Identifying and Preventing Biopiracy in

Australia: patent landscapes and legal

geographies for plants with Indigenous
Australian uses
Abstract

There are legal and moral imperatives to protect biological resources and the ‘traditional
knowledge’ associated with them. These imperatives derive from complex legal
geographies: international law (such as the Convention on Biological Diversity and the
Nagoya Protocol), State and federal laws, Indigenous customary law, codes of ethics
and research protocols. This paper reports on a ‘patent landscape’ analysis of patents
that refer to Australian plant species for which there is Indigenous Australian
knowledge. We have identified several patents of potential new biopiracy concern. The
paper highlights the way in which actors can gain private property monopolies over
biological resources and associated traditional knowledge, even though there are
overlapping sovereign rights and Indigenous rights claims. Regulatory gaps need to be
closed nationally to fully govern the diverse human–plant bio-geographies in Australia.
Further, Indigenous laws and governance have largely been ignored by these actors.
We suggest that the introduction of ‘disclosure of origin’ requirements in patent
applications, sui generis Indigenous knowledge protections, the development of
biocultural protocols, and a more nationally consistent system for ‘access and benefit-
sharing’ are required to ensure more ‘fair and equitable’ use of plants and Indigenous
knowledge in/from Australia, and to ensure the recognition of Indigenous rights to
knowledge.

Language English

Pages 1-21

Number of pages 21

Journal Australian Geographer

State Accepted/In press - 22 Sep 2016

Robinson, D., & Raven, M. (2016). Identifying and Preventing Biopiracy in Australia:
patent landscapes and legal geographies for plants with Indigenous Australian
uses. Australian Geographer, 1-21. DOI: 10.1080/00049182.2016.1229240

Dev World Bioeth. 2006 Dec;6(3):158-73.

Biodiversity, biopiracy and benefits: what allegations of
biopiracy tell us about intellectual property.
Hamilton C1.
Author information
Abstract
This paper examines the concept of biopiracy, which initially emerged to challenge various aspects
of the regime for intellectual property rights (IPR) in living organisms, as well as related aspects
pertaining to the ownership and apportioning of benefits from 'genetic resources' derived from the
world's biodiversity. This paper proposes that we take the allegation of biopiracy seriously due to the
impact it has as an intervention which indexes a number of different, yet interrelated,
problematizations of biodiversity, biotechnology and IPR. Using the neem tree case as an example,
it describes activists' use of the term as one that involves a deliberate simplification of science and
IPR. Additionally, it argues that in so doing, biopiracy is positioned as a touchstone that mobilizes
actors and problems, and ultimately generates 'solutions' to the very challenges it creates. The
paper will also encourage a view of biopiracy claims that does not always treat them simply as
claims of theft, or as a misallocation of benefits, but rather as claims that are designed to raise
broader questions about the IPR system itself. It concludes by advocating that, in order to properly
understand how to address biopiracy, we must be prepared to move beyond the current narrow
readings to develop a more complete picture of the term's influence in challenging how, and by
whom, the decisions about what is natural and what is invented come to be made.

PMID:

17038007

DOI:

10.1111/j.1471-8847.2006.00168.x

se this URL to cite or link to this record in

http://ethos.bl.uk/OrderDetails.do?uin=uk.bl.ethos.654546
EThOS:
Title: Biopiracy in Peru : tracing biopiracies, theft, loss and traditional knowledge

Author: Chapell , Jodie

Awarding Body: Lancaster University

Current Institution: Lancaster University

Date of Award: 2011

Availability of Full Text: Order from print. A scan fee will apply.
Access from EThOS: Please login to continue.

Abstract:

This thesis concerns the different ideas, and relationships -to people, plants and knowledge - that -'biopiracy' brings together in
assessing different concerns over the use of 'traditional knowledge', the thesis examines the multiple meanings of biopiracy whi
through particular bundles of relationships. Contribution is made to existing literature concerning indigenous peoples and biodiv
illustrating the complexity and multiplicity of understandings of 'biopiracy'. The thesis identifies contested meanings of 'biopiracy
a typology of 'biopiracies' through an application ofTsing's (2005) concept of 'friction', and also an analysis of 'biopiracy' as an e
of enquiry in the patent system. In Part One I consider 'biopiracy' and 'traditional knowledge' in international debates, and so es
ideological concepts that frame 'global' biopiracy. The thesis explores the plurality of biopiracy by providing nuanced accounts o
and 'traditional knowledge'. Part Two, is an analysis of the work of the Peruvian National Commission Against Biopiracy. This se
examines the role of patent searches and of knowledge registers in producing accounts of biopiracy that: reify traditional knowle
connections with indigenous communities, and that represent the economic interests of the state. The thesis presents a quantita
original patent research into 'biopiracy', with an accompanying qualitative analysis that highlights the connections produced - an
through 'biopiracy work'. The final section presents ethnographic data from two Amazonian communities - San Francisco de Ya
Calleria. This data indicates that particular forms of relationships to people, plants, and knowledge are privileged, as well as cas
mobilisation of 'biopiracy'. Chapter Six presents an analysis of two distinct 'biopiracies': 'Biopiracies of theft' and 'biopiracies of e
opportunity'. These in turn characterise the different, contingent features of 'biopiracy' in Peru.

Supervisor: Not available Sponsor: Not avail

Qualification Name: Thesis (Ph.D.) Qualification Level: Doctoral

EThOS ID: uk.bl.ethos.654546 DOI: Not avail