Traditional knowledge on the medicinal uses of plants, biopiracy and national patent measures in Africa: Exploratory reflections and comparative experiences

• Jurisdiction: South Africa
• Published date: 16 August 2019
• Date: 16 August 2019
• Citation: (2018) 5(1) Journal of Comparative Law in Africa 73
• Pages: 73-109
• Author: Amechi, E.P.

73

TRADITIONAL KNOWLEDGE ON THE

MEDICINAL USES OF PLANTS, BIOPIRACY

AND NATIONAL PATENT MEASURES IN

AFRICA: EXPLORATORY REFLECTIONS AND

COMPARATIVE EXPERIENCES

EMEKA POLYCARP AMECHI*

Abstract

As presently structured, the criteria for the grant of patents are principally based on

a prescriptive Western or conventional scientific narrative that does not accommodate

other descriptions of knowledge, thereby leading to the exclusion of traditional

knowledge on the medicinal uses of plants (TKMUPs) and other non-conventional

scientific narratives. The failure of the mainstream global patent regime to recognise

TKMUPs and other biodiversity TK reinforces its distrust by developing countries

and advocates of indigenous communities, while simultaneously raising passion and

pressure for the review of its conceptual framework. In view of the reluctance to

reform the global patent system, some developing countries have adopteda radically

different approach to intellectual property, particularly as it involves the protection

of their TKMUPs from misappropriation. This article explores the use of national

patent measures for the protection of TKMUP in Africa as a means to remedy

the unsatisfactory and exclusivist tendencies of the global patent system. Using

comparative experiences in India and China, it finds that most African countries

are yet to adopt the relevant measures which would ensure that the patent system

functions effectively in protecting their TKMUP. It therefore stresses the need for

African countries to adopt appropriate national measures that would improve

the operational mechanisms of their patent systems for the effective protection of

medicinal knowledge.

Key words: patents, traditional knowledge, medicinal uses of plants,

biopiracy, commercialisation, disclosure of origins, prior art

Dans leur structure actuelle, les critères de délivrance des brevets reposent

principalement sur un récit scientifique prescriptif occidental ou conventionnel

qui ne tient pas compte d’autres descriptions de connaissances, excluant ainsi les

connaissances traditionnelles sur l’utilisation médicinale des plantes (CTUMP)

et autres récits scientifiques non conventionnels. L’incapacité du régime général

mondial des brevets à reconnaître les CTUMP et autres savoirs traditionnels sur

la biodiversité renforce la méfiance des pays en développement et des défenseurs des

* LLM & PhD (Wits). Senior Lecturer, Faculty of Law, University of Port Harcourt, Choba,

Rivers State. Formerly: Senior Lecturer, Department of Private and Commercial Law, Bowen

University, Iwo, Osun State and Postdoctoral Fellow, Department of Jurisprudence, College of Law,

University of South Africa, Pretoria. Email: em_amechi@yahoo.com.

(2018) 5(1) Journal of Comparative Law in Africa 73

© Juta and Company (Pty) Ltd

74 JOURNAL OF COMPARATIVE LAW IN AFRICA VOL 5, NO 1, 2018

communautés autochtones, tout en suscitant les passions et les pressions pour la

remise en question de son cadre conceptuel. Compte tenu de la réticence à réformer

le système mondial des brevets, certains pays en développement ont adopté une

approche radicalement différente de la propriété intellectuelle, en particulier parce

qu’elle implique la protection de leurs CTUMP contre l’appropriation illicite. Cet

article explore l’utilisation des mesures nationales de brevet pour la protection de

CTUMP en Afrique comme un moyen de remédier aux tendances insatisfaisantes

et exclusivistes du système mondial des brevets. Utilisant des expériences

comparatives en Inde et en Chine, il constate que la plupart des pays africains

n’ont pas encore adopté les mesures pertinentes qui garantiraient que le système

des brevets fonctionne efficacement pour protéger leursCTUMP. Il insiste donc sur

la nécessité pour les pays africains d’adopter des mesures nationales appropriées qui

amélioreraient les mécanismes opérationnels de leurs systèmes de brevets pour la

protection efficace des savoirs médicinauxf

Mots-clés: Brevets, connaissances traditionnelles, utilisation médicinale des plantes,

biopiratage, commercialisation, divulgation des origines, art antérieur

1. INTRODUCTION

Historically, biological resources and associated traditional knowledge

(TK) have been important to many technological innovations, including

medicinal drugs.1 However, since the late 1990s, the focus on these resources

has not been on their contributions to innovations in the pharmaceutical

and biotechnological sectors, but rather on the benefits that should accrue

to indigenous communities from their utilisation. This is necessitated by

the complaint that such utilisation has not always benefited indigenous

communities.2Indeed, some developing countries have had cause to

decry the situation whereby their indigenous communities have been

deprived of benefits from the use of biological resources and associated

traditional knowledge which have been monopolised and used by others,

largely multinational corporations without authorisation. Such state of

affairs, which is manifested in the grant of intellectual property (IP) rights

1 See AJ Beattie, W Barthlott, E Elisabetsky, R Farrel, CT Kheng, I Prance, J Rosenthal,

D Simpson, RRB Leakey, M Wolfson, K ten Kate & S Laird, ‘New Products and Industries from

Biodiversity’ in R Hassan, R Scholes & N Ash (eds) Ecosystems and Human Well-being: Current State

and Trends, Vol. 1 (Millennium Ecosystem Assessment, Island Press, Washington, 2005), 273–295.

