/ Distr.
GENERAL
UNEP/CBD/WG8J/8/5
11September 2013[**]
ORIGINAL: ENGLISH
AD HOC OPEN-ENDED INTER-SESSIONAL WORKING GROUP ON ARTICLE 8(j) AND RELATED PROVISIONS OF THE CONVENTION ON BIOLOGICAL DIVERSITY
Eighth meeting
Montreal, 7-11 October 2013
Item 6(b) of the provisional agenda[*]
development of best-practice guidelines for the repatriation of traditional knowledge relevant to the conservation and sustainable use of biological diversity
Note by the Executive Secretary
introduction
1.In paragraph 8 of decision IX/13 A, the Conference of the Parties decided to initiate task 15[1] of the programme of work for Article 8(j) and related provisions, in order to facilitate the recovery of traditional knowledge ofbiological diversity. Further to this, in decision XI/14 D, the Conference of the Parties adopted the terms of reference and requested the Secretariat to compile and analyse submissions from Parties and other relevant organizations and to develop draft best-practice guidelines for the repatriation of traditional knowledge relevant for conservation and sustainable use of biological diversity for consideration by the Ad Hoc Open-ended Working Group on Article 8(j) and Related Provisions at its eighth meeting.The Conference of the Parties also requested the Executive Secretary to seek the cooperation of the United Nations Educational, Scientific, and Cultural Organization (UNESCO) in analysing whether and how other different international legal instruments that address cultural property and heritage of indigenous and local communities contribute to repatriation of traditional knowledge relevant to the conservation and sustainable use of biological diversity.
UNEP/CBD/WG8J/8/5
Page 1
2. Based on these requests, the Secretariat has prepared the current documentto facilitate the discussions. Section I contains background information and also responds to the request in paragraph 5 of the terms of reference[2] regardinghow task 15 might usefully complement the effective implementation of the Nagoya Protocol (when in force); Section II provides information on repatriationof traditional knowledge within the context of the Convention on Biological Diversity, as well as information on this issue from other relevant international processes and standards; Section III includes information onrelated processes pertaining to cultural heritage and cultural property under UNESCO; Section IV contains a summary of submissions received;[3] Section V contains a sampling of best practices; Section VI considers some lessons learned; and finally Section VII containsdraft recommendations for the consideration of the Working Group, including,as an annex, the draft best-practice guidelines for the repatriation of traditional knowledge relevant to the conservation and sustainable use of biological diversity.
- BACKGROUND
The Convention on Biological Diversity
3. Within the context of the Convention on Biological Diversity, traditional knowledge refers to the knowledge, innovations and practices of indigenous and local communities embodying traditional lifestyles relevant for the conservation and sustainable use of biological diversity. Developed from experience gained over the centuries and adapted to the local culture and environment, traditional knowledge is transmitted orally from generation to generation. It tends to be collectively owned and takes the form of stories, songs, folklore, proverbs, cultural values, beliefs, rituals, community laws, local language, and agricultural practices, including the development of plant species and animal breeds. As such, it is a component of intangible cultural heritage. Sometimes it is referred to as an oral traditional for it is practiced, sung, danced, painted, carved, chanted and performed down through millennia. Traditional knowledge is mainly of a practical nature, particularly in such fields as agriculture, animal husbandry, fisheries, health, horticulture, forestry and environmental management in general.[4]There is today a growing appreciation of the value of traditional knowledge and the importance of exchange of information, including the repatriation of traditional knowledge and related information to indigenous and local communities for knowledge and cultural restoration.
4. Many government departments, universities, museums, herbaria, botanical and zoological gardens and other entities may house collections containing information on the knowledge, innovations and practices of indigenous and local communities relevant to conservation and sustainable use.
