Documenting
Traditional Knowledge –A Toolkit

This is a publication of WIPO’s Traditional Knowledge
Division.
The lead author was Begoña Venero Aguirre, withsupport and comments from Wend Wendland, Fei Jiao,
Kiri Toki and Shakeel Bhatti. It was edited by Toby Boyd.

Documenting
Traditional Knowledge –A Toolkit

The user is allowed to reproduce, distribute, adapt, translate
and publicly perform this publication, including for commercial purposes, without explicit permission, provided that thecontent is accompanied by an acknowledgement that WIPO
is the source and that it is clearly indicated if changes weremade to the original content.
Suggested citation:
World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO) (2017)
Documenting Traditional Knowledge – A Toolkit. WIPO: Geneva.
Adaptation/translation/derivatives should not carry any
official emblem or logo, unless they have been approved andvalidated by WIPO. Please contact us via the WIPO website
to obtain permission.
For any derivative work, please include the following disclaimer: “The Secretariat of WIPO assumes no liability or
responsibility with regard to the transformation or translationof the original content.”
When content published by WIPO, such as images, graphics,
trademarks or logos, is attributed to a third party, the userof such content is solely responsible for clearing the rights
with the right holder(s).
To view a copy of this license, please visit
https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0/igo/
The designations employed and the presentation of material
throughout this publication do not imply the expression of
any opinion whatsoever on the part of WIPO concerning thelegal status of any country, territory or area or of its authorities,
or concerning the delimitation of its frontiers or boundaries.
This publication is not intended to reflect the views of theMember States or the WIPO Secretariat.

© WIPO, 2017
Based on a consultation draft published in 2012.
World Intellectual Property Organization34, chemin des Colombettes, P.O. Box 18
CH-1211 Geneva 20, Switzerland

The mention of specific companies or products of manufacturers does not imply that they are endorsed or recommended
by WIPO in preference to others of a similar nature that are
not mentioned.

ISBN 978-92-805-2883-1

Photo credits: Luca Piccini Basile/Getty Images/iStockphoto

Printed in Switzerland

Attribution 3.0 IGO license(CC BY 3.0 IGO)

Table of contents
Foreword  4
List of figures, worksheets and tables  6
List of acronyms  6

3. Getting started – the why and howof a documentation project Introduction 

3.2.

7

3.1.

1. Basic concepts  9

1.1.
1.2.
1.3.

1.4.

1.5.

What is TK documentation?
Why is TK documentation important?
How can TK be documented?
Examples of possible documentation
activities
Two possible scenarios: in situ collection
and desktop work
What laws or regulations need to be consideredwhen documenting TK?
The legal framework
Customary laws and practices
Intellectual property and TK

2. Key issues 

2.1.

2.2.
2.3.
2.4.
2.5.

12

Intellectual property issues
Intellectual property rights generated
during the documentation process
Intellectual property rights that could be
used to protect the documented TK or
related elements after documentation
TK and the public domain
Documentation through a database or register
Participation by and prior informed consent ofindigenous peoples and local communities
Confidentiality

3.3.
3.4.

3.5.
3.6.

18

Understanding the interests and concerns ofindigenous peoples and local communities
Defining the objectives of the documentation
project
Issues to consider when defining objectives
Examples of objectives of TK
documentation
Who leads the documentation project? Whatrole should different actors play?
Considering the needs of potential clients orusers
Documentation to assist intellectual
property offices (defensive protection)
An example from India: the Traditional
Knowledge Digital Library (TKDL)An intellectual property assessment template
Applying existing documentation standards

Annexes 

26Annex 1:A hypothetical documentation project: collecting TK
from native communities in the Amazon
Before documentation
During documentation
After documentation
Annex 2:Documenting traditional cultural expressions (TCEs)
Annex 3:
Data Specification for Technical Aspects of Databases
and Registries of TK and Genetic/Biological Resources
Annex 4:
Examples of TK documentation through registers anddatabases
Annex 5:Key elements of a documentation format
Annex 6:Checklists
Before documentation
During documentation
After documentation

Foreword

Indigenous peoples and local communities aroundthe world have developed an enormous wealth of traditional knowledge (TK). There is growing interest in
documenting such TK.
The reasons why documentation initiatives are undertaken and the objectives they seek to meet vary greatly.
In most cases, the benefits that documenting TK canprovide seem straightforward. But there may also berisks, and these are not always so evident.
Many of the benefits and risks concern intellectual
property. For example, documenting TK may help indigenous peoples and local communities prevent othersfrom wrongly asserting intellectual property rights
over it. However, a poorly conceived documentation
project may jeopardize the protection of secret TK or
even give third parties intellectual property rights inthe documented TK.

This Toolkit should assist in that process. It provides basic
information about documenting TK, and in particular
the IP implications, with practical guidance on key
issues that need to be thought-through before, during
and after documenting TK.
The Toolkit does not promote the documentation of TK
as such. It suggests that documentation of TK, especiallywhen that might lead to its dissemination, should only
take place within the context of an intellectual property
strategy. Most importantly, it makes it clear that secretor confidential TK needs to be cautiously managed.
By providing an accessible and neutral overview, theToolkit should help to ensure that all participants in
documentation projects – most especially indigenous
peoples and local communities – can make informed
decisions.

The potential pros and cons of each TK documentation
project therefore need thorough consideration on a caseby-case basis. TK holders need to decide whether the
benefits of the project outweigh any potential downsides;
and if they do decide in principle to go ahead with the
project, it needs to be carefully planned to ensure that Francis Gurry
objectives are met, benefits are secured and risks are Director Generalcontrolled or minimized.
WIPO

5

List of figures, worksheets and tables
Figure 1: Publicly available TK, public domain and prior art 

13

Figure 2: PIC in relation to TK documentation 

16

Figure 3: PIC at the planning and collection stages 

16

Table 1: An intellectual property assessment template 

24Worksheet 1: Key questions for initial discussion 

19Worksheet 2: Key questions on project objectives 20

List of acronyms
ABS

access and benefit sharing

EU

European Union

IGC

WIPO Intergovernmental Committee on Intellectual Property andGenetic Resources, Traditional Knowledge and FolkloreNGOnon-governmental organization

PIC

prior informed consent

TK

traditional knowledge

UNDRIP

United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples

UNESCO

United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization

WIPO

World Intellectual Property Organization

6

Introduction
Documenting traditional knowledge (TK) is now widely
discussed as a way of guaranteeing the social, cultural andeconomic interests of indigenous peoples and local communities. It has emerged as a tool that can help impede further
loss of TK, maintain TK over time, support benefit sharing
between holders of TK and those who use it, and ultimately
protect TK from unwanted uses.

The Toolkit does not offer a ready-made plan for all TK documentation projects. Its content will need to be adapted toeach project. Furthermore, it is not a substitute for expert
legal advice, and documentation project participants should
consult a lawyer to determine the applicable laws in force, thelegal status of TK and the intellectual property implications.

But just documenting TK is not in itself an effective strategy
for protecting it. TK documentation does not necessarily
ensure legal protection for TK.

Structure of the Toolkit

Indeed, concerns have been raised regarding documentationand its potential effects on the rights, cultures and livelihoodsof indigenous peoples and local communities. There areconcerns that documenting TK may mean that communities
lose control over it, make it widely available, compromise
the secret nature of some TK, and so on.
This Toolkit aims to provide useful practical guidance on
how to undertake a TK documentation project and how toaddress critical issues relating to intellectual property as
they arise during the documentation process.
It aims to help conceptualize and plan a TK documentation process and understand its key intellectual property implications,as a means to assist in safeguarding the interests and protecting the rights of TK holders, in particular indigenous peoples
and local communities. Intellectual property is an important
issue to consider as part of a documentation process, since
important intellectual property rights may be lost or strengthened depending on how TK documentation is carried out.
The Toolkit can be used when reviewing and organizing existing TK in databases, books, studies and so on, or directly
obtaining TK from TK holders themselves in situ (in the field).
It does not advocate documentation of TK as such, nor doesit provide, suggest or prefer any one approach to documentation. It does not suggest that TK should be made publicly
or widely available.

The Toolkit includes three sections:
1. Basic concepts
2. Key issues
3. Getting started – the why and how of each specific project
A hypothetical example has been included as annex 1 toillustrate some of the main points.
This Toolkit focuses on “TK” in its narrower sense, i.e., the content or substance of technical knowledge and know-how related
to biodiversity, food and agriculture, health, the environment
and the like. For their part, “traditional cultural expressions”(TCEs) or “expressions of folklore” raise a series of distinct
intellectual property-related questions. However, in practice TK
and TCEs are often closely related and documented together.
Much of the information in this Toolkit, especially on process,might also apply to TCEs, and annex 2 identifies some considerations regarding the documentation of TCEs specifically.
Annex 3 includes the data standard “Data Specification forTechnical Aspects of Databases and Registries of Traditional
Knowledge and Genetic/Biological Resources”. The WIPO
Intergovernmental Committee on Intellectual Property andGenetic Resources, Traditional Knowledge and Folklore (IGC)
recommended this as a standard for the documentation of TK
and genetic/biological resources in databases and registers.
Annex 4 provides examples of TK documentation throughregisters and databases.
Annex 5 includes a list of elements usually included in adocumentation format.

The Toolkit emphasizes the interests of indigenous peoples
and local communities as TK holders. However, documentation projects are often led by other actors. The Toolkit should
also prove useful for public officials from intellectual property
offices, policymakers and research and cultural institutions thatwork with communities in situ (for example, ethno-botanicalprojects or museums, libraries and archives), among others.

7For the purposes of the Toolkit, TK documentation is broadly
divided into three distinct phases:• Before documentation
This phase should include careful planning, assessing
options and setting objectives, as well as consultation withindigenous peoples and local communities and relevant
stakeholders.
• During documentation
In this phase, TK is actually collected and organized in somecoherent manner, following planned actions and activities.
• After documentation
This phase involves a series of post-collection and organization activities related to the management of thedatabase, documentation system or register that may havebeen created. It includes, among other things, managing
access to and use of the documented TK.
Checklists are provided for each phase as annex 6.
A consultation draft of the Toolkit was published in November
2012. Mr. Manuel Ruiz contributed significantly to that draft.
This is an updated and simplified version which takes into
account comments received on the consultation draft.

8

1. Basic concepts
1.1 What is TK documentation?
TK documentation is primarily a process in which TK is identified, collected, organized, registered or recorded in some way,
as a means to dynamically maintain, manage, use, disseminate and/or protect TK according to specific goals. A simple
photograph, an isolated record of TK or a written note are notdocumentation per se in the sense suggested in this Toolkit.
The isolated acts of taking a photograph or jotting down adescriptive note need to be part of a comprehensive, thoughtthrough process in order to be regarded as “documentation”.

