William O. Hennessey,
A Conceptual Framework for Recognition of Rights for the Holders of Traditional Knowledge and Folklore

I. Introduction

Globalization and the information technology revolution are battering away at the borders of sovereign nations from several different directions in the early 21st Century. New trade liberalization agreements, tourism, media, and the growth of the internet have increasingly exposed formerly protected and insular societies in developing countries to the influence of mass market goods and services, technology, and commodified culture originating primarily in, and at least originally, intended primarily for the vast ocean of middle-class consumers in the developed economies of the North. Complaints by American and European companies about rampant intellectual property piracy and counterfeiting in developing countries are an indication of the extent to which world famous brands and Hollywood cinema and music have penetrated foreign lands, supplanting and in some cases even obliterating the traditional cultures and customs of different peoples in the process - particularly in the cities. (If there were no markets for famous brands, films, and pharmaceuticals among consumers in developing countries, why would anybody there bother to copy them?!) At the same time, developing countries are clamoring for access to new medicines developed in the North at affordable cost to fight the deadly diseases which plague mankind and know no boundaries of class, race, or nation - particularly HIV/AIDS.

Yet the tide flows in the other direction as well. It is interesting to ponder the rapid growth in international awareness of the value, actual and potential, of traditional knowledge and folklore ["TKF"] to the enjoyment and advancement of human well-being, both spiritual and material. Familiarity with traditional knowledge and folklore in the North was, until quite recently, mainly the province of research and scholarship by academic anthropologists and ethnologists. But now more and more, we can observe that traditional healing methods, plant-based and homeopathic medicinal therapies, folk art, drama and music nurtured for generations or even centuries in societies in less-developed countries are also finding their way onto television, into shopping malls, chic salons and health clinics of American surburbs, and into the research parks of multinational pharmaceutical companies. The channels through which this occurs vary, but usually involve the development of technical or cultural products with some sort of "added value", sold in the global markets for many times the price the original TKF product demands in its country of origin. In some cases the original TKF product or knowledge may have been given away for free.

According to the organization of this seminar, discussions will be conducted on the application of existing IP Laws, the potential for the establishment of sui generis mechanisms beyond existing IP regimes, and the possibilities for and difficulties which may be encountered in the application of customary law and practice and alternative forms of protection.

II. The Human Rights Approach and the Rights of Sovereign States

According to Peter Drahos, "it is now accepted in rights theory that the existence and exercise of some rights presupposes the existence of other rights." One of the theoretical purposes of this paper is to explore the extent to which common principles can be articulated to deal with the rights of all holders of TKF - specifically the holders of the three major topics of TKF, i.e., genetic resources, traditional knowledge, and expressions of folklore. Given the topic and to the extent that the discussion extends beyond existing intellectual property rights, the approach which is taken is therefore to focus on the rights in personam (of the holders) and not on the rights in rem (in the objects of protection for all parties.) Common Article 1 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights [ICCPR] and of the International Covenant on Economic, Social, and Cultural Rights [ICESCR], reads:

Furthermore, the right to control access to and sovereignty over natural resources (including genetic resources) is, vested not in communities or individuals that are holders but in the sovereign states themselves. States assert that they are the only entities that have sovereign rights over any sorts of genetic material and to regulate its access by means of national legislation. . According to the Principle of the Convention on Biological Diversity, Article 3:

Also, General Assembly Resolution 1514 (XV) on the Granting of Independence to Colonial Countries and Peoples declares that the rights of peoples is subordinated to the rights of states. More recently, Article 10 of the new International Treaty on Genetic Resources for Food and Agriculture adopted by the FAO Conference on November 3, 2001 recognizes the "sovereign rights of states over their plant genetic resources".

However, it runs through all three provisions of Common Article 1 of the Covenants that sovereign states have obligations to the holders of TKF ("peoples") within their borders, who are themselves direct subjects of international law.

II. A The Right to Identification

The right to identification, consonant with the fundamental principle of self-determination of peoples enshrined in Article 1.2 of the UN Charter and the above-cited Convenants implicates the definition of what individuals and groups may be considered "holders" of TKF.1 1 The definition of "holder" will vary from jurisdiction to jurisdiction, based upon its political and economic system, history, and stage of development, and not the subject of this paper.

