002,
with respect to patent applications involv-
ing the use of biological resources and
associated traditional knowledge.
It provides the necessary support for
policy measures which have been taken
up by the Patent Office to achieve better
coordination with the NBA, namely in
the form of the Guidelines for Processing
of Patent Applications Relating to Tradi-
tional Knowledge and Biological Material,
2012, released by the Office of the Con-
troller General of Patents, Designs and
vol lIII no 41
PERSPECTIVES
Trademarks. These expressly state that
no patent shall be granted without the
necessary permission from the NBA in
cases where the invention uses biological
material from India or the source and/or
the origin of the biological material is
from India as per the disclosure in the
specification. Clauses 14.16.8 and 4.20
of the National IPR Policy attest to the
importance which it accords to the
setting up of an effective coordination
between the Patent Office, the NBA, as
well as concerned ministries/departments
to enable harmonious implementation of
the said guidelines, secure an effective
Access and Benefit Sharing (ABS) regime,
and achieve the overall goal of protect-
ing traditional knowledge from misap-
propriation. While the guidelines con-
stitute a step in the right direction, the
case for amendment of the patent legis-
lation to add stronger legal teeth to
the disclosure requirement still holds
(TERI 2013).
Though protection against misappro-
priation along with an ABS regime have
been the key strategies employed by
developing countries to protect traditional
knowledge, positive protection has also
been deployed to the extent possible,
whereby traditional knowledge holders
can avail themselves of IPR protection
through the use of conventional IPR s.
There is some recognition that certain
forms of intellectual property may be
more amenable to traditional knowledge
protection than others, such as geo-
graphical indications, copyrights, farmers’
rights, etc (WIPO 2002). The ability to
extend the life of geographical indications
indefinitely and the possibility of collective
ownership of such rights suggest that
these may be especially suitable for pro-
tecting traditional knowledge (Commis-
sion on Intellectual Property Rights 2002).
Accordingly, the National IPR Policy places
considerable emphasis on geographical
indications as “an area of strength and
optimism for India, where it has accorded
protection to a number of handmade
and manufactured products, especially in
the informal sector” and seeks to en-
courage further registrations. In India,
since the first geographical indication
was registered in 2004, the number of
geographical indications registrations,
31
PERSPECTIVES
especially for traditional knowledge has
gone up substantially. However, case
studies of select geographical indica-
tions, along with a stakeholder survey
(Nanda et al 2013), indicate that there
are numerous challenges, with benefits
not percolating to the real producers
owing to lack of awareness, difficulties
in maintaining quality post-registration,
etc. Hence, care and caution has been
advised when traditional knowledge
holders/producers from ILCs seek to
obtain geographical indications, as the
costs of seeking and enforcing geographi-
cal indication protection might be prohibi-
tively high, requiring substantial invest-
ments and resources to ensure that the
quality, reputation, and other characteris-
tics of the protected product are standard-
ised and maintained (Rangnekar 2003).
At the same time, the international
regime on geographical indications under
the TRIPS Agreement provides for two
levels of protection, with a higher level
of protection reserved only for wines
and spirits (Article 23), which is more
in the interest of developed countries.
Developing countries’ efforts at the TRIPS
Council for an extension of this provi-
sion for products of importance to them
has not met with much success till date
(WTO 2008). Hence, persistent efforts at
the international level are required to
make the IPR regime more equitable and
beneficial for developing countries. While
the National IPR Policy makes the right
noises when it refers to the need to
“engage constructively in the negotiation
of international treaties and agreements
in consultation with stakeholders,” such
a pronouncement has to be backed by
concerted action to defend the interests
of the country and its people in a proac-
tive fashion.
A Sui Generis Regime
The National IPR Policy surprisingly does
not take into account the past initiatives in
the country to give effect to a long-felt need
for devising a stand-alone, sui generis
mechanism for traditional knowledge.
The case for a traditional knowledge-
specific sui generis mechanism has been
advocated by the Intergovernmental
Committee on Intellectual Property and
Genetic Resources, Traditional Knowledge
32
and Folklore (IGRTKF), set up by the
World Intellectual Property Organization
(WIPO) as well as by the Working Group
on Access and Benefit Sharing of the
CBD (2006). The IGRTKF has expressed
the view that such a system need not
be construed entirely from scratch, but
could borrow elements already available
in the existing mechanisms of intellec-
tual property protection, both in the
context of traditional knowledge and
outside it, which could be transported to
the sui generis system (WIPO 2002). Given
the holistic nature of traditional knowl-
edge and the need to respond to the
cultural context, the IGRTKF has recom-
mended that the sui generis system,
which national laws or measures could
give effect to, should take a comprehen-
sive approach and contain certain legal
elements for effectiveness.
