Les savoir-faire traditionnels ont été pendant longtemps considérés comme ayant peu d'intérêt. Leur reconnaissance internationale s'est faite à la conférence de Rio de 1992 à travers la convention sur la diversité biologique. Cette reconnaissance et la signature de l'accord sur la propriété intellectuelle de 1994 (ADPIC) ont entraîné de la part des pays du Sud (principalement) des questions auxquelles le droit et, plus particulièrement le droit de la propriété intellectuelle (DPI) ont du mal à répondre. La principale étant quel type de protection juridique apporter aux savoir-faire traditionnels et plus particulièrement à ceux liés à la biodiversité. Le DPI a non seulement du mal à cerner quels sont les droits et avantages à accorder aux détenteurs de ces savoirs, mais aussi et surtout, à cerner cette notion de savoir-faire traditionnel. Il a d'autant plus de mal à répondre aux questions soulevées par cette notion, que les débats juridiques sont le plus souvent dirigés par des intérêts économiques et politiques où s'affrontent deux conceptions très différentes de la protection juridique des savoir-faire traditionnels. Celle des Etats du Nord qui ont une conception privative du dpi, dont le but est de maîtriser ''l'utilisation scientifique et commerciale des savoirs traditionnels'' et celle des Etats du Sud qui ont une vision collective, communautaire de la protection de leurs savoirs dans le but de ''protéger l'intégrité des savoirs traditionnels''. La principale réponse apportée jusqu'à présent sur le plan international est le brevet, celui-ci semble, pourtant, peu adapté à ces savoir collectifs et ancestraux. En fait, derrière cette notion de savoir-faire traditionnel, se profile une question essentielle, celle de l'accès aux ressources génétiques et aux savoir-faire traditionnels. Ce travail a pour but d'explorer de nouvelles alternatives à la propriété intellectuelle. / The traditional know-how were considered for a long time as having not much interest. Their international recognition was made at the Rio Conference of 1992, through the Convention on Biological Diversity. This recognition and the signing of the Agreement on the Aspects of Trade-Related Intellectual Property Rights of 1994 (TRIPS) have led the countries of the South mainly, to raise questions to which the law and, more particularly the law of the intellectual property (DPI) are struggling to answer. The main question is to know the nature of the legal protection given to traditional know-how and more particularly to those related to biodiversity. The DIP not only has difficulty in identifying the nature of the rights and benefits to be granted to the holders of this knowledge, but above all, in identifying this notion of traditional know-how. The DIP struggle to address the issues as legal débats are generally lead by political and economical interests where two very different conceptions of the legal protection of traditional know-how confront each other. The one of northern states that have a private and utilitarian conception. That of northern states that have a private and utilitarian conception. The aim is, with DPI, to control the scientific and commercial use of know-how. The one of southern states that have a collective or even community vision of the protection of their knowledge in order to protect the integrity - spiritual, cultural and social - of traditional knowledge. The main international answer today is the certificate. However, this one doesn’t fit well these traditional collective and ancestral know-how. In fact, behind this notion of traditional know-how, there is a key issue, that of access to genetic resources and traditional know-how. The ambition assigned to this thesis (PhD) is to explore new alternatives to intellectual property, in order to find a regime appropriate legal framework for traditional know-how.

Abstract: Indigenous communities have worked for centuries to develop systems of knowledge pertaining to their local environments. Much of the knowledge that has been directly acquired or passed down over generations is of marketable use to corporations, especially in the pharmaceutical industry. Upon gaining the necessary information to convert traditional knowledge into a marketable entity, the corporation will place a patent on the product of their research and development and reap the monetary benefits under the protection of intellectual property legislation. Without appropriate benefit sharing, indigenous communities are robbed of their cumulative innovation and development and denied access to the very medicines that they assisted in development. This study will examine the efforts made by indigenous communities to develop benefit-sharing agreements under national ‘sui generis’ legislation and the international legislation of the Agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPS) and the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD).

