REWARDING CREATIVITY FOR CONSERVING......

Ethical and Ecological Aspects of Industrial Property Rights CHAIR: THOMAS COTTIER ³¹

REWARDING CREATIVITY FOR CONSERVING DIVERSITY IN THE THIRD WORLD: CAN IPR REGIME SERVE THE NEEDS OF CONTEMPORARY AND TRADITIONAL KNOWLEDGE EXPERTS AND COMMUNITIES IN THIRD WORLD? ³²

Anil K. Gupta³³

Abstracts and Outlines:

The speaker pleaded for a new framework for safeguarding the IPRs of knowledge-rich economically poor individuals and communities in third world countries and presented a new global system of registration for grassroots innovations (Honey Bee)

Regions of high biodiversity are often inhabited by the poorest people. The irony is that many local healers and other herbal experts do not even charge for their services to the community. They conserve biological diversity despite remaining poor themselves. Their superior ethics can not be a reason for our inferior ethics. The fact that the younger people are no more inclined to acquire and improve this knowledge further increases the risk of knowledge erosion. The contemporary innovations suffer even worse fate compared to traditional knowledge. In the absence of any institutions to recognise, respect and reward the grassroots creativity, the intellectual properties are exploited by national and multi-national corporations inviting a charge of biopiracy. The projected losses to third world on this account could be many times more than the suspected loss to developed countries due to copyright and IPR piracy in the third world.

I summarise the arguments of those activists, NGOs and policy makers who oppose the provisions of TRIPs and justify the need for local knowledge to remain in common domain. I critique then the proposals of Community intellectual property rights in so far as these subsume all local knowledge under the rubric of traditional knowledge and all individual knowledge under Community knowledge. The framework for safeguarding the IPRs of knowledge-rich economically poor individuals and communities is presented next. A case is made for the following changes: (1) a global registration system of traditional knowledge as well as contemporary innovations, (2) the newness and non-obviousness of traditional knowledge should be seen in the light of available repertoire on the subject and the transaction costs involved in easily accessing the same, (3) the norms regarding exhaustion of the rights due to publication of local knowledge should be reconsidered and modified so that incentives to share the knowledge by local communities with outsiders are not affected adversely, (4) every patent office in a western country should insist that the patent applicant declares that the knowledge and resources used in a patent have been obtained lawfully and rightfully, (5) the challenge to marry two rather conflicting goals of easy and quick opportunity for lateral learning (through local language publication) among people and sharing of benefits through value addition in the same knowledge as attempted by Honey Bee network be addressed.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

³¹ Professor of European and International Economic Law at the University of Berne, Switzerland.

³² For the full paper see below

³³Coordinator, SRISTI, Professor, Indian Institute of Management, Ahmedabad, India

Since it will be very difficult for any and every community to seek the protection of its knowledge and inventive recipes for various purposes such as herbal pesticides, human or veterinary medicines, vegetative dyes, etc., a registration system should be developed as explained below.

SRISTI and the Honey Bee network have been pleading for a global system of registration for grassroots innovations. The Honey Bee database (one of the world's largest databases of its kind) has more than 2,300 innovations, with the names and addresses of the innovative/creative community and/or individuals along with the name of the communicators through whom we learned about these innovations. A registry will prevent any firm or individual to seek a patent on community knowledge as well as on knowledge and innovations produced by individuals without some kind of cross licensing. It will be possible to achieve the following results from such a registry: (1) acknowledgment of individual and collective creativity, (2) the grant of entitlements to grassroots innovators to receive a share of any returns that may arise from commercial applications of their knowledge, innovations or practices with or without value addition, (3) linking the golden triangle of entrepreneurship by linking investments, enterprise and innovations-small-scale investors in North and South cannot afford to go various countries, scan the diversity of knowledge and resources, negotiate contracts and invest up front huge investments for value addition-(4) an autonomous authority of which local community representatives will be the majority members could be entrusted with the responsibilities of having access to all the contracts, (5) each entry in the register will be coded according to an universal system like ISBN. The postal pin code of the habitat of the community or individuals registering innovations will be incorporated in the indexation system so that geo-referencing of innovations can be done, (6) the entry in the register will at the first stage be mere acknowledgment of creativity and innovation at grassroots level. But later some of the innovations will be considered appropriate for the award of inventors' certificates or a kind of petty patent which is a limited purpose and limited duration protection. The essential purpose of this innovation is also to enable the potential investors (a co-operative of consumers, producers, an entrepreneur or a large firm in private or public sector) to access the innovations and explore opportunities of joint ventures or licensing of innovations for research and commercialisation the transaction costs of both the investors and innovators will be reduced through the registry-(7) the award of a certificate will also increase the entitlement of innovator/s to access to concessional credit and risk cover so that the transition from collector or producer of herbs to developer and marketeer of value-added products can take place in cases where innovators deem that fit, (8) the registration system will also be part of knowledge network linking problem solving people across the world at grassroots level (see discussion on the knowledge network in the later section).

