From Biopiracy to Biofairness: Protecting Nature’s Secrets | Part 2
By: Amer Al-Nasser/ AGIP Nordic
Nature is one of the world’s greatest laboratories.
Nature, from rainforests to desert plants, can inspire medicines, cosmetics, food products, and agricultural innovations. But the uncomfortable question is:
When innovation begins with nature, who deserves the credit?
For centuries, many indigenous peoples and local communities have protected, tested, and passed down knowledge about plants, healing practices, seeds, and ecosystems. Yet too often, that knowledge only becomes “valuable” when it enters a laboratory, a patent application, or a product label.
This is when intellectual property can go beyond just a legal tool, to addressing the question of fairness.
The Problem of Taking Without Consent
Bioprospecting is not always bad. Scientific research into plants, microorganisms, and genetic resources can lead to real benefits for society.
The problem begins when companies or researchers take biological resources and traditional knowledge without proper permission, without transparency, and without sharing benefits.
One famous example is the Hoodia plant, traditionally used by the San peoples of southern Africa to help suppress hunger during long hunts. The plant later attracted commercial interest for appetite-suppressant and weight-loss products. What made the case important was not only the plant itself, but the question behind it: Should traditional knowledge be treated as a free shortcut for commercial research? The case eventually led to benefit-sharing discussions involving the San and South Africa’s Council for Scientific and Industrial Research.
Another example is the “Enola bean” case. A U.S. patent was granted over a yellow bean variety after beans were bought in Mexico and selectively bred. The patent was later challenged and ultimately cancelled after U.S. proceedings found the claims invalid for obviousness. The case became a powerful reminder that something long used, grown, or known by communities should not easily become someone else’s monopoly.
The Emerging Rules: Show Where It Came From
A major development came in May 2024, when WIPO member states adopted the Treaty on Intellectual Property, Genetic Resources and Associated Traditional Knowledge. The Treaty is not yet in force, but once it enters into force, it will require patent applicants, where the claimed invention is based on genetic resources or associated traditional knowledge, to disclose the country of origin or source of the genetic resources, and/or the Indigenous Peoples or local community that provided the associated traditional knowledge, where applicable.
Consent Must Be Real, Not Decorative
The Nagoya Protocol, which entered into force in 2014, focuses on access and benefit-sharing. Its purpose is to ensure that benefits arising from the use of genetic resources are shared fairly and equitably.
But the real challenge is implementation.
Consent cannot simply mean a signature on a document that communities do not fully understand. It must be prior, informed, and meaningful. Communities should know what is being collected, how it may be used, whether patents may be filed, and what benefits may follow.
The Future: Innovation Without Piracy
The future of biotechnology, pharmaceuticals, agriculture, and cosmetics will continue to depend on nature.
Good IP protection should not block innovation. It should make innovation more honest. It should help distinguish between genuine invention and the privatization of knowledge that already exists.
Biopiracy turns nature into a resource to be extracted.
Biofairness treats nature as a relationship to be respected.
Because protecting traditional knowledge is not only about preventing unfair patents. It is about recognition, biodiversity, and fairness.
The communities who protected nature’s secrets should be part of the story.
Find out more at AGIP.com