Knowledge Commons: Current Issues related to Natural Resources and Biodiversityfledgein.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/02/Knowledge... · 2019. 2. 27. · 4. India’s Preparedness for

Knowledge Commons: Current Issues related to

Natural Resources and Biodiversity

Shyama Kuriakose, Balakrishna Pisupa

Forum for Law,

Environment,

Development and

Governance

Citation: Shyama Kuriakose and Balakrishna Pisupati. 2019 Knowledge Commons: Current Issues

related to Natural Resources and Biodiversity. FLEDGE and FES, India.

© FES, 2019

Disclaimer: The views and opinions presented in the report are those of the authors and are not

that of Foundation for Ecological Security (FES).

Published by

Foundation for Ecological Security (FES), Anand, Gujarat and Forum for Law, Environment,

Development and Governance (FLEDGE), Chennai, Tamil Nadu

Knowledge Commons: Current Issues related to Natural

Resources and Biodiversity

Knowledge Commons: Current Issues related to Natural Resources and Biodiversity

Acknowledgements

1. Background- Environmental Data in the 21st Century 1

1.1. Objectives and Proposed Outcomes of this Study 2

2. Global Trends in Data Collection and Use 4

3. Benefits and Need for Open Access to Environmental/Ecological Data 7

4. India’s Preparedness for Open Access to Biodiversity Data- A Status Check 8

4.1.1. Status of Data collected under Biological Diversity Act, 2002- Conflicts therein 12

4.1.2. Other law and policy mandates on data collection for natural resource management 13

4.1.3. Significance of Traditional Knowledge Digital Library to Open Access 13

5. International Regime on Open Access to Environmental Information 16

5.1. Effect of CBD provisions on Access to Biodiversity Data 18

5.2. Best Practice Examples from Other Jurisdictions 20

5.2.1. New Biodiversity Law of Brazil 20

5.2.2. Costa Rican Biodiversity Law of 1998 21

5.2.3. Initiative of European Union in Habitat Protection 22

6. Case studies illustrating international experiences on Open Access to Biodiversity Information 25

6.1. Community Mapping in Belize 25

6.2. Community created database for Tanami region in Australia 26

6.3. A Pacific TK database on weather and climate events 26

6.4. Country-wide Biodiversity Assessment- South Africa 27

6.5. Database for Invasive Species- Ireland 27

6.6. Decisions from International Courts illustrating the need for free access to environmental/ecological information 28

6.6.1. Guerra v. Italy case 28

6.6.2. Taşkin and Others v. Turkey 28

6.6.3. Tatar v. Romania 29

6.6.4. Claude Reyes et al. v. Chile 29

6.6.5. Saramaka People v. Suriname 29

6.6.6. ClientEarth v. European Commission 30

7. Legal issues related to access to Information on Bio-resources and Implications for India 30

7.1. Nature and quality of data 30

7.2. Intellectual Property Rights and Moral Rights 31

7.3. Regulating Access to Traditional Knowledge 31

7.4. Tussle between corporates and academics 33

7.5. Misuse of Publicly Available Data 33

8. Policy-Practice Recommendations on Open Access to Biodiversity Data 34

9. Conclusions 37

Bibliography 38

Acknowledgements

The authors would like to thank Drs. Jorge Cabrera Medaglia from University

of Costa Rica and CISDL, Oommen V Oommen, former Chairman, Kerala

State Biodiversity Board, Padmavati C of Rajiv Gandhi School of IP Law,

IIT-Kharagpur, Mr. Frederick Perron-Welsch, CISDL and Mr. John Scott,

Secretariat to the Convention on Biological Diversity for their comments

and inputs on the working draft.

The authors would like to thank Mr. Jagdeesh Rao, Foundation for Ecological

Security (FES) for his interest and guidance on this topic and for providing

an opportunity to undertake the work under the aegis of FES.


1

Knowledge Commons

Current Issues related to Data on Natural Resources and

Biodiversity

1. Background- Environmental Data in the 21st Century

Access to information as a right has gained credence in several countries around the world since

the 1990s. That data is considered as the next ‘oil’ is no surprise, given its importance in all aspects

of governance. In fact, international human rights bodies such as the UN Human Rights Committee,

the European Court of Human Rights, the Inter-American Court of Human Rights and the European

Committee on Social Rights have off-late, accepted the existence of a right to information in certain

circumstances1. Latest instance of such recognition in international law is that of the Regional

Agreement on Access to Information, Public Participation and Justice in Environmental Matters,

also known as the ‘Escazú Agreement’ adopted in March, 2018 for Latin American and Caribbean

countries, with the aim of promoting transparency and greater democracy in issues of environmental

significance2 . Access to substantial, good quality and reliable data pertaining to natural resources is

all the more relevant in order to overcome the various environmental challenges facing the world.

With the advent of electronic age, collection of such data, its verification as well as curation and

dissemination are not a difficult enterprise.

Justification for such an access to environmental data in the 21st century can be found in the words of

Kenneth M. King, when he proposed the concept of the Electronic Superhighway Model or universal

access model3:

“Connect every scholar in the world to every other scholar and thus reduce the barriers to scholarly interaction

of space, time, and cultures.

1 Maeve McDonagh, The Right to Information in International Human Rights Law, 13:1, Human Rights Law Review. 25-55 (2013).2 Alicia Bárcena, ‘The Escazú Agreement: An Environmental Milestone for Latin America and the Caribbean, Economic Commission for Latin American and the Caribbean’, (October 12, 2018, 12:13 PM) https://www.cepal.org/en/articles/2018-escazu-agreement-environmental-milestone-latin-america-and-caribbean3 David J. Ives, Information Access in the 21st Century: Theory vs. Reality, MU Libraries, University of Missouri (July 15, 2018, 07:56 PM), http://web.simmons.edu/~chen/nit/NIT’93/93-173-ives.html

2

“Connect to the network all important information sources, specialized instruments, and computing resources

worth sharing.

Build databases that are collaboratively and dynamically maintained that contain all that is known on a

particular subject.

Create a knowledge management system on the network that will enable scholars to navigate through these

resources in a standard, intuitive, and consistent way.”

In this context, both developed and developing countries must take advantage of being knowledge

economies through their ability to collate and use the data they possess in various sectors, to

support sustainable development.

However, at present, there is significant confusion, lack of information and misinformation about

how one could catalogue, use, share and get benefits from the data and information it has, especially

in areas such as environment in general and ecosystems and biodiversity in particular. This is a

significant challenge to be addressed since using ecosystems and biodiversity related data and

information, with appropriate safeguards, would ensure local level development in a sustainable

manner. Key among current challenges is the confusion regarding the protection of biodiversity

knowledge and information and related legal and regulatory frameworks.

1.1. Objectives and Proposed Outcomes of this Study

Given the challenges in data management, there is, therefore, a need for undertake a comprehensive

legal assessment and survey of how to collect, catalogue and protect data and information, especially

on natural resources (read biodiversity) and associated knowledge (traditional or otherwise), so that

information and knowledge systems can form the basis for a sound socio-economic development.

Thus, through this study, there will be an attempt to assess the nature and trends of biodiversity

data and information sharing, globally and select few countries, and related legal provisions for

protection, use and sharing of benefits of use. The intellectual property (IP) rights regime, in India,

with specific reference to data regarding biological resources and associated TK is also discussed. The

study particularly focuses on the common misunderstandings and apprehensions about data and

information sharing under the Biological Diversity Act (BDA), 2002 and Patents Act, 1970. Important


3

case law and jurisprudence-based examples are provided to clarify the ways and means in which

data and information can be catalogued, shared and used. Finally, this paper provides options for

policy-practice recommendations on creating citizen-science based action plans where data and

information is generated for use by everyone rather than being locked up and accessible to select

few.

The report from the study will inform ongoing discussions on establishing open access to publicly

funded data concerning natural resource management with the help of legislative backing and aided

through private and public partnerships. This endeavour would contribute towards a more efficient

and democratic decision-making process.

Realising the potential of such a database and its benefits, several programs have been initiated

at the global level which contributed towards addressing environmental challenges. It would be

important to examine the contributions and implications of such programs.

Photo - PTI

4

2. Global Trends in Data Collection and Use

Some of the international and national programmes on data collection and use have been created

to ensure optimal and timely availability of data and information for decision making at various

levels. Governance of these programmes varies but the intent is to make data and information

freely available for use, management and action oriented programmes.

For instance, International Biological Program (IBP) represented one of the early multinational efforts

from 1964 to 1974 in understanding ecosystem patterns and processes. The Long-Term Ecological

Research (LTER) Network created by United States in 1980 which led further to setting up of the

International LTER (ILTER) Program in 1993, resulted in a network of several individual sites containing

environmental data. ILTER comprises of prominent countries from the Americas, the Eurasian region,

the African continent and the East-Asia Pacific region. Guidelines formed under ILTER clarified on

roles of data contributors and data users, long term data preservation and efficient data recovery.

Features such as time limits for making data available and other such details were left up to each

individual site. This program is ongoing and has contributed towards volumes of ecological data

covering 24 different ecosystems.4

Another example is the National Centre for Ecological Analysis and Synthesis (NCEAS) wherein

existing environmental information brought to the Centre was synthesized and led to the generation

of metadata management software, a Knowledge Network for Biocomplexity data repository and

numerous peer reviewed publications. In 2001, the Global Biodiversity Information Facility (GBIF),

an inter-governmental initiative was set up to provide free and open access to biodiversity data

internationally5 and currently hosts more than 650 million records of species occurrence.6 Each

national Participant has a designated node responsible for coordinating GBIF related in-country

activities. India is a party as well and its role is detailed further below. Latest initiatives by the US

National Science Foundation between 2015 and 2017 include the Ecological Observatory Network7

and the Ocean Observatories Initiative8 regarding data from terrestrial, freshwater, ocean and coastal

sites.9 4 William K.Michener, Ecological data sharing, Volume 29, Part 1, Ecological Informatics. (September 2015) (July 28, 2018, 07:14 AM), https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S15749541150010045 https://www.gbif.org/what-is-gbif6 https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5136667/7 http://neoninc.org8 http://www.oceanobservatories.org9 William K.Michener, Ecological data sharing, Volume 29, Part 1, Ecological Informatics. (September 2015) (July 28, 2018, 07:14 AM), https://www.


5

Some citizen-led or collective-based initiatives such as Map of Life, iNaturalist, iSpot, eBird,

Integrated Digitized Biocollections (iDigBio), invertnet, Encyclopaedia of life, Biodiversity Heritage

Library, Atlas of Living Australia among others, focus upon biodiversity literature or informatics on

species distribution, taxonomic knowledge, etc.

