The Role Of Ipr In Protection Of Bio Diversity

INTRODUCTION

IPR means legal protection to protect data from new inventions. In exchange for being required to reveal the formula or strategy behind the process, these rights allow the owner to prevent imitators from commercializing the inventions or processes for the specified period of time. The term “biodiversity” refers to the variety among living things that come from all source materials and the ecological elements to which they relate. It also includes ecosystem diversity as well as inter- and intraspecies diversity. Human life benefits from biodiversity, which also offers a viable route to achieving developmental objectives. Given that innovations and goods are derived from the resources found in biodiversity, both of these concepts are highly interdependent.

Protection of Biodiversity[Image Source: Freepic]

THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY LAW AND BIODIVERSITY

IPR serves two purposes in relation to biodiversity: firstly, it protects products made with particular raw materials found in the biodiversity system, such as the expensive furniture made with Kashmiri wood from a specific species of teak tree found in the Kashmir region and second, it secures products that are directly derived from conventional wisdom, such as the use of Malabar Pepper as a medicine. The latter is safeguarded by the geographical indications system created by intellectual property law. Urban societies all over the world today have an increasing demand for herbal and organic products, demonstrating the importance of products derived directly or indirectly from biodiversity outside of rural, tribal, and indigenous spheres. The greatest impact of biodiversity in the agricultural sector is due to the use of its derivatives in enhancing soil fertility, preventing crop failures, balancing the nutritional value of crops, and ensuring food security. New plant varieties have been created and used as a result of the expansion of increasing production through commercial agriculture research and development. Intellectual property laws provide a practical solution for preventing commercial agriculture and genetic erosion, and the conservation of these novel plant varieties is now required. Innovation is driven by factors other than financial gain, such as social recognition, reform, goodwill, and the need to simply survive, as shown by the dynamic evolution of humanity. To address various ecological and social needs, Asian farmers developed hundreds of thousands of rice varieties from a single species. The spirit of social welfare inspires traditional healers, farmers, and others to innovate to meet societal needs. The protection of intellectual property laws, which also act as a sufficient incentive for innovation, makes it easier to recognize these innovators who are working within the biodiversity system.

CHALLENGES TO BIODIVERSITY

As a result of the exponential rise in demand for products made from biodiversity resources, such as organic fertilizers and herbal medicines, local communities may have new opportunities, as the financial gain from sharing resources and knowledge can support their economic growth. Local communities serve as trustees of biodiversity resources because they have relied on them for generations, and working to improve them will clearly affect biodiversity. Rarely have local communities benefited from the commercial use of their information and expertise because most prophets have gone to enterprises that use them. The problem with current international safeguards for safeguarding biodiversity resources has two components . First, the Nagoya Protocol (2010) and the Convention on Biological Diversity (1992) compel states to make sure businesses that exploit traditional knowledge, natural resources, and other products of biodiversity do so in a way that fairly distributes the benefits to the community. However, these agreements only apply to resources gathered after the CBD and Nagoya Protocol came into force; they do not deal with resources or collections of traditional knowledge that were already in the public domain.

Second, it is much more advantageous for local communities to sell biocultural products independently and pursue a full “benefit capture” strategy than to rely on multinational corporations for potential “advantage,” which is a more labor-intensive and time-consuming process. The primary assumption is that local communities will benefit from development and profit-sharing, which will maximize the protection of biodiversity resources.

UTILIZATION OF THE CURRENT SYSTEM TO SAFEGUARD BIODIVERSITY RESOURCES

“The Biological Diversity Act of 2002” was enacted to protect biological diversity, encourage the use of biological resources-derived products in a sustainable way, and ensure a fair and equal allocation of the benefits of resource use and ancient traditions. The Biodiversity Act has a progressive vision and includes provisions for the preservation of traditional knowledge. Implementing its provisions could result in significant changes for local communities and traditional knowledge holders. This legislation’s current implementation strategy, which is in desperate need of improvement, has been restricted to documenting knowledge in the creation of the PBR.

