Intellectual Property Rights and Biological Diversity: Considerations for Latin America

  • Jorge Cabrera Medaglia


The legal and institutional transformations that have accompanied free trade agreements in such important areas as competitiveness, industrial development, public health, education, food security, environment and Intellectual Property Rights (IPRs) are the subject of intense discussions in various national and international forums.1 In relation to IPRs and the environment, and due to the emergence of an international body of laws within the framework of the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) and of the FAO International Treaty on Plant Genetic Resources for Food and Agriculture, emphasis has been placed on the existence of a conflict between certain tendencies oriented toward the strengthening of IPRs and the objectives of conserving, using biodiversity sustainably and equitably distributing the benefits derived from the use of


Intellectual Property Genetic Resource World Trade Organization Traditional Knowledge Plant Genetic Resource 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


  1. Barton, J. (1997a), “Intellectual property and regulatory requirements affecting the commercialization of transgenic plants”, unpublished draft.Google Scholar
  2. Barton, J. (1997b), “The impact of contemporary patent law on plant biotechnology research”, unpublished draft.Google Scholar
  3. Bergel, S. (1997), “Patentamiento del cuerpo humano y partes del mismo”, Biotecnología y Derecho, Buenos Aires, Ediciones Ciudad.Google Scholar
  4. Bhagwati, J. et al. (1999), Enough is Enough, Third World Intellectuals and NGO´s Statement Against Linkage.Google Scholar
  5. Biswajit, D. and R. Niranjan (1997), La vinculación de los derechos de propiedad intelectual con el comercio, Propiedad Intelectual en el GATT, Buenos Aires, Ediciones Ciudad.Google Scholar
  6. Byrlee, D. and K. Fisher (2001), “Accessing modern science: Policy and institutional options for agricultural biotechnology in developing countries”, IP Strategy Today, No. 1.Google Scholar
  7. Cabrera Medaglia, J. (1997), Ideas, mecanismos y principios para la tutela de las innovaciones, conocimientos y prácticas de los pueblos indígenas, San José, Fundación Ambio.Google Scholar
  8. Cabrera Medaglia, J. (1998), “Comercio Internacional Agrícola de Organismos Genéticamente Modificados: entre la bioseguridad y el libre intercambio”, Justicia Agraria y Ambiental en América, San José, CADA.Google Scholar
  9. Cabrera Medaglia, J. (2000), “Propiedad intelectual, soberanía y ambiente”, Revista Mensual de Gestión Ambiental, No. 16, Madrid, Universidad Carlos III, April.Google Scholar
  10. Cabrera Medaglia, J. and J. P. Hernández (2001), “Propiedad Intelectual, Comercio y Ambiente. Notas para una Agenda Positiva”, unpublished draft, June.Google Scholar
  11. Cabrera Medaglia, J. and E. Alarcón (1999), “Acceso a los Recursos Genéticos y el Papel de los Derechos de Propiedad Intelectual”, ponencia presentada al Taller Investigación Agrícola y Propiedad Intelectual en América del Sur, Río de Janeiro.Google Scholar
  12. Casado Cerviño, A. and B. C. Prada (1997), Orígenes y Alcances del Acuerdo ADPIC. Incidencia en el Derecho Español, Propiedad Intelectual en el GATT, Buenos Aires, Ediciones Ciudad.Google Scholar
  13. EEC (European Economic Community) (1987), Directive 87/54, “Diario Oficial de las Comunidades Europeas”, cit. por Rafael Pérez Miranda en Marco Internacional del Régimen Jurídico de la Propiedad Industrial en México, 27 January.Google Scholar
  14. Commission on Intellectual Property Rights (2002), “Integrating intellectual property rights and development policy” [on line] (, London, September. Cooper, D. (2002), The International Treaty on Plant Genetic Resources for Food and Agriculture, RECIEL, London, 11( 1).
  15. Cooper, D. et al. (1994), “A multilateral system for plant genetic resources: Imperatives, achievements and challenges”, Issues in Genetic Resources, No. 2, May.Google Scholar
  16. Correa, C. (1989), “Propiedad intelectual, innovación tecnológica y comercio internacional”, Revista Comercio Exterior 39(12), Mexico.Google Scholar
  17. Correa, C. (1999), Normativa nacional, regional e internacional sobre propiedad intelectual y su aplicación en los INIAs del Cono Sur, Uruguay, PROCISUR.Google Scholar
  18. Correa, C. and S. Mussungu (2002), “The WIPO patent agenda: The risks for developing countries”, South-Centre Working Paper, November.Google Scholar
  19. Cosbey, A. (2001), The Sustainable Development Effects of WTO TRIPs Agreement: A Focus on Developing Countries [on line] ( Scholar
  20. Crucible Group (1994), People, Plants and Patents, Canada, IDRC.Google Scholar
  21. Crucible Group (2000), Seeding Solutions, Rome, IDRC.Google Scholar
  22. De las Carreras, D. (1989), Las patentes de invención y la información tecnológica, derechos intelectuales, Argentina, Astrea.Google Scholar