2 See J Mugabe, Intellectual Property Protection And Traditional Knowledge: An Exploration in

International Policy Discourse (ACTS Press, Nairobi, 1999), 8, available at: http://www.wipo.int/tk/

en/hr/paneldiscussion/ papers/pdf/mugabe.pdf; SA Hansen & JW Van Fleet Traditional Knowledge

and Intellectual Property: A Handbook on Issues and Options for Traditional Knowledge Holders in

Protecting their Intellectual Property and Maintaining Biological Diversity (American Association for the

Advancement of Science (AAAS) Science and Human Rights Program, Washington DC, July 2003),

at 5; R Okediji, ‘The International Relations of Intellectual Property: Narratives of Developing

Country Participation in the Global Intellectual Property System’ (2003) 7 SJICL, 315–85 at 355;

and A Chander & M Sunder, ‘The Romance of the Public Domain’ (2004) 92 Cali L R, 1331–74

at 1350–55.

© Juta and Company (Pty) Ltd

TRADITIONAL KNOWLEDGE ON THE MEDICINAL USES OF PLANTS,

BIOPIRACY AND NATIONAL PATENT MEASURES IN AFRICA 75

particularly patents to inventions based on or derived from indigenous

biological resources and associated TK, has given rise to a phenomenon

popularly known as biopiracy.3 The term has been criticised by some

commentators as reflecting more of emotional and rhetorical value as

there is limited evidence of such misappropriation, or that it is somehow

facilitated by the patent system.4 Despite this, its continuing relevance,

as well as juridical significance, lies in the perceived injustice within the

global IP system that it popularly represents – ‘the patent claims over

biodiversity and indigenous knowledge that are based on the innovations,

creativity and genius of the people of the Third World’.5

Biopiracy has been under discussion in various international settings,

including the World Trade Organisation (WTO), World Intellectual

Property Organisation (WIPO)6 and the Convention on Biological

Convention (CBD). The discourse in the latter helped in creating

awareness about access to genetic resources and benefit-sharing (ABS)

principles, as evident in the adoption of various laws regulating access to

genetic resources and associated TK within national borders.7 The CBD

also significantly promoted the political will to comply with these ABS

3 Biopiracy generally refers ‘either to the unauthorised commercial use of biological resources

and/or associated TK from developing states, or to the patenting of spurious inventions based on

such knowledge or resources without compensation’. The term was originally coined as part of a

counter attack strategy on behalf of developing states to ‘inspire critical perspectives and political

activism relating to the role of the IPRs in determining the skewed distribution of benefits from

the biotrade ...’. See G Dutfield, ‘TRIPS-Related Aspects of Traditional Knowledge’ (2001) 33 Case

WRes.JIL, 239–79 at 243–44.

4 Ibid. See also G Dutfield, ‘Disclosure of origin: time for a reality check?’ in M Chouchena-

Rojas, MR Muller, D Vivas & S Winkler (eds), Disclosure Requirements: Ensuring mutual supportiveness

between the WTO TRIPS Agreement and the CBD (IUCN, Gland, Switzerland and Cambridge, UK

and ICTSD, Geneva, Switzerland, November 2005), 43–45 at 43 & 44, available at: http://www.ciel.

org/Publications/Disclosure Requirements_Nov2005.pdf (hereinafter Dutfield II).

5 V Shiva, Protect or Plunder? Understanding Intellectual Property Rights (Penguin Books India

and Zed Books, 2001) at 49. See also I Mgbeoji, ‘Bio-Cultural Knowledge and the Challenges of

Intellectual Property Rights Regimes for African Development (2012) 35/2 Dal LJ, 397–423 at 408;

and A Mposhi, C Manyeruke & S Hamauswa ‘The Importance of Patenting Traditional Medicines

in Africa: the case of Zimbabwe’ (January 2013) 3(2) International Journal of Humanities and Social

Science 236 at 240–241.

6 Through its Intergovernmental Committee on Intellectual Property and Genetic Resources,

Traditional Knowledge and Folklore.

7 Mostly by developing states where most of indigenous communities are located. For examples

of such legislation, see WIPO Intergovernmental Comm. on Intellectual Prop & Genetic Res,

Traditional Knowledge & Folklore, Composite Study on the Protection of Traditional Knowledge, 5th Sess,

at 33–40, WIPO Doc WIPO/ GRTKF/IC/5/8 (28 April 2003), available at http://www.wipo.

int/edocs/mdocs/tk/en/wipo_grtkf_ic_5/wipo_grtkf_ic_5_8.pdf (hereinafter WIPO Composite

Study).

© Juta and Company (Pty) Ltd