The right to identification also includes the right to be acknowledged as the source of TKF in any subsequent publication based on the material or any further use made of it. It should be noted that the right to be identified as an owner of an intellectual property right is expressly recognized in Article 6bis of the Berne Convention and Article 4ter of the Paris Convention. It also includes the intellectual property rights to identification as to inventorship (patent), to publication, authorship and integrity (copyright and related rights, including moral rights), to commercial reputation , source and sponsorship (trademark), to natural origin (plant variety protection and geographical indications) and to association (unfair competition). Also, "acknowledgement of source" is articulated in Section 5 of the Model Provisions for National laws on the Protection of Expressions of folklore Against Illicit Exploitation and Other Prejudicial Actions prepared by WIPO and UNESCO for any identifiable expression of folklore in connection with any communications to the public.

II.B The Right to Information

The right to information includes information on the availability and scope of intellectual property protection for traditional knowledge. Also included is a right to information necessary to promote effective integration of traditional knowledge documentation into searchable prior art such as a sui generis database. (This will be discussed below in the context of using traditional knowledge as a "shield" or "defensive right.) Also subsumed into the right to information is the right to prior informed consent found in the Convention on Biological Diversity Article 15(5), which reads: "Access to genetic resources shall be subject to prior informed consent of the Contracting Party providing such resources, unless otherwise determined by that Party."

Capacity-building can also be seen as part of the right to information. Key to capacity building is access to training and education and to the information necessary to compete effectively in the world intellectual property system. Also, the right to information in the form of capacity building includes access to optimal methods and practices used by civil society organizations and NGOs to collect, store, and organize information which could be profitably learned in order to collect both genetic resource information and information about TKF. Indeed, dual versatility in both optimal methods of information collection and in effective use of existing intellectual property systems is absolutely necessary if the holders of TKF are to avoid transforming their most valuable into information freely available in the public domain.

Where existing intellectual property protection is not available, the development of digital libraries and other forms of documentation of traditional knowledge for patent examination purposes, using information not as a "sword" but as a "shield" is also a critically important component to the right to information. Worthy of note is the activity of the task force on traditional knowledge of the Committee of Experts of the Union of the International Patent Classification [IPC]. Clearinghouse mechanisms both for traditional knowledge and folklore are important for building inventories of TKF which might be exploited by the holders. Another example is the Biological Resource Centers Network being established by the OECD to facilitate the transfer of biomaterials, ensure their quality and rationalize and reduce costs.

II.C The Right to Participation

The right to participation is inherent in the principle of mutual benefit of the Covenants Common Article 1. Included in the right of participation is the right to be included in discussions with a view to norm-building for protection of TKF. A laudable example is provided by the inclusion of a meeting of shamans at the recent International Seminar on Intellectual Property, Traditional Knowledge and Genetic Resources, in Manaus, Brazil in September 2001.

This right has been formalized in recent instruments of the FAO. Article 9.2(c) of the new International Treaty on Genetic Resources for Food and Agriculture adopted by the FAO Conference on November 3, 2001includes "the right to participate in decisionmaking at the national level, on matters related to the conservation and use of plant genetic resources for food and agriculture."

As stated by the intervention of the Saami Council at the December 2001 IGC Second Session, "Given that indigenous peoples regarded their knowledge and natural resources as springing out from a spiritual, cultural and sometimes religious connection between the people and its land, and whereas this spiritual link was unique to indigenous peoples, the Committee should give indigenous peoples an effective opportunity to participate in its work."

II.D The Right to Benefit Sharing

The right to benefit sharing is articulated in the Common Article 1(2) right to mutual benefit of peoples. The Convention on Biological Diversity has as its basic principles: sovereignty over genetic resources, prior informed consent, and equitable benefit-sharing. Article 8(j) refers to benefit-sharing with the holders of traditional knowledge, whereas Article 15(7) refers to benefit sharing arising from the commercial or other utilization of genetic resources "with the Contracting Party providing such resources."

Article 9.2(b) of the new International Treaty on Genetic Resources for Food and Agriculture adopted by the FAO Conference on November 3, 2001includes "the right to equitably participate in the sharing of benefits qarising from the utilization of plant genetic resources for food and agriculture."

