PROTECTION, PROMOTION, DEVELOPMENT AND MANAGEMENT OF INDIGENOUS KNOWLEDGE SYSTEMS BILL, 2014

The document evaluates the 2014 IKS Bill, praising its sui generis approach to protecting indigenous knowledge while urging stronger definitions of 'commercial utilisation' and 'indigenous community' to better protect vulnerable groups like the San and Khoi. It recommends aligning the Bill's objectives with the duties of the National Indigenous Knowledge Systems Office (NIKSO) and ensuring that the right to refuse access to knowledge is upheld.

• The authors support the IKS Bill's 'sui generis' approach, which allows indigenous communities to choose between this new framework and existing intellectual property rights under the Intellectual Property Law Amendment Act 2013.
• The current definition of 'commercial utilisation' in the Bill is considered too narrow because it only triggers protection at the point of sale, ignoring earlier stages of commercialisation such as IP filing, clinical trials, and product development.
• There is concern that the broad definition of 'indigenous community' may fail to protect displaced and scattered groups, specifically the San and Khoi peoples, who lack representation in the National House of Traditional Leaders.
• The authors argue that the Bill's requirement for knowledge to be 'passed on from generation to generation' may exclude evolving indigenous knowledge that adapts to changing environmental and social conditions.
• The submission emphasizes the importance of Section 12(1)(b), which grants indigenous communities the right to deny access to their knowledge, as a tool for empowerment against historical appropriation.
• The authors recommend that the National Indigenous Knowledge Systems Office (NIKSO) must be adequately resourced and collaborate with the customary laws and governance systems of indigenous communities to avoid becoming a bureaucratic hindrance.
• The document highlights a conflict between the IKS Bill and the IP Amendment Act regarding the timing of protection; the IKS Bill covers knowledge existing before its commencement, whereas the IP Amendment Act only covers works created 'on or after' its commencement.

APA

Schonwetter, T., Jansen, L., & Foster, L. (2015). PROTECTION, PROMOTION, DEVELOPMENT AND MANAGEMENT OF INDIGENOUS KNOWLEDGE SYSTEMS BILL, 2014. Natural Justice. https://naturaljustice.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/03/PPDM-Indigenous-Knowledge.pdf

Chicago

Schonwetter, Tobias, Lesle Jansen, and Laura Foster. PROTECTION, PROMOTION, DEVELOPMENT AND MANAGEMENT OF INDIGENOUS KNOWLEDGE SYSTEMS BILL, 2014. Natural Justice, 2015. https://naturaljustice.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/03/PPDM-Indigenous-Knowledge.pdf.

Wikipedia

{{cite press release |last1=Schonwetter |first1=Tobias |last2=Jansen |first2=Lesle |last3=Foster |first3=Laura |title=PROTECTION, PROMOTION, DEVELOPMENT AND MANAGEMENT OF INDIGENOUS KNOWLEDGE SYSTEMS BILL, 2014 |publisher=Natural Justice |date=19 May 2015 |url=https://naturaljustice.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/03/PPDM-Indigenous-Knowledge.pdf |access-date=23 October 2026 |via=Climate Insights Directory}}

BibTeX

@misc{schonwetter2015protection, author = {Schonwetter, Tobias and Jansen, Lesle and Foster, Laura}, title = {{PROTECTION, PROMOTION, DEVELOPMENT AND MANAGEMENT OF INDIGENOUS KNOWLEDGE SYSTEMS BILL, 2014}}, publisher = {Natural Justice}, year = {2015}, month = may, url = {https://naturaljustice.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/03/PPDM-Indigenous-Knowledge.pdf}, urldate = {2026-10-23}, note = {Indexed by Climate Insights Directory} }