Countries Agree on Vital Disclosure Requirements on Genetic Resources & Traditional Knowledge at WIPO: A Win for Greater Balance in IP Politics [Guest Essay]

Newsletter Edition #219 [The Files In-Depth]

Hi,

Today I am pleased to bring you another edition analysing the recently concluded Treaty On Intellectual Property, Genetic Resources And Associated Traditional Knowledge at the World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO).

This analysis of the key provisions of the new treaty is a guest contribution from Sreenath Namboodiri, a legal researcher, who also wrote for our readers last month when this was being negotiated in May 2024 in Geneva.

(In case you missed it, read the introductory piece to his analysis below: The WIPO Diplomatic Conference on Intellectual Property, Genetic Resources, and Traditional Knowledge, Gets off to a Start in Geneva).

We hope you enjoy reading this careful, balanced piece that not only looks closely at the language agreed by countries, but also what this treaty holds for the future. The author raises some tough questions, and looks at the implications of the negotiated text critically.

We regret the delay in getting this to you, in the midst of a frenzied news cycle in global health up until last week! During the summer here in Geneva, we are reverting to our predictable, but less fast-paced publishing schedule. You will read us once or twice a week on Tuesdays and Thursdays. Thank you for understanding.

Support public interest global health journalism, become a paying subscriber. Tracking global health policy-making in Geneva is tough and expensive. Help us raise important questions, and in keeping an ear to the ground. Readers paying for our work makes this possible.

Our gratitude to our subscribers who help us stay in the game!

Until later.

Best,

Priti

Feel free to write to us: patnaik.reporting@gmail.com. Follow us on X: @filesgeneva

---

Illustration Credit: Amy Clarke, Chembe Collaborative

I. GUEST ESSAY: WIPO DIPCON GRTK

Countries Agree on Vital Disclosure Requirements on Genetic Resources and Traditional Knowledge at WIPO : A Win for Greater Balance in IP Politics

By Sreenath Namboodiri

Namboodiri is an independent legal researcher focusing on Intellectual Property and its intersection with Human Rights, based in India

---

“... History was made in many ways, ” Daren Tang, the Director General of the World Intellectual Property Organization said on  May 24, 2024 on the back of a successful conclusion of a treaty at the premier IP forum, after more than ten years. He was congratulating the negotiators at the Diplomatic Conference and welcoming the adoption of “WIPO  Treaty On Intellectual Property, Genetic Resources And Associated Traditional Knowledge”. Indeed, history has been made,  not only because it is the first treaty at WIPO in a decade, but also because it serves as an acknowledgement of the lack of inclusivity in the present IP regime.

Furthermore, as far as WIPO goes, this was an attestation of the tenets of multilateralism, and underscored the relevance of WIPO in the post-TRIPS era. [The WTO Agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPS)]

While Tang is right about the historical importance of this treaty, the instrument itself could have been stronger. In this essay, we look closely at the “disclosure requirement”, and whether it can move the needle on fairness.

(The disclosure requirement is an international mandate to disclose the origins of genetic resources and the use of traditional knowledge in any invention that applies for a patent.)

Some countries, such as India, celebrated it as a win of their diplomatic might in IP global politics. To recognise the linkage between Intellectual Property (IP), Traditional Knowledge (TK) and Genetic Resources (GR) has been a long-standing ask of developing countries in order to effectively counter ‘Bio-Piracy’ and implement ‘Access and Benefit Sharing’ (ABS) measures of the Convention on Biological Diversity, and the Nagoya Protocol. It might also be fair to say that the treaty has in some sense bridged the gap between the North and South. Developing countries have been of the view that the modern IP regime was imposed upon them.

The pertinent question that should be asked now is, whether the treaty really achieved what it set out to achieve or if  the victory is a symbolic one. We examine whether the present treaty is capable of protecting the GR and associated TK from the threats of bio-piracy and illegal exploitation; and whether it eases the implementation of the Convention on Biological Diversity, Nagoya Protocols and Bonn Guidelines on Access and Benefits Sharing.

Image Credit: Photo by Dawn Lio, Pexels