Exploiting Brazil’s biodiversity: who’s profiting from this biopiracy?

At the COP16 UN biodiversity summit in Colombia, the role of genetic heritage in shaping Brazil’s bioeconomy was a central theme. Brazil’s genetic resources and traditional knowledge are vital for generating economic value, with the government keen on exploring opportunities to monetise these assets.

How will genetic resources drive the development of new technologies, and what negative impacts could emerge? What ethical considerations are at stake, and most importantly, who will truly benefit?

Brazil’s biodiversity

With over 20% of the world’s species, Brazil is home to more than 46,000 plant species and 129,000 animals spread across six biomes, including the Amazon rainforest, Pantanal, Cerrado, and the Atlantic Forest.

Henry Philippe Ibanez de Novion, director of Brazil’s genetic heritage department of the ministry of environment and climate change (MMA), spoke about the value of Brazil’s biodiversity and traditional communities during a webinar hosted by the Brazilian Embassy in Berlin in September:

According to the intergovernmental science-policy platform on biodiversity and ecosystem services (IPBES), 80% of the biodiversity that is still conserved is found in the territory of these peoples (traditional communities). The traditional knowledge and sustainable practices of these people allow biodiversity to be protected.

Brazil’s rich biodiversity makes it a prime target for biopiracy, the unlawful exploitation and commercialisation of natural resources and traditional knowledge for profit, without the consent of authorities or traditional communities. This illegal practice not only harms the communities dependent on these resources, but also disturbs the delicate balance of plant and animal life. The most sought-after species are Amazonian frogs, macaws, snakes, and spiders.

Global companies have been collecting genetic material from plants and animals in biodiverse countries like Brazil, patenting it without recognising the rights of local communities. As a result, these communities are left out of any benefits, whether economic, health-related, or social.

Other countries profiting

In Brazil, foreign researchers often gather plant and animal samples for study and take them overseas. These samples are then used in research and turned into products like medicines, clothing, cosmetics, food, furniture, paper, insecticides, among others.

A study published in the journal World Patent Information found that 92% of patents related to Atlantic Forest plants were developed and filed outside of Brazil, primarily by China, the United States, Japan, and Korea. At least 1,258 patent applications are focused on sectors such as agriculture and livestock, pharmaceuticals and cosmetics, food and beverages, and waste treatment.

By 2022, Brazil’s national institute of industrial property (INPI) had recorded 43,400 patents for innovations using Amazonian plants filed worldwide. China topped the list with 18,965 applications, followed by the USA with 3,778.

The patenting of products made from Amazonian genetic resources without fairly sharing the benefits with local communities or respecting their rights, raises serious concerns.

Some experts argue that Brazil has not adopted a stronger industrial intellectual property policy or increased investment in research, development, and technology, which has made the country more reliant on others. For example, about 90% of the active pharmaceutical ingredients used in Brazil are imported. Meanwhile, pharmaceutical companies worldwide have been earning large profits from open access to genetic heritage data.

Brazil’s biopiracy legacy

The first case of biopiracy in Brazil dates to the 16th century during Portuguese colonisation, when brazilwood (pau-brasil) was extracted and sold to Europe for use in furniture making and fabric dyeing.

In the 19th century, Brazil became the world’s leading producer of latex from rubber trees. In 1876, British explorer and botanist Henry Wickham smuggled over 70,000 seeds from Brazil to England, where they were transported to Malaysia. This led to the establishment of rubber tree plantations in Malaysia, disrupting Brazil’s dominance in the rubber market.

In 1962, Brazilian scientist Sergio Ferreira discovered the bradykinin-potentiating factor (BFP) in the venom of the Bothrops snake (jararaca). This discovery led to the development of captopril, a hypertension drug, by the American pharmaceutical company Squibb, generating billions in revenue for the industry.

Another case of biopiracy involved cupuaçu, a fruit used in the production of chocolate (cupulate). In the early 2000s, Japanese company Asahi Foods Co Ltd. patented the fruit in Japan and Europe. The patent was later revoked after Brazilian authorities and national mobilisation challenged it, ensuring cupuaçu remained a Brazilian product.