Over and above the interests of the companies and entrepreneurs who are the potential users of TKF, it is in this right to benefit sharing that the tension between the state's sovereign rights over its genetic resources and the holder's right over TKF is strongest. This tension is illustrated to some extent between Articles 6 and 7 of the Andean Community Decision 391: Common Regime on Access to Genetic Resources. It is also present in the relationship between rights of holders of traditional knowledge mentioned in CBD Article 8(j) and rights of Contracting Party providing genetic resources mentioned in CBD Article 15(7). Genetic resources, undiscovered and inchoate, clearly remain the property of the state in which those resources are located. However, when a group or individual discovers and uses, improves, or adds value to genetic resources and becomes a "holder" of traditional knowledge through such activity, then the holder may expect some recognition for doing so. Also, the distinction between commercial exploitation and non-commercial exploitation needs study. If a holder itself, rather than an outside individual or company, engages in large-scale exploitation of TKF, is that commercial or non-commercial?

Observers have noted that adequate conditions must be created to recognize the added value of traditional knowledge to the product, thereby allowing communities to receive directly the benefits of that improvement. The knowledge and innovations of indigenous and local communities implies an added intellectual value that had been incorporated in the natural state of the product or process, whether by individual or collective means.

II.E The Right to Conservation of Natural Resources including Genetic Resources

The right to conservation of resources is articulated in Common Article 1's right of peoples freely to dispose of their natural wealth and resources. It has been noted that bio-diversity and the traditional knowledge associated with using it in a sustained manner create the conditions for comparative advantage for the countries of that region.The Convention on Biological Diversity Article 8(j), provides:

Each Contracting Party shall, as far as possible and as appropriate:...

This is broader than merely the right to share the benefits arising out of the instrumental value of utilization of genetic resources or even of the deontological value of the natural resources themselves. There is a belief that intellectual property protection may lead to the preservation of genetic resources and for the prevention of genetic material erosion. Forests valuable for their biodiversity are less likely to be clear cut for The causal connection between intellectual property protection, with its public policy of promoting creation of new knowledge and technology, and the public policy of conservation of genetic resources and prevention of genetic erosion has not yet been demonstrated. However, the public policies of the MEA's support the proposition that holders of TKF are in the best position to assure that plant diversity, particularly in connection with traditional agricultural varieties, is conserved. The right to conservation of the natural environment is intimately implicated in the right of peoples to the preservation of their culture.

II.F Right to Preservation (of Culture)

In a recent study done for the Union of British Columbia Indian Chiefs in Canada, Christine Morris, a member of and advocate for the Kombumerri Clan aborigine community of Australia has written:

The excerpt is a cogent expression by a member of a traditional community of a deontological value which transcends utility. The Land is more than its economic value. The Law itself transcends utility for such peoples. Protection of the social system in which members of the community feel safe and nurtured is valued in and of itself. The right to protect that system is not only inalienable, but incapable of measurement in economic terms. For a member of the community to attempt to divert this wellspring of safety and nurture for economic gain and to remain a member of the community would be open to challenge as a violation of the community's most fundamental precepts. But what if such a member were to disclose its effects to outsiders without economic payment? Would that not be equally offensive to the community? According to Morris:

Russell Barsh has observed a similar attribute among Native American peoples.

It is urged that this right of preservation of the cultural dimension is entitled, in the hierarchy of rights of holders of TKF, to a paramount position. Preservation not just of biodiversity, but diversity of language, myths, dances, ritual ceremonies, and cultural memory must be fostered by any system of protection for TKF holders. To sacrifice the right to preservation of culture in exchange for economic advantage is bound to destroy the very things the system of laws is being designed to protect.

III.Existing Intellectual Property Protection for TKF

III.A. Marks to Denote Goods Emanating from a Collective

Rights in certification marks and collective marks may be acquired and used in the United States under the trademark statute known familiarly as the Lanham Act. In theory, collective marks and certification marks are different. They are both created by the statute but are defined separately, and separately from trademarks and service marks. Certification marks cannot be used on goods or services by the party which owns the mark. Rather, the owner of a certification mark certifies the use of the mark by others as to regional origin, material, mode of manufacture, quality, accuracy, or "other characteristics." If the registrant fails to control use of the mark, engages in production or marketing of any goods or services to which the certification mark is applied, permits the use of the mark for purposes other than certification, or discriminately refuses to certify goods or services of any party who maintains the standards or conditions of certification, the registration may be cancelled. The registrant must maintain control over use of the certification mark and must certify "all comers." Applicants for certification marks must make publicly available the standards for receiving certification. One cannot get a certification mark registration for offering the service of certification. Most authorities agree that the standards for maintenance of a valid certification mark are quite stringent.