Some citizen-led or collective-based initiatives such as Map of Life, iNaturalist, iSpot, eBird,

Integrated Digitized Biocollections (iDigBio), invertnet, Encyclopaedia of life, Biodiversity Heritage

Library, Atlas of Living Australia among others, focus upon biodiversity literature or informatics on

species distribution, taxonomic knowledge, etc.10

At the regional level, the Shared Environmental Information System (SEIS) has been established

in 2008 to provide access to environmental information through collaboration between European

Commission, the European Environment Agency and 39 countries of the European Environment

Information and Observation Network (Eionet).11 SEIS is guided by principles such as easy and

ready access of information for all, enabled comparisons at appropriate geographical scales and

support through common, free and open software.12 Some of its applications include Copernicus

(monitoring services offering the potential of Earth observation data), INSPIRE (improving access

and standardising environmental data for better integration), ENI (extending SEIS to the European

neighbourhood), GEOSS (Global Earth Observation System of Systems) and UN-GGIM (providing

data and information for the UN Sustainable Development Goals).13

With respect to data on genetic information, there has been an initiative to create a pilot open access

project from the Texas Cancer Research Biobank, wherein cancer patients have willingly shared

genomic data on their illness which are freely available without requirement for data use agreements

except that end users cannot attempt to re-identify the participants.14 The Personal Genome Project

launched in the US in 2005 by Harvard Medical School, aims to sequence and publicize the complete

genomes and medical records of 100,000 volunteers from Canada, United Kingdom, Austria, Korea

and China, in order to enable research into personal genomics and personalized medicine.15 As sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S157495411500100410 https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5136667/11 https://www.eea.europa.eu/about-us/what/shared-environmental-information-system-112 EU Shared Environmental Information System Implementation Outlook, Commission Staff Working Document, European Commission, Brussels (2013) (July 28, 2018, 08:12 AM), http://ec.europa.eu/environment/archives/seis/pdf/seis_implementation_en.pdf13 https://www.eea.europa.eu/about-us/what/shared-environmental-information-system-114 Stacey Pereira, Richard A. Gibbs, et. al., ‘Open Access Data Sharing in Genomic Research’, (October 12, 2018, 12:20 PM) https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4198928/15 https://www.personalgenomes.org/

6

regards information on bio-chemical compounds, there are many initiatives afoot to document this

data in traditional medicinal chemistry journals. However, publication in traditional journals still does

not allow access through conventional computer search and retrieval process. In order to address

this limitation, publicly accessible databases such as BindingDB (University of Maryland), ChEMBL

(European Bioinformatics Institute) or PubChem (National Center for Biotechnology Information)

have also been established.16

From the above global examples on databases, it is clear that the data being collected so far include

meteorological data identifying current climate trends, regional temperature fluctuations and data on

different types of biomes and available biodiversity in an area ranging from microbes to larger fauna

and flora, genetic information, bio-chemical properties, among others. To an extent, community

knowledge on natural resource management is also being captured by few of the above initiatives.

It can be further observed that, efforts to collect, analyse, standardize and provide open access to

environmental/ecological data have been going on at the international and regional level for a long

time. However, it has been seen that several countries including India are yet to take advantage of

these efforts. In addition, such information available at the global level is being sparingly used to

fuel major scientific advancements in the arena of biotechnology and end user industries such as

pharmaceutical research organizations, food and healthcare industries, among others, especially in

the developing countries.

Specific initiatives to document traditional knowledge (TK) of indigenous communities on medicinal

plants, weather patterns, animal husbandry, agricultural practices, conservation practices and the

related are beginning to grow larger and significant. There are examples from the Pacific region

wherein the countries are preparing a TK database on climate and weather17 while countries like

India, China and others has come out with a TK Database Library including existing literature available

in the public domain relating to medicinal systems such as Ayurveda, Siddhi, Yoga and Unani18. More

would be discussed on these initiatives in the coming sections.

16 George Nicola, Tiqing Liu, et. al., ‘Public Domain Databases for Medicinal Chemistry’, (October 12, 2018, 12:30 PM) https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3427776/17 Lynda E. Chambers, Roan D. Plotz, et al., A database for traditional knowledge of weather and climate in the Pacific, Volume 24 , Issue 3, RMetS, (July 2017) (August 28, 2018, 11:00 am), https://rmets.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1002/met.164818 www.tkdl.res.in


7

While the potential of information to address environmental challenges such as climate led disasters,

rising pollution, biodiversity degradation, among others is immense, the same is not being done

owing to lack of free access, non-standard data collection methods and failure to disclose properly

the source of all this data.19

3. Benefits and Need for Open Access to Environmental/Ecological Data

The benefits that will accrue from such access are plenty. To begin with, open access to environmental/

ecological information has borne direct economic benefits to the countries which practice it. For

example, a very robust value-added private industry has developed in many developed countries

for both general and specialized weather forecasting products and services. From a societal

perspective, it can be seen that making such data freely available has benefitted both the individual

and collective including not for profit entities, impacting theirs as well as the government entities’

day-to-day decision making. There would also be an increased trust in national institutions and

potential for enabling local innovations with the help of open sources.20 With respect to knowledge

that traditionally belongs to communities, it has been observed that documenting the same would

certainly help with impeding further loss of natural resources and associated TK and make it available

for future reference. Provided that, there is prior informed consent from communities, documentation

of this knowledge would further support benefit (monetary or in kind) sharing between holders of

TK and those who use it, since it would be clear as to whom the knowledge belongs to.21

According to the United Nations Declaration on Human Rights (UNDHR), 1948, access to information

is a fundamental human right and making environmental data freely accessible is truly in public

interest. Any government policy in contradiction of the same is unethical and inequitable. Further

several national laws have mandated within their Constitutions that information regarding protection

of biodiversity and endangered species from extinction, maintenance of water and food security,

protection from epidemics, response to natural disasters and mitigation of all forms of environmental

degradation are made available to all concerned.22

19 William K.Michener, Ecological data sharing, Volume 29, Part 1, Ecological Informatics. (September 2015) (July 28, 2018, 07:14 AM), https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S157495411500100420 Group on Earth Observations, The Value of Open Data Sharing, (August 28, 2018, 12:05 PM) https://www.earthobservations.org/documents/dsp/20151130_the_value_of_open_data_sharing.pdf21http://www.wipo.int/edocs/pubdocs/en/wipo_pub_1049.pdf22 Ibid.

8

Given the scope of growing research and innovation opportunities, such an open and free

access would help in advancing our knowledge on critical environmental issues such as climate

change, biodiversity loss and resource scarcity, among others. Open access would democratize

environmental research with information being made available to researchers from developed as

well as developing countries. It will further contribute to efficiency, transparency and reproducibility

and reduce uncertainties and duplications.23

4. India’s Preparedness for Open Access to Biodiversity Data- A Status Check

As described in the previous sections, free access to such data comes with socio-economic

and environmental benefits. In a country like India, with a burgeoning population that is mostly

marginalized, several ecologically fragile areas and increased aspirational goals of its people, there

is a real challenge towards conserving the ecosystems.

India comprises of a wide array of natural habitats, biodiversity and natural resources and its people

have a long history of symbiotic relationship with nature, which can seriously contribute to nation

building. Furthermore, once recorded and made freely accessibly, this information can play a key

role, both in building community resilience to extreme climate events and as well as in developing

innovative solutions to the environmental and socio-economic challenges.

India has set several good examples of open access to bio-informatics in the developing world

through institutional and digital repositories by leading scientific research institutions. Thus, for

instance, there is a lot of data generated on temperature and rainfall levels and satellite- based

land cover data pertaining to India’s environment collected by the state agencies such as the India

Meteorological Department (IMD) and the Indian Space Research Organisation (ISRO).

Apart from these, there have been initiatives by the Ministry of Environment, Forests and Climate

Change (MoEF&CC) with Environmental Information System (ENVIS), Central Pollution Control

Board with its National Air Quality Monitoring Programme, Council of Scientific & Industrial

Research (CSIR) with traditional knowledge digital library (TKDL) and several efforts by government

research institutions such as Indian Agricultural Research Institute, National Bureau of Plant Genetic

23Eduardo Eiji Maeda & Juan Arévalo Torres, Open Environmental Data in Developing Countries: Who Benefits?, Vol. 41(4), Ambio. (2012) (July 15, 2018, 08:14 PM), https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3393066/


9

Resources, Forest Research Institute, Central Marine Fisheries Research Institute, among others.

The State Pollution Control Boards have developed databases on individual facilities, consents, and

inspection reports. A few states like Andhra Pradesh started using advanced tools like Management

Information System (MIS) and Geographic Information System (GIS) to capture complete information

on consents, authorizations, fee payments, inspections, violations and directives for corrective

actions, etc. through different modules.24

The Indian government is also an associate country participant in the GBIF which is an international

mechanism on biodiversity data, setup in 2003. GBIF’s membership consists of countries and

international organizations totalling up to 94 at present. GBIF India is coordinated through MoEF&CC

with the thematic nodes such as Wildlife Institute of India, National Biodiversity Authority,

Zoological Survey of India, Botanical Survey of India and Foundation for Revitalisation of Local

Health Traditions.25 Participation in GBIF has encouraged India to develop a National Biodiversity

Information Outlook that would help setup an Indian Biodiversity Information Facility (InBIF) in the

lines of the international facility.26 However, this Indian facility still remains to be born.

Independent and private research institutions are also generating good quality data on environment,

forests, wildlife and biodiversity. For instance, the Indian Biodiversity Information System developed

by the Foundation for Ecological Security brings together comprehensive information available on

Indian flora and fauna and access to external links to other dedicated databases and publications

in a readily accessible, free and user-friendly format on a common platform.27 Further, portals like

SeasonWatch and MigrantWatch help citizens and experts gather data on seasonality of trees

and migration of birds respectively. The Indian Medicinal Plants Database and Indian Bioresource

Information Network are some other examples.28

In spite of the existence of such a vast mine of information, there has been no concerted attempt

by Government of India to validate these databases and bring them all under one umbrella. While

24 https://www.oecd.org/env/outreach/37838061.pdf25 https://www.gbif.org/country/IN/participation26 http://pib.nic.in/newsite/PrintRelease.aspx?relid=10971127 http://indianbiodiversity.org/about-ibis/28 https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5136667/

10

these initiatives have organically evolved as a reflection of India’s growing scientific temper, there

is a real dearth of good quality information due to several reasons, ranging from failure to maintain

records by government institutions, patchy information on aspects such as biodiversity, TK and

groundwater, suppression and falsification of environmental data for vested interests, preventing

public participation in gathering information despite legal mandate and most importantly failure to

make information publicly available.29 It is clear that these efforts cannot be sustainable in the long

run without a strong law and policy backing.

Some of the existing law and policy measures are described and analysed in the below given sections.