1.2 Why is TK documentation important?
TK documentation can be a useful tool as part of an overall
strategy for the protection of TK.1 Its objectives may varyconsiderably depending on the specific context, the interests
at stake, and the needs and expectations of indigenous
peoples and local communities and other actors involvedin the process, among other things. All these specificities
and different interests, needs and expectations should betaken into consideration in any TK documentation process.
A documentation project may generate significant benefits,
such as:• monetary or in-kind benefits• TK organized and systematized (preserved) for future
generations• collaboration and partnerships among a broad range ofactors• identification and broader social recognition of indigenous
peoples and local communities in relation to specific TK• capacity building and educational uses of databases orregisters• defensive intellectual property protection, i.e., scope toprevent the unjustifiable acquisition of intellectual property
rights over TK• positive intellectual property protection for TK or products
related to it.
At the same time, efforts to document and systematize TK
may also have an undesired impact and effect on communities and cultures, especially where oral tradition and moreancestral types of social practices and livelihoods prevail.2
Moreover, there are concerns that if documentation makes
TK more widely available to the general public, especially if
it can be accessed on the Internet, this can lead to misappropriation and use of it in ways that were not anticipatedor intended by its holders. Risks in this regard will dependon specific circumstances and contexts, and need to becarefully assessed before starting a documentation project.
Indeed, a poorly conceptualized and inappropriately planned
documentation project may create unnecessary risks andproduce negative results, such as:• no monetary or in-kind benefits• TK systematized in ways that are culturally foreign
to indigenous peoples and local communities, anddisenfranchise them
• an informal process that does not consider prior informed
consent (PIC) and other relevant principles• indigenous peoples and local communities losing some
control over their TK, especially undisclosed or secret TK• uses of TK that are difficult to monitor and may lead tomisuse and misappropriation.
Crucially, TK documentation does not in itself necessarily
ensure legal protection for TK.
Carefully conceptualizing and planning a documentation
project can significantly reduce the risks and ensure positive results.

1.3 How can TK be documented?
TK documentation can take many shapes and forms – throughwritten registries and files, video, images and audio; in a
traditional indigenous language or other languages; andusing modern or more classical technologies (digital versus
written filing).

Examples of possible documentation activities
Documentation methods and formats can vary greatly.
Examples include:• writing down medicinal preparations by Shipibo communities(Peru), the Maori (New Zealand), or the Maasai (Kenya andTanzania)• taking notes about herding traditions of the Tuareg peoples
in the Sahel (Africa)• digitizing ancient manuscripts such as Ayurvedic medical
texts (India)• photographing land and agro-forestry management activitiesof the Campas peoples (Brazil) or medicinal practices of
the Shuar (Ecuador)• videotaping traditional agricultural practices andtechnologies of Aymara people (Bolivia), or the Nahua(Mexico), or the Pashtun (Afghanistan).

1. For further information on protection strategies, see: WIPO (2016) Developing a National Strategy on Intellectual Property and Traditional Knowledge, Traditional
Cultural Expressions and Genetic Resources. (Background Brief No. 3); available at: www.wipo.int/publications/en/details.jsp?id=3864&plang=EN; and WIPO (2015)
Intellectual Property and Genetic Resources, Traditional Knowledge and Traditional Cultural Expressions. (WIPO Publication No. 933E); available at: www.wipo.int/
publications/en/details.jsp?id=248
2. Sarah A. Laird (ed.) (2002) Biodiversity and Traditional Knowledge: Equitable Partnerships in Practice. (People and Plants Conservation Series). London; Sterling,
VA : Earthscan Publications, 2002. ISBN 9781849776080.

9Documenting Traditional Knowledge – A Toolkit

Two possible scenarios:
in situ collection and desktop work
The forms in which TK may be found throughout the world
vary greatly.3 Some elements of TK may only be revealed
or disclosed to one part of a traditional community – forexample, it may only be permitted to reveal TK to tribal
elders or to community members who have been initiated.
Alternatively, other elements of TK may be widely available
even beyond communities and their control, for example inbooks and on the Internet.
Two scenarios are possible with regard to the actual act of
documentation:• In situ collection–– Data and TK are obtained directly, in situ, through interviews,
communications, observations, taking images, recordings,
etc., from the communities themselves.
–– This will involve contact with the community or tribe chief,the elder, the shaman, an individual farmer, a community
council, or whatever formal representative person or bodyis entitled to engage and transmit data and informationin the form of TK.
–– In situ collection implies on-site fieldwork and continued
interaction with community members.
• Desktop work–– This involves going through documents, audiovisualarchives, recordings, books, databases, research theses,
ethno-botanical work, file archives, specialized journals,
memoirs, specimen passport data, and so on–– looking for specific TK and TK references.
This Toolkit covers both scenarios, with some advice specific
to one or the other.

1.4 What laws or regulations need to beconsidered when documenting TK?
The legal framework
In planning any documentation project, it is essential todiscuss which rights are formally recognized by the State
with regard to TK. Not all countries acknowledge (at least
expressly) indigenous peoples’ and local communities’
collective property or other rights over TK.

Some countries have developed sui generis laws and regulations to legally protect TK which determine the conditions
and requirements under which TK may be obtained andused.4 Since documenting TK implies obtaining and using
it, any documentation exercise will have to comply with thelaws or regulations in force.
Where rights over TK are recognized, communities or individual community members may still wish to ensure that theyretain ownership when granting permission to third parties
to collect TK or access it via a database or a register.
If national law does not recognize or establish clear rights
of indigenous peoples and local communities over their
TK, special consideration must be given to the potential
benefits and drawbacks of documentation. This will requirean analysis of the legal options available to ensure that TK
is not appropriated by third parties.
For example, communities may need to consider how theymight exercise control over a database and the information
within it once TK is documented. This relates to who owns
the database itself under the law and who exercises rights
over the content of the database. Database content may
be protected through copyright laws and/or under special
database legislation such as the sui generis database protection that exists in the European Union.5

Customary laws and practices
In the context of a documentation project, due considerationis also required for customary laws and practices, which may
determine whether and how TK can be obtained and shared,
how must it be presented, in what form, by whom, and so on.6
As a general rule, research institutions, NGOs, or other third
parties undertaking documentation need to ensure that customary laws and practices are fully respected at all stages of
the TK documentation project. Whether expressed in written
guidelines, codes of conduct, community protocols, formal
agreements (written or oral) or even simple instructions given
by TK custodians, communities or their representatives, efforts should be made to ensure such requirements are met.
Customary laws and practices need to be considered before
documentation takes place, but may also arise during the
documentation process. Indeed, when documentation activities begin, this may bring to light conflicts with customarylaws and practices not envisaged at the date an agreementfor documentation was made.

3. For further information, see a document prepared by the WIPO Secretariat for the Seventeenth Session of the IGC, December 6-10, 2010, “List and Brief Technical
Explanation of Various Forms in which Traditional Knowledge may be Found” (WIPO/GRTKF/IC/17/INF/9); available at: www.wipo.int/edocs/mdocs/sct/en/
wipo_grtkf_ic_17/wipo_grtkf_ic_17_inf_9.pdf
4. For example, in Brazil Law Nº 13.123 of 2015 recognizes that indigenous peoples, traditional communities and traditional farmers have the right to participate
in decision-making on issues related to the conservation and sustainable use of their TK. In Costa Rica, article 66 of Biodiversity Law No. 7788, which regulates
access and benefit sharing (ABS), recognizes that indigenous peoples and local communities have the right to raise a cultural objection with regard to access to anduse of their TK in the context of bioprospecting projects. This type of recognition repeats itself in various other laws and regulations. For additional information
regarding laws and regulations on the protection of TK, visit www.wipo.int/tk/en/databases/tklaws
5. Under the EU Database Protection Directive (European Directive 96/9/EC of March 11, 1996).
6. Customary laws may be described as sui generis regimes for protection and regulation of TK, incorporating legal and quasi-legal norms and principles, whichhave been developed to respond to specific territorial, environmental, cultural and spiritual realities of indigenous peoples and local communities. Customarylaws often control how TK should be held and passed down between generations.

10Basic concepts

For instance, documenters in the field may often need torespect a series of social practices which are not written
and could not have been foreseen, but which are required
if access to TK is to be obtained.

1.5 Intellectual property and TK
The relationship between intellectual property and the protection of TK in general terms is a huge subject, beyond thescope of this Toolkit.7
However, participants in a TK documentation project need
to be aware of the implications of intellectual property
mechanisms in relation to TK in order to better assess theviability and appropriateness of documentation processes
and their connection, if any, with TK protection.
In brief, the protection of TK in the intellectual property senserefers to its protection against some form of unauthorized orinappropriate use by third parties. The objective of protection
is to make sure that TK is not used without authorization, or
misused. Two forms of intellectual property protection may
be encountered, positive and defensive protection:• Positive protection grants TK holders intellectual property
rights and empowers them to use those rights for their own
purposes (for instance, to promote their TK, to control its
use by people not belonging to the community, and tobenefit from its commercial exploitation if they so wish).
• Defensive protection allows TK holders to prevent or stop
people not belonging to the community from illegallyacquiring intellectual property rights over their TK (forinstance, through the erroneous granting of patents forinventions based on TK).
TK documentation may play a role in both forms of intellectual
property protection.
TK documentation may also be useful for preservation
purposes (also referred to as “safeguarding”). However,preservation is different from the kind of protection referred
to in this Toolkit. The objective of preservation is basicallythe maintenance or viability of TK. Documentation efforts forpreservation purposes may make TK more accessible andvulnerable to unauthorized or inappropriate uses. Nonetheless,with proper management, protection and preservation canbe mutually reinforcing.

7. For information regarding intellectual property and TK, see: WIPO (2016)
Traditional Knowledge and Intellectual Property. (Background Brief No. 1); available
at: www.wipo.int/publications/en/details.jsp?id=3858

11

2. Key issues
2.1 Intellectual property issues8

Bear in mind that:

The process of documentation may create new intellectual
property rights in the recorded material.

• Whoever writes down TK-related information may be entitled
to copyright in the way the TK has been put into words.

Therefore, the potential implications of intellectual property
for the documentation process need careful thought. You
may need to consider:• the type of rights that may be relevant to particular TK,• intellectual property-related mechanisms (i.e., copyrightand database protection) that may be relevant in thedevelopment and management of a TK database,• who will become a right holder for the purposes of intellectual
property, and• whether Creative Commons or other licenses may berequired to support the control and use of TK that has
been collected and organized.

• Whoever translates that TK-related information expressedin words may have his or her own rights in the translation.

After the process of documentation itself has been completed, you may need to reassess the intellectual property
rights that could be used to protect the documented TK or
related elements.

