wipo_gap_sept07-2b64dbd2db3d792a.pdf

The report examines the gap between the WIPO Intergovernmental Committee (IGC) framework for protecting traditional knowledge (TK) and the actual needs of indigenous peoples. It argues that the current approach remains too anchored in conventional intellectual property (IP) systems, which indigenous groups view as tools for misappropriation. Key points of contention include the lack of recognition for customary laws, the insistence on state sovereignty over resources, and the inadequacy of IP's individualistic and time-limited nature for communally owned, trans-generational knowledge. The document concludes that while the IGC is a vital platform, it has failed to meet core demands due to the dominance of Member State interests and the reluctance of some industrialized nations to commit to a legally binding instrument.

• Indigenous and local communities argue that conventional intellectual property (IP) systems are fundamentally incompatible with traditional knowledge because IP is based on individual creation and limited duration, whereas traditional knowledge is "communally generated and collectively owned" and should be protected "in perpetuity."
• The current IP system is viewed by indigenous communities as a facilitator of misappropriation, specifically through patents where lax standards in countries like the United States and Japan allow for the patenting of traditional knowledge by ignoring oral information as prior art or making minor changes.
• There is a significant gap regarding the recognition of customary laws; while indigenous groups view customary law as "inalienable from their identity and integrity," the WIPO IGC framework does not establish it as a legal basis for provisions and often makes such recognition subject to national law.
• Indigenous communities demand a legally binding international instrument that recognizes their human right to self-determination and their right to free, prior and informed consent (FPIC), noting that human rights cannot be subject to national legislation.
• The IGC's Draft Objectives and Principles are criticized for being too focused on preventing misappropriation rather than the broader goals of safeguarding and conserving traditional knowledge, and for remaining "anchored in the existing IP system."
• Progress within the IGC is hindered by the reluctance of some industrialized countries to engage substantively, often using calls for "further study" as a tactic to impede the development of a final outcome or binding instrument.

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} }