4.1. Impact of National Data Sharing and Accessibility Policy on Open Access

Realising the scope that publicly generated data has on unleashing entrepreneurship, innovation

and scientific discovery, India came out with the National Data Sharing and Accessibility Policy

(NDSAP) in 2012 which would help govern public access to government owned shareable data. It

recognizes Principle 10 of the Rio Declaration, 199230 and Section 4 (2) of the Right to Information Act,

200531 in its Preamble. This is the most important policy as regards open access to environmental

data, as it lays down the contours of data proposed to be shared, benefits of such an arrangement,

types of access including open/registered/restricted and responsibilities of data owners including

the different government entities and the nodal authority for overseeing the implementation of

this policy i.e. the Department of Science and Technology.32 Pursuant to this policy, the data.gov.

in was launched helping India embark on its Open Government Data enterprise.33 An interesting

feature with the policy is that data will remain the property of the agency/department/ministry/

entity which collected them and they would be providing the necessary access. In addition, legal

framework of this policy will be aligned with various Acts and rules covering the data.34

29 https://scroll.in/article/801301/why-india-needs-a-wikipedia-like-website-on-environment30 “…each individual shall have appropriate access to information concerning the environment that is held by public authorities…. and the opportunity to participate in the decision making process. States shall facilitate and encourage public awareness and participation by making information widely available.”31 “It shall be a constant endeavour of every public authority to take steps in accordance with the requirements of clause (b) of sub-section (1) to provide as much information suo motu to the public at regular intervals through various means of communication, including internet, so that the public have minimum resort the uses of this Act to obtain information.”32 National Data Sharing and Accessibility Policy, 201233 http://www.ideasforindia.in/topics/governance/unleashing-the-full-potential-of-indias-open-government-data-initiative.html34 Section 10, National Data Sharing and Accessibility Policy, 2012


11

It should be pointed out that this policy has taken inspiration from ongoing efforts in other countries.

For instance, in USA data.gov was initiated as the national open data portal in May 2009 allowing

public access to high value, machine readable datasets. Thereafter, the open data portal of UK, data.

dov.uk was officially launched in 2010. An open access portal (data.overheid.nl) was introduced in

Netherlands in 2011 which consists of no actual data but a reference index leading to various sources

of government information. Likewise, similar efforts have been kickstarted in Kenya, Indonesia,

among other countries.35

In the meantime, there are also growing concerns on data protection with several countries coming

out with information privacy laws which prevent sharing of information provided by individuals unless

it is for a stated purpose and not without the consent of the information provider. Some examples

include Sweden’s Data Act, 1973, Switzerland’s Federal Data Protection Act, 1993, Canada’s Personal

Information Protection and Electronic Documents Act, 2001, Philippines’s Data Privacy Act, 2012

European Union’s General Data Protection Regulation, 2018, UK’s Data Protection Act, 2018, among

others. Following suit, even India has developed a framework on personal data protection through

the recommendations of Srikrishna Committee in 2018.36 Thus, in the process of implementing the

policy on national data sharing, these recommendations, best practices from other countries and

directions by the Supreme Court in Justice K. S. Puttaswamy (Retd.) and Anr. v. Union Of India And

Ors.,37 upholding right to privacy, must be given heed.

It will be important to highlight relevant provisions of the Biological Diversity Act, 2002 (BDA) and

Patents Act, 1970, in this respect.

35 Rininta Putri Nugroho, Anneke Zuiderwijk, et. al., ‘A comparison of national open data policies: lessons learned’, Transforming Government: People, Process and Policy, Vol. 9 Issue: 3, pp.286-308 (2015)36 Sindhuja Balaji, ‘India Finally Has A Data Privacy Framework -- What Does It Mean For Its Billion-Dollar Tech Industry?’, Aug 3, 2018, (October 12, 2018, 07:30 PM), https://www.forbes.com/sites/sindhujabalaji/2018/08/03/india-finally-has-a-data-privacy-framework-what-does-it-mean-for-its-billion-dollar-tech-industry/#56888c5670fe37 Writ Petition (Civil) No 494 of 2012, Supreme Court of India, 24th August 2017.

12

4.1.1. Status of Data collected under Biological Diversity Act, 2002- Conflicts therein

At present, the only legislation which directly relates to documentation of biological resources

and associated TK is the Biological Diversity Act (BDA) that provides for preparation of Peoples’

Biodiversity Registers (PBRs) by the Biodiversity Management Committees (BMCs) at the local area

level using registers and electronic databases.38 The format and process by which these PBRs shall

be made are provided through a set of guidelines prepared by the National Biodiversity Authority

(NBA) in 2012. Ever since the Act’s inception in 2002, a total of 6096 PBRs have been prepared across

the length and breadth of the country.39

The problem however with PBRs is that there is no explicit legal protection given to the information

recorded in the PBRs. Neither the local communities nor the SBB or the NBA have the procedure

laid down to deal with protection and confidentiality of data and information contained in the

PBRs. While some Sates in India have made very strict provisions to prepare only two hard copies

of the PBR – one to be retained by the BMC and other by the SBBs, some States have made PBRs

open access.40 This creates a conflict between the NDSAP and BDA since the former promotes open

access to government funded data while the latter is unclear about the access part.

In fact, the Patents Act, 1970 amended in 2005, includes a provision for declaration of the source for

the invention, especially if it is derived out of biological resources and related TK. The applicant must

cite the source and geographical origin from which such biological resources have been derived. The

Act stipulates that “an invention which, in effect, is traditional knowledge or which is an aggregation

or duplication of known properties of traditionally known component or components”, cannot be

patented. However, unless the information on documented biological resources and associated TK

is made freely accessible, it will be difficult for the innovators to proceed beyond the application

stage.

38 Section 41, BD Act39 http://nbaindia.org/content/105/30/1/pbr.html (accessed on 20 September 2018)40 Kuriakose S, Impact of Traditional Knowledge on Conservation and Sustainable Use of Medicinal and Aromatic Plants- An Overview, Environment and Society Journal (ELSJ), National University of Advanced Legal Studies, Kochi, 2014


13

4.1.2. Other law and policy mandates on data collection for natural resource management

Besides the above given examples, there are legal and policy mandates imposed on concerned line

departments along with village level institutions such as Gram Sabhas to collate data on available

forest, water, wildlife and all other natural resources. Some of these include the Working Plans for

forest divisions, Management Plans for national parks and wildlife sanctuaries, Micro Plans prepared

by Joint Forest Management Committees, Conservation and Management Plans to be prepared for

areas over which rights under Forest Rights Act have been granted and the Coastal Zone Management

Plans mandated under the Coastal Regulation Zone Notification, 2011 among others which help with

natural resource management. Currently while all of these initiatives are available within the public

domain, sourcing of the same by a stakeholder becomes difficult due to their scattered locations

and often, RTI applications are required to serve this purpose, which goes against the Preamble set

out in the NDSAP, referred to above.

4.1.3. Significance of Traditional Knowledge Digital Library to Open Access

TKDL is an ongoing initiative between the Department of Ayush, Ministry of Health and Family

Welfare and Council for Scientific and Industrial Research (CSIR), Ministry of Science and Technology

setup from 2001 onwards.41 It is an Indian digital knowledge repository which has collated and

translated existing literature on medicinal plants, minerals, animal resources, effects and diseases,

methods of preparation, mode of administration, etc., relating to medicinal systems such as

Ayurveda, Siddhi, Yoga and Unani in five prominent languages which are English, German, French,

Japanese and Spanish.42 It has been created as the first line of defence against international patent

applications based on TK available in India.

The World Intellectual Property Organization has appreciated India’s efforts at digitising TK in

adherence with the Intergovernmental Committee (IGC) of WIPO on Intellectual Property and

Genetic Resources, Traditional Knowledge and Expression of Folklore’s Technical Standards on TK

documentation.43 Several countries such as South Africa, Mongolia, Nigeria, Malaysia and Thailand

41http://www.prometheusip.com/blog/patents/traditional-knowledge-digital-library-tkdl-database-a-brief-overview-on-its-origin-and-its-crucial-role-behind-india-wedging-colgate-palmolive-patents-for-typically-consumed-spices42 http://tkdl.res.in/tkdl/langdefault/common/Abouttkdl.asp?GL=Eng43 http://tkdl.res.in/tkdl/langdefault/common/Impact.asp?GL=Eng

14

have expressed a desire to replicate TKDL. Currently CSIR has signed non-disclosure agreements

with nine international patent offices (European Patent Office, United State Patent & Trademark

Office, Japan Patent Office, United Kingdom Patent Office, Canadian Intellectual Property Office,

German Patent Office, Intellectual Property Australia, Indian Patent Office and Chile Patent Office)

for TKDL access.

It is said that this project has been very effective in reducing misappropriation of TK especially

medicinal knowledge with about 200 patent applications of the pharmaceutical companies of United

States, Great Britain, Spain, Italy, China etc. having either been set aside/ withdrawn/ amended,

based on the Prior art evidences present in the TKDL database.44

While this project has been lauded globally, there appears to be some challenges as well. Firstly, this

information is recorded from already existing literature and does not include knowledge possessed

by local communities on conservation practices or medicinal plants or weather patterns and several

other innovations unique to the communities based on their close and symbiotic relationship with

the nature. This valuable community knowledge is mostly oral in nature and may be lost forever

if not recorded. Secondly, there are no efforts to link the TKDL with PBRs prepared at the local

level. Actual benefits of bio-utilization or challenges against misappropriation cannot be addressed

without preserving the TK belonging to communities. Thirdly, TKDL by itself has no legal basis to

be a confidential database since there are no laws or policies which support confidentiality for the

same.45

The most significant challenge is to the TKDL’s access model which ensures that this entire database

bankrolled by public funds is available only to patent offices. Protection against non-novel patent

claims can only be met, if there is proper public dissemination of such a database accessible to

patent examiners as well as other interested parties.46 There was a suggestion put forth by the

National Knowledge Commission in 2007 to make the TKDL available to corporations and research

institutes for a fee however there is a problem with this approach as it will only lead to exclusion of

44 http://tkdl.res.in/tkdl/langdefault/common/Abouttkdl.asp?GL=Eng45 Ibid46 Swaraj Paul Barooah, ‘Guest Post: Questioning the Fallacy of a Closed-Access TKDL’, SpicyIP, January 5, 2015, (October 24, 2018, 11:42 AM), https://spicyip.com/2015/01/guest-post-questioning-the-fallacy-of-a-closed-access-tkdl.html#comment-98480


15

genuine practitioners and communities while allowing access by unscrupulous parties. Moreover, at

a time when there is increased impetus on open access to public funded data through the NDSAP,

installing a paywall is quite regressive.47

The entire rationale of the TKDL project which incurred huge costs, has also been criticized on the

basis that the database has not helped create new knowledge but only scan existing publications.48

The latest update is that there are no more funds committed to this project with only 60% of

digitization of traditional texts being completed.49 With the advent of the National Intellectual

Property Rights Policy, 2016, traditional knowledge is sought to be transformed into IP assets

that bring economic benefits and the scope of TKDL to be used in further R&D by public research

institutions and private sector is being explored.50 It is interesting to see how this policy objective

will be implemented in light of the defensive stance laid down through Patents Act, 1970 and TKDL

wherein any innovation using TK is considered to be non-patentable.

