scholarly journals A Comparative Analysis on Convention on Biological Diversity and Trade Related Intellectual Property Rights: With a focus on Patent of Biological Diversity

2014 ◽  
Vol 10 (3) ◽  
pp. 321-340
Author(s):  
김은미
Author(s):  
Pratibha Brahmi ◽  
Vandana Tyagi

Genetic Resources (GR) refer to genetic material of actual or potential value. Use of GR refers to the process of researching their beneficial properties and using them to increase scientific knowledge and understanding, or to develop commercial products. There is continuous search for newer resources to meet the future demands that arise with the emergence of new diseases, abiotic stresses, climate change, and enhanced demand for food and nutritional security. GR are exchanged and searched continuously for specific traits to improve yields and nutritional value in crops and animal genetic resources. Every nation is concerned with acquisition of diverse and superior germplasm for conservation and utilization. The rapid advancements in the fields of molecular biology, biotechnology and bioinformatics, led to the emergence of new legal, political and technological regimes regulating access to GR. Three international negotiations impacted the access to GR, these are the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD), the Agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPS) as part of the Agreement establishing the World Trade Organization (WTO) and the International Treaty on Plant Genetic Resources for Food and Agriculture (ITPGRFA). The regulation regarding access to GR, increasing application of IPRs and the vast potential of biological wealth yet to be tapped through bio-prospecting and genetic engineering, has placed greater demands on nations to adjust to the changing scenario of GR management. Currently access to GR is under the provisions of CBD and access to GR is based on mutually agreed terms (MAT), subject to prior informed consent (PIC). In response to CBD, India enacted the Biological Diversity Act (BDA), 2002 and established the National Biodiversity Authority (NBA) in 2003. Access to PGR from India is therefore regulated by BDA, 2002. The Nagoya Protocol which entered into force from October 2014 defines the international regime within the framework of CBD to promote and safeguard the fair and equitable sharing of benefits arising from the utilization of genetic resources. The paper discusses these agreements in detail with reference to access and use of GR.


Author(s):  
Krishna Ravi Srinivas

The legal status of plant genetic resources has been subject to numerous international agreements and laws over the centuries. The “common heritage of mankind” approach enabled free access but proved unworkable because of conflicts over intellectual property rights. The Convention on Biological Diversity (1992) recognized sovereign rights of nations over genetic resources within their territory. The Trade Related Intellectual Property Rights Agreement under auspices of the World Trade Organization mandated intellectual property protection for plant varieties, but synchronizing such rights has proved problematic. Many developing countries have enacted sui generis regimes to comply with TRIPS requirements. The International Union for the Protection of New Varieties of Plants Convention provides models that have changed over time. With the advent of agricultural biotechnology and availability of intellectual property rights for plant components, patents relating to plant genetic resources have increased. As plant genetic resources are subject to many overlapping treaties, the regime governing them is becoming more complex, resulting in inconsistencies and disputes. While the rights of plant breeders and the private seed industry are well protected in formal agreements, the rights of farmers, who have nurtured diversity in plant genetic resources, developed varieties of crops with different traits, and contributed to exchange and conservation of plant genetic resources, are left to the discretion of nation-states. Farmers’ rights are mentioned in many international legal instruments, but no binding treaty or convention mandates protecting and promoting the rights of working farmers.


2001 ◽  
Vol 32 (1) ◽  
pp. 255 ◽  
Author(s):  
Susan Young

Many indigenous peoples, including Maori, are offended by third parties 'appropriating' their traditional knowledge by means of intellectual property rights, such as patents. The author first surveys international debate about indigenous intellectual property rights in connection with the patenting of traditional indigenous medicine. The author examines the role of morality in New Zealand patent law and how this fits in with New Zealand's international obligations under the World Trade Organisation's TRIPs agreement and the Convention on Biological Diversity. The author examines whether the patenting of Maori traditional medicine can be prevented under the morality exclusion in the Patents Act 1953 and outlines five arguments which might be used to justify various levels of intervention in the patenting process in order to protect Maori control over their traditional knowledge.


Author(s):  
Benjamin Lisa

This chapter focuses on the role of intellectual property law and intellectual property rights (IPRs) in international environmental law. IPRs such as patents are also closely associated with biotechnology developments, and so are highly relevant to efforts to preserve biological diversity, ensure food security, and implement sustainable development goals (SDGs). Issues relating to IPRs arise in three broad areas of international environmental law: whether IPRs should be granted for potentially environmentally damaging technologies; the extent to which IPRs protect Indigenous environmental knowledge; and the extent to which IPRs may limit the transfer of environmentally sound technology. The chapter then provides an overview of IPRs under the 1994 Agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPs) and the 2001 International Treaty on Plant Genetic Resources for Food and Agriculture (ITPGFA). It also considers the 1992 Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD); the 2010 Nagoya Protocol; the 1992 United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC); and the 2015 Paris Agreement.


Author(s):  
Greg K. Venbrux

The rapid growth of the biotechnology industry over the past two decades led many countries to recognize the vast economic potential of their genetic resources and indigenous knowledge. 1  Pharmaceutical companies and plant breeders increasingly rely upon these resources to engineer plantderived drugs, disease-resistant crops, and biotechnical production processes.2 With increasing demand for new biotechnological products, the global community is struggling to strike a balance between the interests of host countries, who seek remuneration for supplying genetic resources and traditional knowledge, and biotechnological inventors, who are pressing for free access, open markets, and stronger intellectual property rights protection.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document