DOI: https://doi.org/10.14710/lr.v20i1.57001

Biopiracy and the Regulatory Framework for Material Transfer Agreements in Indonesia

*Devica Rully Masrur  -  Faculty of Law, Universitas Esa Unggul, Indonesia
Yulia Yulia orcid scopus  -  Faculty of Law, Universitas Malikussaleh, Indonesia
Zinatul Ashiqin Zainol orcid scopus  -  Faculty of Law, Universiti Kebangsaan Malaysia, Malaysia
Frank I Akpoviri scopus  -  Faculty of Law, Universiti Kebangsaan Malaysia, Malaysia
Open Access Copyright 2024 LAW REFORM under http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0.

Citation Format:
Abstract

Biopiracy, the misappropriation of biological and genetic resources including the ones related to traditional knowledge, is a major challenge to some of the world’s megadiverse countries. Indonesia has been a major victim of biopiracy, facilitated by the current patent system. This article examines the case of Indonesia, the second richest of the seventeen identified megadiverse countries. The patent system aims to protect the rights of inventors, but the patent system causes injustice in cases of biopiracy. This research aims to analyse the Indonesian government's policies in dealing with biopiracy cases in Indonesia. This research is a normative legal research which uses the approaches of national and international law, biopiracy case, and conceptual. The Indonesian government has changed the patent law to deal with biopiracy cases through Law Number 13 of 2016 concerning Patent disclosure requirements and has also introduced the Material Transfer Agreements (MTAs) in 2009 to address this problem. They can help in controlling access to the country’s resources based on prior informed consent, promoting collaboration between local and foreign researchers, and ensuring benefit-sharing. However, the realization of these objectives may be undermined by the country’s lack of capacity to monitor compliance with the MTA conditions, the inappropriate use of Intellectual property rights (IPRs), and MTA provisions that allow recipients to transfer material and derivatives to third parties without the country’s consent.

Fulltext View|Download
Keywords: Biopiracy; MTA; Genetic Resources; Indonesia

Article Metrics:

Article Info
Section: Research Article
Language : EN
Recent articles
Environmental Damage: Community Lawsuit Against The Government Over Industrial Business Licenses Optimizing the Role of State Administrative Court Decisions in State Financial Recovery The Dynamics of Government Fiscal Policy Post COVID-19 Pandemic in Indonesia (Legal Analysis of Government Regulation instead of Law Number 1 Year 2020) Guidelines for Implementing Imprisonment Sentences with Single Formulation (A Critique of Book I of the National Criminal Code) Incongruence in the Definition of Land Rights in National Agrarian Law: A Path to Legal Uncertainty More recent articles
Most cited articles
URGENSI REKONSTRUKSI HUKUM E-COMMERCE DI INDONESIA PERLINDUNGAN HUKUM TERHADAP KONSUMEN DALAM TRANSAKSI E-COMMERCE PRIVATISASI BADAN USAHA MILIK NEGARA PENDIDIKAN HUKUM SEBAGAI PENDIDIKAN MANUSIA PENGATURAN KAWASAN KESELAMATAN OPERASI PENERBANGAN : STUDI TENTANG PELAKSANAAN KEWENANGAN PEMERINTAH DAERAH DALAM MENGENDALIKAN PEMBANGUNAN DAN BENDA TUMBUH DI KAWASAN KESELAMATAN OPERASI PENERBANGAN BANDAR UDARA AHMAD YANI SEMARANG More cited articles
  1. Agnew J. (2020). Taking Back Control? The Myth of Territorial Sovereignty and the Brexit Fiasco.Territory,Politics,Governance,Vol.8, (No.2),pp.259–272. DOI: 10.1080/21622671.2019.1687327
  2. Amalia, Marina Eka., & Aritonang, Parulian Paidi. (2023). Commercial Material Transfer Agreement: Salah Satu Solusi Perlindungan Hak Kekayaan Intelektual Peneliti Indonesia. Unes Law Review, Vol.5, Issue4. https://doi.org/10.31933/ unesrev.v5i4.605
  3. Azoulay, Pierre., Ding, Waverly., & Stuart, Toby. (2009). The Impact Of Academic Patenting On The Rate, Quality And Direction Of (Public) Research Output. Journal of Industrial Economic, Vol.57,(No.4),pp.637-676. DOI: 10.1111/j.1467-6451.2009.00395.x
  4. Barizah, N. (2020). Analysis Regional Regimes for the Protection of Intellectual Property Rights Related to Biodiversity and Community Rights. Talent Development and Excellence, Vol.12, (No.2s), pp.1995-2006. https://repository.unair.ac.id/99753/1/1.%20analysis%20Regional%20Regimes %20%28Q2%29.pdf
  5. Barton, John H., & Siebeck, Wolfgang E. (1994). Material transfer agreements in genetic resources exchange – the case of the international agricultural research centres. The International Plant Genetic Resources Institute (IPGRI) and Consultative Group on International Agricultural Research (CGIAR). Genetic Resources, No. 1, pp.1-61. https://hdl.handle.net/10568/104332
  6. Chen, X. (2019). Analysis on the Protection of Genetic Resources from the Perspective of Intellectual Property. Advances in Applied Sociology, Vol.9, (No.6, June 2019), pp.163-178. DOI: 10.4236/aasoci.2019.96014
  7. Dharmawan, Ni Ketut Supasti., Kasih, Desak Putu Dewi., Samshitawrati, Putu Aras., Dwijayanthi, Putri Triari., Salain, Made Suksma Prijandhini Devi., Mahaswari, Mirah., Ustriyana, Made Grazia., & Moisa, Robert Versaile. (2023). Quo Vadis Traditional Cultural Expressions Protection: Threats from Personal Intellectual Property and Artificial Intelligence. LAW REFORM, Vol.19,(No.2),pp.321-343. https://doi.org/10.14710/lr.v19i2.58639
  8. Donnenwirth, Jean., Grace John., & Smith, Stephen. (2004). Intellectual property rights, patents, plant variety protection and contracts: a perspective from the private sector. Intellectual Property Strategy Today,No.9,pp.19-34. https://www.cbd.int/doc/case-studies/tttc/ tttc-00064-en.pdf
  9. Dutfield, G. (2000). Bioprospecting or biopiracy?. Biofutur,Vol.204,pp.42-45. DOI: 10.1016/s1359-6446(98)01221-5
  10. Hamilton, C. (2006). Biodiversity, biopiracy and benefits, what allegations of biopiracy tell us about intellectual property. Developing World Bioethic, Vol.6, (No.3), pp.158-173. https://doi.org/10. 1111/j.1471-8847.2006.00168.x
  11. Hamilton, C. (2008) Intellectual property rights, the bioeconomy and the challenge of biopiracy. Genomics, Society and Policy, Vol.4,(No.3),pp.26-45. http://hdl.handle.net/10822/513736
  12. Heckenberger, M., Bohn, M., Klein, D., & Melchinger, AE. (2005). Identification Of Essentially Derived Varieties Obtained From Biparental Crosses Of Homozygous Lines: II Morphological Distances And Heterosis In Comparison With Simple Sequence Repeat And Amplified Fragment Length Polymorphism Data In Maize. Crop Science,Vol.45,(No.3). https://doi.org/10.2135/cropsci2004.0111