Thus, there is significant confusion and lack of clarity on how biodiversity related information and

data and associated traditional knowledge will be available for public. While the NDSAP provides for

free access to information and data , the BDA does not lay stipulations of any form but informally

supports strict confidentiality since access to information gathered in PBRs are still not publicly

available. However, the State Biodiversity Board in Tamil Nadu, India have decided to put the

information available in the PBRs prepared in Tamil Nadu publicly available.51 Now that the law

and policy regime prevalent in India has been highlighted, it would be pertinent to examine the

international framework on open access data especially with respect to environmental data.

47 Ibid.48 Prashant R. T., Sumathi C, ‘Why the Traditional Knowledge Digital Library’s Existence Deserves a Thorough Relook’, The Wire, April 4, 2017, (October 24, 2018, 11:37 AM), https://thewire.in/science/tkdl-csir-neem-patents49 Jacob Koshy, ‘Ancient knowledge hub faces grim future’, March 24, 2017, (October 24, 2018, 11:45 AM), https://www.thehindu.com/todays-paper/ancient-knowledge-hub-faces-grey-future/article17625761.ece50 Indrani B, Ujjal K. S., ‘Protection of Traditional Knowledge- Role of the National IPR Policy’, Economic and Political Weekly, Vol. 53, Issue No. 41, October 13, 2018, (October 24, 2018, 11:50 AM),51 https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/city/chennai/for-the-record-tamil-nadu-to-upload-biodiversity-register-online/articleshow/66258299.cms (accessed on 28 October 2018)

16

5. International Regime on Open Access to Environmental Information

International cooperation is a must for supporting scientific research towards conservation especially

in addressing complex issues such as climate change related disasters, global pandemics, food and

water security, among others. The need for scientific research to be free flowing was highlighted within

the Stockholm Declaration, 197252 . This requirement was also reiterated within the Rio Declaration,

1992 which indicated that states should cooperate through exchange of scientific and technological

knowledge and that related information should be made accessible to all stakeholders.53 In spite

of this impetus, apart from a few conventions such as the Antarctic Treaty, 1959, United Nations

Convention on the Law of the Seas, 1982, Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD), 199254 and

International Treaty on Plant Genetic Resources for Food and Agriculture (ITPGRFA), 2001,55 the

international legal framework have mainly focussed on research relating to commercial utilization

of natural resources and intellectual property rights (IPR) aspects with minimal attention provided

to easily accessible global databases on bio-informatics that have country support. In this respect,

the CBD and its connected instruments including the Clearing House Mechanism are the right steps

towards information exchange and more will be discussed on the same in the coming pages.

In the meantime, right to information which is a part and parcel of ‘free flow of information’ and justifies

the need for open access to environmental databases, has been given a lot of importance within all

major international treaties and conventions. It started with the United Nation’s General Assembly’s

First Session in 1946 wherein freedom of right to information was seen as a fundamental human

right. Thereafter, in International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, 1966, Article 19 guaranteed

freedom of right to expression to include freedom to receive information.56 The UN Declaration

of Human Rights (UNDHR), 1948 holds the same position.57 In 2000, the Special Rapporteur on

the Promotion and Protection of the Right to Freedom of Opinion and Expression laid down UN

Principles on the same58 which stipulated as follows:

52 Article 20, Stockholm Declaration.53 Principles 9 and 10, Rio Declaration.54 Article 14, CBD55 http://biogov.uclouvain.be/staff/dedeurwaerdere/chap_Global%20scientific%20research%20commons.pdf56 http://shodhganga.inflibnet.ac.in/bitstream/10603/200009/11/11_chapter%202.pdf57 http://shodhganga.inflibnet.ac.in/bitstream/10603/200009/11/11_chapter%202.pdf58 Article 19, UDHR.


17

- Maximum disclosure by public bodies

- Obligation to publish documents of significant public interest

- Promoting an open government

- Limited scope of restrictions to access information

- Processes to facilitate access through independent bodies

- Fees for access to be minimal

- Presumption of openness with all government meetings

- Precedence of disclosure over all other concerns

- Protection to Whistle-blowers from all kinds of sanctions

Other significant conventions such as the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change

(UNFCCC), 199259, Aarhus Convention, 1998,60 African Union’s Declaration of Principles on Freedom

of Expression in Africa, 2002, American Convention on Human Rights (ACHR), 1969,61 Arab Charter on

Human Rights, 2004,62 Escazú Agreement, 2018 (mentioned above) all give impetus to the right to

information. Even though the Aarhus Convention is a regional instrument for EU countries, It is now

open to accession by non- EU countries, subject to approval of the Meeting of the Parties63, and it

leads the way towards promoting access as a means to improve public participation in environmental

decision making and awareness on environmental issues64 Further, the United Nations Declaration

on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, 2007, upholds the right of tribal and local communities to give

their free, prior and informed consent65 on any proposed project/activity, only after being provided

all the information regarding the size, scope, duration, purpose and economic, cultural, spiritual or

environmental risks associated with such project/activity.66

It is now necessary to look into the aspects of CBD and the impact this Convention has on India’s

policy on open access to biodiversity database, the steps taken therein and the current challenges.

59 Article 6, UNFCCC.60 Convention on Access to Information, Public Participation in Decision-Making and Access to Justice in Environmental Matters signed by the United Nations Economic Commission for Europe (UNECE) and the European Union 61 Article 13 (1), ACHR62 Article 32 (1), Arab Charter on Human Rights, 200463 https://treaties.un.org/Pages/ViewDetails.aspx?src=IND&mtdsg_no=XXVII-13&chapter=27&clang=_en64 http://ec.europa.eu/environment/aarhus/index.htm65 Articles 10, 11, 19, 28, 29(2) and 32(2), UNDRIP.66 http://archive.ipu.org/PDF/publications/indigenous-en.pdf

18

5.1. Effect of CBD provisions on Access to Biodiversity Data

It would be ideal if credible data is available on issues of governance, management effectiveness,

species status and economic impacts of biodiversity loss, to further the goals of conservation and

development. To this end, the CBD promotes the need for exchange of information from all publicly

available sources.67 Further, it calls for allowing access to genetic resources and associated TK, only

if there is prior and informed consent of parties to whom the said resources belong.68 Informed

consent would naturally require availability of adequate data on the purpose of access and proposed

benefits to the concerned parties, to help them come to a proper decision. Apart from data on

biological resources, the Convention also requires exchange of information on related TK, provided

that this knowledge is preserved and respected.69

Progress made on implementation of Article 8 (j) of CBD primarily included the setting up of Ad

Hoc Open-ended Inter-sessional Working Group which was instrumental in coming out with the

Akwé: Kon Voluntary Guidelines,70 Tkarihwaié:ri Code of Ethical Conduct71 and adoption of the

Nagoya Protocol on Access to Genetic Resources and the Fair and Equitable Sharing of Benefits

Arising from their Utilization to the Convention on Biological Diversity, 2014.72 The Nagoya Protocol

(NP) helped set up the Clearing House Mechanism73 which has the essential role of providing web-

based information services to facilitate scientific and technical cooperation, knowledge sharing and

information exchange.74 Further, the Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety, 2003 was introduced as

an instrument to enable setting up of a Bio-Safety Clearing House which will enable Parties to

provide all information regarding movement of living modified organisms and associated risks, if

any.75 Another CBD development has been to bring out the updated Strategic Plan for Biodiversity,

including the Aichi Biodiversity Targets, for the 2011-2020 period. Within the Aichi Targets, Target 18

and 19 and particularly significant in this context, as they also talk about the need for respecting the

67 Article 17, CBD.68 Article 15 (5), CBD.69 Article 8 ( j), CBD.70 For the Conduct of Cultural, Environmental and Social Impact Assessments Regarding Developments Proposed to Take Place on, or which are Likely to Impact on, Sacred Sites and on Lands and Waters Traditionally Occupied or Used by Indigenous and Local Communities71 To Ensure Respect for the Cultural and Intellectual Heritage of Indigenous and Local Communities72 https://www.cbd.int/traditional/outcomes.shtml73 Article 14, NP read with Article 18, CBD.74 https://www.cbd.int/doc/meetings/chm/chmiac-2010-01/official/chmiac-2010-01-03-en.pdf75 Articles 20, 21 and 23, CP.


19

traditional knowledge of local communities as well as improving, widely sharing, transferring and

applying this knowledge for the cause of conservation. 76

As a signatory to the CBD, India is committed to developing a national clearing-house mechanism

to facilitate access to biodiversity information both nationally and globally, but this has not been

done effectively so far except for India becoming a participant in the GBIF, which has been explained

above. The ENVIS database that is currently being used as the CHM in India has several gaps and

would not necessarily be an effective CHM in India for ecosystems and biodiversity.

Other initiatives which support the recognition of TK include the World Intellectual Property

Organization (WIPO) Intergovernmental Committee on Intellectual Property and Genetic Resources,

Traditional Knowledge and Folklore (IGC) is a forum where WIPO member states discuss the intellectual

property issues that arise in the context of access to genetic resources and benefit-sharing as well as

the protection of traditional knowledge and traditional cultural expressions.77 The Intergovernmental

science-policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services (IPBES) under the auspices of UNEP,

UNESCO, FAO and UNDP, established a task force on indigenous and local knowledge systems and a

Technical Support Unit (TSU) on Indigenous and Local Knowledge with the objective of overseeing

the development of procedures and approaches for working with indigenous and local knowledge

systems so as to facilitate linkages between indigenous and local communities and scientists.78 As

a result, the Task Force has come out with several important publications highlighting case studies

on indigenous and local knowledge systems from all over the world.79

5.2. Best Practice Examples from Other Jurisdictions

Even though the norm of international open data on environment had been gaining prevalence

since the eighties,80 there are very few countries, mostly from the developed world, which had

taken advantage of this movement. Recently, however there are some emerging biodiversity rich

economies which have taken huge strides in this endeavour. The Mexican example of setting up

76 https://www.cbd.int/sp/targets/default.shtml77 http://www.wipo.int/tk/en/igc/78 https://www.ipbes.net/deliverables/1c-ilk79 http://www.unesco.org/new/en/natural-sciences/priority-areas/links/science-policy/projects/indigenous-knowledge-within-the-framework-of-ipbes/publications80 https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1574954115001004

20

the National System of Information on Biodiversity (SNIB)81 through its National Commission for

the Knowledge and Use of Biodiversity (CONABIO) was highlighted at COP 13 of CBD. It would be

vital to examine the legal framework on open access to biodiversity related data in such select few

jurisdictions, in order to assimilate some good lessons for Indian policy makers.

