wipo_gap_sept07-2b64dbd2db3d792a.pdf

This report by the Center for International Environmental Law analyzes the gap between the proposed World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO) framework for the protection of traditional knowledge (TK) and the actual demands of indigenous and local communities. It argues that the current IGC process is too anchored in existing intellectual property (IP) systems, which communities view as tools for misappropriation, and fails to adequately recognize customary laws and the right to self-determination.

• Indigenous and local communities argue that existing intellectual property (IP) systems are inadequate for protecting traditional knowledge (TK) and have instead facilitated its misappropriation. They highlight that patent requirements for novelty and inventive steps often exclude TK, while lax standards in countries like the United States and Japan allow third parties to patent TK by making minor changes or ignoring oral traditions.
• There is a fundamental conflict between Western IP law and indigenous systems of knowledge management. While IP rights are individualistic and limited in duration, indigenous communities view TK as communally generated, collectively owned, and requiring protection in perpetuity.
• Indigenous communities demand a legally binding international instrument to prevent the misappropriation of TK. Such an instrument must recognize their right to self-determination, the holistic nature of their knowledge, the requirement for prior informed consent (PIC), and the validity of customary laws.
• The WIPO Intergovernmental Committee (IGC) framework is criticized for remaining too closely tied to existing IP concepts. While the draft includes a requirement for patent applicants to disclose the source of TK and evidence of prior informed consent, communities argue that the framework still fails to fully reflect their concerns and ignores the human rights linkage to TK protection.
• The recognition of customary law within the IGC's draft documents is considered insufficient. Communities argue that customary law is inalienable from their identity, yet the proposed framework often makes the recognition of such laws subject to national legislation, which frequently takes precedence over customary systems.
• Progress within the IGC has been slowed by the reluctance of some industrialized countries to commit to a binding outcome, often using calls for "further study" as a tactic to impede substantive discussion. Additionally, the member-state driven nature of the committee means that national interests often dominate over the needs of the indigenous communities the framework is intended to benefit.
• Effective participation of indigenous groups in the IGC is hindered by structural and financial barriers, including a complex and slow accreditation process and the high cost of attending long meetings in Geneva.

APA

Center for International Environmental Law (2007). wipo_gap_sept07-2b64dbd2db3d792a.pdf. https://www.ciel.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/03/WIPO_Gap_Sept07.pdf

Chicago

Center for International Environmental Law. wipo_gap_sept07-2b64dbd2db3d792a.pdf. 2007. https://www.ciel.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/03/WIPO_Gap_Sept07.pdf.

Wikipedia

{{cite report |author=Center for International Environmental Law |title=wipo_gap_sept07-2b64dbd2db3d792a.pdf |date=September 2007 |url=https://www.ciel.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/03/WIPO_Gap_Sept07.pdf |access-date=17 August 2026 |via=Climate Insights Directory}}

BibTeX

@techreport{centerforinternationalenvironmentallaw2007wipogapsept072b64dbd2db3d792apdf, author = {{Center for International Environmental Law}}, title = {{wipo\_gap\_sept07-2b64dbd2db3d792a.pdf}}, institution = {Center for International Environmental Law}, year = {2007}, month = sep, url = {https://www.ciel.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/03/WIPO_Gap_Sept07.pdf}, urldate = {2026-08-17}, note = {Indexed by Climate Insights Directory} }