Anamika Dey, CEO, Gujarat Grassroots Innovation Augmentation Network [GIAN], India

DOI: 10.65398/UGTZ3656

Traditional Knowledge-based Bio-enterprises (TKBEs) harness indigenous knowledge and local biological resources to produce sustainable, culturally significant products. They integrate traditional practices with modern science for validation, value addition, and entrepreneurship, preserving biodiversity while creating livelihoods (Gupta, 2004).

Traditional knowledge (TK), developed over generations, embodies local biodiversity management and sustainable practices, though it evolves over time (Agarwal, 1995). Integrating TK with market-oriented strategies enables eco-friendly products and strengthens community resource stewardship (Pati, Shukla, & Chanza, 2002).

Women and the Bioeconomy

The bioeconomy contributes to 11 of the 17 SDGs and, when linked with circular economy principles, can reshape consumption and production (Braun, 2014; Lokesh, Ladu, & Summerton, 2018). Women’s entrepreneurship is one of the fastest-growing research areas (Cardella, Hernández-Sánchez, & Sánchez-García, 2020), yet only 16 of 244 studies linking women and bioeconomy come from the Global South, with almost none bridging women’s TK and modern science (Sanz-Hernández, Jiménez-Caballero, & Zarauz, 2022).

Women-led bio-enterprises can bridge this gap through documentation, validation, ethical value chains, and policy advocacy.

Blending Knowledge Systems

Documentation of women’s knowledge exists, but scientific validation and equitable benefit-sharing are limited (Montanari & Bergh, 2019). Combining formal and informal knowledge can occur through:

- Bundling: Combining detachable elements from each system, e.g., herbal with allopathic remedies.

- Blending: Inseparable fusions where traditional practices are enhanced by scientific tools for safety, efficacy, and scalability.

- Braiding: Intertwining cultural wisdom with modern technology, e.g., traditional soil management with drones and genetic insights (Kimmerer, 2013).

Validation involves literature review, laboratory analysis, and trials, ensuring safety, efficacy, and reproducibility (Gupta, 2006). Often, companies exploit TK-derived plants for new uses without sharing benefits, despite initial leads coming from community knowledge (Maharaj, Naidoo-Maharaj, & Mianda, 2019).

Creating ethical value chains for traditional knowledge-based products (Fig one)

Himalayan Case Studies

Pain-relieving Oil & Salve: GIAN documented 400 herbal practices from Himalayan border districts. Using community consent and LM College of Pharmacy’s expertise, a blend of oils was developed, including one plant undocumented for pain relief—patentable in the community’s name. Trials were positive. The Little Himalayan Company is created to support marketing and benefit sharing with the communities and also for environmental conservation.

High-Iron Kidney Beans: Thirty varieties from Kiphire were screened at TIGS, Bangalore. Four showed almost double the average iron content, offering nutritional and commercial potential.

Ficus auriculata for Food Safety: Young leaves, traditionally cooked with pork in Kiphire, have proven antioxidant and antimicrobial properties (Bertolletti et al., 2018), indicating potential for food preservation and water treatment.

Ethics & Benefit-sharing

Harvesting is done sustainably, with local processing increasing incomes by 10–20%. Prior informed consent is obtained, and patents are filed in knowledge-holders’ names. The Little Himalayan Company pays 10% above market rates, shares profits with communities, invests in biodiversity regeneration, and offers products at discounted rates locally.

Policy Challenges & Opportunities

TKBEs face barriers in market access, IP protection, and ethical use. Instruments like CBD Article 8(j) and UNCCD Article 17 mandate fair benefit-sharing and conservation. To scale sustainably:

- Build community–research–industry partnerships.

- Avoid overharvesting through community-led management.

- Explore Cultural Impact Bonds and a Bio-entrepreneurship Fund for resilience.

Conclusion

Women-led bio-enterprises integrating TK with science can achieve economic, ecological, and cultural goals. Ethical value chains, rigorous validation, and enabling policies are essential for scaling without degrading resources, ensuring fair returns, and advancing a greener, more inclusive bioeconomy.

References

Agarwal, B. (1995). Gender and legal rights in agricultural land in India. Economic and Political Weekly, 30(12), A39–A56.

Bertolletti, E., et al. (2018). Antioxidant and antimicrobial activities of Ficus auriculata leaves. Journal of Food Biochemistry, 42(1), e12455.

Braun, R. (2014). The bioeconomy: Drivers, potentials and challenges. OECD Publishing.

Cardella, G. M., Hernández-Sánchez, B. R., & Sánchez-García, J. C. (2020). Women entrepreneurship research: Mapping and thematic analysis. Journal of Business Research, 113, 252–261.

Gupta, A. K. (2004). Origin of grassroots innovations: Learning from the honey bee network. Innovation: Management, Policy & Practice, 6(3), 159–170.

Gupta, A. K. (2006). From sink to source: The Honey Bee Network documents indigenous knowledge and innovations in India. Innovations, 1(3), 49–66.

Kimmerer, R. W. (2013). Braiding sweetgrass: Indigenous wisdom, scientific knowledge and the teachings of plants. Milkweed Editions.

Lokesh, K., Ladu, L., & Summerton, L. (2018). Circular bioeconomy: Drivers and indicators. Sustainability, 10(11), 4278.

Maharaj, V., Naidoo-Maharaj, A., & Mianda, G. (2019). Ethical considerations in commercializing traditional knowledge. Journal of Ethnopharmacology, 244, 112118.

Montanari, B., & Bergh, S. I. (2019). Knowledge and rights in development contexts. Third World Quarterly, 40(3), 494–510.

Pati, B., Shukla, A., & Chanza, N. (2002). Traditional knowledge and sustainable development. Current Science, 83(8), 951–953.

Sanz-Hernández, A., Jiménez-Caballero, J. L., & Zarauz, A. (2022). Women and bioeconomy in the global south. World Development, 150, 105708.