Mr Chairman, sisters and brothers,

Since we are here to discuss intellectual property, I suggest that the key UN body must be WIPO, the World Intellectual Property Organisation. WIPO has produced many excellent reports on traditional knowledge and has said it will continue its Committee on Traditional Knowledge and Folklore with a view to strengthening protection...

UNITED NATIONS WORKING GROUP ON INDIGENOUS PEOPLES 23RD SESSION

INDIGENOUS PEOPLES AND THE INTERNATIONAL AND NATIONAL PROTECTION OF TRADITIONAL KNOWLEDGE

18TH TO 22ND JULY 2005
GENEVA
SWITZERLAND

Continued:

First let me say that I will use the term “intellectual property.” I do this with great respect for this meeting and our title as well as great respect for WIPO and its committee. But, in Guyana we believe that Amerindian knowledge is also dynamic, innovative and evolving and the term “traditional” does not reflect this. I believe that Amerindian knowledge equally deserves to be recognised and protected as the product of human intellect and ingenuity.

WIPO’s stated objective for this century is to promote effective protection and use of intellectual property. We ignore this at our peril. WIPO also provides the Conference of the Parties on the Convention on Biological Diversity with advice and analysis. All this makes WIPO a key player.

Indigenous peoples have spoken loud and clear against biopiracy and the offensive use of cultural property. With great respect for this meeting I suggest that we do not need any more statements and declarations. We need immediate action to protect the intellectual property of indigenous peoples.

We all know that the Agreement on Trade Related Intellectual Property Rights sets minimum standards for national intellectual property systems, yet this treaty does not once mention indigenous peoples. And there is no forum for indigenous peoples to engage with the World Trade Organisation on this issue.

But intellectual property systems are foremost national, not international systems and WIPO is well placed to provide expert advise on this matter. There has to be engagement with national intellectual property rights (IPR) systems because this is where changes are urgently needed. And this is why a body such as WIPO is so important. WIPO possesses tremendous expertise which we can all benefit from. It also offers advice to national governments which is an important factor for this group to consider.

It is not possible in the time available to give you a complete list of what needs to be done but I ask this meeting to consider engagement with WIPO to get the following changes to national IPR systems:

1. National IPR systems should require every applicant for a patent to disclose where he got the information from and how he has used it. This will enable national patent offices to check for evidence of prior art and will reduce the scope for intentional and unintentional biopiracy.

2. National IPR systems should accept oral evidence of prior art. Much indigenous knowledge is oral and this should be respected. Indigenous peoples should not be forced to put their knowledge into databases. Again WIPO has produced very important analyses of this issue. I have here a special plea to my brothers and sisters from the United States. Your country has a tremendous record of science and innovation. But the current IPR system discriminates against indigenous peoples in the rest of the world by not allowing oral evidence of prior art from outside the USA. I would beg you to lobby your Government to change the IPR system to allow foreign oral evidence. This single action by you would immediately increase the practical level of protection for indigenous intellectual property and would reduce the risk of biopiracy. And incidentally, the EU, which also has a strong biotech industry, may be a useful model.

3. National IPR systems should require every applicant for IPRs to provide evidence of Free Prior Informed Consent from the communal knowledge holder. WIPO has already considered this matter. All I would add is that Free Prior Informed Consent must be obtained in accordance with the substantive and procedural legal requirements I outlined in an earlier intervention. National systems must also acknowledge specifically that indigenous communities have the right to refuse their consent and to refuse to begin negotiations if they so choose

My sisters and brothers, I conclude that it is imperative to increase involvement and engagement with WIPO.

Time does not allow me to say more. I am honoured to have addressed you and I thank you all for your kind attention.
Note: STATEMENT BY MELINDA JANKI - INTERNATIONAL LAWYER & DELEGATE