| Part ofa series on |
| Indigenous rights |
|---|
 |
| Rights |
| Governmental organizations |
| United Nations initiatives |
| International Treaties |
| NGOs and political groups |
| Issues |
| Countries |
| Category |
Biopiracy (also known asscientific colonialism[citation needed]) is the unauthorized appropriation of knowledge andgenetic resources of farming and indigenous communities by individuals or institutions seeking exclusivemonopoly control throughpatents or intellectual property.[1] Whilebioprospecting is the act of exploring natural resources for undiscovered chemical compounds with medicinal or anti-microbial properties, commercial success from bioprospecting leads to the company's attempt at protecting theirintellectual property rights on indigenous medicinal plants, seeds, genetic resources, andtraditional medicines.[2]
Moreover, if biological resources and traditional knowledge are taken from indigenous or marginalized groups, thecommercialization of their natural resource can harm communities. Despite the medicinal and innovative benefits of bioprospecting and biochemical research, the expropriation of indigenous land for their genetic resources without fair compensation inevitably leads to exploitation. Biopiracy can harm indigenous populations in multiple ways. Without proper compensation or reward for traditional knowledge of natural resources, the sudden increase in commercial value of the species producing theactive compound can make it now unaffordable for the native people. In some cases, a patent filed by thewestern company could prohibit the use or sale of the resource by any individual or institution, including the indigenous group. With nearly one third of all small-molecule drugs approved by theU.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) between 1981 and 2014 being eithernatural products or compounds derived from natural products, bioprospecting or piracy is growing more significantly, especially in thepharmaceutical industry.[3] Furthermore, the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO) mentions, in the context of intangible cultural heritage (ICH), that the medicinal traditions and knowledge of the Kallawaya communities in Peru have been affected by the lack of legal protection from pharmaceutical companies. A number of research projects are currently being developed on this subject, such as the research carried out using digital methods on the biopiracy of traditional medicines,[4][5] which shows the current context of the problem by developing a description and analysis of the data, and by visualising and mapping the various organisations and actors in the social networks.
With the advancement ofextraction techniques of genetic material inbiochemistry andmolecular biology, scientists are now able to identify a specificgene, which directs toenzymes capable of converting one molecule to another.[6] This scientific breakthrough brings up the question of whether the organism containing the gene that has been modified through a series of tests and experiments should be accredited to the country of origin.
Biopiracy is historically associated with colonialism, where developing resource-rich countries and indigenous populations would be exploited without permission. Since the arrival of European settlers in search of gold, silver, and rare spices, the wealth of knowledge on plant-based riches was highly valued.[2] FollowingMarco Polo's journey through Southwestern India andChina,Christopher Columbus expanded upon the "Spice Route" with the help of the Spanish Court. These explorers, amongst hundreds more, share an infamous history of pillaging through indigenous villages and depriving countries of their natural resources. Western food and pharmaceutical companies have profited immensely from these efforts. Valuable commodities like sugar, pepper, quinine, and coffee were all taken from colonized countries that led to environmental destructions in the corresponding developing countries.[7]
TheGeneral Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT) of 1947 was an effort to encourage international trade by reducing or eliminating trade barriers like tariffs or quotas.[8]Trade-Related Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPS) was negotiated at the end of GATT. Similarly, Columbus set a precedent in 1492 through land titles granted by European kings and queens, which acted as a sort of patent for colonizers. TheWorld Trade Organization (WTO) agreement of TRIPS attempts to signal the importance of maintaining a balance between trade and intellectual property. This agreement, since 1994, requires WTO member countries to develop legal frameworks to protect plant and animal resources in agricultural, pharmaceutical, chemical, textile, or other commodity contexts.[1] Several countries have criticized this agreement, claiming that it's counterproductive in protecting their natural resources.