5.2.1. New Biodiversity Law of Brazil

For the purposes of encouraging bio-prospecting and scientific research, the Brazilian government

came out with “New Law on Biodiversity”, Law 13,123 of May 20, 2015, which came into force on

November 17, 2015. The law encompasses views of diverse stakeholders such as academia, business

sector and holders of associated TK (ATK). While the law is quite comprehensive as regards the

access of genetic heritage (GH), benefit sharing, fines in case of infractions, among other important

provisions, the scope of research related to biodiversity and use of information from databases is

particularly relevant to our context.82

The National System of Genetic Resource Management and Associated Traditional Knowledge

(SisGen) is proposed to help reduce bureaucratization of R&D in Brazil by allowing researchers of

interested institutions to apply electronically thereby generating an electronic declaration of legal

compliance. Even prior to registration, researchers are free to undertake research related to GH

and this registration is only required when certain milestones such as before depositing collections,

publishing results, or commercializing products, are reached. This freedom is however available only

to researchers from within the country. In order to prevent misappropriation by foreign entities, and

also to ensure capacity building and technology transfer, foreign researchers can access Brazilian GH

only through a public or private funded Brazilian research institute even if the GH is stored in public

databases or the ATK is of unidentifiable origin.83

Another ideal feature of this law is that it identifies ATK to be all “information or practice of

indigenous population, traditional community, or traditional farmers on the properties or direct

or indirect uses associated with genetic heritage.” Also, a distinction has been laid down between

81 http://www.conabio.gob.mx/informacion/gis/82 http://www.scielo.br/pdf/bjm/v49n1/1517-8382-bjm-49-01-0001.pdf83 Ibid


21

ATK of identifiable origin which can be linked to at least one indigenous population, traditional

community, or traditional farmer; and of unidentifiable origin.84

Though a lot of criticism has been levelled against the new law for making conditions much

more relaxed for bio-prospecting, the positive impacts on research and development cannot be

underestimated. With relaxation of norms on research and technological development in relation to

GH, as long as they do not lead to economic utilization, there is expected to be increased interest

in developing biodiversity related databases that are public in nature and scientifically validated. In

addition, clarity on the nature and source of ATK would help document this knowledge in a more

efficient manner. The latest update is that SisGen was launched online on November 6, 2017 and it

has been stipulated that companies, both Brazilian and foreign, will have one year to regularize their

activities pertaining to access and commercial utilization of Brazilian GH and ATK in accordance with

the new law.85 The scientific community however fear that the mandate imposed on researchers to

register all their activities with the SisGen will be very time consuming and thwart the very basic

objective of the law, which is to encourage bio-prospecting and scientific research.86

5.2.2. Costa Rican Biodiversity Law of 1998

The Costa Rican Biodiversity Law in its present form came about through the deliberations of a

Special Commission comprising of representatives from political parties, government entities,

farmers, indigenous communities, private sector, academician, research institutes and NGOs.

Awarded by the World Future Council with the Future Policy Award 2010 as one of the best laws of

Biodiversity, it includes several environmental concepts such as precautionary principle, absolute

liability for any harm caused, payment for environmental services, apart from provisions on access

and benefit sharing.

The National System of Conservation Areas (SINAC) and National Biodiversity Management

Commission (CONAGEBIO)87 have been constituted to oversee the implementation of the law. The

84 Id. 85 https://www.lexology.com/library/detail.aspx?g=3f8fb766-b4f0-437d-80ee-ae2ee742f36086 Rodrigo de Oliveira Andrade, ‘Scientists decry Brazil’s move on biodiversity research’, 28th July, 2018 (October 16, 2018, 11:04 PM) https://www.scidev.net/global/environment/news/scientists-decry-brazil-s-move-on-biodiversity-research.html87 Article 13, Costa Rican Biodiversity Law

22

latter is responsible for maintaining a registry of access applications as well as is the consultative

body for applications regarding intellectual property rights. Since there is a big impetus on the state

to remove all risks or dangers to life and environment likely to be caused by Genetically Modified

Organisms (GMOs), collection of information regarding these risks would be required in any case.

The law also mandates grounds for protection of traditional, indigenous and community knowledge

and the community’s right to participate and make decisions regarding this knowledge. Herein, the

State shall take any steps possible to encourage the rescue and maintenance of traditional practices.

The law further calls for inventorizing sui generis community intellectual property rights for the

purpose of being protected from exploitation by outsiders. Any research programs or bioprospecting

under this law would require access permits and exemptions are available only to bona fide use by

indigenous communities or research for teaching purposes.

Though there is no direct reference to creation of a database on biodiversity in this law, the priority

given to research and participation in decision making by communities set the path towards a culture

of open access of environmental data.

5.2.3. Initiative of European Union in Habitat Protection

European Union’s (EU) policy on biodiversity conservation comprises of two Directives, the Birds

Directive, 1979 and Habitat Directive, 1992 and the 2020 EU Biodiversity Strategy. The directives are

novel for the reason that they focus on protection of large areas of natural habitats based on the

status of threatened species of fauna and flora found in these habitats. The Habitat Directive is also

instrumental in the creation of Natura 2000, an EU wide ecological network comprising of Special

Protection Areas for Birds and Special Areas of Conservation. These areas have been split up into

nine bio-geographical regions namely, Alpine, Atlantic, Black Sea, Boreal, Continental, Macaronesian,

Mediterranean, Pannonian and Steppic.88

The network stretches over 18% of EU’s land area and 6% of its marine territory. The information

provided within the network is scientifically validated and helps the Member States in coming

up with policy measures on conservation for SPAs or SACs coming within their territories. Natura

88 https://www.worldfuturecouncil.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/01/WFCplus_2014_Biodiversity_Legislation_Study.pdf


23

2000 is exemplary also because it allows opportunities to NGOs for nominating conservation sites,

monitoring and evaluation and improving management plans. Thus, it enables the creation of a

database which is jointly developed by both the governments as well as NGOs. An online tool based

on this network provides key information on species and habitats, data on population sizes and

conservation status.89

Other than the Directives, the 2020 EU Biodiversity Strategy has 6 targets provided therein to help

with environment conservation goals. One of the specific actions within the Strategy is on the

need to improve monitoring and reporting to build on biodiversity knowledge base and map and

assess ecosystem services.90 An important platform developed in this context is the Biodiversity

Information System for Europe (BISE).91

5.2.4. Sui Generis Law on TK in Philippines

Philippines has developed laws surrounding TK of indigenous communities from the 90s itself. It sets

a great example by including the provision for protection of TK within the country’s Constitution,

which states that “the state shall recognize, respect and protect the rights of the indigenous cultural

communities to preserve and develop their cultures, traditions and institutions. It shall consider these

rights in the formulation of national plans and policies”.92 Following such a constitutional mandate,

the Executive Order 247 and the Indigenous Peoples Rights Act, 1997 were promulgated wherein

the former prescribed a regulatory framework on bio-prospecting with a condition that prior and

informed consent needs to be taken from local communities with a proper format for benefit sharing

as well. This Order was later repealed owing to procedural complexities in the application process

and lack of a monitoring mechanism to oversee the exit of bio-resources from the country.93

The latter Act of 1997 lays down provisions to protect rights of indigenous communities in general,

including their rights in traditional knowledge and to further restrict research access to sensitive

89 http://natura2000.eea.europa.eu/#90 https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/PDF/?uri=CELEX:52011DC0244&from=EN91 http://ec.europa.eu/environment/nature/knowledge/index_en.htm92 Article XIV, Section 17, Constitution 1987.93 https://www.bar.gov.ph/downloadables/07mar_apr_sf6.pdf

24

cultural sites belonging to communities. The law also protects the rights of a community to be given

due credits for providing information found in writings and publications as well as to be compensated

in the form of royalties, where such publications have resulted in some form of income.94 Other

significant regulations include the Traditional and Alternative Medicine Act, 1997 (recognizing and

protecting indigenous form of medicinal practice); Wildlife Resources Conservation and Protection

Act, 2001 (bringing improvements to Executive Order 247 with respect to bio-prospecting norms);

and Community Intellectual Rights Protection Act, 2000 (defines ‘community intellectual rights and

protects the same ensuring benefits to communities).95

In pursuance to the detailed framework surrounding community rights and TK, the latest Guidelines

on Indigenous Knowledge Systems and Practices (IKSPs) and Customary Laws (CLs) Research and

Documentation came about in 2012. It sets the ball rolling for research and documentation of such

knowledge with adequate safeguards prescribed. The Guidelines cover community initiated research

or those that are academic, social or in aid of policy.96 Grounds for denial to such access include

excavation or destruction of sacred places or worship grounds or other culturally sensitive areas

restricted by tradition.97 Communities’ rights to deny access to such information and to determine

the extent, content or manner of presentation of the information has also been recognized.98

Detailed responsibilities of the community, researcher and the government have also been laid

down.99 Another significant provision in these Guidelines pertains to creation of data banks by the

community as well as by the government on IKSP and CL.100

Additionally, inspired from the Indian TKDL program, the government of Philippines has come out

with a TKDL for Health which documents therapeutic practices or medicinal products of indigenous

groups along with other traditional or alternative forms of medicinal knowledge, so as to prevent

exploitation by private entities.101 It would be important to note that this national electronic database

94 https://cyber.harvard.edu/openeconomies/okn/asiatk.html95 https://www.bar.gov.ph/downloadables/07mar_apr_sf6.pdf96 Section 7, Indigenous Knowledge Systems and Practices (IKSPs) and Customary Laws (CLs) Research and Documentation Guidelines, 2012.97 Section 8.3, Indigenous Knowledge Systems and Practices (IKSPs) and Customary Laws (CLs) Research and Documentation Guidelines, 2012.98 Sections 8.8 and 8.17, Indigenous Knowledge Systems and Practices (IKSPs) and Customary Laws (CLs) Research and Documentation Guidelines, 2012.99 Part IV, Indigenous Knowledge Systems and Practices (IKSPs) and Customary Laws (CLs) Research and Documentation Guidelines, 2012.100 Section 12 read with Section 17, Indigenous Knowledge Systems and Practices (IKSPs) and Customary Laws (CLs) Research and Documentation Guidelines, 2012.101 http://newsbytes.ph/2014/09/11/up-manila-creates-digital-library-for-traditional-filipino-health-practices/


25

managed by the government is accessible to researchers and communities have the freedom to

choose whether they wish to keep the knowledge a secret or disclose the same.102 The mechanism

setup in Philippines through legal as well as administrative means create a good example of open

access for research without compromising on community rights.

6. Case studies illustrating international experiences on Open Access to Biodiversity

Information

Country-wise efforts to document biodiversity data especially TK have been ongoing for some

time. While India has been a pioneer with TKDL, several other countries such as China, Japan, New

Zealand, Korea, South Africa, Peru, Philippines and Venezuela have also created their own versions

of such databases. Given below are some of the successful country experiences around the world

with respect to environmental databases.