Collective marks are marks used by members of an association, group or organization which owns the mark. They include collective trademarks, collective service marks, and collective membership marks. Collective trademarks and service marks indicate that the goods or services come from a member of an organization which controls use of the mark. A collective mark registration may be cancelled in cases where a collective mark was registered by or assigned to a member rather than the collective, or where the registrant permits others to use the mark in such a way as to misrepresent the source of the goods or services. The "legitimate control" element means that, for practical purposes, a collective trademark or service mark is treated like a certification mark by the courts. But unlike certification marks, there is no requirement for collective mark owners to allow "all comers" to use the mark. An individual member (including a corporate member) of an organization cannot at one and the same time own a collective mark and use it on its own goods or services. In the case of "collective membership" marks, both an organization and its members may make use of the mark -- but only to indicate membership in the organization.

Thus, a collective membership mark registrant can sell goods which function to indicate membership in the organization -- primarily to members of the organization -- but cannot be primarily in the business of selling goods and services. From the perspective of the U.S. court decisions, as long as the public assumes that any goods or services bearing the collective membership mark are licensed or approved by the organization, the collective mark remains valid. If the organization does not control others -- including members of the organization -- using the collective mark or "insignia" on goods and services, so that the public loses the perception that the organization and its members alone are the only source or sponsor of such goods, the organization will be found to have "abandoned" its rights in the collective mark. The right comes not from registration, but from what the public perceives. As in politics, appearance is reality in the world of trademarks. Both certification and collective marks have been used by a number of environmental NGOs to help them achieve their goals. I scanned registrations and applications in the United States Patent and Trademark Office for collective and certification marks over the last few years by groups who are interested in some area of environmental protection or environmental activity. There are many profit and non-profit organizations who have already availed themselves of trademark, collective mark, and certification mark protection under the Lanham Act. There is room for many more.

III.B. Geographical Indications

"Indications of regional origin" are protected in the United States only as collective or certification marks. The true system known as "geographical indications" under the TRIPS Agreement or, more narrowly for foodstuffs and wines as "appellations of origin" in Europe, has a long history. "Geographical indications" is a new term for an old concept, illustrated by Darjeeling tea, and Carrara marble (but not Kentucky Fried Chicken!) What is indicated is merely provenance or geographical source.

There are conflicts which may arise between trademark owners and owners of geographical indicators. In the United States, the trademark "Hawaiian Punch" is valid even though the punch is not from Hawaii because consumers would not be deceived into thinking that it was. By contrast, the registration of "Bahia" for cigars from the Dominican Republic where "Bahia" is famed for tobacco from Brazil was refused, because the consumer might be induced to purchase the cigars thinking they were from Brazil. Under recent revisions of U.S. trademark law, trademarks which are not deceptive, but are "primarily geographically deceptively misdescriptive" may no longer be registered in the United States. Nevertheless, such marks, even if unregistered, may be used in commerce as long as there is no likelihood of consumer confusion.

The European system of geographical indications established pursuant to the 1992 EC regulation is a complex legislative scheme. (There are 1200 pages of regulations for the term "cognac" alone.) Rights in geographical indications are not enforced by the state directly but by the members of the wine industry, which have established an inspection authority which has a permanent staff and resources . The Eruopean national, collective, or organization must apply to register the geographical indication with its government. Only European owners may apply. The national government must then agree to submit the name for registration in the European registry. Holders of regionally distinctive products may want to ponder the wisdom of establishing a system of protection for geographical indications which requires large expenses for inspection and administration before adopting such a regime.

In their very nature geographical indications are a "badge of origin". Until recently, however, they were not considered "property." The original purpose was similar to the purposes of trademark law - to prevent free riders from "passing off" their goods as the goods of the holder. Where there is value, there are bound to be thieves. Under French aw and the new European system, an appellation of origin or geographical indication cannot legally become "generic" in the same sense as a trademark may become generic and lose its legal significance. But widespread unchecked abuse can turn a geographical indication "semi-generic." In countries which do not have a system of geographical indications, the likelihood of confusion among consumers is the measure of the scope of a trademark. Many fine "types" of wines originating in distinctive regions of European countries followed their nationals as they spread to create vineyards in the so-called "new world."