We realise that most governments in developing countries do not have , resources even to pay the salaries of public administrators, to expect them to provide benefits to conservators of diversity and developers of innovations is not a realistic goal. If the private or public or co-operative sector has to share the benefits, it should obviously make profits. IPRs do playa significant role in generating these profits. However, very broad patents like the one in the case of transgenic cotton (which was later rescinded) are in the interest of neither science nor business efficiency in the long term.

So far as sustainable technologies are concerned such as herbal pesticides, growth regulators, vegetative dyes etc, the South can provide technologies to North. But if such innovations are used without appropriate reciprocities, then the knowledge systems which produced these innovations will not last very long. It is true that many poor people in the third world are creative and innovative but they cannot afford costly attorneys. A systems has to be evolved to provide this help through public interest institutions or initiatives. Inventor assistance programmes like the ones tried by the Franklin Law Pierce Centre should be tried out at global scale and in many countries immediately. The patentees in the case of innovations like the ones based on neem trees should agree to share part of their profits with an inter- national innovations support and biodiversity conservation fund. The paper makes a case for adapting patent systems to not only accommodate the creative urges of local communities but also ensure that this vibrant and dynamic laboratory for developing sustainable technologies and products does not die down just because a community of IPR experts could not fathom its long-term potential.

Full Paper :

The debate on the relevance and appropriateness of the conventional IPR regime for plant varieties, products based on knowledge of local communities and individual informal experts and the use of local bio-diversity even without the use of associated knowledge systems has become very emotive in recent years. Many NGOs and activists see no merit in the IPRs regime for providing incentives to local communities and creative individuals. They term the attempts of the large corporations (generally MNCs) to access bio-diversity without sharing any benefits with local communities as "biopiracy". Many others oppose the IPRs because these are supposed to commoditise knowledge which reportedly was always in the common domain for universal/local benefit. The high cost of hiring patent attorneys is supposed to make the present patent system out of reach of grassroots innovators. The absence of any institutional set up in most developing countries to (1) provide information about IPRs, (2) extend help to obtain patents for individuals or communities and (3) oppose the patents by others on the knowledge traditionally known to local communities, have further alienated the moderates and hardened the attitudes of the conventional opponents.

The arguments of those who do not see any hope in the provisions of] TRIPs can be summarised as:

-All the knowledge held by people about use of bio-diversity for treating; various ailments of human and animals, producing vegetative dyes, developing local land races etc., is held in common by the local communities. This knowledge is supposed to have been transferred by , one generation to another over very long period of time with (or. without) some value addition by successive generations.

-The knowledge must be held in the common domain and should not be allowed to be monopolised by MNCs (though the behaviour of public sector and private but national drug companies is no different from the MNCs ¹).

-The intellectual property right regime has evolved for protecting industrial designs and processes and is not suitable for biological processes and products.²

-Since the knowledge of various plants has been developed over several

¹We have made this unpopular argument for last several years through the columns of the Honey Bee newsletter and otherwise that southern governments should not discriminate among national and international companies/organisations regarding (1) the threat to the environment from unrestrained exploitation of germ plasm or bio-diversity without replacing or repairing disturbance to natural habitats, (2) the exploitation of local or traditional or contemporary knowledge of people without prior informed consent, and ensuring an equitable sharing of benefits, (3) contributions to national capacity building in negotiating fair and reasonable contracts among people and the bio-diversity prospectors.