6.1. Community Mapping in Belize

In a project supported by World Bank and International Fund for Agricultural Development, five

indigenous communities in Belize have been endeavouring to protect their ancestral land through

gathering of comprehensive baseline data on flora, fauna, soils and geology, hydrology, socioeconomic

situation, and indigenous traditional knowledge. With the focus being on co-management between

the communities and government department, this project has been a success as it has led to

empowerment of the communities in managing and conserving their lands by themselves and

fighting off an oil extraction claim inside their territory.103

6.2. Community created database for Tanami region in Australia

TERN which is Australia’s land ecosystem observatory has now made available a valuable dataset

collected by indigenous rangers and traditional owners in collaboration with the mining industry,

land council and environmental consultancy partner. The dataset pertains to the biodiversity found

in 10 million hectares of land found within the Southern Tanami Indigenous Protected Area and has

102 http://www.tkdlph.com/index.php103 https://siteresources.worldbank.org/INTBIODIVERSITY/Resources/RoleofIndigenousPeoplesinBiodiversityConservation.pdf

26

been collected using both traditional and scientific survey techniques. This dataset has been created

with the complete consent and approval of the indigenous communities who want this information

out on the public domain. The initiative undertaken is remarkable also because open access to

this data is helping researchers to understand better, the ecology of the Tanami region as well as

because this information has been published responsibly, ensuring that the locations of sensitive

cultural sites and threatened plants and animals are not revealed.104

6.3. A Pacific TK database on weather and climate events

A need was felt in the Oceania region comprising of communities within Australia, Micronesia,

Melanesia and Polynesia, to document TK related to weather patterns so as to foresee climatic

disasters such as cyclones, droughts or flooding and increase community resilience to such events.

The database was developed under a partnership between the Pacific Meteorological Services, local

stakeholders and the Climate and Oceans Support Program in the Pacific (COSPPac), administered

through the Australian Bureau of Meteorology and funded by the Department of Foreign Affairs and

Trade. This database, the likes of which has never been created elsewhere follows strict guidelines

on respecting cultural sensitivities, free and open source software, portability, sustainability, ease of

use and ability to be operated smoothly in environments with limited technical expertise. Free, prior

and informed consent of the communities was taken before accessing certain TK narratives which

were sacred to the knowledge holders. The information is of a wide variety, ranging from recording

animal and plant behaviour to historical observations on biological or physical factors in climate

events. This database introduced into the four Pacific countries has met with positive feedback and

is actively used towards effective information flow between the national meteorological services,

cultural centres, community members and other stakeholders.105

6.4. Country-wide Biodiversity Assessment- South Africa

The National Biodiversity Assessment (NBA), 2018 of South Africa evolved from the National Spatial

Biodiversity Assessment (NSBA), 2004, and the NBA 2011 has led to the creation of a database which

comprehensively documents the state of biodiversity in the country, spanning terrestrial, inland

water, coastal and marine realms. Some of the priority areas for NBA include critically endangered

104 http://tern.org.au/Newsletter-2018-Jul-Tanami-Biodiversity-Data-pg32598.html105 https://rmets.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1002/met.1648


27

ecosystems and protection actions; Ecological Support Areas; priority estuaries; high water yield

areas; areas for land-based protected area expansion; and areas for offshore protection among

others. The assessment has been undertaken with the help of participation from stakeholders,

scientists and biodiversity management experts throughout the country. Datasets generated out of

this assessment is being widely used in the conservation sector, and more importantly contributed

towards policy decisions.106

The National Recordal System (NRS) supported by National Indigenous Knowledge Management

System (NIKMAS) is another South African initiative that documents traditional knowledge in

various multimedia formats with purpose of promoting the same and ensuring that benefits from

this knowledge go to the communities who hold this knowledge. Such a system has been laid

down with the main objective of establishing a secure, national repository for the management,

dissemination and promotion of IK, however, this repository is still not accessible by all.107 A website

on Digital Pharmacopoeia is still being developed as a result of the NIKMAS initiative but it is not yet

fully functional.108

6.5. Database for Invasive Species- Ireland

Ireland’s initiative on the National Invasive Species Database is special for the reason that it supports

citizen science recording of invasive species and promotes cooperation amongst state bodies, local

authorities, NGOs and interested groups. It is a centralized portal for access to and submission of

distribution data on invasive species that enables Early Warning and Rapid Response System for the

whole of Europe.109

6.6. Decisions from International Courts illustrating the need for free access to

environmental/ecological information

The manner in which international courts have contributed to the cause of right to environmental

information for effective participation and decision making by stakeholders is worthy of being

examined. Some of these decisions are illustrated below:

106 https://www.sanbi.org/biodiversity/building-knowledge/biodiversity-monitoring-assessment/national-biodiversity-assessment/107 http://www.wipo.int/edocs/mdocs/tk/en/wipo_iptk_ge_2_15/wipo_iptk_ge_2_15_presentation_yonah_seleti.pdf108 https://nrs.dst.gov.za/aboutPharmacopoeia109 http://www.biodiversityireland.ie/projects/invasive-species/importance-of-database/

28

6.6.1. Guerra v. Italy case110

This case dealt with a complaint filed by applicants against the government in failing to provide the

local population with information about risk factors and how to proceed in event of an accident

at nearby chemical factory which routinely produced large amounts of inflammable gas likely to

cause to major accidents. The European Court of Human Rights held that the government’s failure

to provide this information amounted to violation of a citizen’s right to privacy and family life.

The applicants in this instance prayed to the Court to set aside permits issued to a gold mining

company which used cyanide leaching process for gold extraction. Court while deciding in favour

of the applicants held that there is a relationship between access to information and participation

in decision making by citizens, thus all information pertaining to projects that might have negative

environmental impacts and violate the right to family life and privacy must be made accessible to

the citizens.

6.6.2. Taşkin and Others v. Turkey111

The applicants in this instance prayed to the Court to set aside permits issued to a gold mining

company which used cyanide leaching process for gold extraction. Court while deciding in favour

of the applicants held that there is a relationship between access to information and participation

in decision making by citizens, thus all information pertaining to projects that might have negative

environmental impacts and violate the right to family life and privacy must be made accessible to

the citizens.

6.6.3. Tatar v. Romania112

Facts here are similar to the above-mentioned case, except that in this instance, an environmental

accident involving the breach of a dam and subsequent release of cyanide contaminated water

occurred. In spite of the applicant’s request to close down the company, the government claimed

that the company’s activities did not constitute a public health hazard. The ECHR expounded

amongst other environmental principles that public access to the conclusions of related studies as

well as information that allows an assessment of the danger it is exposed to, is paramount.

110 https://www.ecolex.org/details/court-decision/case-of-guerra-and-others-v-italy-a1113ab0-f99e-47d6-8076-1a51e18e353e/111 ECHR 10 November 2004, Taşkin v. Turkey, [2004] Application no 46117/99.112 ECHR 27 January 2009, Tatar v. Romania [2009] Application no 67021/01).


29

6.6.4. Claude Reyes et al. v. Chile113

In this instance, the request of an environmental organization to receive information on a foreign

company granted permission from the government to deforest an area, was denied. In a judgement

by the Inter-American Court of Human Rights in 2006, it was held that right of access to state held

information cannot be denied on any grounds unless established by law; responds to a purpose

allowed by Article 13(3) of the American Convention on Human Rights; and be necessary in a

democratic society.

6.6.5. Saramaka People v. Suriname114

The applicants in this instance represented the Saramaka people in Suriname in north-eastern

South America protesting against large scale logging and mining on their lands. The Court held up

the need to obtain a community’s free, prior and informed consent before starting any projects in

lands in which they are vested with traditional rights. The Court stressed on basic requirement of

informing communities of all environmental, social, cultural or spiritual impacts associated with any

development project on their lands.

6.6.6. ClientEarth v. European Commission115

In 2014, ClientEarth, an NGO requested the European Commission (EC) for access to environmental

impact assessment reports on two important regulatory projects in the EU with a view to

participating more effectively in the Commission’s decision-making process. This access was refused

by the EC citing Article 4 (3) of the Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 regarding public access to European

Parliament, Council and EC documents, which provided an exception to disclosure of government

documents if such disclosure document would seriously undermine the institution’s decision-making

process. The decision of EC was appealed before the General Court of European Union in 2014 but

the Court rejected the same in 2015. In a recent Grand Chamber ruling of the European Court of

Justice in September 2018, the EC’s decisions to deny access to ClientEarth was finally annulled, so

as to implement obligations set forth under the Aarhus Convention to bring more transparency and

public participation in the workings of EU institutions.116

113 https://www.right2info.org/cases/r2i-claude-reyes-et-al.-v-chile.114 Inter-Am. H.R. (ser. C) No. 185 (August 12, 2008).115 C-57/16 P, September 4, 2018, European Court of Justice.116 https://europeanlawblog.eu/2018/10/22/case-c-57-16p-clientearth-v-commission-citizens-participation-in-eu-decision-making-and-the-

30

7. Legal issues related to access to Information on Bio-resources and Implications for India

7.1. Nature and quality of data

With the advent of internet age, the type of datasets being generated, their volume and quality are a

big concern.117 Whether the data is of a private or a public nature and whether opening up the same

might cause national security problems or economic losses is another question. Poor quality of data,

its huge volume, heterogeneity and non-standardised techniques of pooling this data also impedes

with efficient decision making.118 There is a fear amongst biodiversity rich developing countries that

opening up their databases on bio-resources might lead the way for further exploitation by the

developed nations. Open access also challenges the notion of a country’s sovereignty over natural

resources119 found within its territory and the manner that it may be utilized.

It is for this purpose that data collection and analysis standards need to be developed. Such projects

proponents should come up with data management plan, quality assurance protocols and data

attribution policies,120 before the start of data collection so as to ensure release of well curated,

scientifically validated and updated information.

7.2. Intellectual Property Rights and Moral Rights

Data sharing often involves IP questions if there are trade secrets, TK, copyrighted articles or

information on patentable inventions included within the database. The aspect of TK would be

discussed in the next point. As regards the other kind of IPs, there are some public databases which

allow free access to any individual for any purpose, thus taking away the scope of IP rights. The

problem arises if any third party and not the depositor of the data, claims an IP right. Secondly,

when it comes to internationally accessible databases, the IPR regimes of countries differ in the

sense that owners and user of such data are treated differently. Some countries such as members

of the European Union or South Korea have sui generis database rights which prevent extraction or

reuse of data from a protected database unless it is for the purpose of non-commercial research.121

commissions-right-of-initiative/117 http://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1755-1315/20/1/012040/pdf118 https://academic.oup.com/bioscience/article/65/1/69/2754215119 Preamble, CBD120 https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1574954115001004121 https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4551669/


31

In some instances of data sharing, moral rights may get infringed especially if the user of such data

distorts or mutilates the owner’s data through re-use or if some private/sensitive information gets

accidentally disclosed through open access. Some remedies to avoiding infringement of above-

mentioned rights include prescriptions on terms of use or conditions, non-disclosure agreements

and contracts and licenses wherein the owner willing gives up his/her IP or moral rights. There may

also be restrictions imposed on transfer of data across international borders.