Development of best-practice guidelines that would facilitate enhancement of the repatriation of indigenous and traditional knowledge
5. The revisedprogramme of work on Article 8(j) and related provisions(decision X/43), includestask 15,whichrequests the Working Group to develop guidelines that would facilitate repatriation of information, including cultural property, in accordance with paragraph 2 of Article 17 of the Convention on Biological Diversity in order to facilitate the recovery of traditional knowledge of biological diversity”. Further to this, the eleventh meeting of the Conference of the Parties, in its decision XI/14 D,adoptedthe terms of reference to advance task 15 of the programme of work on Article 8(j) and related provisions. In doing so the Conference of the Parties has clarified that “the purpose of task 15 is to develop best-practice guidelines that would facilitate enhancement of the repatriation of indigenous and traditional knowledge relevant to the conservation and sustainable use of biological diversity, including of indigenous and traditional knowledge associated with cultural property, in accordance with Article 8(j) and Article 17, paragraph 2, of the Convention, in order to facilitate the recovery of traditional knowledge of biological diversity”. The terms of reference also mention that “task 15 is intended to build on and enhance repatriation undertaken by Parties, other Governments and other entities, including international organizations, museums, herbaria and botanical and zoological gardens, databases, registers, gene banks, etc.”
How work on Task 15 might usefully complement the effective implementation of the Nagoya Protocol
6. Paragraph 5 of the terms of reference contained in the annex to decision XI/14 D requests the Working Group on Article 8(j) to advise the Conference of the Parties on how work on task 15 might usefully complement the effective implementation of the Nagoya Protocol on Access to Genetic Resources and the Fair and Equitable Sharing of Benefits Arising from their Utilization (decision X/2). The Protocol contains significant provisions relating to traditional knowledge associated with genetic resources held by indigenous and local communities, as well as to genetic resources held by indigenous and local communities where the rights of these communities over these genetic resources have been recognized. It does not, however, address repatriation of traditional knowledge.
7. Although the Nagoya Protocol does not specifically call for the protection of traditional knowledge, it incorporates a series of provisions addressing traditional knowledge which contribute to the protection of traditional knowledge. Its general provisions offer in practice,tools and mechanisms which are driven by this underlying objective. The Nagoya Protocol provides, among other principles, that access to and use of traditional knowledge should be subject to the prior informed consent or approval and involvement of the relevant indigenous and local communities (knowledge holders) and furthermore participate in the equitable sharing of benefits derived thereof and that this is based upon mutually agreed terms.
8.For the purpose of the Nagoya Protocol, it may be useful to consider at least two scenarios regarding the repatriation of traditional knowledge. Firstly the knowledge may not be related or associated with genetic resources and would therefore fall outside of the scope of the Protocol. In such cases repatriation of knowledge and related information may assist in cultural restoration and social/community cohesion but would not directly impact on the implementation of the Nagoya Protocol.
9. The second scenario considers the repatriation of knowledge associated with genetic resources. In such cases, associated knowledge falling within the scope of the Protocol, after being returned to indigenous and local communities, could require prior informed consent or approval and involvement, mutually agreed terms and benefit-sharing arrangements, if the knowledge is subsequently accessed from the community.
10. Further to this matter, the review of the draft principles and guidelines on the heritage of indigenous peoples[5] considers in its chapter on public domain, that due consideration should be given to the interest of third parties that had acquired such elements in good faith. Continued use of indigenous and local community traditional knowledge already readily available to the general public, in a manner that is fair and equitable, paying particular attention to the rights and interests of those from whom the elements originated, could thus be excluded from the obligation to obtain prior informed consent, but may give rise to expectations of equitable sharing of benefits. The issue on instances in which it is not possible to grant or obtain prior informed consent is taken up under Article 10 of the Nagoya Protocol on a Global Multilateral Benefit-sharing Mechanism and will be discussed at the Expert Meeting on Article 10 of the Nagoya Protocol on Access to Genetic Resources and the Fair and Equitable Sharing of Benefits Arising from its Utilization, scheduled to take place from 17 to 19 September 2013, and the third meeting of the Inter-governmental Committee on the Nagoya Protocol (ICNP-3), when it meets in the Republic of Korea from 24-28 February 2014.
