Regulation & International Instruments
Biopiracy
The unauthorised appropriation of biological resources or associated traditional knowledge — typically via patents — without consent or fair benefit-sharing.
Expert review openNo editor-accepted expert review yetDefinition
The unauthorised appropriation of biological resources (plants, animals, microbes, genetic material) and/or associated traditional knowledge — especially from biodiversity-rich developing countries — by corporations, researchers or institutions, often through the intellectual property system, without prior informed consent of source communities and without fair and equitable sharing of benefits. The term was coined by Canadian activist Pat Mooney in 1993.
References
Definition; Pat Mooney 1993 coinage; typology (patenting traditional knowledge vs genetic resources); neem, turmeric, Hoodia, basmati examples; biopiracy-vs-bioprospecting distinction.
Exploitation of bioresources and traditional knowledge without consent constitutes biopiracy; CBD 1992 response.
Overview
What it means
Biopiracy names the exploitative edge of bioprospecting: the line between the two is consent plus benefit-sharing. Canonical cases include patents over neem and turmeric properties long documented in Indian traditional knowledge, and the Hoodia appetite-suppressant case in Southern Africa.
The concept drove the access-and-benefit-sharing (ABS) architecture of the Convention on Biological Diversity and the Nagoya Protocol.
How it is used
The term frames advocacy and legal critique of patent claims on genetic resources and traditional knowledge; it informs ABS contract negotiations, disclosure-of-origin requirements in patent law debates at WIPO, and due-diligence expectations for companies sourcing natural ingredients.
Why it matters
Biopiracy crystallises the equity dimension of the biodiversity economy: genetic resources and indigenous knowledge generate major commercial value, and whether source countries and communities share in it is a defining test of just conservation and trade.
Review
Public comments appear only after editor acceptance. Draft comments stay in the review queue.
Reviewers choose the definition or an overview paragraph, leave a comment or replacement, and attach evidence or a source link.
Editors compare reviewer cards side by side. AI may help find agreement, conflicts, unsupported claims and possible source issues.
Only an editor-accepted synthesis changes the public page. Reviewer identities are shown only with consent and verification.
Submitted reviews stay private until accepted.
Loading verified endorsements… Endorsements are not votes and never determine publication.
Endorse this definition
Endorse the exact version shown here. This is not a vote, and publication remains an editorial decision.
Review board
Comment on a specific line. Each reviewer stays separate until an editor accepts a merged draft.
Each person comments on the definition or overview in their own draft card, with role, evidence and suggested wording kept together.
AI can compare comments against the current text, flag conflicting claims, surface missing evidence and identify where reviewers agree.
An editor merges compatible suggestions into a draft change, checks sources, records disagreements and decides what can be published.