This thesis analyses the struggle over rights to benefits and ownership of plant genetic resources and the global regime complex on the management of plant genetic resources, and how different regimes concerning these resources cooperate or stand in opposition to each other. Because of changes in US patent law and the establishment of TRIPS, patent claims over plant genetic resources has increased dramatically globally. This, amongst other things, in turn has lead to the acrimonious negotiations of access and benefit sharing arrangements within the framework CBD. The objective of this thesis is to examine the interaction between the international regimes regulating genetic resources and intellectual property and to analyse how these regime interactions, affect the protection of traditional knowledge held by local communities, indigenous peoples and small farmers in developing countries. The thesis concludes that it exists several regime interactions that are disruptive and undermine the possibility of protecting traditional knowledge from misappropriation. It is further concluded that modifications of the existing IPR regimes, on the disclosure of inventions, with a certificate of legal provenance, securing FPIC, MAT and benefit sharing, may serve as one brick in the wall that protect traditional knowledge from misappropriation through wrongly granted patents. But a certificate of legal provenance will not do the work alone. To protect traditional knowledge associated with genetic resources in the long term bio-cultural solutions which sustains the entire community where traditional knowledge is embedded is needed.

This research critically analyse the existing international intellectual property regime with regard to protection of Genetic Resources (GRs) and Traditional Knowledge (TK) in respect of developing countries. It further discusses access and benefit-sharing (ABS) law and its agreement and the implications of such agreement for developing countries and the extent of effectiveness of the existing IIP regimes specifically on the protection of GRs and TK. Developing countries, such as Ethiopia, are considered to be rich in GRs and the associated TK. It is to their disadvantage in such cases that the current IIP regime is not able to protect GRs and TK, and to date, the international intellectual property regime has failed, permitting excessively broad patents over genetic biodiversity. The study also seeks to address the bearing of international intellectual property regimes on access and benefit sharing to biodiversity resources and associated knowledge. It then argues that there is an inherent gap in the current international intellectual property (IIP) regime with regard to GRs and TK, and unless IIP regime is revised in a manner that gives protection to GRs and TK, developing countries will remain disadvantaged. / Dissertation (LLM)--University of Pretoria, 2014 / gm2015 / Centre for Human Rights / LLM / Unrestricted

<p>There is a growing interplay of competing realities facing the international community in the general areas of innovation, technological advancement and overall economic development. The highly industrialised wealthy nations, largely located on the Northern hemisphere are on the one hand undoubtedly at the forefront in global research, technology and infrastructure development. The developing and least developed countries on the other hand are mostly situated on the Southern hemisphere. They are not as wealthy or technologically advanced as their&nbsp / Northern counterparts, but are naturally endowed with unique variations of plant, animal and micro-organism species occurring in natural ecosystems, as well as the traditional knowledge on&nbsp / how to use these unique species. This knowledge has been adjudged to be responsible for the sustainable maintenance of the earth&rsquo / s biodiversity. Increasing exploitation of biodiversity,&nbsp / spurred on by the competing realities identified above, has left the earth in a present state of alarm with respect to the uncontrolled loss of biodiversity. The traditional knowledge of local&nbsp / peoples has significantly offered leads to research institutes from the North in developing major advancements in drugs, cosmetics and agriculture. Little or no compensation has however been seen to go back to the indigenous&nbsp / communities and countries that provide resources, and indicate various possibilities through their traditional knowledge to the use of such resources. Efforts by some biodiversity rich countries to&nbsp / ddress this trend through legislation developed in accordance with the principles of the Convention on Biological Diversity have been frustrated due to the inability to enforce their domestic laws outside their borders. Theft of genetic resources and its associated traditional knowledge&nbsp / from such countries has therefore remained a major challenge. Against this backdrop, and on the&nbsp / insistence of biodiversity-rich developing countries, an international regime on access and benefit sharing was negotiated and its final text adopted in 2010. This international regime is as&nbsp / contained in the Nagoya Protocol. This research sets out to examine whether the Nagoya Protocol offers a final solution to the protection of traditional knowledge associated with biodiversity in&nbsp / biodiverse countries. It further examines the importance of domestic legislation in achieving the objectives of the Protocol. The research has been tailored to African biodiverse countries, and&nbsp / seeks these answers within the context of Africa.<br /> &nbsp / </p>

The Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) significantly enhanced the scope and potential effectiveness of the international legal regime for the conservation of biological diversity world wide together with the sustainable use of its components. It goes beyond the conservation of biological conservation per se and comprehends such diverse issues as sustainable use of biological resources, access to genetic resources, the sharing of benefits derived from the use of genetic material and technology, including biotechnology. The CBD has three objectives, which are the conservation of biological diversity, secondly the sustainable use of its components and thirdly the fair and equitable sharing of benefits arising out of the utilisation of genetic resources. The third objective includes the sharing of benefits by means of appropriate access to genetic resources and by appropriate transfer of relevant technologies, taking into account all rights over such resources and technologies as well as appropriate funding. As part of the process of achieving these goals, the CBD establishes a new international framework for access to genetic resources and the sharing of benefits from their use. In addition to its conservation measures, the CBD is also an economic treaty in the sense that it develops and regulates the ongoing exchange of genetic resources and, in particular, the emerging trade in biotechnology. During the negotiations of the CBD the concept of the trade in biotechnology dominated much of the discussions surrounding the Convention. This was the cause of deep differences between the technologically rich north and the biodiversity rich south. It was and still is apparent that developed countries, or corporate companies in these countries, exploit natural recourses only found in developing countries, without sharing the resulting proceeds. It is shown that uneven distribution of natural, technological and economic resources occur in relationships between the northern hemisphere and its southern counterpart. It is a well-known fact that the northern hemisphere is financially and technologically superior to its southern counterpart. Intellectual property rights ("IPR"), with specific reference to patent law, enables developed countries andlor companies in those countries to exploit this economic discrepancy. Developed countries accordingly acquire biological recourses and exploit them with resulting benefits thereby circumventing the sharing of such benefits through IPR systems. Benefits are thereby withheld from developing countries that provide such genetic recourses. The author will mainly focus on the question that arises as to how the CBD addresses benefit sharing in the light of the differences between the northern developed- and southern developing countries. South Africa will be studied as an example of a developing country that incorporated the provisions of the CBD in its national legislation as it promulgated the National Environmental Management: Biodiversity Act (BDA), which embodies the guidelines and principles for bioprospecting and benefit sharing, captured in the CBD and the Cartagena Protocol. The provisions contained in the BDA will be used as a practical example of the application of the CBD in the municipal law of developing countries. / Thesis (LL.M. (Import and Export Law))--North-West University, Potchefstroom Campus, 2007.

<p>There is a growing interplay of competing realities facing the international community in the general areas of innovation, technological advancement and overall economic development. The highly industrialised wealthy nations, largely located on the Northern hemisphere are on the one hand undoubtedly at the forefront in global research, technology and infrastructure development. The developing and least developed countries on the other hand are mostly situated on the Southern hemisphere. They are not as wealthy or technologically advanced as their&nbsp / Northern counterparts, but are naturally endowed with unique variations of plant, animal and micro-organism species occurring in natural ecosystems, as well as the traditional knowledge on&nbsp / how to use these unique species. This knowledge has been adjudged to be responsible for the sustainable maintenance of the earth&rsquo / s biodiversity. Increasing exploitation of biodiversity,&nbsp / spurred on by the competing realities identified above, has left the earth in a present state of alarm with respect to the uncontrolled loss of biodiversity. The traditional knowledge of local&nbsp / peoples has significantly offered leads to research institutes from the North in developing major advancements in drugs, cosmetics and agriculture. Little or no compensation has however been seen to go back to the indigenous&nbsp / communities and countries that provide resources, and indicate various possibilities through their traditional knowledge to the use of such resources. Efforts by some biodiversity rich countries to&nbsp / ddress this trend through legislation developed in accordance with the principles of the Convention on Biological Diversity have been frustrated due to the inability to enforce their domestic laws outside their borders. Theft of genetic resources and its associated traditional knowledge&nbsp / from such countries has therefore remained a major challenge. Against this backdrop, and on the&nbsp / insistence of biodiversity-rich developing countries, an international regime on access and benefit sharing was negotiated and its final text adopted in 2010. This international regime is as&nbsp / contained in the Nagoya Protocol. This research sets out to examine whether the Nagoya Protocol offers a final solution to the protection of traditional knowledge associated with biodiversity in&nbsp / biodiverse countries. It further examines the importance of domestic legislation in achieving the objectives of the Protocol. The research has been tailored to African biodiverse countries, and&nbsp / seeks these answers within the context of Africa.<br /> &nbsp / </p>

The Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) significantly enhanced the scope and potential effectiveness of the international legal regime for the conservation of biological diversity world wide together with the sustainable use of its components. It goes beyond the conservation of biological conservation per se and comprehends such diverse issues as sustainable use of biological resources, access to genetic resources, the sharing of benefits derived from the use of genetic material and technology, including biotechnology. The CBD has three objectives, which are the conservation of biological diversity, secondly the sustainable use of its components and thirdly the fair and equitable sharing of benefits arising out of the utilisation of genetic resources. The third objective includes the sharing of benefits by means of appropriate access to genetic resources and by appropriate transfer of relevant technologies, taking into account all rights over such resources and technologies as well as appropriate funding. As part of the process of achieving these goals, the CBD establishes a new international framework for access to genetic resources and the sharing of benefits from their use. In addition to its conservation measures, the CBD is also an economic treaty in the sense that it develops and regulates the ongoing exchange of genetic resources and, in particular, the emerging trade in biotechnology. During the negotiations of the CBD the concept of the trade in biotechnology dominated much of the discussions surrounding the Convention. This was the cause of deep differences between the technologically rich north and the biodiversity rich south. It was and still is apparent that developed countries, or corporate companies in these countries, exploit natural recourses only found in developing countries, without sharing the resulting proceeds. It is shown that uneven distribution of natural, technological and economic resources occur in relationships between the northern hemisphere and its southern counterpart. It is a well-known fact that the northern hemisphere is financially and technologically superior to its southern counterpart. Intellectual property rights ("IPR"), with specific reference to patent law, enables developed countries andlor companies in those countries to exploit this economic discrepancy. Developed countries accordingly acquire biological recourses and exploit them with resulting benefits thereby circumventing the sharing of such benefits through IPR systems. Benefits are thereby withheld from developing countries that provide such genetic recourses. The author will mainly focus on the question that arises as to how the CBD addresses benefit sharing in the light of the differences between the northern developed- and southern developing countries. South Africa will be studied as an example of a developing country that incorporated the provisions of the CBD in its national legislation as it promulgated the National Environmental Management: Biodiversity Act (BDA), which embodies the guidelines and principles for bioprospecting and benefit sharing, captured in the CBD and the Cartagena Protocol. The provisions contained in the BDA will be used as a practical example of the application of the CBD in the municipal law of developing countries. / Thesis (LL.M. (Import and Export Law))--North-West University, Potchefstroom Campus, 2007.

