IndigenousPeoplesandtheCommons

PrestonHardison
December,2006

Ibeginbyofferingakoan:Creativecommonsorcommonsinjustice?

Thecommonsmovementisprovidingamuchneededantidotetothediseaseofhyperenclosureofthe
publiccommonsandtheneedtorestoreabalancebetweenmonopoliesandthepublicgood.Butthere
aresometroublingaspectsofthismovementasitstands.Byfailingtotakeintoaccountthemany
differentcommonsthatexist,thecommonsmovementmaybecreatingsomeinjusticesofitsown,in
waysthatparallelproblemsofenclosure.Inparticular,thecommonsmovementinadequatelytakesinto
accounttherightsandaspirationsofindigenouspeoplesandlocalcommunities.

Withtheproliferationofglobalnetworksandspreadofasocialnetworkingethic,publicinterestin
commonpropertyideas,orthecommons,hasgrownenormouslyinthelastdecade.Aturningpointin
thismovementcamearoundthetimeofLawrenceLessigsbook,TheFutureofIdeas,in2001.Tohelp
protectcreativecollaborationontheInternet,Lessigandothersbegantoprovidesomeanalyticaland
legalframeworksforopposingthenewenclosuresofinformationcommons.

Overthepastfiveyears,anumberofothermovementshavearisentochallengethehyperprivatization
andhyperpropertizationorknowledge.Accesstoknowledge(A2K)advocatesseektoprotectthe
rightofaccesstoessentialmedicinesandeducationalliterature.Theopenaccesspublishingmovement
seekstoovercometheproprietarycontroloverknowledgebycommercialjournals.Environmentalists
aretryingtoprotecttheatmosphere,theoceansandthepolarregionsasthecommonheritageof
humankind.Variousscientificdisciplinesandcivilsocietyorganizationsaretryingtoestablishtheirown
knowledgecommonstomanageandsharetheinformationtheycollectivelyproduce.Thereare
differencesinthewayseachorganizestheirrespectivecommons,buttakentogether,theyhaveenough
incommontobeputunderonebanner,thecommonsmovement.

Conceptually,thesevariouscampaignsarearesponsetoargumentsfirstarticulatedbyGarrettHardinin
hisessay,TheTragedyoftheCommons(1968),whichadvocatedprivatizationasaresponsetofree
riderswhomisappropriateandoverusecommonlyheldresources.CriticsrightlydecryGarrettHardinfor
confusingopenaccesscommonswithsociallyregulatedcommons.Theformerisnotreallyacommons,
andisincapableofpreventingoverexploitationofaresource.Asociallyregulatedcommons,by
contrast,isaneminentlystableandsustainablemanagementsystem.

Inanunfortunateirony,thenewcommonsmovementnowrisksmakingasimilarcategorymistake
aboutthecommonsthatcouldfosteritsownenclosurelikeinjustices.Themistakeisinbelievingthat
theculturalcommonsisamonolithic,unitaryconceptfordescribingasetofsharedresources
collectivelyownedbyeveryone.LawrenceLessigs2005bookFreeCulturestartswithaclaimaboutour
cultureinwhichhewrites:

Thisisnothowourculturegetsmade.Afreeculturesupportsandprotectscreatorsandinnovators.It
doesthisdirectlybygrantingintellectualpropertyrights.Butitdoessoindirectlybylimitingthereachof
thoserights,toguaranteethatfollowoncreatorsandinnovatorsremainasfreeaspossiblefromthe
controlofthepast.

Thiskindofstatementsuggeststhattherearetwodominantforcesinvolvedthosewhowouldoverly
privatizeourcultureandthemembersofacommonandglobalcivilsocietyseekinggreateropenness
forall.

Butanthropologists,sociologists,indigenouspeoplesandlocalcommunitieshaveforsometimepointed
outthatHardinsopenaccesscommonsisnotopposedbyasingletypeofcommons,butavastplurality
oflocalcommons.Eachofthesecommonsisdistinctivelylocalandhasitsownsocialnormsand
institutions.Eachisinalienablytiedtothelandinhabitedbyapeople,andshapedbytheircosmological
beliefs,spiritualbeliefsandotherfundamentalaspectsoftheiridentity.Thereareover6,000unique
indigenouspeoplesaroundtheworld,andmanymorelocalcommunities,eachhavingitsownunique
setofbeliefs.

Theliteratureonthemisappropriationandintellectualpropertyrights(IPR)ofindigenousknowledge
oftenoverlooksthesecomplexities.Thisispartlybecausesomuchofthisliteratureiswrittenbynon
indigenousacademics,whocarryanumberofculturalandprofessionalassumptionsintothedebates.
Theyassumetheprimacyofthewesternintellectualpropertynorms,andthendescribeindigenous
knowledgeintermsofthatframework.Thisleavessomefundamentalconceptsofindigenousculture
unexamined.

