Nagoya Protocol Spurs New and More Stringent Requirements
for Prior Informed Consent and Benefit Sharing for Research and
Commercial Activities Involving Genetic Resources from Plants,
Animals and Microorganisms
On October 12, 2014, the Nagoya Protocol on Access to Genetic
Resources and the Fair and Equitable Sharing of Benefits from their
Utilization (Nagoya Protocol or Protocol) entered into
international force. The Protocol establishes a new legal framework
to govern access to and utilization of genetic resources, including
genetic material and any naturally occurring derivative compound.
With entry into force of the Protocol, a number of countries have
adopted new laws and regulations that will impact the development
of, and intellectual property rights (IPR) surrounding, an array of
products. Such products include pharmaceuticals, biotech products,
agricultural products, nutritionals, supplements, cosmetics,
perfumes and fragrances, and industrial enzymes. Although the
United States has not signed or ratified the Nagoya Protocol, US
companies and universities that utilize genetic resources from
other countries for scientific research or commercial purposes will
be subjected to these new requirements and
restrictions.
Indeed, companies and universities utilizing genetic resources from
plants, animals, bacteria and other organisms must be especially
mindful of these new and emerging international and domestic
requirements. The same is true for scientific and commercial
activities relating to the use of traditional knowledge held by
indigenous and local communities. With many countries already
vigorously enforcing such restrictions, the consequences of not
fully complying may be draconian. In addition to being tarred in
the international media as a "biopirate," those who
allegedly fail to comply may be subject to enforcement actions
brought by a government authority challenging the right to study
and commercialize a product. Governmental authorities may also
threaten criminal prosecutions. And, in certain countries, patent
applications that non-complying researchers and companies file for
products derived from genetic resources or traditional knowledge
may be jeopardized if they do not comply with applicable
"disclosure of origin" provisions.
Background—The Biodiversity Convention
The Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) was opened for
signature during the Earth Summit in 1992. To date, the treaty has
been ratified by 194 countries. The CBD marked a dramatic shift in
the way that genetic resources are treated from a legal
perspective. Previously, such resources were considered the
"common heritage of mankind" and, therefore, available
for everyone's access, use and benefit. The CBD, however,
established that each nation maintains sovereign rights over
genetic resources occurring within its geopolitical borders. And,
with that sovereignty, each party was authorized to control access
to and share in any benefits arising out of the utilization and
commercialization of its genetic resources-a term that is broadly
defined to include any genetic material of actual or potential
value.1 These access and
benefit sharing, or ABS, provisions broke new ground in
international law, and fundamentally altered the manner in which
countries regulate access to and utilization of their genetic
resources by companies and researchers.
Following adoption of the CBD, the parties struggled with
implementation and enforcement of the agreement's ABS
provisions. In 2002, the parties adopted voluntary guidelines (Bonn
Guidelines) to assist with the development of legislative,
administrative or policy measures on ABS and negotiation of
contractual arrangements with users. While these guidelines were an
important first step, they fell short of spurring implementation of
the CBD's ABS provisions. Accordingly, in 2004, the parties
agreed to elaborate and negotiate an international regime on access
to genetic resources and benefit sharing with the aim of
effectively implementing the ABS provisions of the CBD. Six years
of intense negotiations later, that regime-the Nagoya Protocol on
Access to Genetic Resources and the Fair and Equitable Sharing of
Benefits from their Utilization-was adopted. To date, the Protocol
has been signed by 92 countries and 54 nations have ratified or
acceded to the agreement.
The Nagoya Protocol
The Nagoya Protocol reaffirms the fundamental principle from the CBD that each state maintains sovereign rights over its genetic resources. In exercising that authority, each country must adhere to the following core obligations under the Protocol:
Access Obligations: Each party must take measures to ensure that access to its genetic resources is subject to its prior informed consent (PIC). To that end, parties must establish fair and non-arbitrary rules and procedures that establish legal certainty, clarity and transparency. Those procedures must indicate how to apply for prior informed consent and they must provide for a clear and transparent written decision by a competent national authority, in a cost-effective manner and within a reasonable period of time. When access is granted, these procedures must provide for the issuance of a permit or the equivalent thereof.