Intellectual property rights generated
during the documentation process
A crucial step in the documentation process is the recording, or “fixation”, of the TK in a material form or when TK istransferred from one medium to another. This recording or
fixation is often the point at which intellectual property rights
come into existence. You will need to evaluate what rights
exist in (i) the TK itself (including rights, if any, in genetic/
biological materials) and (ii) the fixation, including rights in any
compilations, databases, translations or reproductions. For
instance, intellectual property rights are often created when:• a spoken tradition is written down or taped, or• a traditional healing method is filmed.
In this context, copyright is very relevant.9 Copyright typicallyprotects original creations such as novels, musical compositions, paintings and stories. It also protects databases thatare original by reason of the selection or arrangement of theircontents. In most jurisdictions copyright arises automatically.
Importantly, copyright does not protect ideas or knowledge
as such, but rather the form in which they are expressed.

• Whoever films someone explaining how to use TK may beentitled to rights in the recording.
• Whoever scans a manuscript and includes that information
in a database may be entitled to rights in the selection andarrangement of its contents.
Indeed, the TK itself may well not be protected, on the groundthat it is merely an idea, whereas its expression – be it intext, translation, a recording or a database – does qualify
for protection.
For instance:• Copyright will probably vest in a written version of a remedy
that was previously only held and transmitted orally. In
this case, generally the person or entity responsible forthe fixation or recording of the TK (such as biologists orother researchers and collectors) will own the copyright or
related rights in the recording of the TK, no matter who the
TK holders might be. To address this issue, WIPO works
to help communities record their own cultural heritage
themselves – see further annex 2.
• TK may be protected indirectly by the copyright protection
afforded to databases that are original by reason of theselection or arrangement of their contents. However, thecopyright will extend only to the ways in which the TK isexpressed, not to the ideas or the content of the TK itself.
A country’s intellectual property legislation may allow theserights to exist without recognizing any rights of the indigenous peoples and local communities who developed andpreserved the TK.
Further, in some jurisdictions database rights may be available for non-original databases. Non-original databases arethose which do not result from creative activities per se, butthat represent an investment of time, effort and resources incompiling and organizing the resulting data and information.10

8. For information about intellectual property that is particularly relevant for indigenous peoples and local communities, see: WIPO (2017) Protect and Promote
Your Culture: A Practical Guide to Intellectual Property for Indigenous Peoples and Local Communities. (WIPO Publication No. 1048E); available at: www.wipo.int/
publications/en/details.jsp?id=4195
9. For more information on copyright, see: WIPO (2016) Understanding Copyright and Related Rights. (WIPO Publication No. 909E); available at: www.wipo.int/
publications/en/details.jsp?id=4081&plang=EN
10. The EU Database Protection Directive (1996) grants a sui generis right to developers of non-original databases (those which cannot be protected through classicalcopyright). The Directive provides the developers of the database with the rights to prevent the extraction and/or re-utilization of the whole or a substantial partof the database’s contents, where such databases represent a substantial investment in obtaining, verifying or presenting the contents. This protection applies
irrespective of the eligibility of the contents for protection by copyright or other rights. Collections and databases of TK may be protected under this kind of sui
generis database protection in some jurisdictions.
12Documenting Traditional Knowledge – A Toolkit

The protection accorded to databases may prove to be ofinterest for extending protection to TK which is already publicly
available, especially TK that is compiled in new databases
such as the Traditional Knowledge Digital Library in India (seesection 3.4). However, it is doubtful whether this protection
could extend to prevent single TK entries included in suchdatabases from being “extracted and re-utilized.”

Accordingly, some communities have documented TK (inState-managed or locally managed databases) with theintention of keeping it secret, so that they can be confident
it will be maintained and preserved for future generations. In
such cases, the collection can only be accessed by certain
approved parties such as tribal elders, community members,
women, leaders or initiates.

Intellectual property rights that could be
used to protect the documented TK or
related elements after documentation

On the other hand, it may be necessary to document TK thatis already categorically in the public domain, but is at riskof erosion (e.g., through weakening of ancestral customs,
livelihoods and TK systems), for academic purposes (e.g.,social and anthropological research) or other needs (e.g.,
to enhance patent examinations). Information may be in
the public domain, but remain subject to physical/material
restrictions on its use.

It is sensible to consider intellectual property issues again
once TK has actually been collected and systematized. You
may then have a better idea of the content of the documentation and whether or not all the intellectual property issues
that were initially considered remain relevant.
At this stage, it may be worth assessing which intellectual
property rights or other mechanisms could be used to protect
the documented TK or related elements.

This discussion leads on to some important distinctions:“public domain,” “publicly available” and “prior art” areoften used as synonyms, but they are not the same in an
intellectual property context. As figure 1 shows, they may
overlap but they are not contiguous.

For example:• Trade secrets or laws on confidentiality could be used toprotect confidential documented TK against unauthorized
disclosure and use.
• Trademarks, collective and certification marks, andgeographical indications could be used to protect the
reputation and special qualities of traditional productsthat use TK.

2.2 TK and the public domain
For the purposes of this Toolkit, the term “public domain”
refers to elements that are not subject to exclusive intellectual
property rights. If a certain element is in the public domain,
any person is legally entitled to use it or exploit it without
any restrictions.11
It is important to distinguish between documenting TK and
its entry into the public domain.12 Documenting TK does
not entail putting it in the public domain. Saying that TK isin the public domain implies that TK is freely available foranyone to use without charge, that there are no proprietary
rights on that TK. Importantly, TK may be documented whileremaining firmly withheld from the public domain.

Figure 1: Publicly available TK, public domain andprior art

Publicly
available

Prior art

PublicdomainTK• “Publicly available” refers to TK which is already available
to the public and can be accessed through books andliterature, the Internet or some other kind of recording.
Publicly available TK may not necessarily be widely open
to the public. For instance, some records on TK are kept ina specific library, archive or other repository. Even thoughthese records are publicly available, in practice they canbe accessed only by those with access to the repository.

11. For a detailed discussion and analysis of this concept, see a document prepared by the WIPO Secretariat for the Seventeenth Session of the IGC, December 6-10,
2010, “Note on the Meanings of the Term ‘Public Domain’ in the Intellectual Property System with Special Reference to the Protection of Traditional Knowledge andTraditional Cultural Expressions” (WIPO/GRTKF/IC/17/INF/8); available at: www.wipo.int/edocs/mdocs/tk/en/wipo_grtkf_ic_17/wipo_grtkf_ic_17_inf_8.pdf
12. Black’s Law Dictionary (eighth edition, 2005) defines the public domain as “the universe of inventions and creative works that are not protected by intellectual
property rights and are therefore available for anyone to use without charge. When copyright, trademark, patent, or trade-secret rights are lost or expire, theintellectual property they had protected becomes part of the public domain and can be appropriated by anyone without liability for infringement” (p.1027). The
public domain in relation to patent law consists of knowledge, ideas and innovations over which no person or organization has any proprietary rights. Knowledge,
ideas and innovations are in the public domain if there are no legal restrictions on their use, after patents have expired, when patents have not been renewed, orafter revocation or invalidation of patents. Legal restrictions on knowledge, ideas and innovations and precise rules on issues such as revocation and invalidationvary among jurisdictions, so there are in fact different public domains in different territories. For additional information, see a document prepared by the WIPO
Secretariat for the Thirteenth Session of the Standing Committee on the Law of Patents, March 23-27, 2009, “Dissemination of Patent Information”; available at:www.wipo.int/meetings/en/doc_details.jsp?doc_id=130183
13

Documenting Traditional Knowledge – A Toolkit

Where TK is disclosed within a limited context, any wider
disclosure needs to be carefully considered. For instance,
if TK available in a small library were to be uploaded to theInternet and made freely available online, it would become
widely open to the public.
Undisclosed TK may be protected by international intellectual property law, which affords some protection
to undisclosed information in general. Scope for suchprotection is lost when the TK is disclosed.
• On the other hand, just because material is available tothe public does not necessarily mean that it cannot beprotected by any intellectual property rights. In otherwords, publicly available is not the same as the publicdomain. For example, material may be published on theInternet or made available in a library or archive, but still
be protected by copyright: people can access it, but they
are not legally allowed to copy it without permission fromthe copyright owner.
• The concept of prior art (or state of the art) relates topatent law. Patents protect inventions – new and inventive
products and processes. Although the precise requirementsfor patent protection vary among jurisdictions, generally
any claimed invention must, among other things, be new
and genuinely inventive, meaning it is not just an obvious
development of existing knowledge.
To assess whether an invention is new and inventive, it iscompared with the prior art. In most jurisdictions, the priorart consists of everything that was known or disclosed
before the patent application was filed and that is relevantto the invention. It includes anything that has been madeavailable to the public anywhere in the world.
All publicly available TK will therefore form part of the prior
art in most jurisdictions. However, publicly available TK
might not necessarily be easily accessible by patent examiners, so while it is included in the legal definition of theprior art in those jurisdictions, it may risk being overlookedin practice. For this reason, some projects have sought todocument TK to prevent patents being wrongly granted
for inventions that build upon this TK and so do not satisfy
the novelty and inventive step requirements of patent law.
Furthermore, in some jurisdictions publicly available TK
will not necessarily meet the legal definition of prior art,
because those jurisdictions limit the prior art to written material, meaning that TK that is orally disclosed or disclosed
by use is not covered. In such cases, a documentation
project may help both to ensure that TK is included within
the prior art in the legal sense and that patent examiners
have access to it in practice.

14

2.3 Documentation through a database orregisterDocumentation may well lead to the development of adatabase or register of some form and complexity. A database or register may be designed for a variety of purposes.
These purposes should be defined at the planning stage,
before documenting TK, but its purpose may also evolveas it is created.
In general, documentation through databases or registers
may serve as:• a defensive tool to protect TK against unapproved use andto impede the erroneous granting of intellectual property
rights over TK-related inventions,• a means to conserve TK for the benefit of indigenous
peoples and local communities themselves,• a tool for demonstrating the existence of rights over TK
itself or of land and resource rights,• a tool for recording or supporting compliance with accessand benefit-sharing agreements,• a tool for asserting positive intellectual property rights,• a source of information for research and productdevelopment, and/or• a repository of cultural or national patrimony.
The primary purpose of a register is often different fromthat of a database.
A registry is an ordered collection or repository of information. The term “registry” typically has the connotation of arepository or list of information that has an official status.
The inclusion of a record within a registry confers some legal status upon that record. In other words, a registry is not
merely a list or database designed to provide information tousers; it is a list or database into which people put information in order to gain legal rights relating to that information.
“Registering” something in a registry “puts it on the record”
and puts the public “on notice” that the registrant asserts a
claim. For instance, offices of land title include registries inwhich claims of ownership of land are recorded. Claimants
gain certain rights of priority by filing their claim in the land
title registry. Similarly, intellectual property systems typicallyrequire applicants to register trademarks in a public registry,so as to preserve their rights and put future claimants of thesymbol or name on notice that it has already been registered.
Creating a database may be the main purpose of a TK documentation project or it could be one activity within a muchbroader project or program. The nature of the information to be
documented can range from conservation practices to knowledge regarding traditional medicine (including human andanimal health); agriculture (plants, animals, farming techniques,innovations to enhance agriculture, fisheries); land uses; orother uses of biodiversity such as housing and clothing.