A number of countries such as Peru,
Philippines, Brazil, Thailand and others
which are rich in traditional knowledge,
and have ILCs dependent on it for liveli-
hood, have gone ahead in giving effect to
sui generis legislations which recognise
the intellectual property of traditional
knowledge holders over their knowledge,
the right to withhold access as well as
accord pre-eminence to customary law
over these matters. The use of the princi-
ples of customary law as the basis of any
regime for the protection of traditional
knowledge and the interests of ILCs has
also been recognised in the Nagoya
Protocol (2010), with Article 12(1) enjoin-
ing that “Parties shall, in accordance
with domestic law, take into considera-
tion indigenous and local communities’
customary laws, community protocols and
procedures, as applicable.” The Protocol
also seeks to ensure that the exchange
takes place according to community pro-
tocols, drafted by a community in line
with their customary laws and values, as
mandated by Article 12(3)(a).
In India, there have been several
attempts in the direction of developing a
sui generis regime, which can be basically
categorised into two kinds: through sec-
ondary legislation within the framework
of existing legislation, and through a
stand-alone mechanism. An attempt has
been initiated within the umbrella frame-
work of the Biological Diversity Act of
OCTOBER 13, 2018
2002, with the draft Traditional Knowl-
edge Rules or the Rules for Protection,
Conservation and Effective Management
of Traditional Knowledge relating to Bio-
logical Diversity, 2009, brought out by
the NBA after a long drawn consultative
process with relevant stakeholders. These
rules, proposed within the framework
of the biodiversity legislation, are pri-
marily aimed at strengthening rights
against “misuse, misappropriation and
abuse” (negative rights) of the traditional
knowledge holder. These provide an
institutional mechanism for registering
traditional knowledge and lay down the
procedures for accessing the same, while
also enjoining statutory bodies to facili-
tate the traditional communities to exer-
cise their collective rights to their own
access and use, and to regulate access by
others. These rules have, however, not
been notified till date and no action has
been forthcoming on the same for the
past few years.
Another effort has been made to create
a stand-alone framework dedicated to
the protection of traditional knowledge
in its entirety with the drafting of the
Traditional Knowledge (Management and
Protection) Act, 2010 by the National Law
School of India University, Bengaluru,
which seeks to set up a new institutional
mechanism under a new statutory body:
the Traditional Knowledge Authority. The
merit of a stand-alone framework stems
from the fact that a secondary legisla-
tion within the Biological Diversity Act
will provide protection only to traditional
knowledge associated with bio-resources,
and not to other kinds of traditional
knowledge, which will need to be pro-
tected through a separate legislation. Also,
the Biological Diversity Act facilitates
ABS, but does not confer positive protec-
tion to the rights of traditional knowledge
holders in their traditional knowledge.
At the same time, the Federation of
Indian Chambers of Commerce and Indus-
try’s Task Force on Traditional Knowledge,
at the request of the DIPP, has worked
towards the development of sui generis
traditional knowledge IPR s, modelled
on the conventional IPR s, but adapted to
the unique context of traditional knowl-
edge, which has also been taken as the
basis to develop a draft legislation in a
vol lIII no 41 EPW Economic & Political Weekly

TERI (2013) study. This represents a
unique effort, sharply different from the
above-mentioned initiatives, in its endeav-
our to provide for the protection and
registration of sui generis IPRs of tradi-
tional knowledge holders over their tra-
ditional knowledge (traditional knowl-
edge patents, traditional knowledge copy-
rights, etc). Such a sui generis system is
designed to enable traditional knowledge
holders to secure IPR like protection over
their traditional knowledge, and expected
to create the necessary conditions where-
by they can benefit from their traditional
knowledge and exploit its potential for
wealth creation, including by granting
access to third parties.
None of the above-mentioned initia-
tives have borne fruit till date. However,
the case for arriving at tenable legal pro-
visions geared to the unique context of
traditional knowledge and sensitive to
the needs of ILCs and traditional knowl-
edge holders in a changed world cannot
be overemphasised. Learnings from sui
generis models abroad as well as the
challenges in their implementation indi-
cate that while devising such a regime, a
number of factors need to be considered
(TERI 2013). First, such a system must
consider the kind of traditional knowl-
edge which the regime wants to bring
within the ambit of protection, depend-
ing upon its own country priorities and
policy commitments (individual and/or
collective, private or in the public do-
main). Second, it has to lay down clearly
the rights of the ILCs over their knowl-
edge in relation to the rights and the role
of the state.
