Genetic Resources & TK

Statement, October 2016

South Centre Statement to the WIPO Assemblies 2016

The statement highlights that the greatest challenge for developing countries and LDCs in the area of intellectual property (IP) is the proliferation of regional and bilateral trade and investment agreements that impose IP obligations, together with the coercive external political and economic pressure to restrain from making use of the flexibilities in the IP system.

(more…)

Book by the South Centre, 2011

Food Security and Access and Benefit-Sharing for Genetic Resources for Food and Agriculture

 

eg1-Food-Security-and-ABS-book12-130x190

About the book: A study prepared for the UN FAO (Food and Agriculture Organisation) on whether, and how, national and regional laws, guidelines and other arrangements on access to genetic resources and benefit-sharing (ABS) may impact upon agriculture and food security.

Authors: Gurdial Singh Nijar, Gan Pei Fern, Lee Yin Harn and Chan Hui Yun

Go to the online bookshop

 

 

Save

Save

Save

Save

Save

Save

Save

Save

Save

Save

Statement, 17 March 2016

South Centre intervention to the UPOV Consultative Committee on the issue of interrelations with the FAO ITPGRFA

The South Centre participates as an observer in the ongoing process for the “identification of possible areas of interrelations between the FAO ITPGRFA, especially its Article 9 on Farmers’ Rights, and relevant instruments of UPOV and WIPO.” It seeks to promote an outcome that (more…)

IP Negotiations Monitor 16, January 2016

The IP Negotiations Monitor summarizes the latest developments in multilateral and regional fora where intellectual property negotiations are taking place, and informs on upcoming meetings and events.

(Covering period: October-December 2015) (more…)

Policy Brief 22, September 2015

The WIPO Negotiations on IP, Genetic Resources and Traditional Knowledge: Can It Deliver?   

There has been much expectation on what the Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO) can deliver on intellectual property aspects of the protection of genetic resources (GRs), traditional knowledge (TK) and related traditional cultural expressions (TCEs). Results from fourteen years of extensive study, analysis and discussion have been distilled into three negotiating texts. But in July 2014, negotiations suffered a reversal. (more…)

Policy Brief 18, May 2015

The Nagoya Protocol: Main Characteristics, Challenges and Opportunities

The Nagoya Protocol on Access to Genetic Resources and the Fair and Equitable Sharing of Benefits Arising from their Utilization to the Convention on Biological Diversity entered into force in October 2014. Its provisions clearly reflect the need for countries to set up access and benefit sharing rules and procedures for the Protocol’s implementation at the national level. (more…)

Policy Brief 17, March 2015

Towards a More Coherent International Legal System on Farmers’ Rights: The Relationship of the FAO ITPGRFA, UPOV and WIPO

This Policy Brief outlines some key areas of interrelation among the International Treaty on Plant Genetic Resources for Food and Agriculture (ITPGRFA), the International Union for the Protection of New Varieties of Plants (UPOV) and the World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO). (more…)

Statement, 13-17 October 2014

South Centre Statement on Coming into Force of Nagoya Protocol

The following is a Statement by the South Centre on the coming into force of the Nagoya Protocol on Access to Genetic Resources and the Fair and Equitable Sharing of Benefits Arising from their Utilization. (more…)

Policy Brief 4, April 2011

The Nagoya ABS Protocol and Pathogens. 

Pathogens are clearly within the scope of the Nagoya Protocol (NP). Preamble 16 of the NP makes clear that pathogens are within the scope of the NP. Further the preamble does not exclude the application of the benefit sharing provisions of the NP. (more…)

Research Paper 36, March 2011

The Nagoya Protocol on Access and Benefit Sharing of Genetic Resources: Analysis and Implementation Options for Developing Countries.

As is common knowledge, the Nagoya Protocol was rushed through in the final hours of COP10 in an attempt to secure a binding instrument on ABS. As a result the Protocol represents, at best, a partially negotiated instrument. In the process, transparency, legal certainty and balance seem to have been sacrificed. (more…)

Policy Brief 11, September 2007

Mandatory Disclosure of the Source and Origin of Biological Resources and Associated Traditional Knowledge under the TRIPS Agreement.

The discussion on TRIPS and CBD in the WTO demonstrates the growing convergence on content, scope, relevance and effectiveness of an international mandatory obligation on disclosure of source and country providing biological resources and traditional knowledge. (more…)

Book by the South Centre, 2002

Protection and Promotion of Traditional Medicine – Implications for Public Health in Developing Countries

Traditional medicine (TRM) includes knowledge and practices either codified in writing or transmitted orally. TRM serves the health needs of the vast majority of people in developing countries, where access to “modern” health care services and medicine is limited by economic and cultural factors. TRM is broadly used in such countries, often being the only affordable treatment available to poor people and those in remote communities. In a context of persisting poverty and marginalization and, in particular, in view of the high prices generally charged for patented medicines, the relevance of TRM in developing countries may, in the future, increase. TRM has been recognized in western science as a valuable source of products and treatments for health care. It often provides leads for the development and commercialization of new pharmaceutical products. However, western intellectual property systems have regarded TRM, as well as other components of traditional knowledge (TK), as information in the “public domain”, freely available for use by anybody. This has meant that TRM and other traditional knowledge has been exploited in Western contexts without any recognition, moral or economic, to those who originated or held the relevant knowledge. Further, diverse components of TRM have been appropriated under intellectual property rights (IPRs) by researchers and commercial enterprises, without any compensation to the knowledge’s creators or holders. While all these forms of ‘protection’ are important, this paper focuses on issues relating to protection of TRM in the context of IPRs, both as a defensive and offensive strategy. Its main purpose is to try to clarify the extent to which IPRs may be used in relation to TRM, and what the implications of such use may be for public health.

Protection and Promotion of Traditional Medicine – Implications for Public Health in Developing Countries


0

Your Cart