France: The fight against biopiracy and the Nagoya Protocol

Managing IP is part of Legal Benchmarking Limited, 1-2 Paris Gardens, London, SE1 8ND

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

Brian Paul Gearing brings technical depth, litigation expertise, and experience with Japanese business culture to Pillsbury’s IP practice
News of InterDigital suing Amazon in the US and CMS IndusLaw challenging Indian rules on foreign firms were also among the top talking points
IP lawyers at three firms reflect on how courts across Australia have reacted to AI use in litigation, and explain why they support measured use of the technology
AJ Park’s owner, IPH, announced earlier this week that Steve Mitchell will take the reins of the New Zealand-based firm in January
Chris Adamson and Milli Bouri of Adamson & Partners join us to discuss IP market trends and what law firm and in-house clients are looking for
Noemi Parrotta, chair of the European subcommittee within INTA's International Amicus Committee, explains why the General Court’s decision in the Iceland case could make it impossible to protect country names as trademarks
Inès Garlantezec, who became principal of the firm’s Luxembourg office earlier this year, discusses what's been keeping her busy, including settling a long-running case
In the sixth episode of a podcast series celebrating the tenth anniversary of IP Inclusive, we discuss IP Futures, a network for early-career stage IP professionals
Rachel Cohen has reunited with her former colleagues to strengthen Weil’s IP litigation and strategy work
McKool Smith’s Jennifer Truelove explains how a joint effort between her firm and Irell & Manella secured a win for their client against Samsung
Gift this article