France: The fight against biopiracy and the Nagoya Protocol

Managing IP is part of Legal Benchmarking Limited, 4 Bouverie Street, London, EC4Y 8AX

Copyright © Legal Benchmarking Limited and its affiliated companies 2025

Accessibility | Terms of Use | Privacy Policy | Modern Slavery Statement

France: The fight against biopiracy and the Nagoya Protocol

In 1992, the Rio Convention on Biodiversity set the goal of fighting practices known as biopiracy and which are generally seen in developing countries. These involve identifying certain genetic resources of a country and indigenous traditional knowledge that may be linked to their use, developing them, protecting them through patents and extracting commercial gain without any benefit to the indigenous populations in question. The Nagoya Protocol, an extension of the Rio Convention, enshrines a move from mere declarations of intent to concrete measures.

The Nagoya Protocol has been ratified by more than 100 countries, including France and its main goal is to ensure that each member country incorporates into its national law provisions seeking to:

  • make access to genetic resources in its territory, and such traditional knowledge as may be linked thereto, the subject of a system of prior registration or authorisation;

  • ensure that the advantages arising from the use of the said resources and knowledge are indeed shared with indigenous populations.

As far as the European Union is concerned, the principles of the Nagoya Protocol have been incorporated into Regulation 511/2014 and Implementing Regulation 2015/1866. In France, the provisions of the Protocol and the above-mentioned EU Regulations have for the most part been incorporated into the Environmental Code. The latter notably ensures, for all research activity (involving genetic and/or biochemical compositions) concerning genetic resources available in French territory, mandatory compliance with the following formal requirements:

  • filing a declaration prior to accessing any genetic resources with a view to their study, the keeping thereof in a collection or uses thereof not being linked to immediate commercial development;

  • obtaining an authorisation and entering into a contract concerning the sharing of benefits prior to any access to genetic resources with a view to their study and commercial uses thereof, as well as prior to any use of traditional knowledge linked to genetic resources (a specific authorisation and procedure have been laid down to this end).

Furthermore, in cases where there is simultaneous use both of genetic resources and traditional knowledge linked thereto, supplementary reporting obligations are foreseen in the two following cases:

  • for obtaining funding in order to carry out research;

  • for the final development of a product which, if it gives rise to the filing of a patent application, will also result in the requirement to forward to the French Intellectual Property Office (INPI) supplementary information using the form appearing in Annex III of the Implementing Regulation 2015/1866.

It may be noted that the corresponding provisions of the Environmental Code are accompanied by criminal penalties.

Francis Declercq


Cabinet Beau de Loménie158, rue de l’UniversitéF - 75340 Paris Cedex 07 FranceTel: +33 1 44 18 89 00Fax: +33 1 44 18 04 23contact@bdl-ip.comwww.bdl-ip.com

more from across site and SHARED ros bottom lb

More from across our site

More important FRAND decisions by the UK courts and a changing of the guard for Siemens’ IP team were among the top talking points this week
Operating profit decreased from £968,942 to £5,254, but the firm expects long-term investments to pay off for clients
One of the litigators expects that she’ll have to help clients navigate challenges posed by USPTO developments
Counsel explain what kind of ITC-related inquiries they’re getting from clients and why complaints at the forum were up in 2024
A ruling concerning a juicing machine, a tussle over a preliminary injunction and a new judge in Paris were among the top talking points this fortnight
John Squires has had a range of in-house and private practice experience, most recently in the IP group at Dilworth Paxson
President Donald Trump’s attacks on Perkins Coie and Covington & Burling should not go unchallenged
The combined entity, which is expected to offer IP services across Australia and New Zealand, will be called Jones Maxwell Smith & Davis
The Iconix v Dream Pairs dispute, to be heard at the UK Supreme Court, concerns trademarks owned by sports brand Umbro and the issue of post-sale confusion
The European IP team from Simmons & Simmons discusses the current approaches to IP enforcement against look-a-like or copycat products
Gift this article