http://sristi.org

Knowledge can be produced by individuals or groups and can be governed by private (proprietary), community and public domain. Likewise, the resources around which knowledge is developed can also be governed by private, community or public property rights.
Intellectual property rights provide only one set of incentives, among many, that are possible and necessary for encouraging creativity and innovation at grassroots, besides conservation of biodiversity. Material and non-material incentives for individuals and groups have to be combined in a proper portfolio, matching the specific knowledge and resource context. The incentives for individual experts cannot be at par with that of the communities. However, if communities don’t conserve the resources, individuals will not be able to access, experiment, innovate, develop solutions and specialise. Therefore, there has to be a proper recognition of the rights of communities as well as individuals.
A policy framework must recognise that the nature of innovations in traditional knowledge brought about by individuals can become community- wide or public domain knowledge. My suggestions for policy reforms are based on the activities of our Honey Bee Network over the past 16 years, pursued by various voluntary organisations who have contributed towards a database on innovations and traditional knowledge.
The experience of Society for Research and Initiatives for Sustainable Technologies and Institutions (Sristi), Grassroots Innovations Augmentation Network (Gian) and the National Innovation Foundation (NIF) and the National Micro Venture Innovation Fund managed by NIF, has been drawn upon in advocating policy changes, nationally and internationally.
To reduce transaction costs of inventors, innovators and traditional knowledge holders, the National Register of Grassroots Innovations and Traditional Knowledge, being developed by NIF, may be accorded legal protection, such that disclosure to NIF entitles knowledge-holders a minimum protection, if the knowledge is not already in public domain. The registry should have a grace period for disclosure, so that protect- ion can be not only for knowledge produced within one year of its earlier disclosure, but perhaps during the past five to 10 years. India should plead for a like international registry.
Honey Bee Network has experimented with prior informed consent (PIC) extensively for over a decade. NIF has modified the framework and has developed a two-stage process. In stage one, consent is sought for sharing, adding value or blending the knowledge with other innovations/ TK practices, etc. In stage two, if something useful is considered possible with or without value addition, then a benefit-sharing accord