The Peruvian legislation, to cite an
example, recognises upfront the rights
and powers of indigenous peoples and
communities to use and share their collec-
tive knowledge as they see fit. From this
declaration stems the other provisions of
the law, whereby the state merely acts as
the facilitator and the ILCs, through their
representative organisations, have primary
rights and roles with respect to prior
informed consent, licensing, use of the
resources of the Fund for the Development
of Indigenous Peoples, representation of
ILCs in the implementing agency, etc. On
the other hand, in India, under the
Biological Diversity Act, the state (acting
Economic & Political Weekly EPW OCTOBER 13, 2018
on behalf of the traditional knowledge
holders) is the principal entity responsible
for granting access and determining the
terms of benefit-sharing. A sui generis
regime for protection of traditional knowl-
edge also has to take a call on whether it
would provide positive and/or negative
protection, lay down conditions for se-
curing prior informed consent as well as
access, terms or clauses of the ABS con-
tract, provisions dealing with benefit-
sharing, a mechanism for registration of
traditional knowledge, remedies/penal-
ties against infringement of the rights
conferred, etc.
Despite the silence of the National IPR
Policy on the likelihood of a dedicated
sui generis regime for traditional knowl-
edge in the near future, hope is to be
found in the need expressed by the policy
to review existing intellectual property
laws, update and improve them or to
remove anomalies (Clause 3.1), as well
as to undertake in-depth studies on the
same (Clause 3.6).
The Way Ahead
From the above discussion, it thus
emerges that comprehensive protection
of traditional knowledge can be secured
only through a multipronged approach
which includes using the conventional
IPR regime to the extent feasible to secure
both negative and positive protection,
increased interface between the IPR
regime and other regimes (biodiversity,
ABS regimes), amendments to the existing
legislation to further strengthen the tra-
ditional knowledge enabling provisions,
as well as considering the case for a sui
generis mechanism. Such efforts are,
however, not enough in a globalised
world order and it is indispensable that
the interests of a developing country like
India, with rich traditional knowledge
and ILCs dependent on it for livelihood,
prevail in the rule-setting organisations
at the global level, be it the TRIPS or CBD.
This is a concern which the National IPR
Policy rightfully takes cognisance of,
along with the need to continuously
engage at various international fora, for
developing a legally binding interna-
tional instrument to protect traditional
knowledge. The lack of an internationally
binding legal instrument for traditional
vol lIII no 41
PERSPECTIVES
knowledge is perceived to be the main
reason for inadequate protection, in the
absence of which national action to pro-
tect traditional knowledge is considera-
bly watered down.
At the same time, the case for building
capacity of the traditional knowledge
holders to protect and derive economic
gain from their traditional knowledge,
through their participation in the preva-
lent regime cannot be overemphasised.
As WIPO (2006) observes, the protection
provided should directly reflect the actual
aspirations, expectations and needs of
the traditional knowledge holders. How-
ever, it is easier said than done. The non-
inclusion of traditional knowledge holders
in the process of agenda setting and de-
cision-making at the international, na-
tional and local levels and the lack of
their practical capacity is one key reason
for the non-effectiveness of existing or
envisaged legal provisions (Sarma and
Barpujari 2012). This is also perhaps the
reason for adopting a “protectionist” ap-
proach by the state (as in India), where the
state decides how benefits are to be dis-
bursed: ploughed into a benefit-sharing
fund, to be used for the benefit of com-
munities who need it the most.
This, thus, necessitates sizeable invest-
ments by the state in the direction of
capacity building. It is pertinent that the
discourse on traditional knowledge and
IPR should be placed in the local social
and economic context in which the
communities are living (Strathern 2000)
and protection mechanisms built from
the bottom up. Biocultural protocols, as
envisaged by the Nagoya Protocol, aspire
to the same. Unfortunately, the Guide-
lines on Access to Biological Resources
and Associated Knowledge and Benefit
Sharing Regulations, 2014, which were
brought out as secondary legislation
under the Biological Diversity Act to
give effect to the requirements of the
Nagoya Protocol, fail to incorporate the
same, a situation which needs to be
urgently rectified.