Some exceptions may be made in the case of those NGOs or civil society organisations which are explicitly accountable to people and are experimenting to evolve models of rewarding creativity through material and non-material incentives for individuals and communities.

² The concept of inventiveness in biological materials has remained very contentious. Merely attaching a codon before and after a genetic sequence confers a protection on naturally produced diversity. Similarly, purifying a microbial culture confers similar advantage, since in nature these cultures will be mixed with many other cultures.

The argument of the industry has been that if benefits commensurate with the investments are not ensured, nobody will invest in the research and the product development. Perhaps if part of these benefits were to be spent for conservation of habitats and cultural practices which contribute to conservation of microbial diversity, the popular perception may change. Maybe a major Colombo Plan kind of initiative is required for building infrastructural and human capacity in developing countries in this field through partnership of the corporations and research institutions benefiting from this diversity.

SRISTI undertook a comprehensive survey of soil microbial diversity in 80 villages a Gujarat sampled from eight agro-ecological regions to map diversity from cultivated and uncultivated fields to distinguish chemical intensive and organic farms and also to see whether this diversity could be screened for useful purposes. So far we could analyse only about 60 samples out of 720 collected at great cost. Incentives for conservation can indeed be generate if more that 1,900 bacterial, fungal and acrinomycetes cultures isolated so far are properly identified and screened (SRISTI, 1996).

generations, why should the present generation be entitled to reap all the rewards if any? ³

-Why should governments be entitled to any benefits from the commercialisation of patented products when the resource and the knowledge were actually provided by individuals or communities? ⁴

-While process patents can be provided, the product patents impede research, generate excessive monopoly to one or few inventors, make the technology or products out of reach of the common people due to price increases, and discourage expertise of successful reverse engineering in the third world.

There are many other arguments on ethical and efficiency grounds against the patenting of life forms⁵ and also against the products derived from common knowledge without any reciprocity towards knowledge generators or providers in one or more countries in the region^6. I propose to dispel many of these myths, acknowledge where there is a genuine case for

³ It should be noted that as against fewer than 2,000 medicinal plants mentioned in the classical Aryurvedic texts, uses of about 7,000 plants are already documented in the folk oral tradition (Dr. Pushpangandan, 1996). We have ourselves identified many plants for which either no use is mentioned in the NAPRALERT database at the University of Chicago (it has comprehensive information about 40,000 species published in more than 125,000 papers/books and 500 journals screened every month) or the use mentioned is different from or opposite to the one found in the Honey Bee survey of farmers' innovations.

Large number of innovation for herbal pesticides or veterinary medicines were in fact developed only recently by individuals. One of my students, viz. Astad Pastakia, recently finished his doctorate research on heuristics of 20 such innovators who had developed new uses of bio- diversity for sustainable pest management. Two heuristics had not been reported in formal scientific literature before including the one dealing with combining plant and insect to produce a pest repellent.

⁴ This argument has arisen in the context of Art. 15.5 as well as Arts. 8 j and 10 c of Convention of Biological Diversity (CBD). Prior informed consent is required only of parties to the Convention i.e. the contracting Nation States, and not of the knowledge- and resource- providing communities. Under Art. 8 j, however, the approval and involvement of local communities and Individuals is required for ensuring equitable sharing of the benefits. Whether, that happens will of course depend upon the legislative environment and local institutional capacity in each country. The institutions which deprive knowledge-rich, economically poor people of their basic rights and needs would let any benefits trickle down to them will depend upon the access of such people to alternative frameworks of negotiation and mutually agreeable contracts.

⁵The campaign against life forms in Europe and many other parts of the world is based essentially on the notion that tinkering with life forms through transgenic animals or genetically engineering animals may threaten the very existence of life on this planet.