Key issues

TK databases and registers can be created and managed byprivate entities (such as research centers, universities, NGOs
and cultural institutions), indigenous peoples and local communities, or public institutions (government agencies which
may wish to make information in their databases and registers
public). Generally, TK documentation implies an interaction
and complementary effort among these different actors. As ageneral rule and principle, the documented TK, and possibly
any technology derived from it, must be made available to thecommunity in which the TK originated. This may require parallel
capacity-building efforts to ensure continued access and use
by communities, including training in information technologies.

Ultimately, participation will enhance the capacities ofcommunities to fully understand the nature of the TK documentation process, its implications, its possible outcomes
and their chances to affect and influence these outcomes.
Participation should also include building and/or strengthening the capacity of communities to engage actively inthe documentation process and either lead or complement
collecting, systematization, review and overall management
efforts. This could include, if there is the interest, very shortand adapted modules or talks explaining how the intellectual
property system operates, its pros and cons, its relevancein the context of documentation, and so on.

TK information held in a database or register may be confidential or non-confidential or a combination of both, withdifferent levels of access or restrictions applying to different
categories of TK and potential users. For example, strict restrictions may be applied to sacred TK or TK that communities
may not want to allow to become publicly available. Lesser
restrictions may apply to TK which is either non-sacred or isconsidered less important by the source community. Access
to TK may be subject to payment of fees or free of charge.
Rules for categorisation of TK to determine any restrictions onaccess can potentially be defined by customary laws. These
restrictions may vary according to “green-, yellow- and redlight” criteria;13 in other words, TK may be freely accessible,
certain restrictions may apply, or it may not be accessibleat all to third parties. Other forms of categorisation may bebased on the potential commercial value of TK.

When documenting TK in situ, it may be advisable for documenters to regularly update the community or selected
members on their progress. This may involve short talks or periodic more detailed meetings where advances are presented(information collected, advances in documentation, reportingof findings, among others) and maybe a demonstration of
how the TK database is progressing. Feedback possibilities
and interaction with communities can help to ensure theircontinued engagement and support throughout the documentation process (and after). Meetings with indigenous
peoples and local communities and their authorities can also
provide a means of identifying negative impacts and bring tolight any failures to comply with agreed codes of conduct.

2.4 Participation by and prior informed consent
of indigenous peoples and local communities
Participation by and PIC of indigenous peoples and local
communities are critically important for a documentation
project.
Participation by these communities during all phases ofdecision-making regarding the documentation process is
crucial to build trust and their sense of ownership of a project,
especially when TK is to be collected directly, in situ, fromindigenous peoples and local communities. It is also criticalto enhance communication between parties involved, ensure
mutual understanding of interests and prevent potential
conflicts. Participation must be both transparent and free,engaging the key actors and stakeholders who may have aninterest in the documentation project during its development
and throughout its lifespan. Participation mechanisms havebeen widely recognized in international law, including ILO
Convention 169 and the United Nations Declaration on the
Rights of Indigenous Peoples (UNDRIP), and in national
policies and regulations.

Participation of indigenous peoples and local
communities in documentation processes should
be continuous, informed, timely, balanced,
reported, inclusive, facilitated, respectful, noncoercive (free) and based on an “interculturaldialogue approach” and good faith.
Indigenous peoples and local communities
are entitled to say NO! They should freely
decide whether or not to participate
in or support such a project.
The concept of PIC is recognized in international law in instruments such as ILO Convention 169, the Convention on
Biological Diversity14 and the Nagoya Protocol on Accessto Genetic Resources and the Fair and Equitable Sharingof Benefits Arising from their Utilization to the Convention
on Biological Diversity. UNDRIP15 refers to free, prior andinformed consent. There are variations according to theobjectives of each convention, but essentially PIC refers tointerested parties providing timely and appropriate information to support decision-making processes by a person,
authority or representative body.

13. This is the case of the Potato Park (Peru) Local Register. See a document prepared for the Sixteenth Session of the IGC, May 3-7, 2010, “Policies, Measures andExperiences Regarding Intellectual Property and Genetic Resources: Submission by the International Institute for Sustainable Development (IIED)” (WIPO/GRTKF/
IC/16/INF/13); available at: www.wipo.int/edocs/mdocs/tk/en/wipo_grtkf_ic_16/wipo_grtkf_ic_16_inf_13.pdf
14. The Conference of the Parties to the Convention on Biological Diversity has adopted voluntary guidelines that may be relevant in this context. See the Mo’Otz
Kuxtal Voluntary Guidelines; available at: https://www.cbd.int/doc/decisions/cop-13/cop-13-dec-18-en.pdf
15. The United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples expressly recognizes the rights of indigenous peoples over their TK.

15

Documenting Traditional Knowledge – A Toolkit

In intellectual property discussions, including in the norm-building process underway at WIPO,16 PIC
is not uniformly agreed upon as an absolute requirement in all circumstances.
Figure 2 shows key requirements of PIC in the context of a documentation process.

Figure 2: PIC in relation to TK documentation
Is granted by indigenous peoples
and local communities

PIC

through their legitimate representatives

freelypurposes
beforehand
specific procedures
fully informed about
potential risks and implications

any other relevant issue

PIC is both a process and a positive act. It may occur during two stages, as Figure 3 shows.

Figure 3: PIC at the planning and collection stages
Initially, when
documentation
is being planned• It may be necessary to contact and engage in discussions with indigenous peoples
and local communities to inform them about the planned documentation process, forexample how TK will be collected and managed.
• This means information needs to be provided well in advance and in a form that isaccessible to them.
• At this stage, there may be a need for express consent from appropriate community
representatives, in particular in cases when visits or interviews are to be made in thefield, in community lands and territories.

Subsequently,
when in the field
and on site

• It may be necessary to conduct more in-depth discussions and negotiations todetermine and define the specific terms and conditions under which TK can be obtained
and used.
• These discussions need to be based on a series of principles (including most importantly
good faith) which should guide the overall process of providing pertinent information.

16. WIPO’s Intergovernmental Committee on Intellectual Property and Genetic Resources, Traditional Knowledge and Folklore (IGC) iscurrently conducting negotiations with the objective of reaching an agreement on an international legal instrument relating to intellectual property which will ensure the balanced and effective protection of genetic resources, TK and traditional cultural expressions. For
more information about the IGC, see: WIPO (2016) The WIPO Intergovernmental Committee on Intellectual Property and Genetic Resources,
Traditional Knowledge and Folklore. (Background Brief No. 2); available at: www.wipo.int/publications/en/details.jsp?id=3861&plang=EN

16

Key issues

PIC implies a positive act of accepting the collection of TK
under certain conditions, such as:• monetary or in-kind benefits to be provided to the community
or communities• TK to be collected only from a particular area or certain
individuals• conditions regarding the kind of TK that can be collected(traditional medical knowledge, TK on irrigation systems,
sacred TK, secret TK, etc.)• no disclosure or restricted/limited disclosure of the TK(i.e., controls on third-party access to the documented TK)• access by community members to documented TK and
to research based on it.
PIC may be granted by:• elders• community representatives• traditional authorities• an assembly or• whatever community structure/actor is entitled to do so bycustomary law, customs or maybe even national regulations.
Traditional decision-making mechanisms should be utilized
as much as possible.
PIC may be reflected in many different forms, including:• oral acceptance,• a traditional instrument or act (e.g. traditional practices,
customs or even rituals, such as shaking of hands, sharing
food, participating in a ceremony, etc.),• a written agreement between the documenter and thecommunity or communities, or• agreed protocols or guidelines.
Nonetheless, when PIC is required, and to create legal
certainty and clarity about the conditions under which PIC
has been granted, it is advisable to reflect the PIC and theconditions in a written form and, if possible, have it formalized
or authenticated. For instance, it is important to indicate not
only whether documentation of TK has been agreed, but also
to what extent the TK can be disclosed, whether secret TK
can be accessed, who will be responsible for providing TK
and the purpose of the documentation project, among otherelements. A formal agreement may in any case be requiredby applicable law. For example, under the Peruvian Law
27811, registration of license contracts is compulsory. Theremay be other ways of legally formalizing the written form of
PIC, which could be useful later as a proof of the conditions
under which PIC was granted.

TK is often shared among indigenous peoples
and local communities, sometimes acrosscountries. In such cases, effort should be made ina documentation process to make participationand consultation as broad as possible. It would be
advisable to ascertain the rights and interests ofany communities who are not represented.

Last but not least, it is essential to bear in mind that PIC may
only be required inasmuch as there exist a legal obligation
and appropriate procedure plus an institutional policy thatdefines specific PIC steps, and PIC is feasible in practice.

2.5 Confidentiality
Documentation may include accessing and managing avariety of TK, including TK already in the public domain
and/or widely available as well as confidential or secret TK.
Accessing confidential or secret TK is an especially sensitive
issue which may affect communities’ moral, spiritual, religious
and even economic interests. Revealing undisclosed TK
might result in their losing rights that could help control its
use. On the other hand, documenting it may help to protect
it, by providing a confidential or secret record of TK reserved
for the relevant community only.
Undisclosed or secret TK can be documented and still be
kept confidential or its use restricted. Special measures
should be taken to avoid inadvertently disclosing it or making
it available to the public.
Specific confidentiality agreements or more explicit contractual clauses may be required to satisfy the interests of
those participating in the documentation process, especiallyindigenous peoples and local communities. These may include provisions which limit who can access TK, and underwhat circumstances (i.e., for patent search purposes only,
by national intellectual property authorities only, by selected
institutions, etc.). In such cases, it is advisable to include aclause specifying that obligations to maintain the secrecy
and confidentiality of the database should remain even after
the termination of the agreement.
It may be necessary to develop protocols on access anduse to maintain undisclosed TK under special and stronger
access restrictions or committing to higher levels of secrecy.
If the idea is to document undisclosed TK in digital form or
using electronic databases, security systems like passwords
and codes should be put in place to protect the data related
to undisclosed TK.
If undisclosed TK is documented for preservation purposes,
control over access to such documentation, including digital
documentation, should remain with one or more identified
members of the community. It would not be advisable toconnect servers holding such documentation to public
networks such as the Internet.