In 2000, the BioAmazônia research centre entered into an agreement with Novartis laboratory to collect bacteria from Brazil’s biodiversity for research in Switzerland. The contract granted the pharmaceutical company the right to manipulate, license, and sell compounds derived from Brazil’s genetic resources. This sparked a national and international controversy, prompting the Brazilian government to suspend the contract and enact law MP 2.186/2001, which established regulations on access to the country’s genetic heritage. 

Patent and genetic resources registration requirements in Brazil

In Brazil, patent applications for cosmetics, medicines, ointments, and foods derived from substances extracted from the country’s flora and fauna are subject to special screening by the national institute of industrial property (INPI).

The genetic heritage management council (CGen) was established in 2015 under Law 13,123 and is chaired by the ministry of the environment. CGen is responsible for developing and enforcing regulations on the use of genetic resources, ensuring that traditional communities are properly compensated.

The national system for the management of genetic heritage and associated traditional knowledge (SisGen) was created in 2016 by Law 13,123 as a tool to assist CGen in managing genetic heritage and related traditional knowledge. SisGen is operated and maintained by CGen, and any access to Brazilian genetic heritage or associated traditional knowledge must be registered in this system.

Multilateral agreements and ongoing concerns

The Nagoya Protocol, an international agreement adopted in 2010, seeks to ensure the fair and equitable sharing of benefits derived from the use of genetic resources. It came into force on 12 October 2014, with 142 countries, including Brazil, as signatories.

In May, a diplomatic conference on genetic resources and traditional knowledge, organised by the world intellectual property organisation (WIPO), led to the approval of a new treaty by 190 countries. This treaty mandates that patent applications based on genetic resources and/or traditional knowledge must disclose, at the time of filing, the country of origin, the original source of these resources, and the indigenous peoples or local communities that contributed the knowledge.

There have been multiple efforts to reach a consensus on the distribution of benefits from the use of digital sequence information (DSI) – a practice where genetic data is digitised, stored, and shared in open-access online databases for researchers and companies. This issue was a central topic at COP16.

Some of the technologies that use DSI commercially include industrial, medical, agriculture, DNA barcoding, and synthetic biology (designing synthetic genes using AI-powered programmes). 

In an interview to NGO Instituto Escolhas in February, Novion spoke about some issues concerning DSI:

Anyone who develops products or processes from sequences available in digital databases, without knowing their origin, will have difficulty knowing what legal framework they are linked to, which makes it impossible for the user (company or researcher) to seek their regularity and thus provide legal security for their result, be it a publication, a patent or a product. The use of this sequence therefore falls into a legal limbo.

Another layer of complexity arises from the fact that, today, we do not use just a single sequence, from a single genetic resource, from a single country. And addressing this form of use without making it unviable is the greatest challenge we will have to face, both in Brazil and internationally, particularly in relation to shared or cosmopolitan sequences and genetic resources.

A proposal from the ad hoc open-ended working group on benefit-sharing from the use of DSI on genetic resources suggests that countries accessing this material should contribute to a voluntary and not legally binding mechanism, a global fund (Cali Fund), to conserve biodiversity and compensate traditional communities. Some advocate for contributions based on a percentage of revenue from products that utilise DSI, while others propose a fixed 1% of revenue generated by these companies. 

Questions over Brazil’s biodiversity safety remain

However, many questions remain unanswered, such as how benefit-sharing would function in practice, the equitable distribution of funds, storage architecture, who holds the rights to the data, who owns the technology (intellectual property rights), how to trace the origin of digitalised genetic resources, how would products deriving from novel synthetic DSI fit in, determining if DSI is naturally occurring or the product of synthetic biology or even AI, and the possibility of a negative outcome and ethical concerns related to the application of AI to synthetic biology. 

Additionally, what is the significance of traditional knowledge in the context of DSI, and how will this multilateral mechanism incorporate the principles of consultation, consent, and benefit-sharing with Indigenous communities? Why have traditional communities been excluded from the decision-making process?  What are the steps and process involved in ensuring these benefits reach the traditional communities?

Is this simply another tool to control, exploit, and profit from the world’s most biodiverse regions? And who will truly benefit in the end?

Featured image via the Canary