⁶The ethical issues in accessing bio-diversity were articulated in an issue paper (Gupta, 1994) which led to the development of ethical guidelines by a group of Pew Conservation scholars and later endorsed by a larger community of Pew Scholars in principle (Ethical guide- lines, 1994, Honey Bee, 1995, Eubios, 1995). It was recognised that the relationship of the outsiders with local bio-diversity and related knowledge could be guided by extractive and non-extractive modes for commercial and non-commercial purposes. It was also stressed that negotiations for benefit sharing should take place at different stages of value addition.

reforms of patent regime and finally suggest an alternative framework may be needed to help achieve the goals of IPRs i.e. rewarding inventive and creative activities in society. It is acknowledged that encouragement to creative and innovative spirit at grassroots level will not be Possible only through IPR regimes.⁷

My case is:

(a) Not all the knowledge held by people in bio-diversity-rich, economically poor regions and communities is (1) traditional, (2) forward in fossilised form from one generation to another but has been improvised by successive generations, (3) collective in nature, and (4) even if known to communities, is reproduced by everybody.⁸

(b) Considerable knowledge of economic importance is produced by individuals and also in recent times i.e. through contemporary innovations.

(c) Even the traditional knowledge should receive a certain kind of protection if incentives have to be generated to conserve not only the knowledge but also the institutions of its reproduction and intergenerational transfer. We should not kill the goose which has laid the golden eggs for so long.

(d) Given the high hit rate in formal research around locally identified uses of plants and other kinds of bio-diversity, transaction costs of formal R & D systems in private and public systems are reduced considerably.⁹ They should in turn share the benefits that may accrue from commercialisation of such protected products. In some cases local communities or individuals, as the case may be, should be considered co-inventors of the new-value added products.

(e) The newness and non-obviousness of traditional knowledge should be

⁷It is for this reason that we have been arguing since 1989 that various ~ involving material and non-material incentives for individual and communities applicable in the short and long tern should be explored. One of the material individual ways of rewarding creativity can be patenting and other such forms of protection of intellectual Property (Gupta 1989, 1990, 1991, 1995, Honey Bee 1989-95).

⁸There are many herbalists who provide service to everybody in the community even without charge. However, the beneficiaries of this knowledge contribute to this knowledge to the same extent as do students in a class to the knowledge of the teacher. There is a lot a teacher learns from some students. Do students become co-author of all publications of their knowledge? In any case why are not all the books and papers published by critiques of IPRs anonymous or co-authored by everyone with whom they have discussed the ideas ever. In fact I noticed that the contribution of personal communications in the writing of such critics may be more or less than in others.

⁹It should be remembered that out of 114 plant-derived drugs, more than 70 % are used for the same purpose for which the native people discovered their use (Farnsworth, 1988).This proves that basic research linking cause and effect had been done successfully by the people in the majority of cases. Modern science and technology could supplement the efforts of the people, improve the efficiency of the extraction of the active ingredient or synthesise analogue of the same, thereby improving effectiveness (Gupta, 1991).

seen in the light of the available repertoire for that particular purpose. ¹⁰

(f) The local knowledge should qualify to be considered new for the purpose of prior art, since outside communities/companies may not have had access otherwise. The norms regarding exhaustion of the rights due to publication of local knowledge should be reconsidered and modified so that incentives to share the knowledge by local communities with outsiders are not affected adversely. ¹¹

(g) The argument that all the knowledge should be treated as common property is not tenable because large number of local experts we have met so far are extremely knowledgeable though very poor. They know far more than anybody else in the village and have the expertise to prepare various solutions, Others may know about it but they may not have contributed to it except by giving an opportunity for testing, To that extent they should have a small share in the entitlements. But the entitlements of an expert could not be on a par with those of the rest of community, Local communities have not provided them with any significant incentives, such that either their children or other younger people should try to learn their skills, It should also be noted that secrecy is not a gift of the modem patent regime. Lots of traditional knowledge has already been lost or is in the process of being lost because the expert concerned did not ever share the innovation with anyone,

¹⁰This is a rather complicated issue given the differences in the US and European patent norms. Shayan Kadilal suggests that the USPTO norms have not undergone change in this regard for almost 100 years and require publications accessible in USA to claim prior art. Also given the very limited time that is spent by examiners (often only few hours and generally not more than 20-30 references), the prior art examination creates situations like the one witnessed in the patent on turmeric powder applications for oral and external application for wound healing. This patent should never have been granted and makes a mockery of inventiveness as well as non obviousness.