The copying of the original wines and foodstuffs by these vagrant "sons of the soil" was absolutely deliberate but not in any sense done in bad faith. And the traditional consumers of "Australian Beaujolais" in Australia or "California Chablis" in California were not confused, because even if they could have afforded the true French versions of such wines, they did not have access to them, and the labels of the local product were usually clearly marked as such. Yet trade creates competition and confusion. And even without confusion as to source, there may be some deception in representations that the "copy" has the same qualities as the original. Extending the discussion to the subject at hand, to what extent must the rights of the modernized (or "westernized") grandsons and granddaughters of holders of TKF, living in urban areas far from their native soils, perhaps working in offices as government officials or even for multinational corporations, to continue to practice (and have access to) their cultural heritage, sing their grandfathers' songs, wear their grandmothers' ceremonial dress, and practice their ancestors' traditional rituals must not be overlooked in the search for new rights. Should they, too, be required to seek permission from the TKF rightsholder to set up shop?

III.C. Patent and Trade Secret Protection for Ideas Incorporating Traditional Knowledge

The problem is illustrated by a controversy over attempts by an American bioprospector to acquire a U.S. patent on a species of the plant banasteriopsis caapi which has attracted the interest of ethnobotanists because it is used by a number of South American tribes as an ingredient in a hallucinogenic concoction. The plant is used in sacred shamanic rituals among Amazon peoples. The Coordinating Body for the Indigenous Organizations of the Amazon Basin [COICA] issued a letter of protest to the U.S. Congress. Questions arose as to whether the claimed plant was patentably distinct from known indigenous varieties.

Also, recently the plant has been found to contains B-carbolines (harmine, harmaline, or tetrahydroharmine) and tryptamine (Dimethyltryptamine-DMT). which have psycho-active effects. A market for the plant among eco-tourists is growing in the region of Puerto Maldonado city in the southern Peruvian rain forest at Madre de Dios. Should the traditional holders have the IP rights in the plant or the compound themselves, or at least to prevent the outsider from acquiring such protection? Obviously, the cost of filing a patent in the United States is not trivial. But traditional holders and the NGOs which support them may, through persistence, develop the necessary expertise to play the patent game on its own terms. Honey Bee network, run by the Society for Research and Initiatives for Sustainable Technologies and Institutions (SRISTI) in India, is an example, collecting ideas and "traditional" inventions, refining them, and seeking patent protection. A recent report in the Economist states that SRISTI has developed a database with over 10,000 holdings and has filed at least 8 patent applications.

A further issue is that knowledge which is part of an oral tradition in a foreign country may not be citeable as prior art in certain jurisdictions such as the United States (unlike the countries of the European Patent Convention, which has an "absolute novelty" requirement which includes oral disclosures.) The Centre for International Research and Advisory Networks [CIRAN] of the Netherlands Organization for International Cooperation in Education (NUFFIC) has as its objective to encourage research that has relevance for developing countries, and to foster international cooperation and capacity-building in this area. CIRAN's website includes " the IK-pages", which it characterizes as gateway to indigenous knowledge. This is an integrated, online information system that offers annotated links to websites -publications, organisations and networks, databases- managed all over the world. Furthermore it features news and announcements, and also some search facilities. Links to centers for the collection of IK around the world include the Center for Indigenous Knowledge for Agriculture and Rural Development [CIKARD] at Iowa State University (United States), LEAD (bibliography), CARIKS (South India), GERCIK (Georgia), GHARCIK (Ghana), RIDSCA (Mexico), RURCIK (Russian Federation), SLARCIK (Sri Lanka), and URURCIK (Israel.) The World Bank has established its Indigenous Knowledge Network with references to bibliographies and resource centers in Africa. Such centers for collection of traditional knowledge will be important sources of information both for establishment of searchable collections of prior art and for preservation of traditional knowledge for posterity. Traditional knowledge published on the internet has been deemed citable as prior art in most jurisdictions where it meets the general requirements of prior art. Establishment of Traditional Knowledge Digital libraries, as recently proposed by the IGC, if it is to be successful, should link up all such databases. Holders of traditional knowledge will need practical advice and assistance during the process of documentation to assure that they do not forfeit important intellectual property rights. As holders become more sophisticated about such issues, they may want to file patent applications themselves (seeking "positive patent rights") rather than merely creating databases to prevent others from obtaining patents ("defensive patent rights.")

