1 12 1 https://www.abyayalanews.org/files/original/03b31eb63ef9e1c8d4ab0d4f5f10a67f.pdf 41917f6f35fe99fc1a6fc8cac60bfd3c PDF Text Text P ERSPECTIVES ON BIODIVERSITY AND I NT.,_LL EC_,_UA L_,__,,O PE,R_,_' -- - - - - - - - - - - E, , o, T"'= P R , _, TY Biodiversity, Community Integrity and t he Second Colonialist Wave He whare maikhi tu ki roto ki te tuwatawata. he tou no te rengatira: he whare maihi tu ki te wa kie te paenga. he kai na te ahi. An ancestral house standing inside the community is the sign of chiefliness: one standing in the open is food for fire. - Maori Proverb by A T P roha e areake M ead M the Maori proverb above indi- tes. an ancestral house. or any pe<:t of heritage which restS within its home community. holds in itself and brings lO its people numa- AroJta Tt Pm·wkc Mead is a Maori aclivi.st and works wi1h Taonga Umittd in Ac>tcoara, Nt."W Zealand. 6 respect and sovereignty. If the house or any other aspect of heritage. either tangible or intangible, is taken away from its community and from its context, it becomes at risk of destruction. "food for the lire."' And its people are confined to • destiny of mourning for the loss of a beloved and irreplaceable pan of their heritage. For Indigenous communities. the underlying meaning in this pro\·erb is that the life force of that heritage still exists regardless of the physico! circum- stances around it An ancestral house will always be part or the heritage or ilS own tribal community even if it now fomlS pan of a national or imemational museum collection. #Jya Yala News �PERSPECTIVES ON BIODIVERSITY AND INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY An Indigenous plant. its extracts and seeds. will always be part of the heritage or the community, who have imerncted with it for so many generations that the plant has become j>art of the language of that community, its significance reafGrmed daily in (waiata) songs. (whakatauki) proverbs and (whaikorero) traditional greetings. The Second Wave of Colonization The first wave of colonization consisted of the forced misappropriation of Indigenous lands and resources. most often through ,·iolence, resulting in mass alienation of Indigenous peoples from their homelands and heritage. The denigration of Indigenous vah,tes and practices was sanctioned by religious and social beliefs that tribal peoples (non-Christi:ms) were savages and barbarians, and 1heir cuhurnl traditions "'heathen'" and evil. Settlers claimed that theft of Indigenous lands served the .. public good'" and that new technology promised more effective land usc. improved farming methods. and new crops. Time proved, however. lhat new farming technology kept being impro\'ed until most farmers could no longer afford it. New methods also brought soil erosion. pesticide pollution. and the final insult. ha'"ing to buy seeds which were prc,riously 53.\'Cd ftom the harvest. Where Mother Earth used to be the equalizer for those who used her resources to feed, clothe. shelter and heal themseh'es and others, technology has turned her imo a factory. The second wa\'C of colonization sets its sights on mis.'1pptopriating what little remains after the first wave. the "'intctl'\gibles" of Indigenous cultuteslndigenous knowledge of the environment. pre"entative and curative healing practices. and panicularly traditional uses of Indigenous plants (medicines. dyes. complimentary crops to name but a fcw).\Vhere the first wave of colonization was made possible by nonnalizing the violence against Indigenous peoples Vol. 8 No.4 as in the service of "the public good," the second wave is accommodated and encouraged through national and intcrn:nional legal instruments which allow st~ucs and privme companies to exercise-through legal and financial nonns and standards~xternal private and exclusive ownership of 1he tangible and imangible heritage of Indigenous communities. liS not at all coincidental that the jus1ification of this misappropriation is the s..1.me: "It's for humanit)'. for the public good ." Before. it was land acqui· s1tion. Now. it is acquisition of knowledge and resources. No matter how one · looks at it, the result is the s..u ne: outsiders forcing the concepts of commodification of resources and acquiring ownership of the ancestors· gifts-lands, resources and knowledge. Cultural and Intellectual Property Rights Governments as well as private companies are now clamoring to copyright and patem Indigenous an forms. medicinal plants. languages and even genetic materials. Signatory states to the Convention on Biological Diversity and the UN Conference on Environment & Developmem's