11. A number of Parties have stated in their submissions that knowledge should be restored to indigenous and local communities, but that repatriated knowledge that is publicly available or in the public domain, should remain freely available, including to the repatriating entity. Repatriation on these terms would assist with knowledge and cultural restoration and facilitate the recovery of traditional knowledge which is the aim of task 15, but may limit future possibilities of (monetary) benefits for communities arising from the effective implementation of the Nagoya Protocol concerning use of traditional knowledge associated with genetic resources, which has been returned to them. At the same time, a careful balance is required to ensure that a disincentive is not created by placing unreasonable expectations on repatriating entities.
12. Taking all this into account, the Working Group may wish to pass on a summary of views on this matter, annexed to the draft decision, for the consideration of Conference of the Parties and the Nagoya Protocol process. To assist Parties, a draft recommendation is prepared in section VII for this purpose.
II. REPATRIATION OF TRADITIONAL KNOWLEDGE
The Convention on Biological Diversity
13. Article 17 (Exchange of Information)refers to the following two points: in paragraph 1,the Contracting Parties shall facilitate the exchange of information, from all publicly available sources, relevant to the conservation and sustainable use of biological diversity, taking into account the special needs of developing countries;and in paragraph 2,such exchange of information shall include exchange of results of technical, scientific and socio-economic research, as well as information on training and surveying programmes, specialized knowledge, indigenous and traditional knowledge as such and in combination with the technologies referred to in Article 16, paragraph 1. It shall also, where feasible, include repatriation of information.” As such the implementation of Article 17 regarding traditional knowledge can be advanced, at least in part, through task 15 on repatriation.
14.“Repatriation” in the context of traditional knowledge means the return of knowledge, innovations andpractices of indigenous and local communities and related information, after a considerable period of time, to where it originated or was obtained for the recovery of knowledge on biological diversity.
The Tkarihwaié:ri Code of Ethical Conduct to Ensure Respect for the Cultural and Intellectual Heritage of Indigenous and Local Communities
15. The Tkarihwaié:ri Code of Ethical Conduct (decision X/42) provides guidance to Parties, Governments, researchers and others interacting with indigenous and local community on procedures and principles to consider when working with indigenous and local communities. The issue of repatriation is taken up in paragraph 23, which states: “Repatriation efforts ought to be made to facilitate the repatriation of information in order to facilitate the recovery of traditional knowledge of biological diversity.”
United Nations Declaration of the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (UN DRIP)
16. Article 12 of UN DRIP refers to repatriation of ceremonial objects and human remains: “1. Indigenous peoples have the right to manifest, practise, develop and teach their spiritual and religious traditions, customs and ceremonies; the right to maintain, protect, and have access in privacy to their religious and cultural sites; the right to the use and control of their ceremonial objects; and the right to the repatriation of their human remains. 2. States shall seek to enable the access and/or repatriation of ceremonial objects and human remains in their possession through fair, transparent and effective mechanisms developed in conjunction with indigenous peoples concerned”[6]
17. Although the UN DRIP does not explicitly mention repatriation of traditional knowledge it does state in Article 31 that: “Indigenous peoples have the right to maintain, control, protect and develop their cultural heritage, traditional knowledge and traditional cultural expressions, as well as the manifestations of their sciences, technologies and cultures, including human and genetic resources, seeds, medicines, knowledge of the properties of fauna and flora, oral traditions, literatures, designs, sports and traditional games and visual and performing arts. They also have the right to maintain, control, protect and develop their intellectual property over such cultural heritage, traditional knowledge, and traditional cultural expressions”.