17

Documenting Traditional Knowledge – A Toolkit

3. Getting started – the why and howof a documentation project
3.1 Understanding the interests and concerns ofindigenous peoples and local communities
Prior to designing any TK documentation project, there
needs to be open and transparent interaction between its
proponents and indigenous peoples and local communities.
This may include situations:• where TK needs to be collected in situ, directly from its
custodians or holders, and• where TK is to be identified and systematised from existing
records (i.e., monographs, theses, journals, sound andaudiovisual archives) or databases, and communities’
immediate input is not required for the collection of TK
per se, but a degree of acceptance and consent may
nonetheless be required from them.
This exploratory initial interaction should enable all participants – proponents and indigenous peoples and local
communities alike – to understand each other’s specificinterests and needs. The result of this initial process shouldat the very least:• Create an environment of mutual confidence and trust.
Depending on the circumstances, this may involve speaking
to the right leader, representative or elder; wearing casualor typical clothing for discussions, if these take place incommunities; using a translator to communicate; exchanging
gifts; sharing family experiences or stories; and so on.17• Ensure there is a mutual and reciprocal understandingof the expectations of each actor involved (even if theexact scope and objectives of documentation have notyet been defined).
• Ensure information is available and shared in an appropriate
format and presentation, for example using the indigenous
language, and a critical baseline is established for informed
discussions to take place.
• Enable communities, through their representatives orlegitimate leaders, to undertake their own assessment
and analysis to decide whether the activities proposed
and objectives sought support their own expectations
and interests.

• Determine whether or not there may be specific guidelines,
laws, regulations or policies in place regarding access toand use of TK, including relevant customary laws.
Behind the objective of the documentation project is likely
to be a set of broader interests and concerns on the part ofindigenous peoples and local communities. Reflecting andconsulting on these should help to identify more precise
objectives for the project and determine which legal tools
could be considered and used (e.g., intellectual property,
contracts or customary law). These interests and concerns
can be clarified by discussing a set of questions such as
those in worksheet 1.
In particular, it may be necessary to consider what interests
the communities concerned may wish to promote:• defending against misappropriation, misuse or unfair
commercial use of their TK• restricting access to sacred/secret TK• facilitating the dissemination of their traditional culture to
the public, to promote a wider understanding of their culture• preserving the cultural integrity of the TK• using TK to help conserve the environment and manage
natural resources• exploring the potential economic, commercial ordevelopmental implications of their TK• promoting traditional or community industries andcommercial enterprises• supporting research partnerships or technology exchange
partnerships related to technical aspects of their TK• ensuring recognition of traditional ownership of TK, andits attribution when published or used by others• documenting their ownership of TK as part of arrangements
for giving prior informed consent for access to TK• a combination of any of these, or other interests not
mentioned here.
Not all of these interests necessarily relate to intellectual
property issues.
These interests can be identified and internalized by thoseplanning the documentation project through meetings with
community representatives, workshops, direct talks with
community leaders and continued dialogue, among otherthings.

• Serve as a capacity-building process to help develop anunderstanding of the implications of what is being proposed.

17. Approaches will vary considerably depending on specific customs of indigenous peoples and local communities. The Pashtun in Pakistan, for example, consider
sitting down in a circle and sharing local tea to be a precondition for doing any type of business. The Andean Quechuas require small ceremonies of thanking the
Pachamama (Mother Earth) before talks are held regarding agricultural practices. The Aguaruna peoples in Peru offer visitors masato (a local fermented drink)to celebrate initial contact and future friendship.

18

Getting started – the why and the how of a documentation projectWorksheet 1: Key questions for initial discussion• What is the overall value of the documentation project?





• How will indigenous peoples and local communities and their members benefit from the project?





• How does documentation relate to their everyday life and their mid-term and long-term expectations?





• How will documentation help to preserve their cultural integrity?





• Are culture and TK protected if documentation takes place?





• What practical capacities exist for indigenous peoples and local communities to engage in TK documentation?






19

Documenting Traditional Knowledge – A Toolkit

3.2 Defining the objectives of the
documentation project
Issues to consider when defining objectives
Anyone seeking to undertake a documentation project should
focus on at least four very basic, but often overlooked,
questions, as specified in worksheet 2.

Provided there is clarity regarding the problem and themain aim of the project, it may be possible to determine
whether certain policy, legal, social, economic or other objectives are feasible to attain and what intellectual property
instruments or sui generis approaches should be appliedand developed.

Worksheet 2: Key questions on project objectives• What is the specific problem concerning the TK, for example misuse, misappropriation,or some other kind of illicit exploitation?





• What exactly is being sought? What is the main goal or objective of the project?





• Will documentation serve as a tool to enhance and revalue the TK?





• What intellectual property strategies does the project aim to advance?






20

Getting started – the why and the how of a documentation project

Examples of objectives of TK documentation
Documentation involves a planned, conscious and informed
process of knowledge gathering and organization which may
serve many purposes, including:• establishing positive rights in relation to TK• preventing the erroneous granting of intellectual property
rights over TK-related innovations (defensive protection)• making TK available in a more systematized manner to awider audience (researchers, students, entrepreneurs, etc.)• creating new intellectual property rights through thescientific validation of TK and collaborative research anddevelopment• preserving, safeguarding or promoting TK and transmitting
it to future generations• helping in designing and implementing benefit-sharing
schemes• using TK for specific community-oriented objectives(education, awareness raising, cultural preservation, etc.).
The first four examples of objectives mentioned above relate
to intellectual property, while the others do not necessarilyraise intellectual property issues.

3.3 Who leads the documentation project?
What role should different actors play?
Broadly, TK documentation may take place in one of twocontexts:• documentation as part of a legal mandate under anational law or regulation or regional instrument which,for instance, creates or recognizes TK registers – examples
include Panama, Peru and the Philippines as well as
the Swakopmund Protocol on the protection of TK and
Expressions of Folklore of the African Regional Intellectual
Property Organization (ARIPO); or• documentation as part of private initiatives (including
initiatives led by indigenous peoples and local communities)
which include development of databases – perhaps
complementary to but not necessarily based on a legal
or regulatory mandate, as in the case of the Honey Bee
Network, the Peoples Biodiversity Register, the Inuit TK
database in Canada or the Potato Park Local Register in Peru.
Very generally, documentation projects are proposed by four
sets of actors: indigenous peoples and local communities
themselves (e.g., for the development of TK local registers
or databases); civil society organizations such as non-governmental organizations (NGOs), academic and cultural
institutions at the local, national or international level; State/
governmental institutions; and private sector organizations
such as companies and associations.
Regardless of who leads a documentation project, the roleof the different stakeholders needs to be clarified at theoutset. The leader needs to explain clearly why documen-

tation is being proposed, who it is intended to benefit andhow these benefits will be generated and shared.

3.4 Considering the needs of potential clients or
users
Special consideration needs to be given to the possible
clients or users of the documentation output. Deciding on
the client/user may also define the nature of the information
to be selected (i.e., confidential or publicly available TK) andthe level of detail used in the documentation itself.
For example, if the recorded TK is intended to be used toprove the existence of prior art and help patent authorities
better assess TK-related patent applications (for defensive
purposes), a certain level of detail may be required which
may not be necessary if documentation is pursued purely
for educational or more general information purposes.
The language used to collect the information may also dependon the intended clients or users as well as on the objectivesof the documentation project. If the recorded TK is to be used
for specific community-oriented objectives, for instance forpreservation purposes, the information should be collectedin the local language. But if it is being collected for defensive
purposes, for example for use by patent examiners, then it
should be collected and arranged using globally understoodnames (e.g., the scientific and common name of plants) andwidely used classification systems such as the International
Patent Classification (IPC).
Resolving conflicts regarding rights over TK may require that
documented TK includes certain elements and details (e.g.,exact date of development, proof of ownership, specific use, etc.)that allow decisions to be made by an appropriate indigenous,
communal or other judicial, administrative or arbitration body.
In general, identifying the needs of the client/user will help
those considering the development of databases or registers
to clarify what TK they may want to collect or select as wellas the degree of detail required in documentation.

Documentation to assist intellectual
property offices (defensive protection)
As previously mentioned, some documentation processes
may lead to registers or databases which serve purely
defensive protection purposes and so are only available
to intellectual property authorities. Most commonly, suchregisters or databases will be used as a tool to support andimprove the assessment of novelty and inventive step in patent
systems, but they may also be relevant to the assessmentof other forms of intellectual property such as trademarks
or industrial designs.18

18. See a document prepared by the WIPO Secretariat for the Twelfth Session of the IGC, February 25-29, 2008, “Recognition of Traditional Knowledge within the
Patent System” (WIPO/GRTKF/IC/11/7).

21Documenting Traditional Knowledge – A Toolkit

If TK is being documented for defensive purposes, bear inmind that only publicly available TK can be considered asprior art. It will be necessary to include details of publications, publishers and related bibliographic references, toallow patent examiners to consider information as prior art
with reference to a certain date.
Non-disclosure agreements19 may be needed between
the holder of the TK (or the provider through the register or
database) and the intellectual property authority to ensurethat only patent examiners have access to TK for analysis
of patent applications. An example of such an approach is
the TKDL of India (see below).
In these cases, once the TK has been documented, it
may be necessary to translate it into globally understoodlanguages. Also, the servers holding such documentation
will need to be connected to the Internet. Access will thenneed to be regulated through digital signatures to ensure(i) authentication, (ii) non-repudiation and (iii) security of thedatabase contents.
WIPO has improved its own search tools and information
systems. In relation to patent examinations, existing criteria in
WIPO’s International Patent Classification System20 and PCT
minimum documentation have been revised to incorporate
published TK so as to give TK greater recognition during
international and national patent searches and analysis.21
In addition, WIPO’s IGC has extensively examined anddiscussed the intellectual property issues that arise at theinterface between TK documentation and TK databases, on
the one hand, and patent examination, prior art searches
and positive protection of TK, on the other. One tangible
outcome of these discussions was a Data Specification forTechnical Aspects of Databases and Registries of Traditional
Knowledge and Genetic/Biological Resources which the IGC
recommended as a standard for the documentation of TK
and genetic/biological resources in databases and registers.22

An example from India: the Traditional
Knowledge Digital Library (TKDL)The Traditional Knowledge Digital Library (TKDL)23 is an example of documenting previously disclosed traditional medical
knowledge in order to assist intellectual property offices. The
TKDL was created to prevent the misappropriation of India’s
TK through international patenting activity. An interdisciplinary
team of traditional medicine (Ayurveda, Siddha, Unani andYoga) experts, patent examiners, IT experts, scientists andtechnical officers were involved in the creation of the TKDL.
The TKDL project involves documenting the codified Indiansystems of medicine, which were publicly available in existing
literature related to Ayurveda, Siddha, Unani and Yoga, indigitized format in five international languages – English,
French, German, Japanese and Spanish. It provides information on TK in languages and a format understandable bypatent examiners in other countries’ patent offices so as toprevent the wrongful grant of patents.
Though the codified Indian systems of medicine were publicly available in local languages such as Sanskrit, Urdu,
Arabic, Persian and Tamil, they were not accessible to patentexaminers at other patent offices and could not have been
understood by them even if they had been. In other words,
there were barriers of language and format. With the helpof information technology tools and a novel classification
system, the Traditional Knowledge Resource Classification(TKRC), the TKDL makes TK available to patent examiners
in a format and language that they can easily understand.
The TKDL is not open to the public. To protect India’s interest
against any possible misuse, the CSIR has signed specificnon-disclosure and access agreements with nine patentoffices so far: IP Australia, the Canadian Intellectual Property
Office, the Chilean Patent Office, the European Patent Office,the German Patent Office, the India Patent Office, the Japan
Patent Office, the United Kingdom Patent and Trademark
Office and the United States Patent and Trademark Office.
According to these agreements, broadly speaking, the patentoffices concerned are allowed to utilize the TKDL for prior art
searches and patent examinations, but they have to agree:• not to disclose the content to third parties;• to utilize the TKDL only for patent search and examination,
pursuant to which they may give printouts to patentapplicants for citation purposes; and• to give feedback to the Indian CSIR to help enhance thefeatures of the TKDL.