Forexample,westerncommentatorsoftenassumethatallknowledgenaturallygravitatestoastate
knownasthepublicdomain,andthatthisbodyofknowledgebelongstoeveryoneunderalegal
principleknownasthecommonheritageofhumankind.Oncethisconceptisaccepted,themainissue
tohowtostriketherightbalancebetweenahighlycontrolledsetofprivatepropertyrights(copyrights
andpatents);amoreorlessglobalbodyofprivatelyownedworksthatallowliberaluserights(e.g.,
workslicensedunderCreativeCommonslicenses);andthepublicdomainthatallowsforfreeand
unfettereduseofknowledge.

Manyindigenousrepresentativestakeissuewiththisdefaultframeworkofdiscussion,however,
becauseitdoesviolencetosomecoreelementsoftheirculture.Indigenouspeoplesdonotsharethe
sameconceptsofpropertythathavedescendedtowesternersfrommedievalandEnlightenment
philosophers.Theirculturalbeliefsareoftenrootedintheirspiritualityandtheircosmologies,whichthe
secularlanguageofintellectualpropertylawcannotrepresent.Itisnotasiftheydonthavesocial
normsforregulatingthemovementanduseofknowledge;itsjustthattheirregulationtendstobe
basedonsuchideasasguardianshipandcustodianshipandnotpropertyrights.

Indeed,indigenousculturestendnottomakeproperty/nonpropertydistinctions,andsothevery
conceptofthepublicdomainisalien.Indigenousknowledgemaysuperficiallyresemblethepublic
domaininthesharingofitwithinacommunity.Butthereareoftensocialrestrictionsonwho,ifanyone,
mayusecertainknowledge,andunderwhatcircumstances.Someknowledgeisconsideredsecret,
sacred,andaninalienablepartoftheirownculturalheritagefromtimeimmemorialintotimeunending.

Forexample,whilefamilyorritualsongsmaybesharedopenlyonappropriateoccasions,thatdoesnot
meanthatothershavetherighttousethem,transformthem,ortransmitanypartofthemtosomeone
else.Misusingknowledgeandmedicinalplants,itisthought,canunleashpowerfulandmalevolent
spiritsorspiritualforcesthatcanactatadistance.Misusecanharmboththemisappropriatorsandthe
communitiesfromwhichtheknowledgeorresourceswastaken.Misappropriationandmisusecan
causeanimbalanceintheforcesofnature.

ConventionalIPRlawobviouslyhasaverydifferentsenseofmisappropriationandexploitationof
knowledge.Itsremediesandpenaltiessimplydonotaddresstheculturalrealities.Butjustbecause
indigenoussocietiesdonothaveWesternlikeproprietaryconceptsdoesnotmeanthattheircultural
knowledgeshouldthereforebeconsideredequivalenttothepublicdomainunregulatedandopen
toall.

WhileIPRlawhasanaversiontomakinganyargumentsthatrelyonwhatareconsideredtobepersonal
ormetaphysicalissues,thespiritualdimensionsofknowledgemaylieattheheartofanindigenous
culture.Itspeopleareconcernedaboutprotectingsacredandspiritualknowledge,andindefending
theirselfgovernanceasdefinedundertheirowncustomarylaws.Culturalsecurityisvital.Thiscultural
security,moreover,isholisticallybased.Thatswhyindigenousknowledgecannotsummarilybebought
andsold,aswesternIPRlawassumes.

Eventhenotionofthepublicdomain,whichmanyWesternprogressivesregardasanunalloyedgood,
ishighlyproblematic.Thepublicdomainmaypreventbiotechnologyfirmsfromacquiring(temporary)
monopoliesoverknowledgeviapatentlaworcopyrights.Butthisisonlyonekindmisappropriationof
indigenousknowledge.Puttingknowledgeintothepublicdomainmayactuallymakeproblemsworseby
invitingeveryonetoenjoytherightofnonmonopolisticexploitation.Butjustbecauseeveryonecan
haveaccesstotheknowledgedoesnotmeanthatthereisnomisappropriation.Liketheearlysolution
ofsolvingpollutionbybuildinghighersmokestacks,puttingindigenousknowledgeintothepublic
domainmaysimplyshiftthebiopiracyproblemtootherareas.

TheCreativeCommonsraisessimilarconcernsasthepublicdomain.WorkslicensedunderCreative
Commonslicensesarenottheinpublicdomain,andshouldnotbeconfusedwithit.TheCreative
Commonsisasmuchapropertyregimeasthestrictcopyrightsitopposes.Itismerelyaliberaluse
copyrightregime.ButapersonmayuseaCreativeCommonslicensetotakefromthepublicdomainand
transformmaterialtoadegreesufficienttoclaimacopyrightandsoalso,therighttocontrolaccessand
use.Unlikemostcopyrightholders,however,theCClicensorgenerallyallowsnoncommercialfollowon
useandtransformation.Commercialuseissometimesallowed,aslongasthereceivedknowledgeisnot
privatized.Typically,thirdpartiesmaymakeonlynoncommercialuseofanyderivativeproducts.