Finally, while concerns about the im-
position of alien values over traditional
knowledge and its commoditisation re-
main, the need of the hour is to create an
enabling environment for traditional
knowledge holders and ILCs to participate
33
PERSPECTIVES
in the neo-liberal order on equal terms
and benefit from it too. The challenge for
policymaking, as Vermeylen (2008: 224)
succinctly puts it, is “whether it is possi-
ble for traditional knowledge to be com-
modified and become valuable to the
larger world without posing a threat to
the social structures that sustain this
knowledge and the livelihoods of indig-
enous people who depend on it.” The
language of the National IPR Policy seems
responsive to this challenge: while ex-
pressly stating that creating awareness
about IPRs as “a marketable financial
asset and economic tool” is its raison
d’être, care would be taken to ensure
that “the integrity of the said knowledge
is preserved and traditional ways of life
of communities are not compromised”
(Clause 2.21).
References
Appadurai, Arjun (1986): “Introduction: Commodi-
ties and the Politics of Value,” The Social Life of
Things: Commodities in Cultural Perspective,
Arjun Appadurai (ed), Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press, pp 3–63.
Castree, Noel (2010): “Neoliberalism and the Bio-
physical Environment: A Synthesis and Evalua-
tion of the Research,” Environment and Society:
Advances in Research, Vol 1, No 1, pp 5–45.
CBD (2006): “International Regime on Access and
Benefit Sharing,” Montreal: Convention on Bio-
logical Diversity, https://www.cbd.int/abs/in-
fokit/brochure-en.pdf.
— (2007): “Development of Elements of Sui Generis
Systems for the Protection of Traditional
Knowledge, Innovations and Practices to Iden-
tify Priority Elements,” Montreal: Convention on
Biological Diversity, https://www.cbd.int/doc/
meetings/tk/wg8j-05/official/wg8j-05-06-en.
pdf.
Commission on Intellectual Property Rights (2002):
Integrating Intellectual Property Rights and
Development Policy, London.
Department of Industrial Policy and Promotion
(2016): “National IPR Policy,” New Delhi:
Government Press, http://dipp.nic.in/policies-
rules-and-acts/policies/national-ipr-policy.
Kopytoff, Igor (1986): “The Cultural Biography of
Things: Commoditization as Process,” The
Social Life of Things: Commodities in Cultural
Perspective, Arjun Appadurai (ed), Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press, pp 64–91.
Lemke, Thomas (2001): “The Birth of Bio-politics:
Michel Foucault’s Lecture at the Collẻge de France
on Neo-liberal Governmentality,” Economy and
Society, Vol 30, No 2, pp 190–207.
Nanda, Nitya, Indrani Barpujari and Nidhi Srivastava
(2013): “The Protection of Geographical Indica-
tions in India: Issues and Challenges,” Briefing
Paper, New Delhi: TERI.
Polanyi, Karl (2001): The Great Transformation:
The Political and Economic Origins of Our Times,
2nd ed, Boston: Beacon Press.
Rangnekar, Dwijen (2003): “Geographical Indica-
tions: A Review of Proposals at the TRIPS
Council,” International Centre for Trade and
Sustainable Development and United Nations
Conference on Trade and Development, Geneva,
34
http://unctad.org/en/PublicationsLibrary/ic- http://www.wipo.int/edocs/mdocs/tk/en/
tsd2003ipd4_en.pdf. wipo_grtkf_ic_3/wipo_grtkf_ic_3_8.pdf.
Robertson, Morgan M (2004): “The Neoliberaliza- — (2006): “The Protection of Traditional Know-
tion of Ecosystem Services: Wetland Mitigation ledge: Revised Outline of Policy Options and
Banking and Problems in Environmental Gov- Legal Mechanisms,” World Intellectual Property
ernance,” Geoforum, Vol 35, No 3, pp 361–73. Organization, Geneva, www.wipo.int/edocs/
Sarma, Ujjal Kumar and Indrani Barpujari (2012): mdocs/tk/en/wipo_grtkf_ic_9/wipo_grtkf_
“Revisiting the Debate on Intellectual Property ic_9_5.pdf.