  13. Kammel, Kari., Kramer, Matthew., Duquet, Daniel., & Patterson, Lillie. (2022). Trademark Counterfeiting Enforcement Beyond Borders: The Complexities of Enforcing Trademark Rights Extraterritorially in a Global Marketplace with Territorial-Based Enforcement. Fordham Intellectual Property, Media & Entertainment Law Journal. http://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.4278756
  14. Larroyed, Aline A. (2018). Machine Translation And Disclosure Of Patent Information. IIC International Review of Intellectual Property and Competition Law, Vol.49, Issue 7, p.773. DOI: 10.1007/s40319-018-0736-9
  15. Lawson, C. (2009). Intellectual Property And The Material Transfer Agreement Under The International Treaty On Plant Genetic Resources For Food And Agriculture. European Intellectual Property Review, Vol.31,(No.5),pp.244-254. https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/Intellectual-Property-and-the-Material-Transfer-the-Lawson/f4ef029bac6b8ee2e733b3f92e5359715804c1b5
  16. Adhiyatma, Muhammad Tizar., & Roisah, Kholis. (2020). Legal Protection for Traditional Medicine Knowledge of Paliasa Leaves in Traditional Community of South Sulawesi Through Intellectual Property Regime. LAW REFORM, Vol.16, (No.2), pp.290-306. https://doi.org/10.14710/lr.v16i2.33782
  17. Mowery, David C., Ziedonis, Arvids A. (2006). Academic patents and materials transfer agreements: substitutes or complements?. Journal Technology Transfer, Vol.32, (No.3),pp.157-172. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10961-006-9011-1
  18. Nijar, Gurdial S. (2010). Incorporating Traditional Knowledge In An International Regime On Access To Genetic Resources And Benefit Sharing: Problems And Prospects. European Journal of International Law, Vol.21,(No.2),p.457. http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/ejil/chq036
  19. Oldham, Paul., Hall, Stephen., &, Forero, Oscar. (2013). Biological diversity in the patent system. PLoS ONE, Vol.8, (No.11). DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0078737
  20. Parks, Louisa., & Tsioumani, Elsa. (2023). Transforming biodiversity governance? Indigenous peoples' contributions to the Convention on Biological Diversity. Biological Conservation, Vol.280. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biocon.2023.109933
  21. Putterman, DM. (1996). Model material transfer agreement for equitable biodiversity Prospecting. Colorado Journal International Environmental Law & Policy,Vol.7,p.149. https://www.ecolex.org/details/literature/model-material-transfer-agreements-for-equitable-biodiversity-prospecting-ana-057924/
  22. Rahman, Mehboob Ur., Hussain, Delowar., & Zafar, Y. (2002). Estimation of Genetic Divergence Among Elite Cotton Cultivars-Genotype By DNA Fingerprinting Technology. Crop Science, Vol.42, (No.6),p.2137. https://doi.org/10.2135/cropsci2002.2137
  23. Rahmah, Mas., Barizah, Nurul., & Blay, Sam. (2020). Ensuring Disclosure of Origin of Genetic Resources in Patent Applications: Indonesia’s efforts to Combat Biopiracy. Journal of Intellectual Property Rights, Vol.25, Issue 1-2, pp.40-56. DOI: 10.56042/jipr.v25i1-2.21382
  24. Reed, H. (2022). The Necessity of Moving from Biopiracy to Collaboration. Temple International & Comparative Law Journal, Vol.37,(No.1),pp.1-40. https://sites.temple.edu/ticlj/editions/
  25. Reid, J. (2009). Biopiracy: the struggle for traditional knowledge rights. The American Indian Law Review,Vol.34,(No.1),pp.77-98. https://digitalcommons.law.ou.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article =1121&context=ailr
  26. Rodriguez, V. (2008). Governance of material transfer agreements. Technological in Society,Vol.30,(No.2),pp.122-128. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techsoc.2007.12.001
  27. Rodriguez, Victor., Janssens, Frizo., Debackere, Koenraad., & De Moor, Bart. (2007). Do material transfer agreements affect the choice of research agendas? The case of biotechnology in Belgium. Scientometrics, Vol.71,pp.239–269. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-007-1666-3
  28. Masrur, Devica R. (2018). Upaya Perlindungan Sumber Daya Genetik Berdasarkan Undang-Undang Nomor 13 Tahun 2016 Tentang Paten. Jurnal Jurisprudence, Vol.8,(No.2). https://doi.org/10.23917/jurisprudence.v8i2.6994
  29. Sahu, L.C., & Amin, Aisha. (2022). The Issue of Biopiracy & Protection of Traditional Knowledge. International Journal of Law Management & Humanities, Vol.5, Issue 1, pp.2310-2325. https://ijlmh.com/paper/the-issue-of-biopiracy-protection-of-traditional-knowledge/#
