REVIEW OF ARTICLE 27.3(B)

This research paper by the Center for International Environmental Law (CIEL) examines the review of Article 27.3(b) of the TRIPS Agreement. It argues that strong intellectual property (IP) protections over life-forms may hinder development in developing countries by restricting innovation, increasing market concentration, and conflicting with the objectives of the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD).

• Strong intellectual property rights over life-forms may negatively impact developing countries by shifting resources from the public to the private domain and hindering market competition, investment, and innovation. While some developed nations claim these rights promote research, the author notes that for developing countries, a more flexible system may be preferable to support domestic industries.
• The relationship between strong IP rights and innovation in plant and animal biology is unclear. In many developing countries, innovation is informal and conducted by local communities, who may be excluded by the high costs of patents. Additionally, in industrialized nations, 'broad patents' can stifle follow-on research and lead to excessive spending on litigation rather than R&D.
• IP rights are being used as strategic tools by agricultural and medical biotechnology firms to consolidate market dominance. This is evidenced by high market concentration, where the top 10 corporations in pharmaceutical, seed, and agrochemical markets hold approximately 36%, 40%, and 82% of their respective global markets.
• Article 27.3(b) allows for the protection of plant varieties through an 'effective sui generis system,' but does not define what constitutes such a system. The author argues that this provides Members with flexibility to define systems that promote national objectives like food security, biosafety, and farmers' rights, and that it does not mandate the use of UPOV 78 or 91 systems.
• There is a potential conflict between the TRIPS Agreement and the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) because both address intellectual property and biological diversity. The author suggests that the 'lex specialis' principle (where the more specific treaty prevails) could be applied, as the CBD is more specialized regarding the conservation and sustainable use of biological diversity.
• Signatories to the CBD, even those who have not yet ratified it, have an obligation of good faith under international law (and the Vienna Convention) to refrain from acts that would defeat the treaty's object and purpose, such as inappropriate implementation of the TRIPS Agreement regarding access and benefit sharing.

APA

Stilwell, M. (2001). REVIEW OF ARTICLE 27.3(B). Center for International Environmental Law. https://www.ciel.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/03/Article273b_Review.pdf

Chicago

Stilwell, Matthew. REVIEW OF ARTICLE 27.3(B). Center for International Environmental Law, 2001. https://www.ciel.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/03/Article273b_Review.pdf.

Wikipedia

{{cite report |last1=Stilwell |first1=Matthew |title=REVIEW OF ARTICLE 27.3(B) |publisher=Center for International Environmental Law |date=June 2001 |url=https://www.ciel.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/03/Article273b_Review.pdf |access-date=17 August 2026 |via=Climate Insights Directory}}

BibTeX

@techreport{stilwell2001review, author = {Stilwell, Matthew}, title = {{REVIEW OF ARTICLE 27.3(B)}}, institution = {Center for International Environmental Law}, year = {2001}, month = jun, url = {https://www.ciel.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/03/Article273b_Review.pdf}, urldate = {2026-08-17}, note = {Indexed by Climate Insights Directory} }