Draft Principles and Guidelines on the Protection of the Heritage of Indigenous Peoples
18. The Draft Principles and Guidelines on the Protection of the Heritage of Indigenous Peoples was elaborated by the Special Rapporteur, Mrs Erica-Irene A. Daes in 1997 and reviewed at a seminar on the draft principles and guidelines for the protection of the heritage of indigenous peoples in 2000 and also reviewed and updated inthereview of the draft principles and guidelines on the heritage of indigenous peoples in 2005[7].It recognizes that the heritage of indigenous peoples has a collective character and is comprised of all objects, sites and knowledge including languages, and has been transmitted from generation to generation, and pertains to a particular people or its territory. The heritage of indigenous peoples also includes the objects, sites, knowledge and literary or artistic creation of that people, which may be created or rediscovered in the future based upon their heritage.[8] It also notes that the heritage of indigenous peoples includes all moveable cultural property as defined by the relevant Conventions of the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO); all kinds of literature and artistic creation such as music, dance, song, ceremonies, symbols and designs, narratives and poetry and all forms of documentation of ecological knowledge, including innovations based upon that knowledge, cultigens, remedies, medicines and the use of flora and fauna; human remains; immoveable cultural property such as sacred sites of cultural, natural and historical significance and burials[9].This draft guideline has a section on recovery which states that: “whenever possible, indigenous peoples shall be entitled to restitution of control and possession of moveable elements of their cultural heritage, including from across international borders.”
III. REPATRIATION AND CULTURAL PROPERTY
UNESCO
Repatriation of cultural property
19. UNESCO and its Conventions hold the mandate for the protection cultural property, including return of cultural property within the United Nations system. UNESCO was created in 1945 with a mandate which includes culture. Under UNESCO are some international conventions and mechanism related to cultural property including: The Convention on the Means of Prohibiting and Preventing the Illicit Import, Export and Transfer of Ownership of Cultural Property 1970; The UNIDROIT Convention on Stolen or Illegal Exported Cultural Objects and Intergovernmental Committee for Promoting the Return of Cultural Property to its Countries of Origin or its Restitution in case of Illicit Appropriation.UNESCO is also responsible for the Convention for the Safeguarding of the Intangible Cultural Heritage[10] 2003. These Conventions refer to cultural property, including intangible cultural heritage which may include traditional knowledge such as through archives and data-bases but do not deal explicitly with repatriation. None of the conventions studied have worked on or are planning to work on the repatriation of traditional knowledge however, it is important to recall that future work and the interpretation of these legal obligations remain the prerogative of the member State Parties.
The Convention on the Means of Prohibiting and Preventing the Illicit Import, Export and Transfer of Ownership of Cultural Property 1970
20. The Convention on the Means of Prohibiting and Preventing the Illicit Import, Export and Transfer of Ownership of Cultural Property 1970, defines “cultural property” in its Article 1 as property which, on religious or secular grounds, is specifically designated by each State as being of importance for archaeology, prehistory, history, literature, art or science and which belongs to the following categories: (a) Rare collections and specimens of fauna, flora, minerals and anatomy, and objects of paleontological interest; (b) property relating to history, including the history of science and technology and military and social history, to the life of national leaders, thinkers, scientists and to events of national importance; (c) products of archaeological excavations (including regular and clandestine) or of archaeological discoveries; (d) elements of artistic or historical monuments or archaeological sites which have been dismembered; (e) antiquities more than one hundred years old, such as inscriptions, coins and engraved seals; (f) objects of ethnological interest; (g) property of artistic interest, such as: (i) picture, painting and drawing produced entirely by hand on any support and in any material (excluding industrial designs and manufactured articles decorated by hand); (ii) original work of statuary art and sculpture in any material; (iii) original engraving, prints and lithographs; (iv) original artistic assemblages and montages in any material; (h) rare manuscripts and incunabula, old books, documents and publications of special interest (historical, artistic, scientific, literary, etc.) singly or in collections; (i) postage, revenue and similar stamps, singly or in collections; (j) archives, including sound, photographic and cinematographic archives; and (k) articles of furniture more than one hundred years old and old musical instruments.
21. This Convention addresses cultural property which in its definition may include traditional knowledge and related information (in the form of archives, documents, etc.[11]) and requires its States Parties to cooperate to facilitate the return of cultural property. However, whilst noting it is the prerogative of States Parties to interpret the Convention (or eventually the International Court of Justice if it were asked to adjudicate a dispute related to the interpretation of that Convention),the Convention has not worked on traditional knowledge to date.