Beyond Biopiracy: Analysing the Jeevani–Kani Tribe Benefit-Sharing Model and Its Implications for Traditional Knowledge Governance in India

Contributor: C. Soundarya

Under international intellectual property regimes, India’s abundant store of traditional knowledge (TK), which is derived from indigenous communities, is still susceptible to infringement. The fight against biopiracy, which is the illegal commercial exploitation of biological resources or traditional practices, has long brought attention to how inadequate traditional patent systems are at acknowledging cultural heritage and collective ownership. The Jeevani–Kani tribe case is one of India’s most well-known and innovative instances of benefit-sharing, frequently used as a standard for moral access and just compensation. This article explores the model’s history, legal and policy ramifications, and wider applicability in forming India’s future traditional knowledge governance frameworks.

The Jeevani–Kani Story: A Brief Background

Arogyapacha (Trichopus zeylanicus travancoricus) is a wild herb that the Kani tribe of Kerala has long used to increase endurance and alleviate fatigue. During an ethnobotanical expedition in the Western Ghats in the early 1990s, researchers from the Tropical Botanic Garden and Research Institute (TBGRI) discovered this herb. Under Kani’s direction, they conducted research and created Jeevani, a herbal medication that has strong anti-fatigue and immuno-boosting properties.

TBGRI signed a benefit-sharing agreement with the tribe rather than asserting sole ownership. In 1997, the Kerala Kani Samudaya Kshema Trust was created to receive license fees and royalty payments, which total ₹5 lakh up front and 2% of the sales revenue. Based on their traditional medical knowledge, this was the first known instance of benefit-sharing with an indigenous community in India.

Significance in the Fight Against Biopiracy

The Jeevani case was notable due to collaborative engagement and prior informed consent rather than litigation or opposition. The Kani model provided a nonviolent and beneficial substitute for knowledge theft during a period when India was battling biopiracy on a global scale, as demonstrated by the Neem and Turmeric patent cases. Jeevani was an instance where indigenous contribution was formally acknowledged and economically rewarded, in contrast to the Neem and Turmeric controversies, where patents granted abroad had to be contested for lack of novelty or prior use. In determining the direction of policy, this change from a reactive to a proactive approach to TK protection was crucial.

Legal and Institutional Developments Post-Jeevani

The Jeevani-Kani initiative catalyzed several key legal reforms in India:

Several significant legal reforms in India were sparked by the Jeevani-Kani initiative: 

  1. The Biological Diversity Act, 2002 (BDA):

This law created legal frameworks for mandatory prior informed consent (PIC), access and benefit sharing (ABS), and traditional knowledge preservation. Benefits from the use of biological resources must be distributed fairly to local communities, according to Section 21 of the BDA.

  1. The National Biodiversity Authority (NBA):

 Created under the BDA, the NBA makes sure that community involvement and benefit-sharing are a part of any commercial use of biological resources.

 

  1.  The Digital Library of Traditional Knowledge (TKDL): 

India developed the TKDL, a digital repository of recorded traditional knowledge in several languages, in response to biopiracy. Its purpose is to stop incorrect patent awards overseas.By protecting codified knowledge, it serves a complementary function even though it isn’t a benefit-sharing tool in and of itself.

Critique of the Jeevani Model: Successes and Shortcomings

Despite widespread praise, the Jeevani case has drawn criticism: 

Achievements:

  •  It established a standard for non-litigious benefit-sharing. 
  • It placed a strong emphasis on community participation in drug development. 
  • It sparked legislative changes pertaining to the governance of biodiversity.

Shortcomings:

  • Rather than benefiting the entire community, benefits were restricted to a few Kani families directly involved with TBGRI.
  • According to reports, the trust experienced administrative issues and lack of capacity to efficiently manage funds.
  • Jeevani’s commercial production decreased, which decreased the anticipated royalties.

These shortcomings highlight community trusts’ institutional fragility and the necessity of ongoing participation, capacity building, and legal supervision in benefit-sharing arrangements.