  23. Downes, D. (1999), Integrating Implementation of the Convention on Biological Diversity and the Rules of the World Trade Organization, Gland, IUCN.Google Scholar
  24. Dutfield, G. (2000), Intellectual Property Rights, Trade and Biodiversity: The Case of Seeds and Plant Variety, Gland, IUCN.Google Scholar
  25. Dutfield, G. (2002), “Protecting Traditional Knowledge and Folklore. A review of progress in diplomacy and formulation”, Issue Paper 1, Geneva, ICTSD, UNCTAD.Google Scholar
  26. Erbisch, F. and C. Velásquez (1998), Introduction to Intellectual Properties, Intellectual Property Rights in Agricultural Biotechnology, in Biotechnology in Agriculture Series, No. 28, East Lansing, Michigan State Uinversity, US.Google Scholar
  27. Gaia Foundation and GRAIN (Genetic Resources Action International) (1998a), “TRIPs versus CBD: Conflict between the WTO regime of intellectual property rights and sustainable biodiversity management”, Global Trade and Biodiversity in Conflict Series, Issue N° 1, May.Google Scholar
  28. Gaia Foundation and GRAIN (Genetic Resources Action International) (1998b), “Ten reasons not to join UPOV”, Global Trade and Biodiversity in Conflict Series, Issue N° 2, May.Google Scholar
  29. Girsberger, M. (2004), “Transparency measures under patent law regarding genetic resources and traditional knowledge”, Journal of World Intellectual Property 7(4), Geneva, July.Google Scholar
  30. Glowka, L. A.(1998), “Guide to designing legal frameworks to determine access to genetic resources”, Environmental Policy and Law Paper, No. 34, IUCN.Google Scholar
  31. Gollin, M. (1993), “An intellectual property rights framework for biodiversity prospecting”, in Reid et al. (eds.), Biodiversity Prospecting, Washington, DC, World Resources Institute.Google Scholar
  32. Gollin, M. (1994), “Patenting recipes from nature’s kitchen. How can naturally occurring chemical like taxol be patented”, Biotechnology Today 12, April.Google Scholar
  33. Graff, G. and D. Zilberman (2001), “Towards an intellectual property clearinghouse for AG-Biotechnology”, IP Strategy Today, N° 3.Google Scholar
  34. GRAIN (Genetic Resources Action International) (2000), “La ciencia genómica: hacia el control total sobre los cultivos”, Biodiversidad, Sustentos y Culturas, No. 24, Uruguay, July.Google Scholar
  35. GRAIN (Genetic Resources Action International) (2001), “The IU: Time to draw the line on IPRS”, Seedling 18, No. 1, Barcelona, March.Google Scholar
  36. Heller, M. and R. Eisenberg (1998), “Can patents deter innovations?. The anticommons in biomedical research”, Science, 1 May.Google Scholar
  37. Ho, C. (2003), “Disclosure of origin and prior informed consent for applications of intellectual property rights based on genetic resources. A technical study of implementations issues”, Final Report, July.Google Scholar
  38. Hoare, A. (2006), “Disclosure requirements in patent applications - Options and perspectives of users and providers of genetic resources”, Background Paper for the Chatham House Workshop, 9 and 10 February, Energy, Environment and Development Programme, Chatham House.Google Scholar
  39. ICTSD (International Centre for Trade and Sustainable Development)-UNCTAD (United Nations Conference on Trade and Development) (1999), “Between trade and sustainable development”, Bridges, No. 5, June.Google Scholar
  40. ICTSD (International Centre for Trade and Sustainable Development)-UNCTAD (United Nations Conference on Trade and Development) (2000), “Between trade and sustainable development”, Bridges, No. 9, November–December.Google Scholar
  41. ICTSD (International Centre for Trade and Sustainable Development)-UNCTAD (United Nations Conference on Trade and Development) (2003), “Intellectual property rights: Implications for development”, Policy Discussion Paper, Geneva.Google Scholar
  42. IPGRI (International Plant Genetic Research Institute) (1999), “The agreement on trade-related aspects of intellectual property rights (TRIPs)”. A Decision Check List, Rome.Google Scholar
  43. Jori, G. (1989), “El impacto de las patentes farmacéuticas. La experiencia italiana, derechos intelectuales”, Astrea, Buenos Aires.Google Scholar
  44. Krattiger, A. (2002), “Public-private partnership for efficient proprietary biotech management and transfer, and increased private sector investments”, IP Strategy Today, No. 4.Google Scholar
  45. Kryder, R. D. (2000), “The intellectual and technical property components of pro-vitamin a rice (Golden Rice)”, A Preliminary Freedom to Operate Review, ISAAA Briefs, No. 20, New York.Google Scholar
  46. Leskien, D. (1998), “The European patent directive on biotechnology”, Biotechnology and Development Monitor, No. 36, September–December.Google Scholar
  47. Leskien, D. and M. Flitner (1997), “Intellectual property rights for plants: Options for a sui generis system”, Issues in Plant Genetic Resources, No. 6, June.Google Scholar
  48. Lesser, W. (1991), Equitable Patent Protection in Developing Countries: Issues and Approaches, Eubios Ethics Institute, Christchurch, New Zeland.Google Scholar
