Biopiracy (Seminar)
Biopiracy can simply be defined as the theft of biological resources
and traditional knowledge from indigenous communities without
giving them appropriate credit or compensation. It is a form of
economic exploitation where corporations or researchers profit from
the biological wealth and cultural wisdom of others without sharing
the benefits.
Origin of the Term
The term biopiracy was coined in 1993 by Pat Mooney, a Canadian
environmentalist, to describe the unethical exploitation of biological
resources and indigenous knowledge.
Biopiracy is a violation of intellectual property rights and cultural
heritage, often targeting developing nations rich in biodiversity.
Biopiracy disproportionately affects developing countries, which are
often rich in biodiversity but lack legal and technical resources to
protect their biological heritage.
Biopiracy affects more than just the economy—it impacts national
pride, cultural identity, and local livelihoods.
Despite international efforts to regulate biopiracy, legal loopholes
and the absence of a universal treaty make it a persistent issue.
Several international organizations address this concern:
• Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD)
• World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO)
• World Trade Organization (WTO)
Legal Framework in India
India, as a biodiversity hotspot, has faced several instances of
biopiracy. In response, it has implemented legal measures to protect
its resources:
1. The Protection of Plant Varieties and Farmers’ Rights Act
(2001): Protects farmers’ rights to use and save seeds.
2. The Biological Diversity Act (2002): Regulates access to
biological resources and ensures benefit-sharing.
3. Traditional Knowledge Digital Library (TKDL): A digital
repository of traditional medicinal knowledge that helps prevent
unethical patents globally.
The TKDL provides evidence to patent offices worldwide, ensuring
traditional remedies and practices are recognized as prior art
(existing knowledge) to block illegitimate patents.
Challenges in Regulating Biopiracy
Despite national laws, regulating biopiracy remains challenging due
to:
• Lack of a global legal framework: No single international
treaty fully addresses biopiracy.
• Legal loopholes: Corporations exploit the weak legal
systems of developing countries.
The Role of the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD)
The CBD, established in 1992, aims to protect biodiversity and ensure
that countries and communities benefit from their genetic resources.
Its core principles include:
1. National Sovereignty: Countries own and control their
biological resources.
2. Benefit-Sharing: Any corporation using genetic resources
must provide fair compensation.
Nagoya Protocol (2010)
The Nagoya Protocol is an agreement under the CBD that promotes
equitable sharing of benefits from genetic resources. It introduces:
1. Prior Informed Consent (PIC): Permission must be
obtained from local communities before accessing their knowledge
or resources.
2. Mutually Agreed Terms (MAT): Benefit-sharing
arrangements must be fair and transparent.
Over 130 countries are parties to the Nagoya Protocol, aiming to
curb biopiracy and promote biodiversity conservation.
Famous Cases of Biopiracy
1. Basmati Rice Case (1997)
• What happened? The U.S. company RiceTec was granted
a patent to market rice as Basmati, despite its origins in India and
Pakistan.
• Why is it biopiracy? Basmati is a Geographical Indication
(GI) and can only refer to rice grown in specific regions.
• Outcome: India challenged the patent, leading to a
partial revocation of RiceTec’s claims.
This case emphasized the importance of GI
protection to safeguard indigenous agricultural
products.
2. Neem Case (1995-2005)
• What happened? W.R. Grace and the USDA patented
neem-based pesticides in the U.S.
• Why is it biopiracy? Neem has been used in India for
centuries for medicinal and agricultural purposes.
• Outcome: After a 10-year battle, the European Patent
Office (EPO) revoked the patent in 2005, marking a victory for India.
This case inspired the TKDL, ensuring that future
biopiracy attempts could be blocked using
documented evidence.
3. Turmeric Case (1995-1997)
• What happened? Two Indian-born researchers at the
University of Mississippi patented the use of turmeric for wound
healing.
• Why is it biopiracy? The medicinal uses of turmeric have
been part of Ayurvedic knowledge for centuries.
• Outcome: India provided ancient Sanskrit texts as
evidence, leading to the revocation of the patent in 1997.
This case became a landmark victory, reinforcing the
need to document traditional knowledge.
4. Kava Case
• What happened? A French company patented the use of
Kava for hair growth.
• Why is it biopiracy? Kava is a traditional plant used for
centuries in Fiji and Vanuatu.
• Outcome: After objections, the patent was eventually
revoked.
This case highlights the exploitation of indigenous
medicinal plants by foreign corporations.
Implications of Biopiracy
Biopiracy has serious consequences for developing nations and
indigenous communities:
1. Economic Loss: Communities lose revenue from their own
resources.
2. Cultural Erosion: Traditional practices and knowledge
systems face exploitation.
3. Loss of Sovereignty: Nations lose control over their
biological wealth.
Solutions to Combat Biopiracy
To prevent biopiracy, the following measures should be
strengthened:
1. Strengthen Legal Frameworks: Enforce Access and Benefit
Sharing (ABS) globally.
2. Document Traditional Knowledge: Expand initiatives like
the TKDL to protect indigenous wisdom.
3. Promote Ethical Research: Encourage corporate
responsibility in bioprospecting.
4. Global Collaboration: Advocate for a universal treaty to
address biopiracy.
Conclusion
In conclusion, biopiracy is a global concern that impacts economics,
ethics, and social justice. By strengthening regulations, documenting
traditional knowledge, and demanding ethical corporate behavior,
we can protect the rights of indigenous communities and preserve
biodiversity for future generations.
Biopiracy is not just about profit—it’s about fairness, justice, and the
preservation of cultural heritage.