3.5 An intellectual property assessment
template
An intellectual property management strategy will be required
to organize and think through the documentation process
and evaluate the appropriateness of intellectual property

19. A non-disclosure agreement (NDA), also known as a confidentiality agreement, confidential disclosure agreement (CDA), proprietary information agreement(PIA) or secrecy agreement, is a legal contract between at least two parties that outlines confidential material, knowledge or information that the parties wish toshare with one another for certain purposes while restricting third-party access. It is a contract through which the parties agree not to disclose information coveredby the agreement. An NDA can provide protection against any possible misuse of the content.
20. In 2005, 200 sub-groups for traditional herbal medicines were introduced into the International Patent Classification under A61K 36/00.
21. See a document prepared by the WIPO Secretariat for the Sixth Session of the IGC, March 15-19, 2004, “Defensive Protection Measures Relating to Intellectual
Property, Genetic Resources and Traditional Knowledge: An Update” (WIPO/GRTKF/IC/6/8).
22. The recommended standard Data Specification for Technical Aspects of Databases and Registries of Traditional Knowledge and Genetic/Biological Resources
is contained in document WIPO/GRTKF/IC/4/14 and referenced in documents WIPO/GRTKF/IC/5/6 and WIPO/GRTKF/IC/5/15. For further details, see section
3.6 and annex 3 below.
23. The TKDL is a collaborative project between the Council of Scientific and Industrial Research (CSIR), the Ministry of Science and Technology, and the Department
of Ayurveda, Yoga & Naturopathy, Unani, Siddha and Homeopathy (AYUSH), Ministry of Health and Family Welfare of India, and is being implemented at the CSIR.

22

Getting started – the why and the how of a documentation project

instruments. This intellectual property strategy need not bevery complex; a simple effort to organize how and when to
consider intellectual property-related questions may suffice.
Consideration of intellectual property issues may be partof a comprehensive and detailed “intellectual property assessment” process based on six broad areas for reflection,
as shown in table 1 (page 24).

3.6 Applying existing documentation standards
To maximize the effectiveness of documentation, it may be
useful to apply existing data standards to the documentationand compilation of TK. WIPO’s IGC has worked since its
inception on intellectual property aspects of TK documentation. Following extensive consultations among members
and stakeholders, it recommended a Data Specification forTechnical Aspects of Databases and Registries of Traditional
Knowledge and Genetic/Biological Resources.24
The recommendation stipulates that, given the diversity of
TK and associated biological/genetic resources, it may beadvisable to create an intermediate level between the levelof the database in its entirety and the level of individual database records, namely data domains (such as traditional
medicine, traditional agriculture, etc.). Thus, databases may
be structured in, or allocated to, specific domains, such as
traditional medicine, traditional agriculture, expressions of
traditional culture, and so on. The data standard sets out
standard data fields for records in the domain of traditional
medicine.
In terms of content standards, the data standard recommends a minimum set of data fields which a database orregistry should encompass, if it aims to meet intellectual
property-specific objectives in relation to TK and associatedbiological/genetic resources. The specification includes fieldnames and field content definitions, and covers subject matterdescription data as well as intellectual property information
associated with the description data.25 The full recommended
data standard is contained in annex 3.

24. See documents WIPO/GRTKF/IC/4/14, WIPO/GRTKF/IC/5/6 and WIPO/GRTKF/IC/5/15.
25. The list of recommended data fields takes account of WIPO Industrial Property
Documentation Standard No. 9 (ST.9): Recommendation Concerning Bibliographic
Data On and Relating to Patents and Supplementary Protection Certificates.

23

Documenting Traditional Knowledge – A Toolkit

Table 1: An intellectual property assessment template1) Objectives

Goals or objectives• Establishing positive rights for TK?
of the documentation • Preventing the erroneous granting of intellectual property rights over TK-related innovations?
project• Making TK available in a more systematized manner to a wider audience?
• Creating new intellectual property rights through scientific validation of TK and collaborative
research and development?
• Preserving, safeguarding or promoting TK and transmitting it to future generations?
• Helping in designing and implementing benefit-sharing schemes?
• Using TK for specific community-oriented objectives?
• Other objectives?

2) Subject
matter (TK)

The nature of the TK Is the TK:• secret and confidential?
• sacred?
• individually or communally held?
• orally transmitted?
• documented and systematised in some form (traditionally or otherwise)?
• codified?
• already partially documented?
• subject to customary restrictions for use or disclosure?
• Any other important characteristics?
The content or
Is the TK:
expression of the TK • technical knowledge or know-how?
• embodied in a tangible product?
• related to traditional cultural expressions (not covered in detail in this Toolkit)?
• Are there any other significant issues regarding its content or form of expression?
TK and biological/
genetic resources• Would/should specific biological or genetic resources be collected as part of the documentation
project?
• Would preparations, mixtures or extracts be collected and documented?
• Are the biological or genetic resources imbued with distinctive characteristics developed throughtraditional methods of selection, breeding or processing?
• Are the biological resources endemic?
• Any other issues regarding biological/genetic resources?

How widely is
the TK used ordisseminated?

• Known by a community individual or leader or elder, the community as a whole, a group, an
indigenous nation or other social actors?
• Disclosed to:–– the general public (publicly or widely available)?
–– individuals who do not belong to the community (such as researchers or students)?
• Is TK commercialized or traded in some form (whether as know-how or in a tangible
expression)? Locally, regionally or internationally?
• Any other issues in relation to use and dissemination?

3) Actors

Role and rightsof the different
stakeholders• Who leads the process?
• Which role will each actor play?
• Who will write down, film, record, translate and compile TK?
• To whom will the intellectual property rights that arise belong?
• What rights will indigenous peoples and local communities retain?
• Any other issues in relation to different stakeholders?

4) Potential
clients orusers

Who is the
documentation
project intended
to benefit?

• Indigenous peoples and local communities?
• Intellectual property offices?
• Researchers?
• Other people or organizations?

5) Applicable
intellectual
property
legislation

Applicable national
and international
legislation• What specific laws and regulations are applicable to the subject matter being considered? Are
there specific laws on TK?
• Who can provide specific intellectual property advice in this regard? WIPO, pro bono intellectual
property experts, local NGOs, the documentation proponents?
• Any other issues relating to the applicable law?

6) Other related Other relevant
legal regimes legal regimes andinstruments

24• Customary laws and local traditions?
• Community protocols?
• Biodiversity laws and access and benefit-sharing legislation?
• Any other relevant laws or rules?

Getting started – the why and the how of a documentation project

Notes

25

Documenting Traditional Knowledge – A Toolkit

Annex 1A hypothetical documentation project: collecting TK from native communities in the Amazon
Before documentation
University X from the UK enters into talks with University Y in
Brazil to undertake a project to collect biological samples forcommercial research in the Amazon and to collect and systematize TK related to medicinal properties of these samples
from the indigenous peoples of communities A, B, and C.
University Y contacts representatives of communities A, B and
C and explains the purpose and objectives of the planned activities. Details are provided with regard to the exact nature of the
project and how TK would be collected, organized and managed.
Representatives of the communities are invited to selectcommunity members to be trained in parataxonomy andhelp in TK collection and documentation activities.
University Y undertakes a prior informed consent procedure(PIC) with appropriate community bodies (in this case thelocal communal assembly). PIC involves in situ meetingsand gatherings with community members to explain project
methodology and goals and engage in confidence building.
University Y also informs the community members about its
project partners in the project, University X and Company
Z which is based in the UK too.
University Y obtains all necessary permits and authorizations
from the Brazilian authorities to undertake fieldwork withbiological samples and their subsequent export.
Benefits are discussed with community representatives andreflected in written agreements. They include non-monetary
benefits (training in parataxonomy, recognition of communities’ contribution in publications, joint copyright given thecase of research papers, joint patents if a viable product isgenerated in the research and development process, among
others) and monetary benefits including up-front and milestone payments as well as a share of any income generated
from the commercialization of products.
It is agreed that, should the project lead to the publication ofscientific articles and the like, these publications will respectagreed limitations on access to the TK. In particular, they will
not include references to confidential or sacred TK.

During documentation
Universities X and Y create a working team in Brazil to undertake fieldwork. The team travels to the selected sites incommunities A, B and C.
Collection of plants is undertaken with the guidance ofcommunity members who have been trained as para-

26

taxonomists. The team is presented to each community in
traditional rituals and greeting offerings. Fieldwork is only
possible after a few days of introductions and interactingwith community members.
Custodians of TK in each community such as elders are
identified and interviewed to understand plant uses andapplications. Plants are collected by the parataxonomists,
displayed to community members and entered into a databaseusing traditional forms and scientific formats. The database isconstructed locally in interaction with community members.
Specimens are selected for further research in Universities
X and Y and further transferred to Company Z.
A record system is designed and developed with support
from community leaders. Electricity is not available in thearea, so it is constructed manually and managed locallyusing handwritten forms and photos. It is maintained by thecommunity’s lead parataxonomist.
Meetings are held with community leaders to design use
protocols applicable to the database. These will be part ofcommitments to further research from University X (UK) andUniversity Y (Brazil), and serve to guide potential access by
third parties (including Company Z). They include a seriesof requirements to share non-monetary and monetary
benefits including scientific training for young community
members, sharing in research results, milestone payments
and development of a locally managed fund, among others.