Agenda 21 (1992) are now required to respect and take measures to protect the Intellectual Propcny Rights (IPR) of Indigenous peoples and local communities with respect to bio· logical diversity. Many States have inter· preted these international directives as justifying the redesign of their national IPR legislation to legalize State governance of community assets. but Indigenous peoples around the world view such measures as unnecessar)' intrusions into the integrity of their communities. h is neither logical nor practical that the best system for the protection of the cultural and intellectual property or Indigenous peoples resides with states or even with the international community. Protection can onty be designed and implemented by Indigenous commul1ities themselves in panncrship with individuals and organizations (local, national. regiomll and international) of their choosing on an informed consent basis. The body most c.•pable of respect· ing and enhancing the unique needs of an Indigenous community is one initiated. developed and staffed by the community itself. National and international instruments cannot possibly prepare communities for the challenges upon theit own stro.ctures of leadership and accountability. State instro.mcnts should focus on the activities and proccdtu·cs of companies, bm it is clear that many States would prefer to regulate the activities of communities. At a funda· mental level there is al.s o the problem of states. as well as the international comrnunity. assuming that they have a right to develop standards and legally binding instruments for assets which do not belong to them. New threats facing Indigenous Communities: A Case Study The attack on Indigenous communi~ tics is constant and significant. Indigenous communities cannot afford to ignore external pressure and simply to hope that ignoring the threats will in time make them go aw-a)~ A brief examination of the national activities and c.xpericnces of the Indigenous communities living in just 01'e UN member State-New Zealand-demonstrates the diversity of IPR issues facing Indigenous communities. The human genome contains the heritage not just of an individual but of that person's community. for many Indigenous peoples. the concept of "'ownership"' of a human gene e\'en by the individual is just not accepted. The ownership of a human gene by a company is therefore reprehensible. \ Vithin the Pacific. two attempts have already been made to patent Indigenous human genetic material (Solomon Islands and the Hagahai or Papua New Guinea). The Human Genome Diversity Project has targeted over 200 South PaciGc Indigenous communities for genetic 7 �PERSPECTIVES ON BIODIVERSITY AND INTELLECTU~~ P R O P E~ TY ------------A L....!'-!~::!:.! R~~ sampling. Maori arc one of the few not on che lise (See arcicle on HGD Projccc pg. 13, eds.). However. che a11cmpced recommendation to the New Zealand government by Maori-that New Zealand discuss with other Pacific nations the itnplications of the collection of human genetic materials in the Pacific-fell on deaf cars. Research within New Zealand on cancer. alcoholism and otitis media (gl\lc car) has been reponed to focus on Maori genetic predispositions lO such conditions. In the hands of health insurance companies. genetic screening on the basis of ethnicity involves fundamental human rights issues which have yet to be c., plored. Copyright of Indigenous Languages In November 1994. che Oxford University Press attempted to secure an cxcl\lsivc copyright or che \Vi/limns Maori Umguagc Dicrionary. First pub· lished in l$44. the dictiOI''I:U)' remains the most authorilative dictionary of the Maori language. ll has been reprinted twelve times (seven editions) by the New Zealand Go'"ernmcnt Print Office, an agency established to promote the recording and publishing of New Ze3land hiscory for the benefit of all New Ze~landers. Many of che first Maori language and ~...laori history publications were financed and p11blished by a state- owned Printing Office on the underscanding that such publications were "held in trust~ as vital components of the national herilage. Prh'3tization of state agencies, including the Print Office. has opened 11p Maori publicatior\S to copyright by the privace sector. There are currently no mechanisms by which Maori can regain ownership. We will have to fight for each publication individually. Traditional Uses of Indigenous Flora and Fauna Several New Zealand companies 8 have developed successful cosmetic products using tradicional knowledge of nora and fa\llla. A ncdging phannaccucical induscry is also being