The Protection of Traditional Knowledge Associated with Genetic Resources: The Role of Databases and Registers

"The Protection of Traditional Knowledge Associated with Genetic Resources: The Role of Databases and Registers" ABSTRACT Yovana Reyes Tagle The misappropriation of TK has sparked a search for national and international laws to govern the use of indigenous peoples knowledge and protection against its commercial exploitation. There is a widespread perception that biopiracy or illegal access to genetic resources and associated traditional knowledge (TK) continues despite national and regional efforts to address this concern. The purpose of this research is to address the question of how documentation of TK through databases and registers could protect TK, in light of indigenous peoples increasing demands to control their knowledge and benefit from its use. Throughout the international debate over the protection of TK, various options have been brought up and discussed. At its core, the discussion over the legal protection of TK comes down to these issues: 1) The doctrinal question: What is protection of TK? 2) The methodological question: How can protection of TK be achieved? 3) The legal question: What should be protected? And 4) The policy questions: Who has rights and how should they be implemented? What kind of rights should indigenous peoples have over their TK? What are the central concerns the TK databases want to solve? The acceptance of TK databases and registers may bring with it both opportunities and dangers. How can the rights of indigenous peoples over their documented knowledge be assured? Documentation of TK was envisaged as a means to protect TK, but there are concerns about how documented TK can be protected from misappropriation. The methodology used in this research seeks to contribute to the understanding of the protection of TK. The steps taken in this research attempt to describe and to explain a) what has been done to protect TK through databases and registers, b) how this protection is taking place, and c) why the establishment of TK databases can or cannot be useful for the protection of TK. The selected case studies (Peru and Venezuela) seek to illustrate the complexity and multidisciplinary nature of the establishment of TK databases, which entail not only legal but also political, socio-economic and cultural issues. The study offers some conclusions and recommendations that have emerged after reviewing the national experiences, international instruments, work of international organizations, and indigenous peoples perspectives. This thesis concludes that if TK is to be protected from disclosure and unauthorized use, confidential databases are required. Finally, the TK database strategy needs to be strengthened by the legal protection of the TK itself.

The struggle for protection of environmental refugees: who's responsibility? Discourses from the United Nations and Non-governmental organizations

This thesis identifies, examines and problematizes some of the discourses that have so far come to light on the issue of protection for environmental refugees. By analyzing the discourses produced by the United Nations Office of the High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) and two non-governmental organizations - the Environmental Justice Foundation (EJF) and Equity and Justice Working Group Bangladesh (EquityBD), I examine the struggling discourses that have emerged about how protection for environmental refugees has been interpreted. To do this, I rely on Ernesto Laclau and Chantal Mouffe's theory and method of discourse analysis. The results show that responsibilization is the main point of struggle in the discussions on the protection of environmental refugees. As a floating signifier, it was utilized by the discourses produced by the UNCHR and the selected NGOs in contingent ways and with different political objectives. The UNHCR discourse responsibilized both the environmental refugees for their own protection and the individual states. The EJF and EquityBD, by contrast, allocated responsibility for the protection of environmental refugees to the international community. These contingent understandings of responsibilization necessitated different justifications. While the EJF discourse relied on humanitarianism for the assistance of environmental refugees, the EquityBD discourse constructed a rights based, more permanent solution. The humanitarian based discourse of the EJF was found to be inextricably linked with the neoliberal discourse produced by the UNHCR. Both these discourses encouraged environmental refugees to stay in their homelands, undermining the politics of protection. Another way in which protection was undermined was by UNHCR's discourse on securitization. In this context, climate change induced displacement became threat to developed countries, the global economy and transnational classes. The struggling discourses about who/what has been allocated responsibility for the protection of environmental refugees also meant that identities of the displaced be constructed in specific ways. While the UNHCR discourse constructed as voluntary migrants and predators, the EJF and EquityBD discourses portrayed them as victims. However, even though the EJF discourse constructed them as victims, their reliance on humanitarianism could also be interpreted as a way of giving the environmental refugee a predator like identity. These discourses on responsibilization and identity formation clashed with each other in the aim of achieving a hegemonic position in discussions and debates about the protection of environmental refugees.

The struggle for protection of environmental refugees: who's responsibility? Discourses from the United Nations and Non-governmental organizations

This thesis identifies, examines and problematizes some of the discourses that have so far come to light on the issue of protection for environmental refugees. By analyzing the discourses produced by the United Nations Office of the High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) and two non-governmental organizations - the Environmental Justice Foundation (EJF) and Equity and Justice Working Group Bangladesh (EquityBD), I examine the struggling discourses that have emerged about how protection for environmental refugees has been interpreted. To do this, I rely on Ernesto Laclau and Chantal Mouffe's theory and method of discourse analysis. The results show that responsibilization is the main point of struggle in the discussions on the protection of environmental refugees. As a floating signifier, it was utilized by the discourses produced by the UNCHR and the selected NGOs in contingent ways and with different political objectives. The UNHCR discourse responsibilized both the environmental refugees for their own protection and the individual states. The EJF and EquityBD, by contrast, allocated responsibility for the protection of environmental refugees to the international community. These contingent understandings of responsibilization necessitated different justifications. While the EJF discourse relied on humanitarianism for the assistance of environmental refugees, the EquityBD discourse constructed a rights based, more permanent solution. The humanitarian based discourse of the EJF was found to be inextricably linked with the neoliberal discourse produced by the UNHCR. Both these discourses encouraged environmental refugees to stay in their homelands, undermining the politics of protection. Another way in which protection was undermined was by UNHCR's discourse on securitization. In this context, climate change induced displacement became threat to developed countries, the global economy and transnational classes. The struggling discourses about who/what has been allocated responsibility for the protection of environmental refugees also meant that identities of the displaced be constructed in specific ways. While the UNHCR discourse constructed as voluntary migrants and predators, the EJF and EquityBD discourses portrayed them as victims. However, even though the EJF discourse constructed them as victims, their reliance on humanitarianism could also be interpreted as a way of giving the environmental refugee a predator like identity. These discourses on responsibilization and identity formation clashed with each other in the aim of achieving a hegemonic position in discussions and debates about the protection of environmental refugees.