The Eurocentric roots of property claiming and piracy are reinforced by modern Intellectual Property laws established by GATT and WTO which supplements the colonial ideas to "discover and conquer" and to "subdue, occupy, and possess."[9] Environmental activist and food sovereignty advocateVandana Shiva calls patenting and claiming rights to genetic material and bio-resources "the second coming of Columbus" due to its reinforcement of colonial power dynamics.[9] For example, the intellectual property for Indian products like tamarind, turmeric, and Darjeeling tea have been taken and patented by private corporations in historically colonial countries. More specifically, in 2010 The University of Michigan attempted to patent curcumin, the active ingredient of turmeric powder, to create drugs used for wound healing without directly crediting Indian communities, where turmeric was traditionally used in medicine for treating wounds, infections and skin problems for centuries.[1]
The "Gene Rush" is the new era of biotechnology that allows scientists to extract specific genes from living organisms as raw materials. With the introduction of deoxyribonucleic acid (DNA) research,Sri Lanka has been marked with imminent danger as a target of biopiracy. Spotted in the top 34 biodiversity hotspots, Sri Lanka claims the highest biodiversity per unit area of terrestrial among Asian countries.[2] Currently, Sri Lanka has 1,500 identified species ofmedicinal herbs and plants, and its attraction to biopiracy has put environment protection and conservation at a significant priority in the country. Recent efforts were enacted byUnited Nations Industrial Development Organization (UNIDO) in collaboration with the Spice Council and thegovernment of Sri Lanka to enhance the productive capacities and competitiveness of the cinnamon value chain in the country.[10]
"Biopiracy" was coined in the early 1990s byPat Mooney, founder of ETC Group which works to protect the world's most vulnerable people from socioeconomic and environmental impacts of new, modern technologies. He defines it as when researchers or research organizations take biological resources without official sanction, largely from less affluent countries or marginalized people.[7] Biopiracy includes theft or misappropriation of genetic resources and traditional knowledge through the intellectual property system and unauthorized and uncompensated collection of genetic resources for commercial purposes.[7] Mooney, along with other critics of the patent system, believes that the current intellectual property system creates inequities in the system by allowing wealthy and powerful groups of people to own the most basic building blocks of life.
Intellectual property (IP) rights includepatents,copyright,industrial design rights,trademarks,plant variety rights,trade dress,geographical indications, and sometimestrade secrets.
Intellectual property rights (IPR) were created to promote and reward scientific knowledge and creativity. However, they naturally weigh towards benefiting transnational corporations.[9]
Early intellectual property treaties were crafted in the late 19th century by European powers, and inherently ignored large parts of the impact of intellectual property on non-European peoples, cultures, and traditions.
In the late 20th century, more inequalities were added to the intellectual property system, representing a shift from common rights to private rights of knowledge. The preamble ofTRIPS agreement acknowledges these rights as private rights. By privatizing intellectual commons, TRIPS encourages corporatemonopoly.
A second restriction comes from the fact that IP rights are only recognized when they generateprofit, rather than then when they meet social needs. The TRIPS agreement clarifies that an innovation must be capable of industrial profit in order to be recognized as an IPR,[11] which discourages recognition ofsocial good.
In parallel, the international community has been working on different legal pathways to rebalance the intellectual property system in favour ofindigenous peoples and local communities, in an attempt to address concerns related to biopiracy.
First elements related to genetic resources and traditional knowledge were included in the 1992Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD). In 2010 (in force 2014), theNagoya protocol to the CBD created actionable mechanisms to ensure afair access and benefit-sharing (FABS or ABS) ofgenetic resources (GR).
In June 2023, the UN adopted the United Nations agreement on biodiversity beyond national jurisdiction (BBNJ Agreement), also called "High Seas Treaty". It concerns the conservation and sustainable use ofmarine biological diversity in areas beyond national jurisdiction, following maritime jurisdictions established under theUnited Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea.