  49. Lesser, W. (1998), “Propiedad intelectual y biodiversidad”, La conservación y el uso sostenible de la biodiversidad para el desarrollo sostenible, San José, SINADES.Google Scholar
  50. Lettington, R. (2001), “The international undertaking on plant genetic resources in the context pf TRIPs and the CBD”, Bridges, year 5, No. 6, July–August.Google Scholar
  51. Llewelyn, M. (2000), “The patentability of biological material: Continuing contradiction and confusion”, European Intellectual Property Review 22, Issue 5, London, Sweet and Maxwell, May.Google Scholar
  52. uwars, N. (1998), “Sui generis rights: From opposing to complementary approaches”, Biotechnology and Development Monitor, No. 36, Amsterdam, September–December.Google Scholar
  53. Louwars, N. and M. Minderhoud (2001), “When a law is not enough: Biotechnology patents in practice”, Biotechnology and Development Monitor, No. 46, Amsterdam, June.Google Scholar
  54. Mekour, M. A. (2002), “A global instrument on agrobiodiversity: The international treaty on plant genetic resources for food and agriculture”, Environmental Law and Policy, FAO.Google Scholar
  55. Mulvany, P. (2001), “Global seed treaty hangs in the balance”, Biotechnology and Development Monitor, No. 46, Amsterdam, June.Google Scholar
  56. WIPO (World Intellectual Property Organization) (2000), “Traditional knowledge and the need to give it adequate intellectual property protection”, Document submitted by GRULAC to the General Assembly of WIPO, Geneva, 25 September to 3 October (WO/GA/26/9).Google Scholar
  57. WIPO (World Intellectual Property Organization) (2005), “Technical Study on patent disclosure requirements related to genetic resources and traditional knowledge”, Study N° 3.Google Scholar
  58. Pistorius, R. and J. Van Wijk (1999), The Exploitation of Plant Genetic Information. Political Strategies in Crop Development, Amsterdam.Google Scholar
  59. Posey, D. and G. Dutfield (1996), Beyond Intellectual Property Rights, Canada, IDRC.Google Scholar
  60. RAFI (Rural Advancement Foundation International) (2001), “Un caso de biopiratería”, communication sent electronically to the author, August.Google Scholar
  61. Rojas, M. et al. (2005), Disclosure Requirements: Ensuring Mutual Supportiveness Between the WTO TRIPS Agreement and the CBD, Switzerland.Google Scholar
  62. Sain, G., J. Cabrera and J. L. Quemé (1999), Flujos de germoplasma, redes regionales de investigación agrícola y el papel de los derechos de propiedad intelectual, IICA, PRM, CIMMYT.Google Scholar
  63. Sarnoff, J. (2006), “Compatibility with existing international property agreements of requirements for patent applications to disclose the origins of genetic resources and traditional knowledge and evidence of legal access and benefit sharing” [on line] (
  64. Sarnoff, J. and C. Correa (2006), “Analysis of options for implementing disclosure of origin requirements in intellectual property applications”, UNCTAD, February.Google Scholar
  65. Secretaría del Convenio sobre la Diversidad Biológica (1996), “El impacto de los sistemas de los derechos de propiedad intelectual sobre la conservación y la utilización sostenible de la diversidad biológica y sobre el compartir equitativo de los beneficios de su uso”, nota del Secretario Ejecutivo.Google Scholar
  66. Solleiro, J. L. (1997), “Propiedad intelectual: ¿promotor de la innovación o barrera de entrada?”, Biotecnología y Derecho, Argentina, Ediciones Ciudad.Google Scholar
  67. Suaréz de Castro, F. (1993), Agricultura, Biotecnología y Propiedad Intelectual, IICA.Google Scholar
  68. Swaminathan, M. S. (1998), “Farmer’s rights and plant genetic resources”, Biotechnology and Development Monitor, No. 36, September–December.Google Scholar
  69. Tansey, G. (1999), “Key issues and options for the (1999) review of article 27.3 (b) of the TRIPs agreement”, discussion document.Google Scholar
  70. Ten Kate, K. et al. (1997), “The undertaking revisited: A commentary on the revision of the international undertaking on plant genetic resources for food and agriculture”, Review of European Community and International Environmental Law 6, Issue 3.Google Scholar
  71. Tobin, B. (1997), “Certificates of origin: A role of IPR regimes in securing prior informed consent”, in Mugabe J. et al., (eds.), Access to Genetic Resources: Strategies for Benefit Sharing, Kenya, ACTS Press (WRI, ELC-IUCN).Google Scholar
  72. UNCTAD (United Nations Conference on Trade and Development) (1996), The TRIPs Agreement and Developing Countries, New York.Google Scholar
  73. Van Wijk, J. et al. (1993), “Intellectual property rights for agricultural biotechnology”, ISNAR, Research Report 3, International Service for National Agricultural Research (ISNAR), The Hague.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© United Nations 2009

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.University of Costa RicaSan PedroCosta Rica

Personalised recommendations