Benefit-Sharing Obligations: Each party must
adopt measures requiring that the benefits arising from utilization
of its genetic resources are shared in a fair and equitable manner
and on the basis of mutually agreed terms (MAT). Utilization is
broadly defined to include research and development involving the
genetic and/or biochemical composition of genetic resources,
including through the application of biotechnology. Biotechnology
is, in turn, defined to mean any technological application that
uses biological systems, living organisms, or derivatives thereof,
to make or modify products or processes for specific use.
Compliance Obligations: Each party is obligated to
support compliance with its domestic legislation and the regulatory
requirements of other parties that provide genetic resources. To
that end, parties must, among other things, cooperate in cases of
alleged violations of another party's requirements. They must
also take measures to monitor the utilization of genetic resources
after they leave the country by, for example, designating effective
checkpoints at any stage of the value-chain: research, development,
innovation, pre-commercialization or commercialization.
Institutional Obligations: Each party is required
to designate a national focal point (NFP) and competent national
authority (CNA) to serve as a contact for information, grant access
or cooperate on issues of compliance. At the same time, each party
must make certain information available to an ABS Clearing-House
established by the Protocol. Such information includes legislative,
administrative and policy measures on ABS, information on the NFP
and CNAs, and permits that have been issued allowing access to
genetic resources.
The Protocol also calls on each party to take measures, in accordance with domestic law, to ensure that traditional knowledge (TK) associated with genetic resources held by indigenous and local communities is only accessed with the prior approval and involvement of such communities and that such access is based on mutually agreed terms. To these ends, the access, benefit-sharing and compliance obligations set forth above also apply to utilization of traditional knowledge. While the Protocol does not itself define the term "traditional knowledge," the CBD refers to TK as the knowledge, innovations and practices of indigenous and local communities embodying traditional lifestyles relevant for the conservation and sustainable use of biological diversity.
National Implementation of the Protocol's ABS Requirements
Many nations and jurisdictions have adopted new
regulatory measures or taken other steps to implement the foregoing
provisions of the Nagoya Protocol.2 For example, in April 2014, the European
Parliament and the Council of the European Union adopted a new
Regulation (Regulation No 511/2014) to regulate access to and
utilization of genetic resources. It obliges all users to exercise
due diligence to ascertain that genetic resources and associated
traditional knowledge have been accessed in accordance with all
applicable legal requirements, and that any benefits are fairly and
equitably shared in accordance with mutually agreed terms. The
regulation applies to genetic resources over which states exercise
sovereign rights and to traditional knowledge associated with
genetic resources that are accessed after the entry into force of
the Nagoya Protocol. The EU regulation became effective with entry
into force of the Protocol, but several key provisions will enter
into force a year later.
Elsewhere, India and Brazil have moved to implement the Protocol by
supplementing existing legislation. Those efforts are being watched
closely by other biologically rich nations as they too consider
measures to ratify the Protocol. India ratified the Protocol in
2012 on the basis of its National Biodiversity Act. Under that act,
failure to gain approval from the country's National
Biodiversity Authority for the use or transfer of genetic resources
may result in imprisonment for up to five years, fines,
benefit-sharing fees, and royalties. Although Brazil has not yet
ratified the Protocol, it is relying on a Provisional Measure (MP
2.186-16) and other authorities to govern access to its genetic
resources. Failure to comply with this MP may result in fines,
confiscation of samples and products, suspension of the sale of
products, closing down establishments, and suspension or
cancellation of the registry, patent, license or authorization.
Revisions of Brazil's ABS legislation are reportedly
underway.
Still other nations have adopted regulations that broadly construe
the scope of genetic resources subject to ABS requirements. For
example, under its National Environmental Management Biodiversity
Act, South Africa regulates all "indigenous biological
resources," which are defined to include any chemical
compounds and products obtained through the use of biotechnology
that have been altered with genetic material or chemical compounds
found in indigenous species." Moreover, some countries and
non-governmental organizations are taking the position that the
Protocol's ABS obligations apply to the utilization of genetic
resources and biological materials that were collected long before
the Protocol was adopted or entered into force. This has become a
key issue because many genetic resources from source countries have
already been collected and are currently housed ex situ in
collections around the world.
