Commercialising traditional knowledge offers opportunities for tribal communities but also risks of exploitation. Examine the safeguards needed.

Tribal healers' traditional knowledge (TK) is now being steered towards markets. The Ministry of Tribal Affairs–CSIR-NBRI project in 16 tribal hotspots is themed "From Tribal Knowledge to Enterprise" [1]. Whether it empowers or dispossesses tribals depends on the safeguards built around it.

Opportunities

• Livelihoods: the project will distribute 40,000–50,000 planting materials and train healers, women and youth [1]. Van Dhan Vikas Kendras (VDVKs) help tribals move from selling raw produce to adding value; 33,360 had been sanctioned by 2021 [2].
• Market size: India's demand for medicinal plants was estimated at about 5,12,000 tonnes a year in 2014-15 [3].
• Conservation: the project will document 200–300 species and propagate 30–40 RET species (rare, endangered and threatened plants). This preserves knowledge and eases pressure on wild stocks [1].

Risks of exploitation

• Silence on consent: the project release does not address ownership, consent or benefit-sharing [1].
• Legal dilution: the Biological Diversity (Amendment) Bill, 2021, was passed in 2023 [4]. It exempts AYUSH practitioners and users of codified TK (knowledge already written in recognised texts) from sharing benefits with communities, and it removes communities' direct role in setting the terms [5].
• Codification trap: the Joint Parliamentary Committee (JPC) found that "codified TK" is undefined in the Bill. Even TK recorded in People's Biodiversity Registers may count as codified, which could deny benefits to most knowledge holders [6].
• Cultivation loophole: cultivated medicinal plants are also exempt from benefit-sharing [6]. Farm-grown income then depends only on the sale price, where large buyers hold more bargaining power.

Safeguards needed

• Legal: define codified TK narrowly. The JPC suggested limiting it to the authoritative texts listed in the First Schedule of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940 [6]. Oral tribal knowledge would then stay inside benefit-sharing.
• Contractual: get prior informed consent and agree benefit-sharing terms with each community before any commercial use. Records should be owned by communities or held in trust for them.
• Institutional: give Biodiversity Management Committees and Gram Sabhas back a direct say in the terms [5].
• Market: use VDVK collectives for bargaining power and branding [2].
• Monitoring: measure household incomes, not just nurseries and saplings [1].

Commercialising TK can create lasting tribal income only if consent, fair sharing and community control come with it. A narrow legal definition, binding project contracts and outcome-based monitoring would make the initiative a replicable model. That would fulfil Article 46's directive to promote the economic interests of Scheduled Tribes.