7.3. Regulating Access to Traditional Knowledge

A lot of times, accessing TK belonging to communities related to bio-resources or conservation

practices leads to innovations, for which the communities receive no compensation whatsoever.

Article 8 (j) of the CBD and the resultant Nagoya Protocol mandates the need to recognize TK on

conservation and sustainable use of biodiversity of indigenous and local communities, especially

when some commercial utilization arises out of such knowledge and benefits needs to be shared

with the TK holders.122 Establishing who owns this knowledge can be very challenging. In the case

of community held knowledge, it is easy to attribute ownership to a particular community but what

can be done when the TK is from an unidentifiable source or shared between communities spread

across large territories or are transboundary in nature? The knowledge may also be based on certain

practices, beliefs and linguistic representation of the same, which may get lost in translation. One

has to also be mindful of the cultural sensitivities and secretiveness shown by certain communities

to divulge their knowledge.

In India, there are several laws which protect TK through different means just short of defining what

this TK would comprise of. For instance there is the BDA which promotes sharing of benefits with

communities in case of innovations arising out of TK,123 the Patents Act which prohibits patenting

of any innovation arising out of TK,124 the Protection of Plant Varieties and Farmer’s’ Rights Act,

(PPVFRA) 2001 which recognizes and protects rights of farmers who have developed traditional

varieties of plants,125 the FRA which provides community’s right to intellectual property and TK related

122 https://www.cbd.int/doc/legal/cbd-en.pdf123 Section 19, BDA.124 Section 11, Patents Act.125 Section 39, PPVFRA.

32

to biodiversity and cultural diversity126 and the Geographical Indications of Goods (Registration and

Protection) Act, 1999 (GI Act) which recognizes any product created out of the community IP of local

communities from a particular geographical area.

It is amply clear from the above that TK associated with bio-resources belonging to communities have

been given adequate protection from being patented but in order for the same to be identified, it

is necessary that the said knowledge be documented and made available to prospective innovators

as has been described above. In addition, this knowledge needs to be clearly defined within the

law and policy framework in India so as to understand the contours of documenting this data. The

communities must also have the freedom to say no to sharing of their knowledge if they wish and if

they do agree, then they should be allowed to choose the manner in which their knowledge is being

used within a research project with a say in the sharing of benefits in case of commercial utilization.

To this end, openness of research data is vital.

7.4. Tussle between corporates and academics

Researchers, especially from developing countries having academic pursuits are often in conflict with

R&D financed by corporates or MNCs with concern amongst the former that the latter would use

the data painstakingly developed by the former for commercial gains without a penny going to the

researchers. The corporates also fund important studies for their financial gain and the information

received here is seen as proprietary with no scope for being shared publicly.127 This can be remedied

by differentiating access from public databases for commercial and non-commercial utilization.

In the case of the former, benefit sharing agreements maybe formalised. For private companies,

incentives to open up their scientific databases should be provided which range from tax benefits

to allowing such access under their CSR activities.

126 Section 3 (1) (k), FRA127 https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4547313/


33

7.5. Misuse of Publicly Available Data

There is a lot of fear amongst opponents of data sharing that openly available data could be

misused and end up in the wrong hands. For instance, when the global positioning system is used

to violate someone’s privacy or when objections of certain countries on genetically modified foods

or cloning or other such bio-ethical concepts are violated through access. It is for this purpose that

several access options have been developed around the world while accessing databases which are

described below.128

- Open Access: This is when no conditions are applicable and data is available without registering

oneself.

- Licensed Access: This is when users have to do a basic registration along with a condition that

data collected shall not be re-distributed by the user.

- Restricted Licensed Access: In this kind of access, additional agreements/licenses are envisaged

with the user for the particular data and the user may access said data only after the agreements

have been approved.

- Secure Remote Access: This is in the case of data which is highly sensitive wherein repositories

use technology to allow secure remote access to users and the data never leaves the repository.

- Data Enclaves: This mode is the highest form of security permitting to users, on-site access.

128 Ibid.

34

8. Policy-Practice Recommendations on Open Access to Biodiversity Data

India prides itself as a mega-biodiversity country with rich associated traditional knowledge. The

Biological Diversity Act (2002) was enacted to support conservation, sustainable use and sharing

of benefits of use of such resources. It is common knowledge that unless resources and associated

knowledge are used, there will be no benefits that will accrue either to the communities or the

country. With lack of clarity on use of information and data related to biodiversity, ecosystems and

associated knowledge, the country is losing out on enormous opportunities to using the resources

and ensuring sustainable livelihoods.

Given the national and international policy frameworks covering information and data management

and use as well as related intellectual property regime scenario, it is time policy makers in India

provide better clarity on use of information and data related to ecosystems and biodiversity for

non-commercial use more freely and progressively. It is but correct that commercial utilisation of

biodiversity and associated knowledge are under the purview of the Biological Diversity Act and

therefore need to follow laid procedures for access and use.

Arguing that there can be no access to biodiversity data and information, including those contained

in the PBRs is futile and is retrogressive both for the country and communities. With our experience

of safeguarding data and information, including through the checks and balances provided for

under the TKDL, it is time for India to clarify whether environmental data including information

on biological resources and taxonomic data are confidential and can be accessed freely or not.

Prohibiting any access would obviously be grossly against all existing national and international

norms and practices as outlined in earlier sections of this paper.

If India needs to be benefit from its biological resources and associated knowledge, the resources

and knowledge should be used more widely and by both public and private sector, with appropriate

usage policies. It is time that we clarify these issues both within the context of the Biological Diversity

Act and other laws. In this context, below provided are a few recommendations which will help

contribute to the ongoing discussions on open data pertaining to natural resource management:


35

• AdequateamendmentstoIndia’scurrentpolicyonnationaldatasharingandaccessibility:

This is so as to enable proactive release of data from the government officials and develop a

single portal which provides the sources to diverse datasets.

• Privacyconcernswithdatasharing: The framework has to be mindful of privacy concerns

addressed in the Puttaswamy judgement and Srikrishna Committee referred to above.

• Developingofoperationalpolicies: Such operational policies are intended to guide the data

publishers and users. Some principles that ought to be followed are as follows:

o A data management plan with allocated budget heads should be devised.

o Data should be presented in machine readable format.

o Online portal should be user-friendly and simplified so as to enable access by all.

o Accessibility through a national open data portal free of access and registration procedures.

o Data should contain specific identifiers that explain and describe the data.

o It should contain information about the publisher, the original intent of the data, and how the

data was collected.

o Different datasets should be standardized to the maximum extent possible.

• Potentialforfeedbackfromdatausers: In any portal that is designed for data dissemination,

there has to be an option for user interface which will allow feedback from users to improve the

quality of data provided. Users could range from scientists, subject experts, NGOs to citizens

and there has to be a scope added within the portal so as to increase their participation.

• Ensuringdataquality: Apart from user feedback, there needs to be a constant monitoring

of the data provided by data publishers (in this instance, the government) to see whether it is

updated, useful and integral to its purpose.

• Bottomupapproachtodatacollectionanddissemination: There is a need to encourage

initiatives at the local level to use the available data for problem solving. This will be the main

test to see whether the data provided is useful or not. These efforts will also help understand

the need for opening data and motivate citizens to contribute to the process.

36

• Legalprecursorstodatacollection: There are some existing initiatives under the Biological

Diversity Act, 2002 to document details on biological resources and associated traditional

knowledge. It is imperative that these initiatives come with safeguards so as to avoid any

problems during data dissemination. Some of the safeguards proposed are as follows:

o Clarity on the definition of ‘associated traditional knowledge’ so as to understand the scope of

data collection.

o Receiving prior and informed consent from the communities before publishing their knowledge

and this would also indicate, informing them of the context in which the knowledge will be

used and being mindful of their cultural sensitivities.

o Preparing guidelines to ensure protection of information given within PBRs

o Linking PBRs and Traditional Knowledge Digital Library

o Using information provided in Joint Forest Management Committee’s micro plans and

Conservation & Management Plans under FRA to feed into PBRs

o Promoting creation of Biocultural Community Protocol

• AddressingIPRconcerns: Before publishing data in the portal or providing sources for the

same, IPR concerns related to traditional knowledge, community intellectual property rights,

rights of third parties, copyright licensing agreements, or existence of any IPRs to the available

information must be considered. Basically, publishers and users must be aware of their rights

and responsibilities as regards the data in question. Data sharing and attrition policies specific

to the portal may also be devised to this end.


37

9. Conclusions

The relevance of knowledge commons to sustainable development need not be overstated if we

consider emerging debates that ‘data is the new oil’! However, the perpetuating confusion over who

owns the data and information, how to collect and collate it, how it can be used, how to safeguard

the data and information from misuse, how to translate the data into decision making at various

levels is necessitating a new paradigm in the way countries like India would like to use the data and

information.

For relevant use of data and information, the current and emerging legal and policy frameworks are

immediately adequate in so far as the State and stakeholders under these frameworks use them.

As it is professed in conservation futures, biodiversity knowledge, data and information not

adequately used will certainly drive the biodiversity to its death-knell. Instead of having an over-

reach on how to protect the data and information, countries and stakeholders should make data

and information more relevant, timely and accessible for achieving the objectives of knowledge

commons and knowledge economy.

