Populações tradicionais e a Convenção da Diversidade Biológica

Abstract

OS CONHECIMENTOS e o papel de populações tradicionais com relação a seus recursos genéticos são hoje reconhecidos na Convenção da Diversidade Biológica (CDB). O acordo TRIPS e a CDB estão levando o Brasil e muitos outros países signatários a mudarem sua legislação sobre direitos intelectuais e sobre o acesso a recursos genéticos e conhecimentos. Diante disso, colocam-se alternativas que são discutidas neste artigo. Deve-se estender o sistema de direitos de propriedade intelectual às populações tradicionais? Ou melhor, devem-se manter o seu saber no domínio público mas assegurando-lhes participação em eventuais benefícios comerciais derivados de seus conhecimentos? E qual a natureza desse saber local?<br>THE CONVENTION for Biological Diversity (CDB) has acknowledged the importance of traditional knowledge and stewardship of genetic ressources. The TRIPS agreement and the CBD are leading Brazil and other countries to change their legislation on intellectual rights and on access to genetic ressources and associated knowledge. Should one then extend the intellectual property system to cover local and indigenous knowledge? Or should one rather maintain it in the public domain and assure that local people participate in the possible benefits of commercial products derived from it? And then, what is the nature of local knowledge

Avanços nas pesquisas etnobotânicas no Brasil

“…A polêmica por trás desta afirmação está nas discrepâncias com relação à distribuição dos benefícios citados acima. Historicamente as partes beneficiadas concentram-se nos países mais ricos e desenvolvidos, os quais detêm a maioria das patentes de produtos da biotecnologia advindos de recursos naturais (por exemplo, medicamentos e sementes) e nos quais reside a maior parte da população que tem poder aquisitivo para acessar esses produtos (Cunha 1999). Já os países "em desenvolvimento", centros de diversidade biológica e cultural, tradicionalmente sempre foram explorados atuando como fornecedores de matéria-prima (recursos naturais e conhecimento tradicional associado) e permanecendo distantes dos produtos finais elaborados a partir desta matéria-prima (Cunha 1999;Hamilton et al 2003).…”

How are legal matters related to the access of traditional knowledge being considered in the scope of ethnobotany publications in Brazil?

“…Moreover, the current concern with conservation of biodiversity and social/ cultural diversity, ethics, protection, and acknowledgement of the rights of local communities, has been regarded with great importance worldwide. According to Hunn (2007), this period also characterizes a recent phase in the field of ethnobiology, which emphasizes the rights of indigenous peoples for the control of their own traditional knowledge and also contributes to the commoditization of such knowledge when the access and control of knowledge begin to be linked to commercial regulatory measures, such as patent laws (Cunha 1999;Alexiades 2003). In addition, during this period, different Brazilian and international authors emphasize the importance of discussing and revealing legal measures within publications in the area ( …”

“…Historically, many natural resources have been appropriated by developed countries without proper access request from, prior consent of, or benefit-sharing with countries and communities, which originally provided and detained such resources (MMA 2013). This reality was justified by the ease of facilitated access to genetic resources before the Convention of Biological Diversity (CBD) (Cunha 1999;MMA 2005;Andrade et al 2013;Ferreira & Sampaio 2013). In addition, within the realm of science, during the pre-CBD phase, interactions between researchers and the use of biodiversity was not regulated by specific norms regarding access to resources and associated traditional knowledge as well as potential political, economic, and social implications resulting from some studies (Albuquerque et al 2013).…”

“…In addition, within the realm of science, during the pre-CBD phase, interactions between researchers and the use of biodiversity was not regulated by specific norms regarding access to resources and associated traditional knowledge as well as potential political, economic, and social implications resulting from some studies (Albuquerque et al 2013). In contrast, intellectual property and patents have been regulated by international mechanisms, which are not often compatible with the free circulation of local knowledge (Cunha 1999).…”

“…According to Cunha (1999), strong resistance to the generalized privatization of resources (the principle of free access without restrictions) during the 1970s and beginning of 1980s was the reason for instituting such a regulatory body.…”