In light of the recently concluded India-UK CETA, Achyuth B Nandan critically examines how far the FTA accommodates the protection of Genetic Resources and Associated Traditional Knowledge (GRATK). Achyuth is a PhD candidate at Rajiv Gandhi School of Intellectual Property Law, IIT Kharagpur, specialising in intellectual property law. He is also a registered advocate with the Bar Council of Kerala. His previous posts can be accessed here.
What the India–UK Free Trade Agreement Means for GRATK Protection: A Missed Opportunity?
Achyuth B Nandan
The India–United Kingdom Comprehensive Economic and Trade Agreement (CETA), widely anticipated as a potential game-changer in bilateral trade relations, reached an agreement in principle on 6 May 2025 following the conclusion of its negotiations. The final agreement was formally signed by both countries on 24 July 2025 (see here for a previous discussion on the blog). Notably, this has been observed as one of the most anticipated bilateral trade agreements between India and a developed economy in over a decade, signalling a significant shift in its international trade strategy. Signalling a significant shift in its international trade strategy. While the FTA has made balanced and positive impacts across various sectors, this piece critically examines how far the protection of Genetic Resources and Associated Traditional Knowledge (GR/ATK) has been accommodated, whether the agreement introduces any meaningful innovation or is merely an eyewash embedded in diplomatic language.
Where India and the United Kingdom Stand in the Implementation of the CBD–Nagoya Protocol Framework
Both India and the United Kingdom became Parties to the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) in 1994, committing to conservation, sustainable use of biological resources, and fair benefit-sharing. India ratified the Nagoya Protocol in 2012 and the UK in 2014, aligning with its entry into force.
These actions reflect early support for the CBD–Nagoya Framework, which formalised global access and benefit-sharing (ABS) norms concerning genetic resources (GRs) and associated traditional knowledge (ATK). India operationalised the mandate nationally through the Biological Diversity Act, 2002, and related mechanisms. Between 2006–07 and 2025–26, 5,867 approvals were granted.
In contrast, the UK has focused on user compliance. It established a sector-specific checkpoint system to monitor GR and ATK utilisation, issuing communiques that are matched with provider country Internationally Recognized Certificate of Compliance (IRCCs by the provider country via the Access and Benefit-Sharing Clearing-House Mechanism (ABSCHM portal), forming the backbone of global compliance.
Remarkably, the UK remains the first, and so far, the only country to issue a communique referencing a resource accessed from India. The communique, Understanding the Emergence of Epidemic Vibrio cholerae from Its Global Source, identifies the Wellcome Sanger Institute as the user and specifies the bioresource as 2,500 DNA extracts of Vibrio cholerae and Escherichia coli, sourced from clinical and environmental samples, including the Chandigarh Vibrio Archives.
While the UK has taken structured steps in compliance, India’s focus has largely been on regulating access. However, the 2023 amendment introducing Section 36A to the Biological Diversity Act reflects a policy shift toward user-side monitoring. The legacy of this asymmetrical biological exchange continues to influence present-day ABS negotiations and governance dynamics between the two countries.
India-UK BioTrade Relationship
The UK serves as the host to several major biological resource depositories, including Biobank, BioVault, and the Centre for Agriculture and Bioscience International (CABI). Many Indian-origin biological materials are housed in UK-based repositories such as museums, bioparks, and institutional collections. This flow of bioresources can be historically traced back to the colonial era, which facilitated the large-scale transfer of genetic materials from India to institutions in the United Kingdom. The legacy of this asymmetrical biological exchange continues to influence present-day ABS negotiations and governance dynamics between the two countries.
Why the FTA was an opportunity to increase Biodiversity Compliance
While the India–UK Free Trade Agreement presents opportunities for both parties across various sectors, its treatment of GR/ATK remains limited. Although the inclusion of GR/ATK related provisions is a welcome development, it is important to note that the agreement does not extend beyond the existing international legal framework. Specifically, two provisions address GR/ATK: Article 13.20, which refers to the WIPO Intergovernmental Committee on Intellectual Property and Genetic Resources, Traditional Knowledge and Folklore, and Article 13.21, which concerns Cooperation in the Area of Traditional Knowledge Associated with Genetic Resources. Both provisions emphasize dialogue and cooperation but stop short of creating any binding obligations or introducing novel commitments beyond current multilateral norms. It can be observed that Article 13.20 merely reaffirms the Parties’ intent to engage in discussions and exchange information at the WIPO Intergovernmental Committee on Intellectual Property and Genetic Resources, Traditional Knowledge and Folklore (IGC). However, this is largely symbolic and offers little in terms of substantive commitment, amounting to what can be seen as a diplomatic formality rather than a concrete step forward.
This was a missed opportunity for India, being a country rich in biodiversity, to negotiate a stronger and more meaningful clause. The agreement could have insisted on a robust “disclosure of origin” requirement, going beyond the limitations of the 2024 WIPO Treaty on Intellectual Property, Genetic Resources and Associated Traditional Knowledge (GRTK Treaty), by introducing a “GRTK-plus” standard. The GRTK Treaty, as seen from the perspective of the biodiverse Global South, offers limited enforcement since non-disclosure does not lead to patent invalidation and carries no meaningful sanctions. A GRTK plus approach would require linking disclosure directly with access and benefit-sharing commitments, and also incorporating stricter sanctions for non-compliance. Hence, the absence of any reference to compliance with ABS obligations further weakens the enforceability and practical significance of the agreement’s provisions.
Further, Article 13.21 on Cooperation in the Area of Traditional Knowledge Associated with Genetic Resources, particularly Paragraph 2, Subparagraph (a), refers to “publicly available documented information related to genetic resources and traditional knowledge” for quality patent examination. However, this is already addressed under the existing patent laws of both countries, where publicly available information forms part of the prior art and can be used to challenge novelty. As such, the provision lacks any practical impact or added value, rendering it largely ineffective.
Additionally, Paragraph 2, Subparagraph (b) of Article 13.21 provides for “an opportunity for third parties to cite, in writing, to the competent examining authority prior art disclosures that may have a bearing on patentability, including prior art disclosures related to traditional knowledge associated with genetic resources.” However, this provision also offers nothing new. The mechanism for third-party prior art citation already exists in both jurisdictions: Section 21 of the UK Patents Act allows for third-party observations during patent examination, and Section 25(1) of the Indian Patents Act provides for a robust pre-grant opposition system. Moreover, the 2024 amendments to India’s Patent Rules, introduced during the FTA negotiation window, significantly raised opposition fees and added procedural tiers, giving credence to concerns about the system being reshaped under trade negotiation pressures. Therefore, this FTA clause merely reiterates existing legal frameworks without adding any substantive obligation or innovation.
Paragraph 3, subparagraph (c) of Article 13.21 mentions “the use of databases or digital libraries containing genetic resources and associated traditional knowledge” as a measure to ensure quality patent examination. However, this provision also offers limited value in practice. The UK has already entered into an agreement with India’s Traditional Knowledge Digital Library (TKDL), thereby granting its patent examiners access to this resource. As such, this clause does not represent a novel commitment or a step forward; it merely reflects existing practices and offers no additional safeguard or incentive to strengthen traditional knowledge protection.
Concluding Thoughts
It is a welcome step that GR/ATK found a place in the India–UK FTA, reflecting growing recognition of biodiversity-related concerns in trade agreements. However, the text falls short of delivering meaningful obligations or innovations. India, in particular, has missed a golden opportunity to push for stronger compliance mechanisms. What remains is largely an eyewash, symbolic language dressed in diplomatic niceties, with little practical impact.