There is no reason why holders of traditional knowledge cannot locate patentable inventions which meet the requirements of novelty, inventive step, and practical utility and seek patent protection. Particularly, given that the requirements for novelty in the United States allow for the patenting of inventions which would be considered unpatentable over the prior art in absolute novelty jurisdictions and thus be barred from patent protection, holders might want to consider the United States as a lucrative potential exclusive market for inventions based upon traditional knowledge. Holders of traditional knowledge may themselves become U.S. patent owners. It is granted that patent holders must be legal persons. There is no reason a collective with legal personality cannot file a patent application. A patent holder has the right to exclude others from making, using, selling, or importing products based upon their inventions which fall within the scope of the claims of a patent.

The inventor must be named in the patent application in the United States and in Paris Convention countries under Article 4ter. The right of the inventor to be named in the invention is an important human right, notwithstanding the fact that a corporation may be the owner of the invention by a mandatory assignment from the inventor. In the US, an employee inventor generally has no right to compensation from the employer for economic benefits issuing from the commercialization of a patented invention. But many corporations which rely heavily on the inventive activity of their employees utilize an award or recognition system, which may or may not include payment of money. The policy rationale for granting economic rights not to the inventor but to the employer is that the employer provides both a stable work environment and the necessary physical and psychological support, such as well-equipped research facilities. Only inventions that can be dated and attributed to an individual or small group of people can be patented. Conceivably, the holder of traditional knowledge could be the assigned owner of a patent and the individual of the collective who brought forward the knowledge and cooperated in the articulation of the invention could be the named inventor, with community recognition for the individual, and economic rights in the collective "holder" which has provided the means of subsistence for its members. Traditional communities may not, at least initially, be either sophisticated enough or willing to engage in the tussle of competition in a market economy. But the NGOs which service them may be, assuming that they have the capacity to become receptive to the proposition that intellectual property protection can benefit societies in developing countries and is not just a tool of multinational corporations. And, given the fact that much of the "value added" which leads to economic benefits from commercialization derives from the transformation of a traditional product to a market item, the share of the benefits which would accrue to the holder instead of to a company in the developed world would skyrocket. Holders of TKF have the right to seek assistance to learn the complexities of the existing IP regimes so as to allow themselves to become the primary beneficiaries of economic gains from the exploitation of IP rights in TKF instead of remaining marginalized.

III.D Copyright Protection for Folklore

The possibility of porotection of folklore at the international level was introduced at the 1967 Stockholm Converence of the Berne Convention for the Protection of Literary and Artistic Works was intended The 1967 Stockholm Diplomatic Conference for Revision of the Berne Convention for the Protection of Literary and Artistic Works (the "Berne Convention") through the introduction of Article 15(4) which reads:

As of 15 January 2002, the WPPT has been ratified by 28 states. Upon ratification by only two more states, this treaty will enter into force after three months.

IV A Sui generis legislation

Efforts to develop sui generis legislation for the protection of TKF are growing apace. In the United States, the Indian Arts and Crafts Act of 1990 provides for special trademark protection to Indian art. Civil sanctions are imposed for misrepresentations that arts and crafts are of "Indian." origin include triple and punitive damages, attorney';s fees, and a penalty of $1,000 per day for each day that the goods are offered for sale or sold. Criminal penalties for counterfeit use of marks registered with the Indian Arts and Crafts Board in the U.S. Department of the Interior may be punished by sentences and fines of up to 5 years and $1,000,000 for first offenders and 15 years and $5,000,000 for subsequent offenders. There is no federal law in the United States to protect ceremonies, songs and symbols, however. According to Professor Barsh:

IV.B Customary law

There are several conceptual challenges to the use of customary law to protect TKF. In some jurisdictions, customary law only protects rights in tangible personal property for the traditional communities who occupy it. The principle of protective jurisdiction and of the subsistence of a fiduciary relationship creating obligations in equity have been difficult to establish, for example, in Australia.

It is evident that whatever the definition of "holders" of TKF, they are not in agreement as to what rights they want recognized. The observations of Sir Michael Somare and Christine Morris point to the difficulty of reconciling different interests.