The traditional knowledge movement in the Pacific Island countries: the challenge of localism

Abstract

This paper explores the challenge of respecting the local nature of traditional knowledge in two Pacific islands regional initiatives. It argues that the embedded nature of traditional knowledge within the social fabric of Pacific island communities necessitates an approach to regulation that respects existing customary laws and institutions, and contrasts this with the prevailing state-centred approaches. It also unpacks the different agendas behind the ambiguous term "protection' and demonstrates the potential for misunderstandings amongst different stakeholders involved in this field. The paper finally identifies a number of negative consequences that could eventuate if a homogenized, state-based approach is adopted in this area, arguing that care must be taken to ensure that the regulatory framework chosen does not destroy more than it protects.

Making Room for Magic in Intellectual Property Policy

“…Very similar assumptions are often made about customary law, as demonstrated by a continuous string of failed attempts since colonial times to codify customary norms (Engle Merry 1991:867). However, as I have argued elsewhere, both customary norms and traditional knowledge are deeply embedded within their social and cultural context (Forsyth 2011). Although indeed one particular item of knowledge can be separated and treated as an object, this would ignore the processes that led to its production in the first place, the continuation of which is far more important than ensuring the preservation of particular items of knowledge at a particular moment in time.…”

“…This attention has been occasioned over the last decade by a range of concerns, including bio-prospecting, misappropriation, ensuring equity in the global intellectual property regime, the possibilities of traditional knowledge and local or grassroots innovation for development in the global South and amongst indigenous communities, and finally as part of claims of indigenous communities across the globe for recognition of their human rights and rights to their cultural heritage. Whilst there is a good deal of variation in the approaches of these different regulatory regimes, most of them focus on drafting new legislation, centralising the state as the regulator of traditional knowledge and creating exclusive property rights in traditional knowledge that are vested in communities or groups (see Forsyth 2011Forsyth , 2012Forsyth , 2013a. In general, the international treaties and legislation actually in force or in development deal with traditional knowledge by conceptualising it as another subject-matter for the global intellectual property regime to regulate.…”

Māori Traditional Knowledge and New Zealand Patent Law: The 2013 Act and the Dawn of a New Era?

“…There are success stories, but the chances of success are low (Drahos, , p. 245; Dutfield, , pp. 504–5; Forsyth, , p. 279). This is especially given that most pharmaceutical companies have a “blockbuster” business model, whereby each firm receives most of its profits from only a few very successful drugs, within which the chances of an indigenous group “striking it lucky” are low (Drahos, , pp.…”

Regulatory Theory

“…The Act envisages that the Are Korero will be re-invigorated and that the relevant paramount chiefs will decide who constitutes the Are Korero for their particular island or area. This provision for making determinations about rights over traditional knowledge at local levels is a major improvement on previous frameworks that give such decisionmaking power to state or regional authorities (see Forsyth 2011Forsyth , 2012a.…”