Chris Blanc had given an example in personal communication of a patent that was opposed on account of a third party thesis reporting the results which had been patented. However, the patent was upheld because the thesis had not been catalogued and thus was not easily or reasonably accessible to the patentee. This ground can be used to patent any traditional knowledge of the third world by anyone in the USA.

¹¹ Further to the previous n., the norms of protection being granted to an applicant if applications are made within one year of publication may have to be modified in the case of people's knowledge. We have to consider the fact that the Government of India has already prohibited, and for good reason, the publication of results of the All India co-ordinated Project critics may on Ethnobiology administered by the Ministry of the Environment. This could become a trend all over the world. Further, this policy also comes in the way of sharing of this knowledge back with the people (not that this knowledge was ever shared back with people even with this restriction). The Honey Bee network faces this dilemma every day. Since our major aim is to empower the creativity of local communities and individuals without impairing their IPRs, we have to decide how much detail to publish even in the local language. But we have erred on the side of sharing whenever there was some knowledge that could help small farmers reduce their costs and replace or reduce chemical inputs.

(h) Every patent office in a western country should insist that a patent applicant declares that the knowledge and resources used in a patent have been obtained lawfully and legally.

This Implies the need of regulations in developed countries requiring full disclosure by any corporation or an individual seeking patent protection on a plant based drug or any other natural product. The disclosure should provide that the source material has been rightfully and lawfully acquired. “Rightful” acquisition would involve moral as well as ethical issues in access to bio-diversity. For instance even if a local community has not asked for any price for sharing the material or the knowledge about it, is the corporation bound by ethical conduct set up trust funds and other forms of reciprocity for local communities? Is it incumbent upon it to ensure that the superior ethics of local communities remaining poor despite conserving biological diversity and the knowledge around it does not become a reason for perpetuating their poverty, and thus endangering the survival of diversity itself?

The "lawful" acquisition will imply that prior informed consent and approval and the involvement of local communities and creative individuals has been ensured provided that the bio-diversity donor country has laws requiring such consent and approval. If a country does not have any such laws, as for instance India, then acquiring any material will be lawful or legal but may not be rightful.

(i) The publication of local knowledge deprives on one hand any benefit that may arise from value addition in local knowledge to the individual or community or nation concerned and, on the other, makes it Possible for people struggling with similar problem to learn from it. This happens through publication in local languages as attempted by Honey Bee. However, the challenge is to marry two goals of easy and quick opportunity for lateral learning (through local language publication) and sharing of benefits through value addition in the same knowledge. Giving legitimacy to databases like Honey Bee and a registration system of innovations, as proposed in the next point below, may provide the answer. Honey Bee will then make its databases accessible to all patent offices in lieu of the protection provided to the communities and individuals whose knowledge is catalogued in it. The alternative of greater secrecy and withholding of knowledge will make everyone a loser through (1) greater erosion of oral knowledge, (2) continued unwillingness of the younger generation to learn the knowl- edge, innovations and practices developed Over a long period of time, (3) depriving knowledge holders as well as those dependent upon them any opportunity to improve their livelihood prospects through sharing of Possible benefits, (4) lack of material incentives for the conservation of endangered species, (5) knowledge-rich poor communities may migrate out due to low opportunity for subsistence and employment and not take care of local resource or over-exploit the resource itself, netting very little value in a short period of time, and (6) stifling the very creative and buoyant laboratory of innovations at the grassroots by denying any social esteem for such knowledge through material as well as non-material incentives and general neglect.

(j) Since it will be very difficult for any and every community to seek protection of its knowledge and inventive recipes for various purposes such as herbal pesticides, human or veterinary medicines, vegetative dyes, etc., a registration system should be developed as explained below.

SRISTI and the Honey Bee network have been pleading for a global system of registration for grassroots innovations. The Honey Bee database has more than 2,300 innovations with the names and addresses of the innovative/creative community and/or individuals along with the names of the communicators through whom we have learned these innovations.