After documentation
After having applied for any applicable patents, Universities
X and Y publish a systematization of the research project
without any references to confidential or sacred TK. Credits
are given to communities A, B and C. Copies of documents
are provided free to the communities and they are also given
audio summaries in native languages. Small, battery-poweredaudio devices are provided to the communities at no cost.
The TK database managed by Universities X and Y is madeavailable to the public. Restrictions are placed on accessdepending on the type of TK. Confidential and sacred TK
are not included in the database.
Community leaders are regularly informed about researchadvances and how well the TK database is operating.
The national intellectual property authority in Brazil consultswith University Y and with community leaders regarding whether the content of the database can be used to help Brazilian
intellectual property authorities in patent application reviews.

Annexes

Annex 2Documenting traditional cultural expressions (TCEs)
Generally, traditional cultural expressions (TCEs) are literary,artistic and musical productions, often broadly and collectively
referred to as “intangible cultural heritage.”role in preservation, promotion and education, and many
institutions are pioneers in establishing mutually beneficial
relationships with indigenous peoples and local communities.26

Many initiatives are being pursued all over the world to record,
register and digitize intangible cultural heritage: individuals(such as ethnologists, folklorists and anthropologists), institutions (such as museums and archives) and governments(especially ministries of culture) have for decades recorded anddisseminated expressions of our planet’s rich cultural diversity.
UNESCO’s 2003 Convention on the Safeguarding of theIntangible Cultural Heritage requires States Parties to keep
registers, lists and inventories of their intangible cultural heritage. These forms of documentation are useful for safeguarding, preserving and promoting intangible cultural heritage.

Second, even though TCEs themselves may be in the publicdomain, the process of documenting them may create rights
in the recorded material. For example, recording a traditional
song creates intellectual property rights in the recording. The
problem here, from a community’s perspective, is that it is
the person or entity responsible for the recording (such asan ethnomusicologist or museum) that owns the intellectual
property rights in the recording, not the community whose
tradition the song forms part of and which might have performed the song. This means that if documentation is not
carried out by the community itself, the community will not
own the song or its recording.

However, as is the case with TK, documenting TCEs raises
certain intellectual property questions, although these tend
to be different from the kinds of intellectual property issues
raised by TK documentation.

Should the community wish to enjoy control over the documentation of its TCEs, it should acquire the technical skills
to undertake the documentation itself and the legal skills tomanage its own intellectual property.27

In the case of TCEs, examples of documentation activities
may include:• recording traditional songs on audiotape• photographing traditional textile designs• writing down spoken traditional stories• photographing traditional art, such as rock paintings• digitizing ancient manuscripts.

The registration of TCEs can also form part of legislative
systems designed to vest TCEs with either positive or defensive protection. For example, Panama’s Law of 2000,28
which provides for a special intellectual property regime forthe collective rights of indigenous peoples, provides rights
in TCEs when they are registered with the Panamanian
intellectual property office.

Broadly, two types of intellectual property-related questions
arise in TCE documentation projects.

Documentation can also play a defensive role. The UnitedStates Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) Database of
Official Insignia of Native American Tribes, established in2011, is a comprehensive database containing the official
insignia of all state and federally recognized Native American
tribes. Under the trademark legislation of the United Statesof America, and on the basis of the insignia registered in the
database, the USPTO may refuse to register a proposed markwhich falsely suggests a connection with an indigenous tribe
or beliefs held by that tribe.

First, the recording and digitization of TCEs, even for programs to safeguard and promote valuable cultural heritage,
can unwittingly make the TCEs more accessible to third
parties and so more vulnerable to unauthorized use andexploitation. In such cases, there may be a tension between“preservation” and “protection” because the very process ofpreservation may trigger concerns about lack of protection
and run the risk of unintentionally making TCEs that arein the public domain vulnerable to unwanted exploitation.
For example, ethnographic recordings containing sensitive
material depicting initiation rites have been made available
by a cultural institution for educational and commercial
purposes. Yet cultural institutions play a critically valuable

26. A useful resource in this regard is WIPO (2010) Intellectual Property and the Safeguarding of Traditional Cultures: Legal and Practical Options for Museums, Libraries
and Archives. (WIPO Publication No. 1023E); available at: www.wipo.int/publications/en/details.jsp?id=235&plang=EN
27. This is precisely the focus and objective of WIPO's Creative Heritage Training Program. This initiative in community-led documentation is complemented bywork being done, supported by WIPO, to develop software and digital rights management tools for indigenous and local communities to enable them to manage
rights and interests in their digitized collections of TCEs electronically. For additional information on ways to support indigenous peoples and local communities
in managing their intellectual property rights, see Wend Wendland, “Managing rights in digitized indigenous music,” WIPO Magazine, October 2016; available at:www.wipo.int/wipo_magazine/en/2016/05/article_0003.html
28. Law No. 20 of June 26, 2000, on the Special System for the Collective Intellectual Property Rights of Indigenous Peoples for the Protection and Defense of their
Cultural Identity and their Traditional Knowledge; available at: www.wipo.int/wipolex/en/details.jsp?id=3400

27

Documenting Traditional Knowledge – A Toolkit

More generally, unlike with TK, there are several instances ofprotection for TCEs, and contemporary derivatives thereof,
to be found in conventional intellectual property systems.
Many countries have also developed special sui generis
protection for TCEs in their copyright laws. These should also
be taken into account in any TCE documentation project. 29

29. A useful general resource on intellectual property and TCEs is WIPO(2010) Consolidated Analysis of the Legal Protection of Traditional Cultural
Expressions/Expressions of Folklore. (WIPO Publication No. 785E); available at:www.wipo.int/edocs/pubdocs/en/tk/785/wipo_pub_785.pdf

28

Annexes

Annex 3
Data Specification for Technical Aspects of Databases and Registries
of Traditional Knowledge and Genetic/Biological Resources
Field Name (INID Code)*

Field Content Definition(10) Identification of the Record
Record Number

Number of the database record concerning a TK element or associated biological/genetic resource*Document Number (11)

Number of the document which provides IP protection for a TK element or associated biological/genetic resource

Record Type (12)Plain language designation of the kind of document(20) Data concerning applications for title*Application Number(s) (21)

Numbers assigned to the application for an IP title which provides protection for the TK element or associatedbiological/genetic material*Filing Date(s) (22)**

Date(s) of filing of application(s) for an IP title which provides protection for the TK element or associatedbiological/genetic material*Other Date(s) Concerning theApplication (23)Other date(s), including date of filing complete specification of TK element or associated biological/genetic
resources, following provisional specification and date of exhibition(40) Dates of making available to the public
Disclosure Date (09)Date at which the TK element was disclosed and made available to the public, if any and if known

Publication Date (40)Date of making available to the public an IP document describing a TK element or associated biological/genetic
resource, on which grant has taken place on or before the said date(50) Technical information
International PatentClassification (51)Class, Subclass, Group or Subgroup of the International Patent Classification in which the TK element or
associated biological/genetic resource has been classified

Other Classification (52)Class or subclass of domestic or national classification in which the TK element or associated biological/genetic
resource has been classified

Title (54)Title of the TK element or associated biological/genetic resource

Prior Art documents (56)

List of prior art documents, if separate from descriptive text

Abstract or claim (57)

Abstract or claim of the TK element and/or associated biological/genetic resource

Field of Search (58)Field of Search(70) Identification of parties concerned with the recordName(s) of Information provider Name and address of the provider of information contained in the record*Name(s) of applicant for title(individual/community) (71)Name and address of the applicant for title concerning the TK element or related biological/genetic resource
described in the record

Holder of knowledge orassociated resources (72)Name and address of the custodian of TK or associated biological/genetic resources*Grantee(s), holder(s),assignee(s) or owner(s) of title,
if any (73)Name and address of grantee(s), holder(s), assignee(s) or owner(s) of title in the TK element or related biological/
genetic resource, if any(00) Specific data on TK or associated resources
Access Conditions (01)

Conditions for Access for different users, categories and purposes to the record of the TK element or related
biological/genetic resource, including socio/cultural taboos and restrictions

Approval of, and arrangements Approval of, and arrangements with, the holder(s) of the TK or related resource concerning its compilation,
with, holder(s) (02)dissemination and application, if any and if required
Scientific Name(s) (03)

Scientific name of genetic and biological resources

Vernacular Name(s) (04)

Vernacular name of genetic and biological resources in local language(s)Descriptors (05)

Detailed description of the TK element, ethnomedical categories, and genetic or biological related resources

Keywords (06)Index terms and keywords by which the TK element and related biological/genetic resources were indexed

Bibliographic references (07)Bibliographic data on publications which have disclosed the TK element and associated genetic or biologicalresources to the public

Language (Code) (08)Language in which the TK element and related resource were originally described* The Field Names and INID codes which are preceded by a single asterisk (*) relate to those data elements which are considered to be the minimum elements whichshould appear in records of TK databases/registries and on first pages of IP documents which provide positive legal protection for the elements of TK and associatedbiological/genetic resources described in the databases/registries and documents.
** Keeping in mind the rights of communities or individuals whose independent knowledge was disclosed or filed after the date(s) of filing contained in this field.

29

Documenting Traditional Knowledge – A Toolkit

Annex 4
Examples of TK documentation through registers and databases
Registers established by law
Collective Register for Intellectual Property – Panama.
Panama established this database by Law No. 20 of 2000,
which created a Special Regime for Intellectual Property overCollective Knowledge of Indigenous Peoples, to protect indigenous cultural patrimony. The register provides indigenous
peoples with positive protection over their TK in Panama,
granting them property rights over this knowledge. In thiscase, the register creates the property right. In practice, theregister applies mainly to traditional cultural expressions(textile designs, handicraft models, etc.).
National Registers for Collective Knowledge – Peru.
Law No. 27811, which was adopted in 2002, establishes
a Regime for the Protection of Collective TK Relating toBiological Resources. The law creates three types of registers: a National Public Register for TK, which compiles
documented TK which is already in the public domain (inbooks, articles, databases, etc.); a National Confidential
Register, which cannot be accessed by third parties; andlocal registers, which can be created and managed byindigenous peoples and communities with the support of
the National Institute for the Protection of Competition andIntellectual Property (INDECOPI). For more information, see:
http://servicio.indecopi.gob.pe/portalctpi/index.jsp