Since 2001, theWorld Intellectual Property Organization through itsIntergovernmental Committee on Intellectual Property and Genetic Resources, Traditional Knowledge and Folklore (IGC) has worked on several areas to bridge the gaps in international law in relation to biopiracy in genetic resources,traditional knowledge (TK), andtraditional cultural expressions (TCE, formerly called "folklore").[12]
The first output from the work of the IGC was a Diplomatic Conference, held in May 2024 to agree on a treaty for patent disclosures requirements in relation to "GR and Associated TK" (hence the treaty's acronym, GRATK). On 24 May 2024, the WIPO Diplomatic Conference finally adopted the "landmark"[13]WIPO Treaty on Intellectual Property, Genetic Resources and Associated Traditional Knowledge (GRATK),[14] which was signed by 30 countries on the day of its conclusion.[15]
| Incident | Place of Origin | Country engaged in piracy |
|---|---|---|
| Bitter melon (Momordica charantia) | Africa | USA |
| Turmeric (Curcuma longa) | Indian subcontinent and Southeast Asia | USA |
| Kothala Himbutu (Salacia reticulata) | Sri Lanka, Andaman Islands | Japan, USA, other European countries |
| Pongame oiltree (Pongamia glabra) | Asia, Australia, and the Pacific islands | Japan |
| Masbadda (Gymnema sylvestre) | Asia, Africa, and Australia | Japan |
| Heart-leaf Sida (Sida cordifolia) | India | Japan |
| Yellow Vine (Coscinium fenestratum) | India, Sri Lanka | Japanese, European, and USA pharmaceutical manufacturers |
| Neem (Azadirachta indica) | India, Nepal | EPO to US Department of Agriculture and the US-American firm W.R. |
| Common Bean (Phaseolus vulgaris) | South and Central America | USA |
| Rubber tree (Hevea brasiliensis) | Brazil | England |
| Hoodia plant (Hoodia gordonii) | Southern Africa | CSIR gave patent to Phytopharm and Pfizer |
| Kakadu Plum (Terminalia ferdinandiana) | Australia | USA |
| Aloe vera | Arabian Peninsula | USA |
In the arid areas of India, the neem tree, orAzadirachta indica, is a fast-growing evergreen of up to 20 meters in height. From its roots to leaves, the tree contains a number of potent chemical compounds, includingazadirachtin which can be found in the seeds. The neem tree has applications in medicine, toiletries, contraception, timber, fuel, and in agriculture.[17] Historically, access to the neem tree's various products has been free or cheap. There are about 14 million neem trees in India, and the centuries old village techniques of seed oil extraction and pesticidal emulsions do not require expensive equipment. Villagers relied on the large number of different medicinal compounds accessible through the neem material which were commonly available.[17] When US timber importer Robert Larson noticed the tree's usefulness in 1971, he conducted research over the next decade on the pesticidal properties in the neem extract calledMargosan-O. After gaining clearance for the product from the US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) in 1985, he sold the patent for the product toW.R. Grace. While the corporation patented the neem tree seed extract for their antifungal spray, Neemex in 1994, neem extracts have been used by rural farmers in India for more than 2,000 years in insect repellants.[7]
India-based Research Foundation for Science, Technology, and Ecology (RFSTE) challenged the US patent with the claim that the qualities of the neem tree and their use had been known in India for over 2,000 years.[18] TheCongressional Research Service (CRS) reported to US Congress in justification of the patent claiming that the synthetic form or the process of synthesis of the naturally occurring compound should be patentable.[citation needed] The patent was finally overturned by the EPO in 2000.[7] The village neem tree has become a symbol of Indian Indigenous knowledge and resistance against transnational corporations, and protestors against international property rights legislation carried twigs or branches of neem.[17]
TheHoodia plant of theKalahari Desert was used for thousands of years by thenomadicSan people in southern Africa to help survive through hunger and thirst during their long expeditions in the desert.[19] In 2016, the South AfricanCouncil for Scientific and Industrial Research (CSIR) gained a government-funded patent for a new drug (P57) derived from the succulent for its appetite-suppressing qualities.[20] CSIR scientists isolated the P57 molecule in 1996 after decades of research on indigenous plants.[21] The patented formula was sold to western pharmaceutical multinational companiesPfizer andPhytopharm as a miracle drug for weight loss.