Traditional Knowledge Governance in the Post-Jeevani Era

  1. Community Rights and Collective Ownership:

Traditional knowledge is transmitted orally from generation to generation and is non-individualistic. Instead of giving credit to a select group of informants or middlemen, any governance model must acknowledge collective custodianship. Although community decision-making is supported by legal tools such as the Forest Rights Act (2006) and the Panchayats (Extension to Scheduled Areas) Act (1996), there is still little integration of these tools with TK regimes.

  1. Access and Benefit Sharing (ABS) in Practice:

The number of operational ABS agreements in India is still small, despite the BDA’s assurances. Among the causes are:  Weak enforcement systems. 

* Complex approval processes involving state and central bodies. 

* Lack of awareness among corporations.

  1. Need for a sui generis TK Protection System:

A specific, sui generis law for traditional knowledge has not yet been passed in India. Existing frameworks are disjointed across copyright, patent, and biodiversity law. A comprehensive law that incorporates:  Recognition of customary law,  Prior informed consent procedures, Community registers, and  Equitable benefit mechanisms is necessary to give indigenous communities real empowerment.

Global Implications and India’s Leadership Role

The Jeevani case had an impact on discussions under the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) and the Nagoya Protocol on a global scale, both of which support ABS principles.India is in a unique position to spearhead the creation of just and community-focused TK frameworks because it is a megadiverse nation with a rich biocultural legacy. However, such leadership runs the risk of being merely symbolic in the absence of consistent policy implementation and community involvement. Therefore, it is important to consider the Jeevani case as a beginning point for scalable, participatory TK governance in the Global South rather than as a destination.

Conclusion

In Indian biocultural jurisprudence, the Jeevani–Kani tribe model is still regarded as a seminal case. It demonstrated that scientists and indigenous communities could benefit from respectful collaboration rather than conflict. However, the model’s practical weakness emphasizes that benefit-sharing needs to transcend isolated trusts or tokenism. Preventing new forms of neocolonial extraction of traditional knowledge requires a strong legal framework, ongoing capacity building, and genuine empowerment of indigenous voices. India must fortify and institutionalize such models as it manages its dual identities as a biodiversity hotspot and a knowledge economy, making sure that the keepers of traditional wisdom are not just recognized but meaningfully empowered.

References

  1. M.A. Pushpangadan & C.K. Atal, Ethnopharmacology and the Development of Natural Products for Health: The Indian Experience, 39 Current Sci. 1250 (1998).
  2. Id.
  3. R.V. Anuradha, Sharing the Benefits of Biodiversity: The Kani-TBGRI Deal in Kerala, India, 4 Envtl. Sci. & Pol’y 1, 2 (2001).
  4. European Patent No. 0436257 B1 (granted to W\.R. Grace for neem-based pesticide; later revoked).
  5. U.S. Patent No. 5,401,504 (1995), granted to the University of Mississippi Medical Center for turmeric’s wound-healing properties; later invalidated.
  6. Biological Diversity Act, No. 18 of 2002, § 21, Acts of Parliament, 2002 (India).
  7. Id. §§ 8–13.
  8. V.K. Gupta, Traditional Knowledge Digital Library (TKDL): A Tool for Protecting India’s Traditional Knowledge, 7 Ind. J. Tradit. Knowledge 234, 235–37 (2008).
  9. Anil K. Gupta, WIPO-UNESCO Regional Workshop on Intellectual Property Rights and TK, Ahmedabad (2002), [https://www.sristi.org](https://www.sristi.org).
  10. P. Balasubramanian, Did the Kani Benefit? A Critique of the Jeevani Model, The Hindu, Apr. 27, 2008.
  11. Rajesh Kochhar, Jeewani: The Wonder Drug That Didn’t Take Off, 48 Econ. & Pol. Wkly. 9 (2013).
  12. Padmanabha Pillai, Whose Knowledge? Whose Property?, 2 Indian J.L. & Pol’y 13 (2004).
  13. Suneetha M. Subramanian & Balakrishna Pisupati, Biodiversity Access and Benefit-Sharing: Global Case Studies, U.N.U.-IAS, 23–25 (2009).
  14. Nagoya Protocol on Access to Genetic Resources and the Fair and Equitable Sharing of Benefits Arising from their Utilization, Oct. 29, 2010, 2011 U.N.T.S. 1760.

©2023. SatyakiLegal. All Rights Reserved.

Scroll to Top