The PVFR Act of 2001, which recognizes farmers as both cultivators and stewards of the agricultural gene pool as well as breeders who have successfully developed a number of varieties, has the potential to safeguard biodiversity in the agricultural sector. “According to Section 14(c) of the Act, such farmer’s varieties must be registered by the farmer, a farmer’s association (Section 16(d) of the PVP Act, 2001), or any other person authorized by the farmer to submit such an application (Section 16E, PPVFR Act 2001) ”. This law acknowledged long-standing customs like planting, harvesting, and sharing farm produce—practices that are still crucial to modern ideas like organic farming and plantations with abundant resources.

CONCLUSION

Protection of biodiversity is necessary for a sustainable society where people can utilize natural resources without disproportionately harming them. Local communities and traditional residents, who are the true custodians of the knowledge and resources derived from biodiversity, are greatly impacted by IPR. A friendly IPR rule will effectively defend native people from exploitation and biopiracy for commercial gain and will promote the expansion of knowledge and creativity using the products of the biodiversity system.

Author: Kashish Shah, B.A.LLB,  A Student of National Law University Odisha,  in case of any queries please contact/write back to us via email to chhavi@khuranaandkhurana.com or at IIPRD.

Tagged

Biodiversity, IPR, PBR, PVFR,

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.

one × three =

Archives

  • November 2022
  • October 2022
  • September 2022
  • August 2022
  • July 2022
  • June 2022
  • May 2022
  • April 2022
  • March 2022
  • February 2022
  • January 2022
  • December 2021
  • November 2021
  • October 2021
  • September 2021
  • August 2021
  • July 2021
  • June 2021
  • May 2021
  • April 2021
  • March 2021
  • February 2021
  • January 2021
  • December 2020
  • November 2020
  • October 2020
  • September 2020
  • August 2020
  • July 2020
  • June 2020
  • May 2020
  • April 2020
  • March 2020
  • February 2020
  • January 2020
  • December 2019
  • November 2019
  • October 2019
  • September 2019
  • August 2019
  • July 2019
  • June 2019
  • May 2019
  • April 2019
  • March 2019
  • February 2019
  • January 2019
  • December 2018
  • November 2018
  • October 2018
  • September 2018
  • August 2018
  • July 2018
  • June 2018
  • May 2018
  • April 2018
  • March 2018
  • February 2018
  • January 2018
  • December 2017
  • November 2017
  • October 2017
  • September 2017
  • August 2017
  • July 2017
  • June 2017
  • May 2017
  • April 2017
  • March 2017
  • February 2017
  • January 2017
  • December 2016
  • November 2016
  • October 2016
  • September 2016
  • August 2016
  • July 2016
  • June 2016
  • May 2016
  • April 2016
  • March 2016
  • February 2016
  • January 2016
  • December 2015
  • November 2015
  • October 2015
  • September 2015
  • August 2015
  • July 2015
  • June 2015
  • May 2015
  • April 2015
  • March 2015
  • February 2015
  • January 2015
  • December 2014
  • November 2014
  • October 2014
  • September 2014
  • August 2014
  • July 2014
  • June 2014
  • May 2014
  • April 2014
  • March 2014
  • February 2014
  • January 2014
  • December 2013
  • November 2013
  • October 2013
  • September 2013
  • August 2013
  • July 2013
  • June 2013
  • May 2013
  • April 2013
  • March 2013
  • February 2013
  • January 2013
  • December 2012
  • November 2012
  • September 2012
  • August 2012
  • July 2012
  • June 2012
  • May 2012
  • April 2012
  • March 2012
  • February 2012
  • January 2012
  • December 2011
  • November 2011
  • October 2011
  • September 2011
  • August 2011
  • July 2011
  • June 2011
  • May 2011
  • April 2011
  • March 2011
  • February 2011
  • January 2011
  • December 2010
  • September 2010
  • July 2010
  • June 2010
  • May 2010
  • April 2010