GRATK Treaty: The 52nd session of WIPO’s Intergovernmental Committee on Intellectual Property and Genetic Resources, Traditional Knowledge and Folklore ended with little visible progress on traditional knowledge and traditional cultural expressions. Held in Geneva from March 4 to 13, 2026, the session continued text-based negotiations on draft articles for TK and TCEs. The committee decided to carry forward the same working documents to its next session, a modest outcome after two decades of argument over how far international intellectual property law should go in protecting community-held knowledge.
The IGC is WIPO’s main negotiating body on genetic resources, traditional knowledge and folklore. Its 2026-27 mandate, renewed by the WIPO General Assembly in 2025, provides for three sessions during the biennium. The first of these was IGC 52. The unfinished work is now concentrated on TK and TCEs, after the adoption in May 2024 of the WIPO Treaty on Intellectual Property, Genetic Resources and Associated Traditional Knowledge, known as the GRATK Treaty.
READ | Intellectual property in India: Growth in filings, gaps in outcomes
Traditional knowledge and the GRATK treaty
The GRATK Treaty is narrower than many developing countries had sought. It is not an access-and-benefit-sharing agreement. Nor does it create ownership rights over genetic resources or traditional knowledge. Its operative device is a patent disclosure requirement. Patent applicants must disclose the country of origin or source of genetic resources, and the Indigenous Peoples or local community providing associated traditional knowledge, when the claimed invention is based on such material or knowledge.
The treaty’s aim is procedural but important. It seeks to improve transparency, quality and scrutiny in patent examination, and to reduce the grant of patents that lack novelty or inventive step because they depend on genetic resources or associated traditional knowledge already known to communities.
Its key phrase is “based on”. The genetic resource or associated traditional knowledge must be necessary for the claimed invention, and the invention must depend on its specific properties or information. This narrows the disclosure trigger. It excludes looser links, indirect use and cases where knowledge informs research but is not essential to the claimed invention.
The treaty also contains safeguards for patent applicants and patent offices. It is not retroactive. Patent offices are not required to verify the authenticity of disclosures. Patents cannot normally be revoked, invalidated or rendered unenforceable merely because of a disclosure failure, unless national law provides remedies for fraudulent intent. It encourages databases and information systems on genetic resources and associated traditional knowledge, with safeguards and participation by Indigenous Peoples, local communities and other stakeholders. A review clause requires parties to revisit the treaty four years after entry into force, including whether disclosure should extend to derivatives, other IP rights and emerging technologies.
READ | Reforms fail to dislodge India from US intellectual property watch list
India and traditional knowledge protection
India has been central to these negotiations. It is a biodiversity-rich country with a large body of documented and undocumented traditional knowledge. Since WIPO began work on this subject in 2001, India has argued for mandatory disclosure in patent applications. The government described the 2024 treaty as a gain for India and the Global South.
The reason is clear. India has long feared biopiracy: the use of its genetic resources and traditional knowledge in foreign patents without adequate disclosure, consent or benefit sharing. Domestically, India has some protection. The Traditional Knowledge Digital Library helps patent examiners identify prior art. Section 10(4)(ii)(D) of the Patents Act requires disclosure of the source and geographical origin of biological material used in an invention. But Indian law binds India. It does not compel patent applicants in other jurisdictions to disclose Indian-origin material or knowledge.
The GRATK Treaty partly closes that gap. If implemented by contracting parties, it will require disclosure in patent applications where an invention is based on genetic resources or associated traditional knowledge. For India, this matters most in pharmaceuticals, agriculture, cosmetics, biotechnology and plant-based innovation.
The treaty also has symbolic value. It brings Indigenous Peoples and local communities into the vocabulary of the global IP system. That is not the same as community control over knowledge. But it is a recognition that the patent system cannot treat such knowledge as ownerless raw material.
India’s gains and the treaty’s limits
India’s gains should not be overstated. The treaty’s narrow definition of “based on” is weaker than the broader political demand that provider countries made for years. It does not require prior informed consent. It does not require proof of benefit sharing. It does not create a global enforcement system. It does not cover all uses of traditional knowledge. It covers patent disclosure in specified cases.
This has produced a legitimate debate in India. One view is that the treaty is a pragmatic first step. It internationalises a disclosure principle that India already recognises in domestic law. Another view is that it separates disclosure from the more difficult questions: consent, benefit sharing and community authority over knowledge.
The risk lies in implementation. If applicants can state that origin or source information is unknown without a meaningful due diligence obligation, disclosure can become formulaic. This is a serious concern for India because much traditional knowledge remains oral, community-held, locally transmitted, or available in languages and formats that patent offices do not easily search.
Civil society and India’s WIPO posture
India’s formal presence at the WIPO process has been led by the state. The participant record for the diplomatic conference showed government representation through institutions such as DPIIT, India’s Permanent Mission in Geneva, the patent office, the Ministry of Ayush and CSIR-linked representation. Publicly documented participation by India-based civil society organisations appears limited.
That does not mean Indian civil society was irrelevant. Legal scholars, commentators, activists and Global South observer networks shaped the wider debate on biopiracy, community rights, prior informed consent, benefit sharing and weak disclosure rules. Their influence on the final treaty text appears limited. Their influence on India’s ratification debate may be greater.
There is also a domestic complication. India’s biodiversity access regime has often been criticised for imposing red tape on research and innovation. That criticism gives the government an incentive to accept a narrower treaty internationally while retaining stronger tools at home. This is not necessarily surrender. It may be diplomacy. But it requires clarity.
READ | AI copyright challenge: Why India must tread carefully
India has not yet set out a detailed ratification timeline, implementation plan, or position on how far domestic law will need to change after the treaty enters into force. Its public posture remains supportive. Its recent negotiating posture is less visible than its earlier leadership.
Traditional cultural expressions remain stuck
The harder negotiations are now on traditional knowledge and traditional cultural expressions. At IGC 52, developing countries and groups such as the African Group, GRULAC and Like-Minded Countries continued to push for stronger protection. The divide remains familiar. Provider countries want binding protection against misappropriation. Many developed countries remain cautious about obligations that could affect copyright, design, trademarks, public domain principles and cultural industries.
That caution has slowed progress. The March 2026 session did not collapse. But it did not narrow the gap either. The committee merely kept the draft TK and TCE texts alive for the next round. The next IGC session is scheduled for September 16-25, 2026.
For India, the lesson is plain. The GRATK Treaty is useful, but limited. It gives India a legal hook in foreign patent systems. It does not solve biopiracy. It does not secure benefit sharing. It does not settle the treatment of oral, sacred, community-held or culturally sensitive knowledge.
India should ratify with care, implement with precision, and avoid declaring victory too early. The treaty is a floor, not a ceiling. The real test will be whether India can turn disclosure into usable scrutiny, link it to domestic biodiversity institutions, and keep pressure on WIPO to move beyond symbolic recognition.
READ | Deepfake regulation must not chill free speech
Dr Joe Thomas is Global Public Health Chair at Sustainable Policy Solutions Foundation, a policy think tank based in New Delhi. He is also Professor of Public Health at Institute of Health and Management, Victoria, Australia. Dr Thomas was the founding Secretary General of the Global Commission on Ageing in developing countries. He is an author of reports from seven PPD member countries documenting the ageing situation, health and well-being, and policies to enable and support environments.