Such a registry will prevent any firm or individual seeking a patent on community knowledge as well as on knowledge and innovations produced by individuals without some kind of cross licensing.

It will be possible to achieve the following results from such a registry:

(a) Acknowledgement of individual and collective creativity.

(b) Grant entitlements to grassroots innovators for receiving a share of any returns that may arise from commercial applications of their knowledge, innovations or practices with or without value addition secondary entitlements.

(c) Linking the golden triangle of entrepreneurship by linking investments, enterprise and innovations. Small-scale investors in the North and South cannot afford to go to various countries, scan diversity of knowledge and resources, negotiate contracts and invest up front huge investments for value addition. If they do not participate, then the field will remain dominated by only large corporations. This register will help small-scale investors seek opportunities of communication with communities and individual innovators and explore opportunities of investment. A large number of potential negotiation will take place, increasing the opportunities for innovative communities and individuals. The competition among the investors tempered by competition (2) among potential suppliers of various kinds of knowledge as well as diversity will moderate expectations on both the sides.

(d) An autonomous authority of which local community representatives will be the majority members could be entrusted with the responsibilities of having access to all the contracts. A copy of the contracts may have to be deposited with this Authority so as to avoid short changing of the communities. These contracts will also be scrutinised to see whether management plans for sustainable extraction of diversity have been drawn in a scientifically appropriate manner or not. Penalties may have to be imposed for non-sustainable extraction of herbs by domestic as well as external extractors.

(e) Each entry in the register will be coded according to a universal system like ISBN. The postal pin code of the habitat of the community or individuals registering innovations will be incorporated in the indexation system so that geo-referencing of innovations can be done. In due course the contextual information of innovations can also be incorporated in the system so that this systems of innovations can help cross connect the communities having similar ecological situations or facing similar constraints or challenges.

(f) The entry in the register will at the first stage be mere acknowledgement of creativity and innovation at grassroots level. But later some of the innovations will be considered appropriate for the award of inventors' certificates or a kind of petty patent which is a limited purpose and limited duration protection. The essential purpose of this innovation is also to enable the potential investors (a co-operative of consumers, producers, an entrepreneur, or a large firm in the private or public sector).

(g) The award of a certificate will also increase the entitlement of the innovator/s to access to concessional credit and risk cover so that the transition from collector, or producer of herbs to developer and marketeer of value added products can take place in cases where innovators deem that fit.

(h) The registration system will also be part of the knowledge network linking problem-solving people across the world at the grassroots level (see the discussion on the knowledge network in the later section). This will promote people to people learning and serve as a multi-language, multi-level, multi-media (oral, textual, electronic) clearing house for local and indigenous communities. Wherever necessary and possible, formal scientific institutions will be linked up in the network.

Apart from the registration system a large number of specific incentives would need to be developed for different categories of knowledge, innovations and practices. Similarly the incentives for preservation of sustainable lifestyles of indigenous communities would also be different.

We realise that most governments in developing countries do not have the resources even to pay the salaries of public administrators, to expect them to provide benefits to conservators of diversity and developers of innovations is not a realistic goal. If the private or public or co-operative sector has to share the benefits, they should obviously make profits. IPRs do play a significant role in generating these profits. However, very broad patents like the one in the case of transgenic cotton (which was later rescinded) are in the interest neither of science nor business efficiency in the long term.

So far as sustainable technologies are concerned, such as herbal pesticides, growth regulators, vegetative dyes etc., the South can provide technologies to the North. But if such innovations are used without appropriate reciprocities, then the knowledge systems which produced these innovations will not last very long. It is true that poor people in the third -world may be creative and innovative, but they cannot afford costly attorneys. A system has to be evolved to provide this help through public-interest) - institutions or initiatives. Inventor assistance programmes like the ones tried by the Franklin Law Pierce Center should be tried out on a global scale and in many countries immediately.

The patentees in the case of innovations like the ones based on neem trees should agree to share part of their profits with an international innovations of support and bio-diversity conservation fund. After all they did not stumble upon neem tree-based knowledge randomly. The contributions of local communities in several countries made the innovation possible.