Whenconsideringindigenousknowledge,theCClicensesbegthepriorquestionbywhatsystemoflaw
wastheindigenousknowledgeincorporatedintothecommonslicense?Bywhatreasoningcanthe
creatorclaimtherighttosetthetermsofthefollowonusesfortraditionalknowledge?Thisissueis
particularlypressingwhenindigenousoriginatorsoftheknowledgeopposethefollowonuses.

Suchproblemshelpexplainwhy,fromtheperspectiveofmanyindigenouscultures,thereareenormous
perilsinworkingwithintheintellectualframeworkofIPRlaw.Therearealsotensionsbetween
indigenousrepresentativesandthecommonsmovementatsuchinternationalvenuesastheWorld
IntellectualPropertyOrganization(WIPO),theConventiononBiologicalDiversity(CBD),theWorldTrade
Organization(WTO)andtheUnitedNationsPermanentForumonIndigenousIssues(UNFPII).

Asanexample,IoftencitetheAmericanAssociationfortheAcademyofSciencesTraditionalEcological
Knowledge*PriorArtsDatabase(TEK*PAD).Thisprojecthasreceivedmanypositivereviewsoverthe
Internet,butitshouldbenotedthatmostifnotallofthissupportcomesfromnonindigenous
reviewers.(Ivenotseenanyindigenousreviews,butifanyoneelsehas,letmeknow.)TheAAASHuman
RightsDivisioninitiatedthiseffort,withfundingfromtheCenterforthePublicDomain.Theproject
implementershavethebestofintentions,whicharecommendable.TEK*PADisintendedtoaddressa
seriousproblemfacingindigenouspeoplestodaythepracticebysomebiotechnologycorporationsof
patentingtraditionalknowledge,remedies,medicinalplantsandtheirderivatives,andgeneticmaterials
takenfromindigenouspeoplesthemselves.Inpatentlaw,ifyoucandemonstratethataprocessor
productisalreadyknownandinthepublicdomain(asdocumentedbypriorart),thentheprocessor
productcannotbepatented.TheAAASprojecthasstitchedtogetherseveralindependentdatabasesso
thattheycanbesearchedsimultaneouslyanddisplaytheiroutputinacommonformat.Thereareover
40,000recordswithethnobotanicaldetailsavailabletothepublic.

Thereareanumberoftroublingaspectstothisproject.IthasbeenfundedfromtheCenterforthe
PublicDomain,sotheirinterestinthisiscleartokeepthisknowledgeintothepublicdomain.Forits
part,theAAASteamispartofanorganizationthat,atleastonpaper,seekstopromotescienceinthe
publicinterestandopenaccesstoknowledge.Inanaccompanyingguidebook,theimplementersofthe
projectarequiteclearinstatingthatifindigenouspeopleswanttoprotecttheirknowledge,theyneed
tokeepitsecret.Ifitescapesbeyondtheboundariesofacommunity,itbecomesapartofthepublic
domain,availabletoall.

Althoughmakingthisknowledgeavailableoutofthegoodnessoftheirhearts,theprovidersofthe
databasesclaimownershipinthedatabasecompilationstheyhaveassembledfromknowledgethey
considerinthepublicdomain.Therehavebeennoindigenousgroupsadvisingtheproject,andfewor
noconsultationswithNorthAmericanindigenouscommunitiesfromwhichtheinformationwas
compiled.Theonlyconsultantslistedwerenonindigenous,andtheycamefromCanada,theUnited
KingdomandIndia.

BringingindigenousrepresentativesintodiscussionsaboutthecommonsandIPRisvital.Theyare
generallyaccountabletotheircommunitiesandtheirlocalleaders,whileacademicsarerarelyheld
accountableforanyfailuresoftheirproposedpolicyexperiments.Thisisnottosaythattheacademic
inputisnotappreciatedorhelpful.Butifthecommonsmovementistoremainvibrantandjust,itneeds
torecognizeandrespectthevaluesembeddedinlocalcommonsofindigenouspeoples.Whatbetter
waytodothisthaninvitingindigenousrepresentativestoparticipate?

***

Thereprobablywontbeaonesizefitsallsolutiontotraditionalknowledgeissues.Differentregions
havefardifferenthistoriesandtraditions,sowhatiscustomaryandregardedasfairinoneregionmay
beverydifferentthaninothers.Widesharingofgeneralspiritualtraditionsmaybeacceptableinsome
societiesbutregardedasmisappropriationinothers.Someindigenouspeopleshavemanysecretcults,
clansandpractices.Othersdonot.WhatmayworkinIndiaorthePhilippines,maynotworkinthe
UnitedStatesorCanada.Geneticresourcesrelatedtofoodandagriculturemayneedtobetreated
differentlythanwildgeneticresources.Folkloremaybedifferentfromsacredceremonies.