developed. but at this point the cos1nctic propcnics of native plants are the primary ulrget of commercial exploitation. ln some cases the traditional knowledge comes from Indigenous informants. in other cases through research in historical records kept by early senlers-includingchosc of Capcain james Cook himself-which provide detailed and illustrated accounts of the properties and uses of native plants. The Body Shop recently negotiated with a small tribal company their extraction process for the oil of the native Manulla plant. Manuka is a native plant common to most of the North Island and of significance 10 many different tribes. such that songs, proverbs, weavings and other art fonns record the plant's special relationship to each tribe. Thus. from a tribal point of view. it is diffic\llt to accepc the validity of any IPR agreement bet ween two companies involving what most Maori would consider "common propcny."' Exploitation itself is easier to understand than the attempt to patent the process. or tO seck plant variety rights on the Manuk..1. Already. plant variety rights have been granted to national and international companies for thincen plants by the New Zealand government. In response, the Maori have filed a Treaty of \.Yaitangi Tribunal Claim against the go'"erntnent . seeking confirmation that all native plams are the heritage of Maori tribes in the first place. and that any decisions relating to the conmlercialization of native plants must by made by Maori tribes themselves. This historical case is due for consideration in mid-1995. Capacity Building: More Questions Than Answers The righcco intellectual property. as a western legal invention. was never designed co cope with the myriad ·properties"" now being thrust upon it. Indigenous knowledge and Indigenous resources simply do not fit into che IPR regime. Protection of heritage must be addressed through alternative mechanisms. but it must be a mechanism robust enough to apply to the diverse range of activities now thremening the heritage and livelihoods of Indigenous communities. Indigenous communities need to son out amongst themselves-without the interference of non·members-the tribal. sub-tribal and ramily "ownership.. of knowledge. \ \That is common property? Who has the right to give consent? Elders or youth? Tribal political structures or new additional specialiSt tribal organizations? \Vhat structures will they put in place? Should regional and national scruccures also be established? By whom? Indigenous communities should also make greater use of the infonnation highwa)' and strengthen national, regional and international networks in order to exchange information. offer advice and experience. and keep informed of the growing swell of che second wave of colonization - misappropriation of Indigenous knowledge and biodiversity. The most appropriate and resultsoriented contribution that states and the imernational community could offer is to provide additional financing for com· munity capacity-building. and to focus regulatory attention on external compa· nics. agencies, and individuals. As the Maori proverb scates. the heritage of Indigenous communities rests with those communities. If any aspect of this heritage is removed, it becomes food for the fire. Similarity. the proverb reminds us that che incegrity of a commul'lity requires us to hold firm and protect the treasures of the ancestors. If pans of our heritage have been lost. it is our responsibility to get them back. no matter how long il takes. Abya Yala News � Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Title A name given to the resource Vol. 8, no. 4 (Winter 1994) Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Title A name given to the resource Biodiversity, Community Integrity and the Second Colonialist Wave Type The nature or genre of the resource Journal Article Creator An entity primarily responsible for making the resource Aroha Te Pareake Mead Date A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource 1994 Language A language of the resource English English Zotero Title Biodiversity, Community Integrity and the Second Colonialist Wave Item Type Journal Article Author Aroha Te Pareake Mead Volume 8 Issue 4 Pages 6-8 Publication Title SAIIC Newsletter ISSN 1071-3182 Date 1994 Language English Abstract Note Indian communities are now faced with the task of defending their cultural and intellectual property rights in the areas of agriculture, language, genetics, etc. Attachment Title Biodiversity_community_integrity.pdf Attachment URL [No URL] Colonialism Copyright Intellectual Property Rights