Anil K. Gupta
Large number of local communities have conserved biodiversity and the associated knowledge systems despite remaining very poor. Sometimes, they have refused to receive any compensation in view of sharing the information. Their ethical beliefs have prevented them from accepting any valuation of their knowledge. In most cases, however, the outside extractors whether belonging to research organizations or public or private corporations have not even recognized the need for negotiating a fair compensation to local communities. Article 8J of Biodiversity Treaty requires involvement and approval of local communities, innovators and other providers of knowledge in a manner that benefits are shared equitably. This paper looks at how the local communities and individuals have generated creative solutions to their local problems by drawing upon their knowledge of biodiversity. The social exchange mechanisms in market dominated communities are contrasted with nature dominated communities. Several case illustrations of institutions as well as technologies contributing to the conservation of diversity are presented in part II. The role of networks, NGOs and intellectual property rights in conservation through experimentation, innovation, and competition is discussed in part III. Illustration of a global network, viz., Honey Bee extending to sixty two countries is provided to highlight how people to people learning across the language barriers can take place in an accountable and transparent manner. Similarly, how biodiversity contest among children have helped in identifying local genius has been illustrated. In the light of GATT, FAO undertaking on plant genetic resources and Biodiversity Treaty the changes required in the IPR system and an effective sue generis system are discussed in part IV. An operation framework for compensating creativity of farmers, tribals, pastroralists, etc., is also described along with the description of legal and institutional changes required for the purpose.