38

Bibliography

Primary Source

1. Policy• National Data Sharing and Accessibility Policy, 2012

2. Act• Biological Diversity Act, 2002• Patents Act, 1970• Scheduled Tribes and Other Traditional Forest Dwellers (Recognition of Forest Rights) Act, 2006

3. International Law• Declaration of the United Nations Conference on the Human Environment, 1972• Rio Declaration on Environment and Development, 1992• Convention on Biological Diversity, 1992• Universal Declaration of Human Rights, 1948• United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change, 1992 • United Nations Economic Commission for Europe (UNECE) Convention on Access to

Information, Public Participation in Decision-Making and Access to Justice in Environmental Matters, 1998

• American Convention on Human Rights, 1969• Arab Charter on Human Rights, 2004• United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, 2007• Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety to the Convention on Biological Diversity, 2000• Nagoya Protocol on Access to Genetic Resources and the Fair and Equitable Sharing of

Benefits Arising from their Utilization to the Convention on Biological Diversity, 2010• Costa Rican Biodiversity Law, 1998• Philippines Indigenous Knowledge Systems and Practices (IKSPs) and Customary Laws (CLs)

Research and Documentation Guidelines, 2012• Meeting of the Informal Advisory Committee to the Clearing-House Mechanism of the

Convention on Biological Diversity, Nagoya, Japan, 17 October 2010

4. Caselaws• Justice K. S. Puttaswamy (Retd.) and Anr. v. Union Of India And Ors, Writ Petition (Civil) No 494

of 2012, Supreme Court of India, 24th August 2017.• Taşkin v. Turkey, Application no 46117/99, 10 November 2004, ECHR• Tatar v. Romania, Application no 67021/01, 27 January 2009, ECHR• Claude Reyes Et Al. v. Chile, Series C No. 151, 19 September 2006, Inter-American Court of

Human Rights• Saramaka People v. Suriname, Series C No. 185, August 12, 2008, Inter-American Court of

Human Rights• ClientEarth v. European Commission, C-57/16 P, September 4, 2018, European Court of Justice


39

Secondary Sources

1. Reports• EU Shared Environmental Information System Implementation Outlook, Commission Staff

Working Document, European Commission, Brussels (2013), http://ec.europa.eu/environment/archives/seis/pdf/seis_implementation_en.pdf

• Group on Earth Observations, The Value of Open Data Sharing, https://www.earthobservations.org/documents/dsp/20151130_the_value_of_open_data_sharing.pdf

• OECD, Environmental Compliance and Enforcement in India: Rapid Assessment, https://www.oecd.org/env/outreach/37838061.pdf

• Inter-Parliamentary Union,’ Implementing the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples’, 2014, http://archive.ipu.org/PDF/publications/indigenous-en.pdf

• Claudia Sobrevila, ‘The Role of Indigenous Peoples in Biodiversity Conservation: The Natural but Often Forgotten Partners’, May 2008, https://siteresources.worldbank.org/INTBIODIVERSITY/Resources/RoleofIndigenousPeoplesinBiodiversityConservation.pdf

2. Articles• Alicia Bárcena, ‘The Escazú Agreement: An Environmental Milestone for Latin America and

the Caribbean, Economic Commission for Latin American and the Caribbean’, https://www.cepal.org/en/articles/2018-escazu-agreement-environmental-milestone-latin-america-and-caribbean

• Stacey Pereira, Richard A. Gibbs, et. al., ‘Open Access Data Sharing in Genomic Research’, https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4198928/

• George Nicola, Tiqing Liu, et. al., ‘Public Domain Databases for Medicinal Chemistry’, https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3427776/

• Maeve McDonagh, ‘The Right to Information in International Human Rights Law’, 13:1, Human Rights Law Review. 25-55 (2013).

• David J. Ives, ‘Information Access in the 21st Century: Theory vs. Reality’, MU Libraries, University of Missouri, http://web.simmons.edu/~chen/nit/NIT’93/93-173-ives.html

• William K.Michener, ‘Ecological data sharing’, Volume 29, Part 1, Ecological Informatics. (September 2015), https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1574954115001004

• Thomas Vattakaven, Rohit M George, et al., ‘India Biodiversity Portal: An integrated, interactive and participatory biodiversity informatics platform’, Biodivers Data J. 2016; (4), https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5136667/

• Lynda E. Chambers, Roan D. Plotz, et al., ‘A database for traditional knowledge of weather and climate in the Pacific’, Volume 24 , Issue 3, RMetS, (July 2017), https://rmets.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1002/met.1648

• Eduardo Eiji Maeda & Juan Arévalo Torres, ‘Open Environmental Data in Developing Countries: Who Benefits?’, Vol. 41(4), Ambio. (2012), https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3393066/

• Sindhuja Balaji, ‘India Finally Has A Data Privacy Framework -- What Does It Mean For Its Billion-Dollar Tech Industry?’, Aug 3, 2018, https://www.forbes.com/sites/sindhujabalaji/2018/08/03/india-finally-has-a-data-privacy-framework-what-does-it-mean-for-

40

its-billion-dollar-tech-industry/#56888c5670fe• Rininta Putri Nugroho, Anneke Zuiderwijk, et. al., ‘A comparison of national open data policies:

lessons learned’, Transforming Government: People, Process and Policy, Vol. 9 Issue: 3, pp.286-308 (2015)

• Madhav Gadgil and Chinmaya S Rathore, ‘Why India needs a Wikipedia-like website on environment’, Sep 13, 2016, https://scroll.in/article/801301/why-india-needs-a-wikipedia-like-website-on-environment

• Natasha Agarwal, ‘Unleashing the full potential of India’s ‘Open Government Data’ initiative’, 26 January, 2016, http://www.ideasforindia.in/topics/governance/unleashing-the-full-potential-of-indias-open-government-data-initiative.html

• Kuriakose S, ‘Impact of Traditional Knowledge on Conservation and Sustainable Use of Medicinal and Aromatic Plants- An Overview’, Environment and Society Journal (ELSJ), National University of Advanced Legal Studies, Kochi, 2014

• Yamini Asthana, ‘Traditional Knowledge Digital Library (TKDL) Database: A brief overview on its origin and its crucial role behind India wedging Colgate-Palmolive Patents for typically consumed spices’, August 3, 2015, www.prometheusip.com

• Prashant Reddy, ‘Is the TKDL a ‘confidential database’ and is it compliant with Indian copyright law?’, March 29, 2012, www.spicyip.com

• Swaraj Paul Barooah, ‘Guest Post: Questioning the Fallacy of a Closed-Access TKDL’, January 5, 2015, www.spicyip.com

• Prashant R. T., Sumathi C, ‘Why the Traditional Knowledge Digital Library’s Existence Deserves a Thorough Relook’, The Wire, April 4, 2017, https://thewire.in/science/tkdl-csir-neem-patents

• Jacob Koshy, ‘Ancient knowledge hub faces grim future’, March 24, 2017, https://www.thehindu.com/todays-paper/ancient-knowledge-hub-faces-grey-future/article17625761.ece

• Indrani B, Ujjal K. S., ‘Protection of Traditional Knowledge- Role of the National IPR Policy’, Economic and Political Weekly, Vol. 53, Issue No. 41, October 13, 2018, https://www.epw.in/journal/2018/41/perspectives/protection-traditional-knowledge.html

• Tom Dedeurwaerdere, Arianna Broggiato, et. al., ‘Global Scientific Research Commons under the Nagoya Protocol- Governing Pools of Microbial Genetic Resources’, http://biogov.uclouvain.be/staff/dedeurwaerdere/chap_Global%20scientific%20research%20commons.pdf

• Rodrigo de Oliveira Andrade, ‘Scientists decry Brazil’s move on biodiversity research’, 28th July, 2018, https://www.scidev.net/global/environment/news/scientists-decry-brazil-s-move-on-biodiversity-research.html

• ‘The new Brazilian legislation on access to the biodiversity (Law 13,123/15 and Decree 8772/16)’, Brazilian Journal of Microbiology, 49 (2018) 1–4, http://www.scielo.br/pdf/bjm/v49n1/1517-8382-bjm-49-01-0001.pdf

• Jorge Cabrera Medaglia, Freedom-Kai Phillips, et. al., ‘ Biodiversity Legislation Study: A Review of Biodiversity Legislation in 8 countries’, 2014, https://www.worldfuturecouncil.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/01/WFCplus_2014_Biodiversity_Legislation_Study.pdf

• Andrea B. Agillon, ‘Traditional knowledge in the Philippines: Progress of IPR protection’, TECH MONITOR Mar-Apr 2007, https://www.bar.gov.ph/downloadables/07mar_apr_sf6.pdf


41

• JJ Disini, ‘Survey of Laws on Traditional Knowledge in South East Asia’, October 2003, https://cyber.harvard.edu/openeconomies/okn/asiatk.html

• UP Manila creates digital library for traditional Filipino health practices, September 11, 2014, http://newsbytes.ph/2014/09/11/up-manila-creates-digital-library-for-traditional-filipino-health-practices/

• George Cho, ‘Some legal concerns with the use of crowdsourced Geospatial Information’, 2014 IOP Conf. Ser.: Earth Environ. Sci. 20 012040, http://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1755-1315/20/1/012040/pdf

• Patricia A. Soranno Kendra S. Cheruvelil, et. al., ‘It’s Good to Share: Why Environmental Scientists’ Ethics Are Out of Date’, BioScience, Volume 65, Issue 1, 1 January 2015, https://academic.oup.com/bioscience/article/65/1/69/2754215

3. Websites• https://www.gbif.org• https://www.personalgenomes.org/• http://neoninc.org• http://www.oceanobservatories.org• https://www.eea.europa.eu/about-us/what/shared-environmental-information-system-1• www.tkdl.res.in• http://pib.nic.in/newsite/PrintRelease.aspx?relid=109711• http://indianbiodiversity.org/about-ibis/• http://nbaindia.org/content/105/30/1/pbr.html• http://shodhganga.inflibnet.ac.in• http://ec.europa.eu/environment/aarhus/index.htm• http://natura2000.eea.europa.eu/#• https://eur-lex.europa.eu• http://www.tkdlph.com• http://tern.org.au• https://www.sanbi.org• http://www.biodiversityireland.ie• https://www.ecolex.org• http://www.wipo.int• https://www.ipbes.net• http://www.unesco.org/new/en/natural-sciences/priority-areas/links/science-policy/projects/

indigenous-knowledge-within-the-framework-of-ipbes/publications• https://www.cbd.int• https://www.lexology.com/library/detail.aspx?g=3f8fb766-b4f0-437d-80ee-ae2ee742f360• https://treaties.un.orghttp://www.conabio.gob.mx/informacion/gis/• https://nrs.dst.gov.za/aboutPharmacopoeia• https://europeanlawblog.eu/2018/10/22/case-c-57-16p-clientearth-v-commission-citizens-

participation-in-eu-decision-making-and-the-commissions-right-of-initiative/

Knowledge Commons: Current Issues related to

Natural Resources and Biodiversity

Shyama Kuriakose, Balakrishna Pisupa

Forum for Law,

Environment,

Development and

Governance

FLEDGE(Forum for Law, Environment, Development and Governance) is a non-profit trust established

to support human resource development and capacity building on issues of law, environment,

development and governance.

Foundation for Ecological Security (FES) helps decentralise the top heavy approach to

environmental management and demonstrates the strength of local communities to collaborate and

deploy local knowledge to cost effectively manage natural resources, Commons in particular. FES

strives for a future that appreciates the inter-relationships of various life forms and natural systems,

wherein local communities determine and move towards land-use practices that aid conservation

as well as offer economic opportunities.

Contact:

FLEDGE26 (old), 43 (new) Thathamuthiappan StreetChennai 600001Tel: +91-8608508060 Web: www.fledgein.org

FoundationforEcologicalSecurityPost Box No. 29, At - JahangirpuraPO - Gopalpura,Vadod- 388 370Hadgud, District - Anand Gujarat, IndiaWeb: www.fes.org.in