Evenwheretheremaynotbeastronglyreligious,spiritualorcustomaryreasonforcontrollingtheflow
ofknowledge,theremaybesocialrulesregulatingknowledge(although,atleastinmyexperience,even
commondailyactivitiesinindigenoussocietytendtohaveastrongspiritualdimensiontothem).Many
ofthesharingregimesrelyonreciprocityandtrickledownorstreamacrossbenefits.Thesemaybe
appropriate,forexample,whereknowledgeisusedtoimproveacommunityslivelihood,food,health,
climateorenvironmentalsecurity.

Butsuchsharingisproblematicinmanyplaces,suchasthePacificNorthwest,wherethetribesare
surroundedbyanonindigenoussocietyinwhichmisappropriationiscommon.Elders,whohavetreaty
guaranteedreservedrightstoharvestfromdesignatedfederallandsnowoftencometotheirareasto
findeveryberrypicked,shrubscutdown,andtreesgirdledanddying,strippedoftheirbark.

Indigenouspeoplesarehighlyconcernedaboutthemisappropriationoftheirknowledgeandresources,
especiallywhenBigPharmaappropriatesthemusingpatentsandcopyrights.Butindigenouspeoplesare
notjustconcernedabouttheirknowledgebeingappropriatedforthepublicdomain.

Afterall,whatthreatensanindigenousculturemostunjustenrichmentbycorporationswhotaketheir
knowledgewithoutauthorization,ortheinabilityofindigenoussocietiestomaintainaccesstotheir
traditionalfoodsandmedicines?Theenclosureofindigenousknowledgeviapatentsandcopyrightsis
morallyobjectionable.Butsoisthelackofrespectforcustomarylaw,tribalbeliefs,treatyrightsand
collectivehumanrightsandtheirabridgmentmaybeequallyharmful.

Thereareotherquestionsthatdeserveattention:Isitrighttoexpropriateknowledgefromalocal
commonsforthegoodofaglobalcommons?Whatclaimsdoesaglobalcivilsocietyhaveonthe
knowledgeandculturalheritageofindigenouscultures?

Theglobalcommonsmovementsneedtoaddresstheseseriousissues.Theyshouldreachoutnotjustto
thehandfulofindigenousleaderswhohavemadeitontotheinternationalstage,buttotheindividual
indigenouscommunities,tribesandfirstnationsthemselvestounderstandtheaspirationstheyhavefor
theirknowledgeandculturalheritage.ItishearteningtolearnthattheCreativeCommonsisseekingto
openupjustsuchadialogue.

Manyindigenouspeoplessupporteffortstobuildaglobalcommons,andwillinglysharesomeoftheir
worldviews,arts,stories,musicandpractices.Theyareproudoftheirheritage,andoftenwouldliketo
fosterpeaceandunderstandingamongallpeoples.Theirhealersoftenhaveasacreddutytoheal,and
maysharesomeoftheirknowledgetohelpothers.

Butthisshouldnotbeassumed.Norshoulditbeassumedthatanyknowledgethathasleakedout
beyondindigenouscommunitiesshouldbeconsideredapartofthepublicdomain.Ifindigenousand
localcommunitiesmaketheexpressdecisiontoshareknowledgeinthepublicdomain,Ihaveabsolutely
noobjections.Butiftheywishtohavethesecrecy,privacyorsacrednessoftheirknowledgeand
heritagerespectedandlefttothemselves,thenthatshouldbehonored.AnditdoesnttakeanIPRlaw
todothis.

PrestonHardisonisanaturalresourcesandtreatyrightspolicyanalystfortheTulalipTribesof
Washington,althoughtheviewsexpressedherearehisownanddonotnecessarilyreflecttheviewsof
theTulalipTribesoranyotherindigenouspeoples.HewasafellowofEcoNetfrom19931997,andhas
workedonseveralinitiativessincetheearly1990stoestablishcommonsbasedbiodiversityinformation
networks.HehasworkedonaccessandbenefitsharingandotherindigenousissuesattheConvention
onBiologicalDiversitysince1996,andforthepastsixyearshasrepresentedtheTulalipTribesatthe
CBDandWIPO.HeiscurrentlyworkingonatribalintellectualpropertycodefortheTulalipTribes,
includinganaboriginalcopyrightmodel.Hehasrecentlyestablishedaprototypedatabaseontraditional
knowledge,livelihood,biodiversityandcommonpropertyinformationissuesat:
www.culturalstories.net.HelivesinSeattle,Washington.