Country-led databases and registers
Traditional Knowledge Digital Library – India. The
Traditional Knowledge Digital Library of India is a collaborative project of the Council of Scientific and Industrial
Research and the Department of Ayurveda, Yoga andNaturopathy, Yunani, Siddha and Homeopathy (AYUSH) of theGovernment of India (see page 22 above). It has addressed
the language and format barrier by scientifically convertingand structuring the available contents (290,000 medicinal
formulations to date) of the ancient texts on Indian Systemsof Medicines – Ayurveda, Siddha, Unani and Yoga – into fiveinternational languages: English, French, German, Japaneseand Spanish. It applies the Data Specification for TechnicalAspects of Databases and Registries recommended by the
IGC. For more information, see: http://tkdl.res.in
Traditional Food Register – Austria. The Traditional Food
Register is maintained by the Ministry of Agriculture, Forestry,
Environment and Water Management in cooperation with theCommittee for the Preservation of the Culinary Heritage ofAustria. Traditional knowledge about Austrian agricultural
products, foodstuff, meals and drinks is compiled and protected in the register, which is made public by the Ministry.
It contains more than 200 entries at present. “Traditional”
is defined in the register as a period of at least three gen-30

erations or about 75 years. The register applies the Data
Specification for Technical Aspects of Databases andRegistries of Traditional Knowledge and Genetic/Biological
Resources recommended by the IGC. For more information,see: https://www.bmlfuw.gv.at/english/agriculture/food/Traditionalfood.html
Korean Traditional Knowledge Portal – Korea. The
Korean Intellectual Property Office (KIPO) has maintained
a database of traditional knowledge since 2004 through the
Korean Traditional Knowledge Portal (KTKP). The databaseis based on traditional Korean medicine as described in
Korean traditional literature and scholarly articles. It aims tolay the foundation for the international protection of Korean
traditional knowledge by preventing unauthorized use ofpatents inside and outside the country; to promote thedevelopment of related studies and industries by providing
an abundance of information on traditional knowledge andrelated research; and to enhance the quality of intellectual
property applications for traditional knowledge by providing
essential information for patent examinations. For more
information, see: www.koreantk.com/ktkp2014

Databases and registers led byindigenous peoples and local
communities
The Potato Park Indigenous Biocultural Heritage Register– Peru. This is a database created by communities withthe support of the ANDES Association, an NGO locatedin Cuzco. The database was developed using customarylaws and is based on video recordings undertaken by
women community members. Its objectives include helping
to protect TK and associated resources from biopiracy,
secure benefits for communities and preserve and protect
their rights over their TK as well as promoting its use. The
register is based on the ancient Andean system of khipus, amethod of recording information using knots on strings usedhistorically to document biological, cultural, economic anddemographic information. Information is processed using
the Yapana Matrix, based on rows and columns to quantify
information according to the decimal and binary systems.
The program for entering data into the register is web-based
free/open source software (FOSS) which is compatible with
the Quechua customary practices of free and open sharingof knowledge. The register plays a key role in contributing torealizing the Potato Park’s management objectives. For more
information about the Potato Park, see: www.parquedelapapa.org/eng/03parke_01.html

Annexes

NGO-led databases
Honey Bee Network – India. Honey Bee is a knowledge
network developed by the Society for Research Initiatives
for Sustainable Technologies (SRISTI). It holds knowledge
and innovations of TK holders, farmers, the research community and local communities in a common database. The
database is managed by the National Innovation Foundation(NIF) and has several collaborative institutions around thecountry, each one of which holds its own register which isconnected to the common database. The Honey Bee database does not function as a defensive tool. If TK is used forcommercial purposes, benefits generated should be sharedwith the rights holders. www.sristi.org/cms/en/our_network

the American Chemical Society; the sequence information
comes from CAS and GenBank, produced by the UnitedStates National Institutes of Health. It includes the archive ofover 50,000 unique World Traditional Medicine patents. This
collection is a body of scientific literature of particular use to
the pharmaceutical and consumer products industries. The
material from these basic and supplementary databases issearchable in many ways. CAS databases are available via
two principal database systems, STN and SciFinder.
www.cas.org/content/references

People’s Biodiversity Register (PBR) – India. PBR documents community TK on medicinal plants with the aim ofcontrolling biopiracy. This is a decentralized system, withseveral documentation units, mostly at village level and insome cases at community level. Since its creation in 1995
it has been developed in hundreds of villages across seven
Indian states.
http://nbaindia.org/uploaded/pdf/PBR Format 2013.pdf
Gene campaign – India. The Gene Campaign, an NGO
based in India, has established a database to be used as asource of prior art to challenge patents and ensure fair andequitable sharing of benefits arising from the utilization ofcommunities’ TK. Database development and management
has been achieved through the efforts of the Departmentof Science and Technology, the Indian Government, Gene
Campaign and local communities. Information in the databaseremains the property of local communities and is kept under
the custody of the Department of Science and Technology.
Healers, elders and medical practitioners were consulted
during the documentation process, and young people from
communities participated in the collection of TK.
www.genecampaign.org

Databases for scientific research anddevelopment purposes with specificreference to TK
Natural Products Alert Database (NAPRALERT).
NAPRALERT® is a private relational database of all natural
products, including ethnomedical information (TK), pharmacological/biochemical information of extracts of organisms
in vitro, in situ, in vivo, in humans (case reports, non-clinical
trials) and clinical studies. Similar information is available
for secondary metabolites from natural sources. To date,more than 200,000 scientific papers and reviews have been
included in NAPRALERT, representing organisms from all
countries of the world, including marine organisms.
https://www.napralert.org
Chemical Abstracts Plus Database (CAplus). This database
contains information on more than 50 million organic andinorganic substances, and more than 60 million protein andDNA sequences. The chemical and biochemical information
is produced by CAS, the Chemical Abstracts Service of31Documenting Traditional Knowledge – A Toolkit

Annex 5Annex 6Key elements of a documentation
formatChecklists

Biological sciences have developed standardized formats
in which scientists register observations on field records.

Phase 1:
Before documentation of traditional
knowledge

A classical format may include, at a minimum, the following
elements:• date, time
• area and location where TK collection is being undertaken• information about the environment• indigenous peoples’ organizations or local communities
involved• specific individuals involved• conditions or limitations imposed on the use of the collected
TK (because of its sacred or secret nature, for instance)• specific site and place where TK is being recorded• uses of the TK (including traditional names of plants,
animals, organisms and local taxonomies)• targeted species of plants (including wild species orcultivated, native varieties) or animals• forms of application or techniques• history of use• expected results• forms of verification• current conservation conditions (in vitro, live cuttings,
tissue cultures, seed banks, etc.).

Consult as widely as possible among indigenous peoples
and local communities and other key stakeholders.
Ponder on indigenous peoples’ and local communities’
expectations and how best to respond to them and reflectthem.
Consider the legal issues that may arise in the context
of existing policies, legal frameworks and regulations, inparticular intellectual property-related issues.
Identify existing rules and principles which regulate theconditions under which TK will be collected and obtained.
Identify relevant customary laws.
Set out documentation objectives and develop an intellectual property strategy, if needed.
Consider the widest possible range of options to meetthese objectives.
Clarify the role of the different stakeholders.
Consider whether and how to apply principles of priorinformed consent.
Evaluate the best option and instrument (i.e., contract,
general agreement, memorandum, guideline, protocol)
which may be utilized to formalize agreement related to
TK documentation.
Distinguish between non-confidential TK and secret TK,
which may require additional conditions and securities.
Define the criteria and methods to be used to collect andidentify the TK to be documented.
Define access control policies or guidelines which establish categories of users and thereby access conditions/
restrictions.
Develop a monitoring and verification plan so that it ispossible later to ensure that documented TK is used asagreed.

32

Annexes

Phase 2:
During documentation of traditional
knowledge
Ensure that appropriate evidence of PIC has been obtained
or is obtained during this phase.

Phase 3:After documentation of traditional
knowledge

Document TK in a precise and standardized manner, including through indigenous or local management systems(see annex 3).

Verify that the originally planned TK documentation
objectives have been met by interviewing users of the
TK database or register, indigenous peoples and local
communities themselves or taking note of partners’
experiences throughout the documentation process.

Use a material support to record and maintain TK – create
a database or just physically gather together the files,
images, sound recordings, and so on.

Verify that comments and inputs made by stakeholders(especially indigenous peoples and local communities)
have been appropriately addressed.

Consider whether it is necessary to collect the plant,
animal, insect or biological resources related to the TK.

Examine documented TK to identify any elements whichshould be deleted, restricted or otherwise given special
protection.

Do not disclose undisclosed or secret TK, unless a
conscious decision is taken to do so and it is part of astrategy.
Follow agreed guidelines or codes of conduct, obligations
and legislation and regulations in place, including thoserelated to the collection of biological samples, if necessary.
Respect customary laws and practices.
Regularly inform stakeholders, especially indigenous
peoples and local communities, about advances andprogress in the documentation process.
Adapt technology to local needs.
Verify whether technological safeguards for processing
and managing data are operational.
Ensure appropriate disclaimers are developed and madevisible.
Be open and alert to adjustments that may be required as
TK is collected, obtained and systematized, for example if
the process leads to TK which was originally not targeted.
Be alert to the need to adapt the documentation process,for instance if shared TK is at stake and unforeseen actors
claim interests in the documentation process.
Allow indigenous peoples and local communities to verify
at all times how their TK is being documented in orderto ensure that it is properly recorded and attributed, andthat access and use terms are being complied with.
When necessary to protect their spiritual or cultural
integrity, moral rights and/or rights of attribution, allow
indigenous peoples and local communities to require theremoval or correction of documented TK.

Check whether and how national intellectual property
offices are using the documented TK, especially if TK
was documented for defensive purposes.
Monitor and periodically review the extent to which documented TK is accessed and by whom, as well as which
entries are the most accessed, in order to help identify
the types of TK which may hold greatest economic orscientific interest.
Inform indigenous peoples and local communities about
the results of the TK documentation process.
Ensure management of the database is in hands of technologically savvy professionals or well-trained community
members.
Put in place technological measures to establish ownershipover the documentation, by protecting the documentation
against unauthorized access by third parties, securing thecontent, protecting the database servers and securing
the website, among other things.
Carry out periodic reviews of compliance with requirements
for storage, maintenance and control, such as electronic
safeguards and restrictions in web-based databases, inorder to keep the database or register operational and,ultimately, safeguard indigenous peoples’ and local
communities’ interests.
Take measures to ensure the continued secrecy of undisclosed TK.
Review possibilities for protecting TK through intellectual
property and other mechanisms.

Develop protocols to establish clear rules on the use of
and access to TK.

Promote the TK documentation register or databaseand present it to a wider public, according to the agreed
objectives of the project and process.

Put in place model contracts or other legal agreements
setting conditions for the use of and access to TK.

Share lessons learned with a broader audience to inform
other TK documentation projects.

33NotesTel: + 41 22 338 91 11
Fax: + 41 22 733 54 28
For contact details of WIPO’s
External Offices visit:www.wipo.int/about-wipo/en/offices/​

WIPO Publication No. 1049E
ISBN 978-92-805-2883-1

Photo: Luca Piccini Basile/Getty Images/iStockphoto

World Intellectual Property Organization34, chemin des Colombettes
P.O. Box 18
CH-1211 Geneva 20
Switzerland