The TRIPS Agreement and Biological Diversity

This research paper by the International Institute for Sustainable Development examines the potential conflicts and synergies between the WTO's TRIPS Agreement on intellectual property and the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD). It analyzes how patent laws regarding biological resources, technology transfer, and traditional knowledge intersect with national sovereignty and the goal of equitable benefit sharing.

• The TRIPS Agreement requires patents for inventions in all technology fields that are new, involve an inventive step, and are suitable for industrial application. While Article 27.3(b) allows members to exclude plants and animals (excluding micro-organisms) and essentially biological processes from patentability, members must still protect plant varieties via patents, a sui generis system, or both.
• There is a tension between TRIPS-enabled patents and national sovereignty under the CBD. Critics argue that patents on isolated biochemical substances or organisms can violate the sovereign rights of countries over their own resources, especially if the resources were acquired without consent or in breach of the source country's laws.
• While some argue patents encourage the investment necessary to create benefits for sharing, in practice, bioprospecting often fails to result in equitable benefit sharing. This is attributed to the weak bargaining position of indigenous communities and the difficulty states face in preventing foreign patent filings once genetic resources leave their borders.
• The impact of strong intellectual property rights (IPRs) on technology transfer to developing countries is contested. One view is that strong IPRs are necessary to encourage companies to transfer proprietary technologies; another is that they inhibit transfer by allowing owners to block access or charge prohibitive license fees, thereby reinforcing North-South inequalities.
• A significant imbalance exists between the protection of formal corporate innovations and traditional knowledge (TK). TRIPS does not mention TK, leaving community-held knowledge—such as the medicinal use of the hoodia plant by the San people—vulnerable to misappropriation by scientists and businesses who can patent derived compounds.
• Developing country WTO members have proposed requiring patent applicants to disclose the source of biological materials and traditional knowledge, along with evidence of compliance with access and benefit sharing regulations. This is intended to reduce 'biopiracy,' though it may be more effective for pharmaceuticals than for plant varieties due to documentation challenges.

APA

International Institute for Sustainable Development (2003). The TRIPS Agreement and Biological Diversity. https://www.iisd.org/system/files/publications/investment_sdc_dec_2003_8.pdf

Chicago

International Institute for Sustainable Development. The TRIPS Agreement and Biological Diversity. 2003. https://www.iisd.org/system/files/publications/investment_sdc_dec_2003_8.pdf.

Wikipedia

{{cite report |author=International Institute for Sustainable Development |title=The TRIPS Agreement and Biological Diversity |date=2003 |url=https://www.iisd.org/system/files/publications/investment_sdc_dec_2003_8.pdf |access-date=17 August 2026 |via=Climate Insights Directory}}

BibTeX

@techreport{internationalinstituteforsustainabledevelopment2003trips, author = {{International Institute for Sustainable Development}}, title = {{The TRIPS Agreement and Biological Diversity}}, institution = {International Institute for Sustainable Development}, year = {2003}, url = {https://www.iisd.org/system/files/publications/investment_sdc_dec_2003_8.pdf}, urldate = {2026-08-17}, note = {Indexed by Climate Insights Directory} }