Following the confirmation of the patent, representatives of the San people, backed by the global support of patent-law critics and bioethicists, demanded restitution of their rights to their common intellectual property. After a long dispute, CSIR and the San people came to a confidential 'benefit-sharing' agreement where the San people were given royalties, knowledge exchange and creation of jobs from the industry.[20]
 | Theneutrality of this section isdisputed. Relevant discussion may be found on thetalk page. Please do not remove this message untilconditions to do so are met.(January 2022) (Learn how and when to remove this message) |
Piña cloth, in the nineteenth century, was a creation unique to thePhilippines. With fibers collected from the leaves ofpineapples, the weaving mechanism of piña is a complex and labor-intensive process used by a small number of women to dress the country's elite. Scraping, the most common method of extracting pineapple leaf fibre (PALF), starts with carefully removing the prickles, epidermis, and pulp from the sides of the leaf with a dull knife.[22] This is followed by exposing the fiber and finely combing it to separate the strands. With the help of a bamboo device, the separated strands are then threaded and weaved together through a delicate process to create a continuous filament. After some years of research and development of potential leather alternatives at theRoyal College of Art in London, Dr. Carmen Hijosa, founder and chief creative innovation officer of Ananas Anam, claimed the rights toPiñatex, a leather alternative made from PALF.[23] The patent on this technology makes it nearly impossible for the people of the Philippines and indigenous people to gain credit for the fabric that greatly impacted the shape of their history and culture for generations. Piñatex recently partnered withDole, promising scaled-up leather production with the waste product from their pineapple farms in the Philippines. Despite the violent history of the Dole Empire, Piñatex has been expanding its market by collaborating with brands likeChanel,H&M, andNike.[24] The patent remains to this day.
Greenwashing is a term coined by environmentalistJay Westervelt in 1986, meaning the false claims by companies that give the impression of sustainability and environmentalism.[25] Without clarifying the metrics and quantifiable goal of the company's environmental agenda, many big companies attempt to paint the picture ofethical andeco-friendly images. Resources and materials pirated from indigenous communities are often commodified and recycled into corporate environmentalist agendas. Due to the exploitative nature of thefast fashionsupply chain, many 'green' collections released by corporations only promote their marketing strategies and increase problems with textile waste andclimate change.
Nike received backlash after the 2020 Impact Report which showed the lack ofsustainability infootwear. To tackle the feedback, Nike launched the Happy Pineapple Collection featuring Ananas Anam'svegan leather material and a tropical fruit design embroidered across theAir Max 90, the Air Max 95,Air Force One, and Air-Zoom collections.[24]
The Conscious Collection released by H&M in 2010 also partners with Ananas Anam to produce vegan leather jackets.[26] Due to inconclusive data on Piñatexbiodegradability, the Norwegian Consumer Authority accused the brand of misleading customers with vague details of the sustainability claims made. The brand responded by saying they would accept the criticism and communicate the extra value.[24]
TheConvention on Biological Diversity created by theUnited Nations in 1992 demanded thatbioprospecting should not be done without the consent of the host country. The convention concluded that exploitation of local resources for medicinal and pharmaceutical purposes should actively involve local traditional communities and the produced profit and benefits be shared in an equitable way.[27]
TheInternational Cooperative Biodiversity Group (ICBG) is a network of bioprospecting projects funded by the US government. While the main objective is to discover and research plants bearing chemical compounds that could cure diseases in the United States, the countries hosting the searches can expect equitable rewards and benefits. Local job creation in communities is promoted by conducting the initial extraction and analysis steps in local laboratories. If the research leads to commercialized drugs, 50% of the royalties are invested into community development funds run by indigenous people.[27]
