The Protection of Indigenous Peoples’ Seed Rights during Ethnobotanical Research
Abstract
Recognition of the importance of biodiversity for global food security and the community food sustainability movement has helped increase awareness of seed rights. International treaties created to ensure the world’s access to seed biodiversity address access to seed banks for breeding purposes. Ethnobotanists are often required to deposit research plant specimens with government seed banks or herbariums. If Indigenous Peoples’ plants are then used developing patented varieties, are their rights recognized? These rights depend upon recognition of Indigenous Peoples as plant breeders, prior informed consent (PIC) protocols, access and benefit sharing (ABS) agreements via material transfer agreements, and benefits returned to Indigenous and local communities per the Nagoya Protocol. To ensure such rights to genetic material and associated intellectual property rights, documentation of these agreements and links to the people and communities from which they originated needs to occur at first collection and throughout subsequent research, conservation, and breeding programs.References
Bannister, K. 2008. Non-Legal Instruments for the Protection of Intangible Cultural Heritage: Key Roles for Ethical Codes and Community Protocols. In Protection of First Nations Cultural Heritage: Laws, Policy, and Reform, edited by C. Bell and R. K. Paterson, pp. 278–308. UBC Press, Vancouver, Canada.
Brush, S. B. 2005. Protecting Traditional Agricultural Knowledge. Washington University Journal of Law and Policy 17:59–109.
Bye, R. 1986. Voucher Specimens in Ethnobiological Studies and Publications. Journal of Ethnobiology 6:1–8.
Campbell, B. C., and J. R. Veteto. 2015. Free Seeds and Food Sovereignty: Anthropology and Grassroots Agrobiodiversity Conservation Strategies in the US South. Journal of Political Ecology 22:357–465.
CETAF. 2015. Standard Material Transfer Agreement (MTA1) for Provision of Material with No Change in Ownership. Available at: nagoyaprotocol.myspecies.info/node/3. Accessed on July 2, 2018.
Convention on Biological Diversity. 2010. The Nagoya Protocol on Access to Genetic Resources and the Fair and Equitable Sharing of Benefits Arising from their Utilization (ABS) to the Convention on Biological Diversity [web page]. Available at: https://www.cbd.int/abs/about/default.shtml/. Accessed on May 31, 2017.
Cuerrier, A., A. Downing, E. Patterson, and P. S. Haddad. 2012. Aboriginal Antidiabetic Plant Project with the James Bay Cree of Québec: An Insightful Collaboration. Journal of Enterprising Communities: People and Places in the Global Economy 6:251–270.
Drahos P., and S. Frankel. 2012. Indigenous People’s Innovation: Intellectual Property Pathways to Development. The Australian National University Press, Canberra, Australia.
Dutfield, G. 1999. Intellectual Property Rights, Trade and Biodiversity: The Case of Seeds and Plant Varieties. IUCN Project on the Convention on Biological Diversity and the International Trade Regime. IUCN, Gland, Switzerland. Available at: http://www.sristi.org/material/mdpipr2003/MDPIPR2003CD/M5%20Intellectual%20property%20rights.pdf. Accessed on May 31, 2017.
Dutfield, G. 2003. Protecting Traditional Knowledge and Folklore: A Review of Progress in Diplomacy and Policy Formulation. Intellectual Property Law: Articles on Cultural Expressions and Indigenous Knowledge. Intellectual Property Rights 4. Available at: http://www.iprsonline.org/resources/docs/Dutfield%20-%20Protecting%20TK%20and%20Folklore%20-%20Blue%201.pdf. Accessed on January 9, 2018.
Elvin-Lewis, M. 2006. Evolving Concepts Related to Achieving Benefit Sharing for Custodians of Traditional Knowledge. Ethnobotany Research and Applications 4:75–96. DOI:10.17348/era.4.0.75-96.
FAO. 2001. International Treaty on Plant Genetic Resources for Food and Agriculture [web page]. Available at: http://www.fao.org/plant-treaty/overview/en/. Accessed on May 31, 2017.
Fediuk, K., and H. V. Kuhnlein. 2003. Indigenous Peoples and Participatory Health Research [web page]. World Health Organization, Geneva, Switzerland. Available at: http://www.who.int/ethics/indigenous_peoples/en/index14.html. Accessed on May 31, 2017.
Garcia, J. 2007. Fighting Biopiracy: The Legislative Protection of Traditional Knowledge. Berkeley La Raza Law Journal 18. DOI:10.15779/Z38M378.
Gepts, P. 2004. Who Owns Biodiversity, and How Should the Owners Be Compensated? Plant Physiology 134:1295–1307. DOI:10.1104/pp.103.038885.
Halewood, M., E. Andrieux, L. Crisson, and J. R. Gapusi, J. Wasswa Mulumba, E. Kouablan Koffi, T. Yangzome Dorji, M. Raj Bhatta, and D. Balma. 2013. Implementing ‘Mutually Supportive’ Access and Benefit Sharing Mechanisms Under the Plant Treaty, Convention on Biological Diversity, and Nagoya Protocol. Law, Environment and Development Journal 9:68–96.
Hodgson, W. C. 2002. Voucher Specimens and Their Importance to Ethnobotanical Studies. Unpublished manuscript, Desert Botanical Garden Herbarium, Phoenix, AZ.