Enforcement of ABS Requirements
With the adoption of these laws, many countries are
vigorously enforcing their PIC and ABS requirements. In July 2012,
for example, Brazil reportedly fined 35 companies a total of $44
million based on claims that they violated the country's ABS
requirements. India's National Biodiversity Authority and
non-governmental groups have repeatedly alleged that a large US
company violated that country's ABS laws. Still other
non-governmental organizations have alleged that a large
nutritional products company improperly sought patents on South
African plants without first obtaining consent from that
government. Elsewhere, indigenous groups along with several
organizations have sought to invalidate patents involving a drug
product, claiming that the applications were based on illegal
misappropriation of traditional knowledge involving the use of two
plant species.
Another way in which parties are enforcing ABS requirements is
through their patent laws. Indeed, certain countries have amended
their laws to forbid the issuance of patents for inventions relying
on illegally acquired genetic resources or associated traditional
knowledge. China's patent law, for example, requires an
applicant to disclose "the direct source and the original
source of the genetic resources." If the applicant cannot
document that such resources were accessed properly, the patent may
not be granted. Similarly, South Africa's patent law provides
that patents will not be issued unless the patent applicant
"furnishes proof" of title or authority to make use of
indigenous biological resources or traditional knowledge. Similar
disclosure requirements can be found in the laws of other
countries, including Brazil and India.
At the same time, a number of these countries are pressing for an
amendment to the TRIPS Agreement that would establish an
international requirement compelling the disclosure of the origin
of genetic resources and/or associated traditional knowledge in
patent applications. This initiative is also being pursued within
the World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO), where
negotiations are underway to develop a new international instrument
establishing a disclosure of origin requirement for all parties. A
draft of the agreement would require each party to require patent
applicants to disclose the source and country of origin of the
claimed genetic resource and traditional knowledge and to provide
relevant information regarding compliance with ABS and PIC
requirements of the source country. In the event that an applicant
fails to do so, its application may not be further processed or may
be declined.
Conclusion
With entry into force of the Nagoya Protocol, companies and researchers utilizing genetic resources occurring in foreign countries are subject to new requirements governing access and benefit sharing. These restrictions raise an array of legal questions cutting across several distinct areas, including compliance, international trade, international litigation, transactional and licensing arrangements, and protection of intellectual property rights. WilmerHale attorneys have access to many of the foreign laws adopted by countries to implement the Protocol and the firm has assisted clients on matters arising under this new framework, both at the international and domestic levels. Attorneys at the firm have conducted biodiversity compliance assessments, worked closely with local counsel on ABS matters in foreign jurisdictions confronting US companies and universities, and are very actively involved in international fora on trade issues (including TRIPS and the WIPO). They have also focused on issues surrounding the protection of intellectual property, disclosure of origin provisions, and adoption of ABS agreements.
1 The term
"genetic resources" used in the CBD does not include
human genetic material.
2 To date, the
following countries have ratified or acceded to the Nagoya
Protocol: Albania, Belarus, Benin, Bhutan, Botswana, Burkina Faso,
Burundi, Comoros, Côte D'Ivoire, Denmark, Egypt,
Ethiopia, European Union, Fiji, Gabon, Gambia, Guatemala, Guinea,
Guinea Bissau, Guyana, Honduras, Hungary, India, Indonesia, Jordan,
Kenya, Lao People's Democratic Republic, Madagascar, Malawi,
Mauritius, Mexico, the Federated States of Micronesia, Mongolia,
Mozambique, Myanmar, Namibia, Niger, Norway, Panama, Peru, Rwanda,
Samoa, Seychelles, South Africa, Spain, Sudan, Switzerland, Syrian
Arab Republic, Tajikistan, Uganda, United Arab Emirates, Uruguay,
Vanuatu, and Vietnam.