Rights and Intellectual Property Rights | Botany Optional for UPSC PDF Download

Introduction

Biodiversity, the richness of life on Earth, forms the foundation of our planet's sustainability. While industrialized nations possess advanced research and development capabilities, they often lack substantial biogenetic resources. To bridge this gap, they turn to the biogenetic databases of developing nations, resulting in a flow of genetic knowledge from the global South to the capital-rich West, often marked by a one-way street of patents and plant breeders' rights. This phenomenon has both overt and covert effects, with one of the most significant consequences being the loss of biodiversity – a visible manifestation of genetic degradation and one of its invisible, but equally crucial, impacts.

The History of IPR and Biodiversity

• Intellectual property rights (IPR) and biodiversity are distinct but interconnected concepts, and their historical evolution is intricate. In essence, IPR serves as the legal framework to safeguard and promote innovations, including new plant varieties and life forms. Recent developments in biotechnology have amplified concerns about how IPR might impede biodiversity. Patents and other forms of IPR can restrict access to genetic resources and limit their application in future research and development.
• The Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD), established in 1992 in Rio de Janeiro, Brazil, and enforced in 1993, plays a pivotal role in this context. The CBD recognizes the significance of biodiversity and the imperative to conserve and sustainably utilize it. Simultaneously, it acknowledges the role of IPR in fostering innovation. The CBD underscores the importance of equitable sharing of benefits arising from genetic resources and traditional knowledge and calls for the development of national and international measures to safeguard biodiversity from IPR-related threats.

IPR Regulations for Biodiversity Protection

Two key international agreements – Trade-Related Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPs) and the Convention on Biological Diversity – constitute the principal conventions addressing biodiversity protection. To adhere to these conventions, India enacted the Biological Diversity Bill in 2002 and the Indian Patent Second Amendment Act in 2000. These legal measures not only extended the patent duration to 20 years for all goods and processes but also made microorganisms eligible for patents in India. Additionally, India embarked on the certification process for plant breeder rights as part of its journey to join the UPOV Convention, necessitating compliance for new plant varieties in the country. Moreover, India adhered to the Budapest Treaty to address the storage of biological material.

The Relationship Between Biodiversity and Intellectual Property Rights

Within the current IPR framework, the commercialization of seed production, monoculture, and the protection of novel plant varieties, microbes, and genetically modified organisms are focal areas of attention. This heightened focus on commercialization has contributed to the gradual erosion of rich biodiversity. To attain equilibrium between formal intellectual property systems and the sustainable facets of biodiversity, the establishment of alternative mechanisms becomes imperative. Developed nations, despite their limited genetic resources, extensively study biogenetic materials, largely sourced from underdeveloped countries. This unrestricted transfer of biogenetic data to industrialized nations contrasts starkly with the protected transfer of genetic data to the Global South through patents and plant breeder's rights, yielding both overt and covert consequences.

Biological Diversity Convention: Safeguarding Equity

The Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD), in effect since 1993, aims to prevent the unfair exploitation of the bio-wealth and traditional knowledge of less affluent nations by its signatories. The CBD's objectives include the equitable sharing of benefits and technology transfer among member nations, the necessity of prior approval from the origin country for external access, and autonomous control by member nations over their genetic resources. According to the FAO Global Plan of Action, farmers' rights serve as the main safeguard for the rights of genetic resource providers.

Biodiversity and IPR: Their Effects

While there is a growing body of data on the social and economic effects of IPR in developing countries, the impact of IPR on biodiversity conservation and sustainable use remains less explored. One verified consequence of IPRs is the direct and indirect misappropriation of biological and genetic resources, often termed "biopiracy." This phenomenon challenges the principle of sovereign rights over genetic resources in countries and, to some extent, impacts their sustainable utilization. Despite international agreements like the Nagoya Protocol on Access and Benefit-Sharing and the development of national policies and guidelines, the relationship between IPR and biodiversity remains intricate and evolving. Striking the right balance between innovation protection and biodiversity conservation remains a persistent challenge.

Conclusion: Bridging the Gap

A conspicuous legal void exists in the international framework for safeguarding shared resources, often clashing with the cultural heritage of indigenous populations. Intellectual property rules frequently restrict the utilization of ancient resources. To address these challenges, regulations should incorporate substantial penalties and compensation measures to deter resource exploitation. Enhanced coordination among international frameworks is essential to govern property rights while preserving the value of historical materials. Achieving this necessitates regulations supporting technology transfer and active engagement in research and development. True cooperation involves marginalized rural and farming communities asserting control over genetic resources, reciprocated by the formal system adapting to uphold the global commitment to biodiversity preservation. Additionally, designating geographical indicators safeguards the rights of people and prevents further exploitation.