Kloppenburg, J. 2014. The Unexpected Outcome of the Open Source Seed Initiative's Licensing Debate [web page]. Available at: https://opensource.com/law/14/5/legal-issues-open-source-seed-initiative. Accessed on May 31, 2017.
Kotschi, J., and K. Rapf. 2016. Liberating Seeds with an Open Source Seed (OSS) License. Working Paper. AGRECOL. Guggenhausen [web page]. Available at: http://www.opensourceseeds.org/en/licence. Accessed on May 31, 2017.
La Via Campesina. 2012. The Bali Seed Declaration. Views, Experiences and Best Practices on the Implementation of Farmers’ Rights Submitted by Contracting Parties and Relevant Organizations. The International Treaty on Plant Genetic Resources for Food and Agriculture, FAO, Rome. Available at: http://www.fao.org/3/a-bb912e.pdf. Accessed on May 31, 2017.
La Via Campesina. 2016. Industry Benefits but does not Pay its Dues. Patents are an Assault on Genetic Resources [web page]. Available at: https://viacampesina.org/en/industry-benefits-but-does-not-pay-its-dues-patents-are-an-assault-on-genetic-resources/. Accessed on June 12, 2018.
Missouri Botanical Garden. 2010. Missouri Botanical Garden DNA Bank Material Transfer Agreement. Available at: http://www.missouribotanicalgarden.org/Portals/0/Science%20and%20Conservation/PDFs/WLBC/Material%20Transfer%20Agreement,%20DNA%20Bank,%202010,%20v2.pdf. Accessed on May 31, 2017.
Nazarea, V. D., R. E. Rhoades, and J. Andrews-Swann. 2013. Seeds of Resistance, Seeds of Hope: Place and Agency in the Conservation of Biodiversity. University of Arizona Press, Tucson, AZ.
Nabhan, G. P. 2016. Conservation You Can Taste: Heirloom Seed and Heritage Breed Recovery in North America. In Ethnobiology for the Future: Linking Cultural and Ecological Diversity, edited by G. P. Nabhan, pp. 184–196. University of Arizona Press, Tucson, AZ.
Native Seeds/SEARCH. 2015. Safe Seeds, Organic Practices, GMOs [web page]. Available at: https://shop.nativeseeds.org/pages/safe-seeds-organic-practices-gmos. Accessed on May 31, 2017.
Native Seeds/SEARCH. 2015a. Accession sheet/Accession intake form. Native Seeds/SEARCH, Tucson, AZ.
Oguamanam, C. 2011. Genetic Resources & Access and Benefit Sharing: Politics, Prospects and Opportunities for Canada after Nagoya. Journal of Environmental Law and Practice 22:87–124.
Posey, D. A. 1990. Intellectual Property Rights: What is the position of Ethnobiology? Journal of Ethnobiology 10:93–98.
Scott, K., and O. Receveur.1995. Ethics for Working with Communities of Indigenous Peoples. Canadian Journal of Physiology and Pharmacology 73:751–753. DOI:10.1139/y95-099.
Swiderska K., A. Argumedo, Y. Song, J. Li, R. Pant, H. Herrera, D. Mutta, P. Munyi, and S. Vedavathy. 2009. Protecting Community Rights over Traditional Knowledge: Implications of Customary Laws and Practices [web page]. Key Findings and Recommendations 2005-2009. Report number 1459IIED. International Institute for Environment and Development, London. Available at: http://pubs.iied.org/14591IIED/. Accessed on June 12, 2018.
Wilder, B. T., C. O’Meara, L. Monti, and G. P. Nabhan. 2016. Ethnoscience, the “Oldest Science”. In Ethnobiology for the Future: Linking Cultural and Ecological Diversity, edited by G. P. Nabhan, pp. 184–196. University of Arizona Press, Tucson, AZ.
Copyright (c) 2018 Letitia M. McCune
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License.
Authors who publish with this journal agree to the following terms:
- Authors retain ownership of the copyright for their content and grant Ethnobiology Letters (the “Journal”) and the Society of Ethnobiology right of first publication. Authors and the Journal agree that Ethnobiology Letters will publish the article under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International Public License (CC BY-NC 4.0), which permits others to use, distribute, and reproduce the work non-commercially, provided the work's authorship and initial publication in this journal are properly cited.
- Authors are able to enter into separate, additional contractual arrangements for the non-exclusive distribution of the journal's published version of the work (e.g., post it to an institutional repository or publish it in a book), with an acknowledgement of its initial publication in this journal.
For any reuse or redistribution of a work, users must make clear the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International Public License (CC BY-NC 4.0).
In publishing with Ethnobiology Letters corresponding authors certify that they are authorized by their co-authors to enter into these arrangements. They warrant, on behalf of themselves and their co-authors, that the content is original, has not been formally published, is not under consideration, and does not infringe any existing copyright or any other third party rights. They further warrant that the material contains no matter that is scandalous, obscene, libelous, or otherwise contrary to the law.
Corresponding authors will be given an opportunity to read and correct edited proofs, but if they fail to return such corrections by the date set by the editors, production and publication may proceed without the authors’ approval of the edited proofs.
