Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD), 1992 — Intellectual Property Rights II Notes

Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD), 1992

At the Rio Earth Summit in June 1992, the world woke up to a quiet crime: companies from rich nations were taking plants, seeds and microbes from biodiversity-rich developing countries, patenting products based on them, and paying the source country nothing. The Convention on Biological Diversity answered with a single powerful idea — a nation is sovereign over the genetic resources within its borders, and anyone who wants to use them must get consent and share the benefits. India built its whole Biological Diversity Act 2002 (Unit II) on this foundation.

⚠️ CAUTION — the CBD is 1992, not 1961 or 1993

Several KSLU question papers misprint the year of the CBD as 1961 or 1993 (an OCR/typing slip). The Convention on Biological Diversity was adopted at Rio in 1992 (it entered into force on 29 December 1993). In your answer, always write 1992 — do not copy the misprinted year.

The Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) was adopted at the United Nations Conference on Environment and Development (the “Earth Summit”) in Rio de Janeiro on 5 June 1992 and entered into force on 29 December 1993. It is not an IP treaty in the narrow sense — it is an environmental treaty — but it sits in this unit because it governs the genetic resources on which biotechnology, patents and plant-variety rights depend.

A. The three objectives

The CBD has three objectives — learn them in this order:

Conservation of biological diversity.
Sustainable use of its components.
Fair and equitable sharing of the benefits arising out of the use of genetic resources — the “ABS” (access and benefit-sharing) objective.

B. Salient features

Sovereign rights over resources. States have sovereign rights over their own biological resources (Art. 3, Art. 15) — resources are not the “common heritage of mankind” free for the taking.
Access on mutually agreed terms with the prior informed consent of the providing country (Art. 15).
Benefit-sharing. Benefits from the use of genetic resources (and the associated traditional knowledge) must be shared fairly with the source country and community.
National measures. Each party must adopt domestic laws to conserve biodiversity and regulate access — India did so through the Biological Diversity Act 2002.

C. The two Protocols

Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety (2000) — safe handling and transfer of living modified organisms (GMOs).
Nagoya Protocol on Access and Benefit-Sharing (2010) — a detailed ABS framework built on CBD Art. 15.

Article 15(1), CBD: “Recognizing the sovereign rights of States over their natural resources, the authority to determine access to genetic resources rests with the national governments and is subject to national legislation.”

In Simple Terms: The CBD (Rio, 1992) is the treaty that made genetic resources a nation’s property rather than free treasure. Its three objectives are conservation, sustainable use and fair benefit-sharing (ABS). Anyone wanting to use a country’s genetic resources needs consent and must share the benefits. India’s Biological Diversity Act 2002 and the Nagoya Protocol 2010 put it into practice.

🧩 WORKED EXAMPLE — the foreign firm and the Indian medicinal plant

Facts. A foreign pharmaceutical company wants to collect a rare Indian medicinal plant, study its genetic resource, and develop a patented drug, without informing Indian authorities.

Rule. Under CBD Art. 15, access to a country’s genetic resources requires the prior informed consent of that country and fair and equitable benefit-sharing; India enforces this through the Biological Diversity Act 2002.

Apply. The firm cannot simply take the resource; it must obtain approval (from the National Biodiversity Authority) and agree to share benefits with India and the local community.

Conclusion. Taking the plant without consent breaches the CBD’s ABS regime and Indian law — this is precisely the bio-piracy the Convention was written to stop.

flowchart TD
    ROOT["Convention on Biological Diversity (Rio, 1992)"]:::root
    ROOT --> A["Conservation of biodiversity"]:::leaf
    ROOT --> B["Sustainable use of components"]:::leaf
    ROOT --> C["Fair + equitable benefit-sharing (ABS)"]:::leaf
    ROOT --> D["Sovereign rights over resources (Art. 15)"]:::leaf
    ROOT --> E["Implemented in India: Biological Diversity Act 2002"]:::impact
    classDef root fill:#FFF8DC,stroke:#000,stroke-width:1px,color:#000;
    classDef leaf fill:#E6F3FF,stroke:#1E3A8A,color:#000;
    classDef impact fill:#E8F5E9,stroke:#1B5E20,color:#000;
    linkStyle default stroke:#888,stroke-width:1px;

Case Laws

[C-7] Divya Pharmacy v Union of India (2018, Uttarakhand HC) — even a wholly Indian company using biological resources must share benefits; upholds the CBD/BD Act benefit-sharing regime.
Turmeric, Neem and Basmati patent challenges (1990s–2000s) — classic bio-piracy episodes the CBD’s ABS regime was designed to prevent.

📄 Full notes + Question Bank (₹199) — every topic in depth, model answers to all past KSLU questions, in one printable PDF. Get the bundle · 10 Solved Problems · All Intellectual Property Rights II topics