The paper makes a case for adapting patent systems not only to accommodate, the creative urges of local communities but also to ensure that this public vibrant and dynamic laboratory for developing sustainable technologies and products does not die down just because a community of IPR experts could not fathom its long-term potential.

Selected Papers from the SRISTI Group on the Subject

Gupta, Anil K., Survival Under Stress: Socio-Ecological Perspective on Farmers' )ts level Innovation and Risk Adjustments, W.P. No. 738,1988, International Congress on ) Th. Plant Physiology, New Delhi, 1988., revised version published in Capitalism, m. 1S Nature and Socialism, 5,1990,79-96.

Scientific Perception of Farmers' Innovations in Dry Regions: Barriers to Scientific; Curiosity, September 1987, 11M Working Paper No. 699, presented at International possible, Conference on Farmer Participatory Research at IDS, Sussex, July 1987.

The Right to Resource: Peasant Knowledge, Protocol of its "Extraction" and Ethics of Collaboration In Extractions, W.P. no-851, January 1990, 12. Also published in brief as "Peasant Knowledge-Who has Rights To Use It?" ILEIA, News Letter, Mar. 1990.24-5.

Why Does Poverty Persist in Regions of High Biodiversity?: A Case for Indigenous Property Right System, Paper invited for the International conference on Property Rights and Genetic Resources sponsored by IUCN, UNEP and ACTS at Kenya, 10-16 June 1991. IIMA Working Paper No.1003

(With Kirit K. Patel and B.L. Patil) , Conserving Diversity For Sustainable Development, The Case of Plants of Insecticidal and Veterinary Medicine Importance, Presented at Project Design Workshop on Genetic Resources for lay a Sustainable Agriculture, convened by M.S. Swaminathan Research Foundation, like the Madras, 22-3 November 1991. lIMA Working Paper No. 1003.

Sustainability Through Biodiversity: Designing Crucible of Culture, Creativity and Conscience, Presented at International Conference on Biodiversity and Conservation held at Danish Parliament, Copenhagen, 8 November 1991. IIMA Working Paper No. 1005. Cons

Biodiversity and Poverty vis-a-vis Biotechnology and Prosperity, IIMA Working Cons Paper No. 954., August 1991. 17),

Biodiversity,Poverty and Intellectual Property Rights of Third World Peasants: A Case for Renegotiating Global Understanding, The paper is an invited contribution for Project Design Workshop on Genetic Resources For Sustainable Agriculture, M S Swarninathan Research Foundation, Madras, 22-3 November November 1991, Published in "Biodiversity: Implications for Global Food Security" (eds. M.S. Swaminathan, and S. Jana).

Biotechnology and Intellectual Property Rights: Protecting the linterests of Third World Farmers and Scientists, IIMA Working Paper No. 1057., published in Commercialization of Biotechnologies for Agriculture and Aquaculture: Status Cross, and Constraints in India (eds., U.K. Srivastava, S. Chandrasekhar) (New Delhi, Oxford, IBH Publishing Co. Pvt. Ltd.), 31-56.

Biotechnology for Lifestock Improvement: Some Issues and Perspectives, published in Commercialization of Biotechnologies for Agriculture and Aquaculture: Status and Constraints in India (eds., U.K. Srivastava, S. Chandrasekhar) (New Delhi, Oxford, IBH Publishing Co. Pvt. Ltd.), 117-26.

Developing Technologies for Sustainable Resource Management: Eating your Cake Comp and Having it Too!, paper presented at an International Course on Technology Triangle-linking scientists, extension workers and farmers at Royal Agri. and Pre Vety. Univ., Denmark, 6-10 April 1992.

Eco-Institutional Perspective on Maintaining Diversity, presented at the Second Conference of the International Society of Ecological Economics on Investing in Natural Capital, Stockholm, August 1992, IIMA W.P No. 1060, 1992.

Environmental Policy Analysis for Maintaining Diversity, presented in AASREC Seminar on Environment and Sustainable Development, organized by ICSSR, at IDS, Jaipur, during 4-5 January 1993. Pate

(With Aseem Prakash), On Internalization of Externalities, IIMA WP No. 1126, PI August 1993.