Rights and Traditional Knowledge of Biodiver- — (2008): “The Protection of Traditional Know-
sity: Accommodating Local Realities and Per- ledge: Draft Gap Analysis: Revision,” World
spectives,” The International Indigenous Policy Intellectual Property Organization, Geneva,
Journal, Vol 3, No 4, https://ir.lib.uwo.ca/cgi/ www.wipo.int/edocs/mdocs/tk/en/wipo_
viewcontent.cgi?article=1090&context=iipj. grtkf_ic.../wipo_grtkf_ic_13_5_b_rev.doc.
Strathern, Marilyn (2000): “Multiple Perspectives — (2009): “PCT Minimum Documentation: Indian
on Intellectual Property,” Protection of Intel- Traditional Knowledge Digital Library,” World
lectual, Biological and Cultural Property in Intellectual Property Organization, Geneva,
Papua New Guinea, Kathy Whimp and Mark http://www.wipo.int/meetings/en/doc_details.
Busse (eds), Canberra: Asia Pacific Press, jsp?doc_id=325276.
pp 47–61. — (2015): “PCT Minimum Documentation: Indian
TERI (2013): Devising a Legal Regime for Protecting Traditional Knowledge Digital Library,” docu-
Traditional Knowledge (TK) of Medicinal Plants ment presented at the Meeting of International
in India, The Energy and Resources Institute, Authorities under the Patent Cooperation Treaty,
New Delhi. Tokyo, Japan, 4–6 February, www.wipo.int/
TRIPS Secretariat (2002): “The Protection of Tradi- edocs/mdocs/pct/en/pct_mia_22/pct_mia_22_8.
tional Knowledge and Folklore: Summary of pdf.
Issues Raised and Points Made,” World Trade Or- WTO (2003): “The Relationship between the TRIPS
ganization, Geneva, https://www.wto.org/eng- Agreement and the Convention on Biological
lish/tratop_e/trips_e/ta_docs_e/W370.pdf. Diversity and the Protection of Traditional
Vermeylen, Saskia (2005): “Intellectual Property Knowledge,” World Trade Organization, Geneva,
Rights and Indigenous Peoples: A Case Study of commerce.nic.in/trade/wtopdfs/ip-c-w-403.pdf.
the San in Southern Africa,” Working Paper — (2008): “Draft Modalities for TRIPS Related
07/05, Centre for Environmental Strategy, Uni- Issues,” World Trade Organization, Geneva,
versity of Surrey, Guildford, United Kingdom. https://www.iatp.org/documents/draft-mo-
— (2008): “From Life Force to Slimming Aid: dalities-for-trips-related-issues.
Exploring Views on the Commodification of — (2011): “Draft Decision to Enhance Mutual
Traditional Medicinal Knowledge,” Applied Supportiveness between the TRIPS Agreement
Geography, Vol 28, No 3, pp 224–35. and the Convention on Biological Diversity,”
WIPO (2002): “Elements of A Sui Generis System World Trade Organization, Geneva, https://www.
for the Protection of Traditional Knowledge,” wto.org/english/tratop_e/trips_e/ta_docs_e/4_
World Intellectual Property Organization, Geneva, tncw59_e.pdf.
Journal Rank of EPW
Economic & Political Weekly is indexed on Scopus, “the largest abstract and citation
database of peer-reviewed literature,” which is prepared by Elsevier N V (bit.ly/2dxMFOh).
Scopus has indexed research papers that have been published in EPW from 2008 onwards.
The Scopus database journal ranks country-wise and journal-wise. It provides three broad sets
of rankings: (i) Number of Citations, (ii) H-Index, and (iii) Scimago Journal and Country Rank.
Presented below are EPW’s ranks in 2015 in India, Asia and globally, according to the total cites
(3 years) indicator.
● Highest among 37 Indian social science journals and second highest among 187 social
science journals ranked in Asia.
● Highest among 38 journals in the category, “Economics, Econometrics, and Finance” in the
Asia region, and 37th among 881 journals globally.
● Highest among 23 journals in the category, “Sociology and Political Science” in the Asia
region, and 17th among 951 journals globally.
● Between 2009 and 2015, EPW’s citations in three categories (“Economics, Econometrics,
and Finance;” “Political Science and International Relations;” and “Sociology and Political
Science”) were always in the second quartile of all citations recorded globally in the Scopus
database.
For a summary of statistics on EPW on Scopus, including of the other journal rank indicators
please see (bit.ly/2dDDZmG).
EPW consults referees from a database of 200+ academicians in different fields of the social
sciences on papers that are published in the Special Article and Notes sections.
OCTOBER 13, 2018 vol lIII no 41 EPW Economic & Political Weekly