  30. Sanderson, J. (2006). Essential Derivation, Law and the Limits of Science. Law in Context, Vol. 24, (No.1), pp.34-53. Griffith Socio-Legal Research Centre, Research Paper No.09-17. https://ssrn.com/abstract=1455463
  31. Schaeffer, V. (2019). The use of Material Transfer Agreements in Academia: A Threat To Open Science Or A Cooperation Tool? Research Policy, Vol.48, (No.9), p.1. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2019.103824
  32. Soto, G. (2022). Piracy By Patents : How United States Patent Law Enables Biopiracy. Drake Journal of Agricultural Law, Vol.27, (No.3),pp.483–504. https://aglawjournal.wp.drake.edu/wp-content/uploads/sites/66/2023/03/Soto-Ready-for-Publish.pdf
  33. Staub, J.E., Chung, S.-M., & Fazio, G. (2005). Conformity and genetic relatedness estimation in crop species having a narrow genetic base: the case of cucumber (Cucumis sativus L). Plant Breeding, Vol.124,(No.1),pp.44-53 https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1439-0523.2004. 01061.x
  34. Tedasse, A. (2009). Material Transfer Agreements On Teff And Vernonia-Ethiopian Plant Genetic Resources. Journal of Politics and Law, Vol.2, (No.4), pp.77-89 https://doi.org/10.5539/jpl.v2n4p77
  35. Walsh, John P., Cohen Wesley M., & Cho, Charlene. (2007). Where Excludability Matters: Material Versus Intellectual Property In Academic Biomedical Research. Research Policy, Vol.36, (No.8), pp.1184-1203. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2007.04.006
  36. Welch, Eric W., Shin, Eunjung., & Long, Jennifer. (2013). Potential Effects Of The Nagoya Protocol On The Exchange Of Non-Plant Genetic Resources For Scientific Research: Actors, Paths, And Consequences. Ecological Economics, Vol.86,pp.136-147. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2012.11.019
  37. Van Wichelen, S. (2023). After biosovereignty: The material transfer agreement as technology of relations. Social Studies of Science, Vol.53,(No.4),pp.599-621. https://doi.org/10.1177/03063127231177455
  38. Yulia., & Zainol, Zinatul Ashiqin. (2013). Melindungi Keanekaragaman Hayati Dalam Kerangka Protokol Nagoya. Mimbar Hukum, Vol.25, (No.2), p.271. https://doi.org/10.22146/jmh.16084
  39. Zainol, Zinatul Ashiqin., Amin, Latifah., Akpoviri, Frank., & Ramli, Rosli. (2011a). Biopiracy and states' sovereignty over their biological resources. African Journal of Biotechnology, Vol.10, (No.58), pp.12395-12408 DOI: 10.5897/AJB11.1059
  40. Zainol, Zinatul Ashiqin., Amin, Latifah., Jusoff, Kamaruzaman., Zahid, Anowar., & Akpoviri, Frank. (2011b). Pharmaceutical patents and access to essential medicines in Sub Saharan. African Journal of Biotechnology, Vol.10, (No.58), pp.12376-12388. DOI: 10.5897/AJB11.1052
  41. Zainol, Zinatul Ashiqin., Rohaida Nordin., & Akpoviri, Frank I. (2015). Mandatory labeling of genetically modified (GM) foods. International Environmental Agreement: Politics, Law and Economics, Vol.15,(No.2),pp.199-216 http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10784-013-9230-5
  42. Bennett, Allan B., Streitz, Wendy D., & Gacel. Rafael A. (2007). Chapter 7.3: Specific issues with material transfer agreements, In: A Krattiger et al (eds). Intellectual Property Management In Health And Agricultural Innovation: A Handbook Of Best Practices. Davis: MIHR, Oxford and PIPRA
  43. Blakeney, M. (2005). Proposal for the disclosure of origin of genetic resources in patent applications. London: Queen Mary Intellectual Property Research Institute, University of London
  44. Dutfield, G. (2004). Intellectual Property, Biogenetic Resources And Traditional Knowledge. London : Earthscan
  45. Dutfield, G (2009) Chapter 4: Protecting the rights of indigenous peoples: can prior informed consent help? In: R Wynberg et al (eds) Indigenous Peoples, Consent And Benefit Sharing: Lessons From The San-Hoodia Case. Springer Science and Business Media BV, Dordrecht
  46. Robinson, Daniel F. (2010). Confronting Biopiracy: Challenges, Cases, And International Debates. London: Earthscan
  47. Stoll, P. (2009). Access To Grs And Benefit Sharing – Underlying Concepts And The Idea Of Justice. Ebook Genetic Resources, Traditional Knowledge & The Law. London: Earthscan
  48. The Royal Society. (2003). Keeping Science Open: The Effects Of Intellectual Property On The Conduct Of Science. London
  49. Ul Haq, H. (2006). Managing Uncertainty And Complexity In The Utilization Of Biodiversity Through The Tailor Made Inventor Doctrine And Contract Law. Centre for Intellectual Property Law, Molengraaff Institute for Private Law. Utrecht: Utrecht University