The Convention on Biological Diversity, designed in 1992, was intended to protect the conservation and sustainable use of biological diversity and the equitable fair distribution of benefits from the utilization of genetic resources ( English term, "ABS"). The third objective remains not sufficiently cleared and the countries felt the need to legislate on the subject before the eminent importance of the rights arising from the exploitation of genetic resources and traditional knowledge associated with them and the transboundary damage from predatory exploitation. Countries faced with a growing biodiversity degradation in an uncontrolled and a reduction of fauna and flora form. They start question the exploratory use and necessary preservation of sociobiodiversity for future generations based on interculturalism, and the effect of such rights in social harvest, cultural, political and economic. To address such conflicts on the international scene came the Nagoya Protocol, and in Brazil, Law 13.123/ 2015. Both laws walked in the same direction, with flexible access to traditional knowledge and biodiversity, striving for expansion of research and innovation. The literature search was performed using the deductive method, lying on the theme Rights Research Line Sociobiodiversity and Sustainability. The Nagoya Protocol left the national legislation up to each country, bringing minimum dictates. Brazil has not ratified but implemented specific legislation that included the protection of genetic resources and associated traditional knowledge, however, gave way to exploratory mean. / A Convenção sobre Diversidade Biológica, concebida em 1992, destinou-se à proteção da conservação e o uso sustentável da diversidade biológica além da repartição justa equitativa dos benefícios provenientes da utilização dos recursos genéticos (termo em inglês, ABS ). O terceiro objetivo não restou suficientemente aclarado e os países signatários sentiram a necessidade de legislar sobre o tema diante da notória importância dos direitos advindos da exploração dos recursos genéticos e dos conhecimentos tradicionais a eles associados e os danos transfronteiriços decorrentes da exploração predatória. Os países se depararam com uma crescente degradação da biodiversidade, de forma descontrolada e uma redução da fauna e da flora. Passou-se a questionar o uso com viés exploratório e a necessária preservação da sociobiodiversidade para as gerações futuras tendo por base a interculturalidade, e o reflexo de tais direitos na seara social, cultural, política e econômica. Para enfrentar tais embates, no cenário internacional exsurgiu o Protocolo de Nagoia e, no Brasil, a Lei 13.123, de 2015. Ambas as legislações caminharam no mesmo sentido, flexibilizando o acesso aos conhecimentos tradicionais e à biodiversidade, primando pela expansão da pesquisa e da inovação. A presente pesquisa bibliográfica foi feita utilizando-se do método dedutivo, encontrando-se na temática na Linha de Pesquisa de Direitos da Sociobiodiversidade e Sustentabilidade. O Protocolo de Nagoia deixou a regulamentação nacional a cargo de cada país, trazendo ditames mínimos. O Brasil não o ratificou, mas implementou legislação específica que compreendeu a proteção aos recursos genéticos e os conhecimentos tradicionais associados, todavia, cedeu lugar ao viés exploratório.

Magister Legum - LLM / There is a growing interplay of competing realities facing the international community in the general areas of innovation, technological advancement and overall economic development. The highly industrialised wealthy nations, largely located on the Northern hemisphere are on the one hand undoubtedly at the forefront in global research, technology and infrastructure development. The developing and least developed countries on the other hand are mostly situated on the Southern hemisphere. They are not as wealthy or technologically advanced as their Northern counterparts, but are naturally endowed with unique variations of plant, animal and micro-organism species occurring in natural ecosystems, as well as the traditional knowledge on how to use these unique species. This knowledge has been adjudged to be responsible for the sustainable maintenance of the earth biodiversity. Increasing exploitation of biodiversity spurred on by the competing realities identified above, has left the earth in a present state of alarm with respect to the uncontrolled loss of biodiversity. The traditional knowledge of local peoples has significantly offered leads to research institutes from the North in developing major advancements in drugs, cosmetics and agriculture. Little or no compensation has however been seen to go back to the indigenous communities and countries that provide resources, and indicate various possibilities through their traditional knowledge to the use of such resources. Efforts by some biodiversity rich countries to ddress this trend through legislation developed in accordance with the principles of the Convention on Biological Diversity have been frustrated due to the inability to enforce their domestic laws outside their borders. Theft of genetic resources and its associated traditional knowledge from such countries has therefore remained a major challenge. Against this backdrop, and on the insistence of biodiversity-rich developing countries, an international regime on access and benefit sharing was negotiated and its final text adopted in 2010. This international regime is as contained in the Nagoya Protocol. This research sets out to examine whether the Nagoya Protocol offers a final solution to the protection of traditional knowledge associated with biodiversity in biodiverse countries. It further examines the importance of domestic legislation in achieving the objectives of the Protocol. The research has been tailored to African biodiverse countries, and seeks these answers within the context of Africa. / South Africa