Biotechnology and IPR: Third World Issues for Farmers and Scientists, published in Biotechnology Monographs: Focus on Third World Issues, Series 1, Number 1, May 1993.

Compensating Local Communities for Conserving Biodiversity: Shall We Save the H Goose that Laid the Golden Eggs So Long, IIMA Working Paper No. 1206, August 1994.

Ethical Issues in Prospecting Biodiversity, IIMA Working Paper No. 1205, August 1994.

Dilemma in Conservation of Biodiversity: Ethical, Equity and Moral Issues-a Review, prepared for a workshop of Pew Conservation Scholars on Developing Ethical Guidelines for Accessing Biodiversity, Arizona, October, 1994, published under the title, "Ethical Dilemmas in Conservation of Biodiversity: Towards Developing Global Acceptable Ethical Guidelines" in Eubios Journal of Asian and International Bioethics 5 (Japan), March 1995,40-6.

Social and Ethical Dimensions of Ecological Economics, Key Note Paper invited: presentation at the Conference, Down To Earth International Society of Ecological Economies, Costa Rica, October 1994.

Suggested Ethical Guidelines for Accessing and Exploring Biodiversity-A Pew Conservation Scholars Initiative, 21 October 1994 (a collective effort of Pew Conservation Scholars based on three background notes including G 16 and G 17), published in Eubios Journal of Asian and International Bioethics 5 (Japan), March 1995,38-40.

Secular Basis of Sustainable Spirit: Understanding Roots of Creativity and ~ Innovations at Grassroots Level, SRISII/IIMA Discussion. Paper No.2,

November 1993.

(With Vijaya Sherry Chand), Alternatives for Action: SRISTI's Vision on Prioritization of Investments under Biodiversity Convention-A Submission to Global Biodiversity Forum, Bahamas, 26-9 November 1994.

Conservation Through Competitions: Global Campaign for Biodiversity Contests. Crossroads of Creativity: Building upon People's Knowledge, background paper for a Workshop organised for the Top Management of International Fund for Agricultural Development (IFAD), Rome, April, 1995.

Misinformation on Neem: What Could be the Motive?, a shorter version published in Down To Earth, 1994.

Commercialization of Agricultural Technologies, a note prepared for discussion at ICAR on the subject, 1994.

Compensating Local Communities for Conserving Biodiversity: How Much, Who Will, How and When, (ed. L. Guruswamy and Jeff McNeely), Seeds They Preserve, Arizona: University of Tulsa, forthcoming.

People's Knowledge for Survival: Grassroot Innovations for Sustainable Natural Resource Management.

Knowledge Centre: Building Upon What People Know; presented at the IFAD's International Conference on Hunger & Poverty in Brussels during 16-23 November 1995.

Neem-mania, What Else?, published in Down to Earth, November 1995, 52-3. Patents on Neem: Will They Deprive Indian Farmers of Their Rights to Use it as a Pesticide, Published in Biotechnology Law Report, Volume 15, Number 1, January-February 1996,6-14.

Farmers' Innovations for Sustainable Resource Management and Conservation of Biological Diversity, presented as invited paper in the International Symposium on Food Security & Innovations: Successes and Lessons Learned at University of Hohenheim, 12-15 March 1996.

(With Chokkakula Srinivas), Knowledge Centers/Networks for Empowering Knowledge-Rich-Economically Poor Communities and Innovators: DSS for Solution Augmentation for Sustainable Development, presented as invited paper in the Workshop on DSS organized by The United Nations University in Macau, 26 February-8 March 1996.

Crops, Creativity and Compensation: Honey Bee Network Approach to Participatory Breeding, Diversity, 1996, forthcoming.

The Honey Bee Network: Voices from Grassroots Innovators, Cultural Survival Quarterly, Spring 1996, 57-60.

Aseem Prakash and Anil K. Gupta, 1994, "Institutions and Environmental Sustainability", in Willem A. Hamel (ed.) Proceedings of the Ecol-

Environmanagement Group, 39-49, The Association of Management, 12th Annual Conference, Dallas, Texas, 10-13 August.

Publications