  50. Wilkie, M. (2012). A Healthy Look At The Nagoya Protocol - Implications For Global Health Governance. In: E Morgera et al, (eds). The 2010 Nagoya Protocol On Access And Benefit Sharing In Perspective. Implications for international law and implementation challenges. Leiden: Brill Martinus Nijhoff
  51. Wynberg, R., & Taylor, M. (2009). Finding a path through the ABS maze-challenges of regulating access and benefit sharing in South Africa. Ebook genetic resources, traditional knowledge & the law. London: Earthscan
  52. IP Watch. (2011). WHO group strikes landmark deal on global framework for flu pandemics
  53. Purba, A. (2001). Traditional knowledge, subject matter for which intellectual property protection in sought. Makalah. Yogyakarta
  54. Susanti, DI. (2021). Sumber Daya Genetik Sebagai Potensi Kekayaan Intelektual Komunal. The 4thConference on Innovation and Application of Science and Technology (CIASTECH 2021). Universitas Widyagama Malang, 15 Desember 2021. ISSN Cetak : 2622-1276, ISSN Online : 2622-1284
  55. Luo, Y. (2021). Intellectual Property Protection of Biological Genetic Resources. In Proceedings of the 6th Annual International Conference on Social Science and Contemporary Humanity Development. Advances in Social Science, Education and Humanities Research, Volume 517, Atlantis Press
  56. Australian Department of the Environment and Heritage. (2001). Biodiversity theme report. Retrieved from http://www.environment. gov.au/node/21613
  57. Conservation International. (1998). Biodiversity Hotspots. Retrived from http://www. conservation.org/documentaries/Pages/megadiversity.aspx
  58. GRAIN. (1998). Biopiracy, TRIPS and the patenting of Asia’s rice bowl, a collective IPR situationer on IPRs on rice. Retrieved from http://www.grain. org/about/?id=91
  59. Hammond, E. (2009). Indonesia fights to change WHO rules on flu vaccines. Retrieved from http://www.grain.org/article/entries/761-indonesia-fights-to-change-who-rules-on-flu-vaccines
  60. Hammond, E. (2014). Report of the first meeting of the working group to enhance the functioning of the multilateral system of the ITPGRFA, Geneva, Switzerland, 14-16 May. Retrieved from http://www.twn. my/title2/biotk/2014/btk140501.htm
  61. Metrotvnews. (2010). Variety of Beneficial Plants - Original Indonesian Temulawak. Retrieved from www.metrotvnews.com/index.php/ metromain/news/2010/10/25/32373/Ragam-Khasiat-Tanaman-Asli-Indonesia-Temulawak
  62. Third World Network Report. (2007). The WHO network filed for patent on the bird flu virus. Retrieved from www.bandungnews/hak-paten-vaksin-virus-flu-burung-milik.html
  63. Third World Network. (2011). Agreement on influenza virus sharing and benefit sharing is a step forward but has some shortcomings. Retrieved from https://www.twn.my/title2/health.info/2011/health20110402.htm
  64. World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO). (2023). Intellectual Property and Genetic Resources. Background Brief 10. Retrieved from https://www.wipo.int/edocs/ pubdocs/ en/wipo-pub-rn2023-5-10-en-intellectual-property-and-genetic-resources.pdf
  65. Secretariat of the Convention on Biological Diversitty (CBD). (2002). Bonn Guidelines on Access to Genetic Resources and Fair and Equitable Sharing of the Benefits Arising out of their Utilization. 19 April 2002. Provision 55. Retrieved from https://www.cbd.int/doc/publications/cbd-bonn-gdls-en.pdf
  66. European Patent Office Espacenet (EPO Espacenet). Retrieved from https://worldwide.espacenet.com/
  67. International Union for the Protection of New Varieties of Plants (UPOV). (1991). Act of the UPOV Convention. Retrieved from https://upovlex.upov.int/en/convention
  68. International Treaty on Plant Genetic Resources for Food and Agriculture. (2013). Report of the fifth session of the governing body of the International Treaty on Plant Genetic Resources for Food and Agriculture. Muscat, Oman. 24-28 September 2013. Retrieved from https://www.fao.org/plant-treaty/meetings/meetings-detail/en/c/397253/
  69. International Treaty on Plant Genetic Resources for Food and Agriculture. (2014). Report of the first meeting of the Ad Hoc Open-ended Working Group to Enhance the Functioning of the Multilateral System of Access and Benefit-sharing. Geneva, Switzerland. 14-16 May 2014. Retrieved from https://www.fao.org/plant-treaty/meetings/ meetings-detail/en/c/397260/

Last update:

No citation recorded.

Last update: 2024-07-17 15:41:27

No citation recorded.