Suchergebnisse

AbstractThe experience of the indigenous communities regarding access and benefit sharing under the national regimes based on provisions of Convention on Biological Diversity and Bonn Guidelines has not been satisfactory. The communities expect that noncommercial values should be respected and misappropriation should be prevented. Some academics and civil society groups have suggested that traditional knowledge commons and biocultural protocols will be useful in ensuring that while noncommercial values are respected, access and benefit sharing takes place on conditions that are acceptable to the communities. This proposal is examined in this context in the larger context of access and benefit sharing under the Convention on Biological Diversity and implementing prior informed consent principles in access and benefit sharing. This article examines knowledge commons, provides examples from constructed commons in different sectors and situates traditional knowledge commons in the context of debates on commons and public domain. The major shortcomings of traditional commons and bicultural protocol are pointed out, and it is suggested that these are significant initiatives that can be combined with the Nagoya Protocol to fulfill the expectations of indigenous communities.

For many years seeds and plant varieties were beyond the purview of intellectual property rights. But since the 1930s intellectual property rights have covered them. Till the advent of trade‐related intellectual property rights under the World Trade Organisation, nations had no obligation to extend intellectual property rights to them, unless they were members of the International Union for the Protection of New Varieties of Plants. Apart from provisions of trade‐related aspects of intellectual property rights, changes in laws, technological advances, and judicial interpretations of laws have resulted in the strengthening of the rights of patent holders and breeders, while farmers' rights have been diminished or effectively nullified. This has other implications like restriction on the researchers' freedom to invent and innovate and for North–South trade in seeds and grains, particularly in GM crops such as soya. In this article, open source is suggested as a solution and a BioLinux model is put forth as an alternative. While it is not claimed that open source will be a panacea, this article highlights some of the possibilities that are opened up by open source. It also suggests that open source will be very useful in finding a solution to anti‐commons problems while promoting innovations.

For many years seeds and plant varieties were beyond the purview of intellectual property rights. But since the 1930s intellectual property rights have covered them. Till the advent of trade-related intellectual property rights under the World Trade Organisation, nations had no obligation to extend intellectual property rights to them, unless they were members of the International Union for the Protection of New Varieties of Plants. Apart from provisions of trade-related aspects of intellectual property rights, changes in laws, technological advances, and judicial interpretations of laws have resulted in the strengthening of the rights of patent holders and breeders, while farmers' rights have been diminished or effectively nullified. This has other implications like restriction on the researchers' freedom to invent and innovate and for North-South trade in seeds and grains, particularly in GM crops such as soya. In this article, open source is suggested as a solution and a BioLinux model is put forth as an alternative. While it is not claimed that open source will be a panacea, this article highlights some of the possibilities that are opened up by open source. It also suggests that open source will be very useful in finding a solution to anti-commons problems while promoting innovations. Adapted from the source document.

Section I: Introduction -- Chapter 1. Cartagena Protocol, Socio-Economic Assessment and Literature Review of Socuio-Economic Assessment (SEA) Studies in India -- Chapter 2. International Experience in Socio-Economic Assessment -- Chapter 3. Cost-Benefit Analysis. Chapter 4. Sociological Aspects -- Section II: Case Studies -- Chapter 5. Socioeconomic Assessment of LMOs: Insights from Punjab and Haryana -- Chapter 6. Socioeconomic Assessment of LMOs: A case of Insect Resistance and Herbicide Tolerance in Maize and Brinjal in Tamil Nadu -- Chapter 7. Socio Economic Assessment of Potential LMO Adopters in Gujarat -- Chapter 8. Socio-Economic Assessment of Living Modified Organisms (LMOs) -- Chapter 9. Adoption and impact of brinjal and maize LMOs in Telangana -- Chapter 10. Socio-Economic Assessment of Aerobic Rice and Bt Cotton in Karnataka -- Section III: Conclusion -- Chapter 11. Framework for Socio-Economic Assessment -- Chapter 12. Guidelines for Socio-Economic Assessment -- Chapter 13. A Way Forward: New Trends in Technology and Relevance of Socio-Economic Assessment