UN agreement to combat “biopirates” – adressa.no

The UN’s solution is to create more transparency around the patenting of traditional knowledge about genetic resources.

The International Copyright Organization (WIPO), the UN organization that works with intellectual property rights and innovation, wants to use such openness and knowledge in the fight against exploitation.

From 13 to 24 May, WIPO’s 193 member countries will negotiate an agreement at the organization’s headquarters in Geneva, Switzerland.

What is biopiracy?

Biopiracy, also known as biopiracy, is defined by University of Oslo as “commercial exploitation of organisms and genetic resources carried out by technologically advanced nations and companies that patent and further develop other countries’ genetic resources, without giving anything back to the country of origin”.

Genetic resources are found in, for example, medicinal plants, agricultural crops and animal breeds. These resources are increasingly used in everything from cosmetics, medicines, biotechnology and dietary supplements.

As it is not mandatory to publish the origin of an innovation, many developing countries are concerned that patents are being granted that either bypass indigenous rights, or are issued for existing inventions. Such cases can end in lengthy legal disputes.

– This is colloquially called biopiracy, says director Wend Wendland in WIPO’s department for traditional knowledge.

Although natural genetic resources themselves cannot be directly protected as intellectual property – because they are not created by humans – inventions developed using them often can be.

Inventions based on genetic resources, and the associated traditional knowledge that indigenous peoples have used and preserved over generations, may be eligible for protection through the patent system.

What is proposed in the draft agreement?

According to the proposals in the draft agreement, patent applicants must state from which country the genetic resources included in an innovation come from, and which indigenous peoples have contributed the traditional knowledge.

The aim is to increase the patent system’s “efficiency, transparency and quality”, according to WIPO, which wants to ensure that an invention is indeed new and that the countries and societies concerned have given their consent.

More than 30 countries have such transparency requirements in their national laws. Most of these are developing countries, including China, Brazil, India and South Africa, but there are also European countries such as France, Germany and Switzerland.

But these procedures vary and are not always mandatory. The openness of the UN agreement should therefore contribute to strengthening the implementation of the Nagoya Protocol, which states that persons who make genetic resources or traditional knowledge available shall benefit from the benefit – financial or otherwise – resulting from their use.

Colombia leads the way

Developing countries have been calling for more transparency about the origin of genetic resources for decades, but it was Colombia that made the first official request to WIPO in 1999.

It took several years of negotiations to reduce 5,000 pages of documentation on the subject to an 11-page draft agreement.

Two years ago, the member states of WIPO agreed to call a diplomatic conference in 2024 to conclude an agreement. Only the United States and Japan officially distanced themselves from the decision, but without opposing the agreement.

WIPO hopes that the agreement can be adopted by consensus instead of voting.

For indigenous peoples and developing countries, an agreement will be seen as a victory, says Thiru Balasubramaniam from the non-governmental organization Knowledge Ecology International.

Nodes

Several questions in the agreement still need to be clarified, including what will happen to those who break the rules.

The draft text of the agreement gives patent applicants a chance to correct missing information before sanctions are imposed, and the patent can only be revoked if there is intent to defraud.

The countries must also agree on the definition of genetic resources.

There is disagreement about what information patent applicants must provide. For example, do they have to state in which country a plant has grown, or where it comes from?

There are also questions about the scope of the agreement, for example whether it should cover human genetic resources.

The International Chamber of Commerce called on WIPO member states to “take into account the voice of business to find an appropriate balance” so that they do not hinder innovation.