Question:medium

Instructions: Read the following passage and answer the question based on it.

TRIPs agreement provides a comprehensive set of global trade rules for the protection of copyright, patents, trademarks, industrial designs, trade secrets, semiconductor layout designs, and geographical indications, that apply to all member countries irrespective of their levels of development, natural and human endowments and history. Every member country has been asked by the WTO to amend its national patent law to conform to that universal globalized format for legislation relating to pharmaceutical, agrochemical, food, alloys, etc. Under Article 65, the developed countries have been asked to change their laws within another five years, and the less developed countries within an additional five years. The least developed countries have been asked to make those changes by 2005 AD.

This attempt at global standardisation and uniformity by way of the TRIPs agreement is in conflict with the main thrust of the Rio Earth Summit of 1992 that set out the conditions for sustainable development. These two reveal two contrasting types of international approaches and norms. While the 1992 Earth Summit and the 1993 Convention on Biodiversity (CBD) focused on 'diversity' as being fundamental to sustain life and development, TRIPs and WTO are pushing for 'conformity' to international standardized norms on patents, services, labour, investment and what not, irrespective of their history, ecology, level of economic development, etc. But despite their diametrically opposed viewpoints, 170 countries signed CBD upholding the need for diversity, and 50 countries signed the TRIPs agreement in 1994 claiming the urgency of uniformity, with a very large element of common signatories (130) in both.

The Convention on Biodiversity (CBD), in its Article 16.5, specifically asserts that intellectual property rights must not be in conflict with conservation and sustainable use of biodiversity, a provision that has been totally ignored by those who composed the TRIPs agreement. While in the case of agriculture the higher yield of patented products induces farmers to switch from a more varied production pattern, the resulting narrowing of the genetic base makes the economy and society more vulnerable to plant disease and epidemics. It is true that the move towards cultivation of a smaller number of higher yielding varieties and the uniform spread of the same variety over a large space predates the present debate on patents, particularly since the introduction of green revolution technology in the mid-sixties, but there can be no doubt that the latter has brought about a qualitative change in the scenario and has created the possibility of a vast quantitative change too in that direction. So far no attempt has been made to reconcile the two conflicting approaches of CBD and TRIPs. If diversity is so important for sustaining life, how can WTO demand conformity to standardised global formats?

The author points out that intellectual property rights and their administration mechanism

Show Hint

Trace what the passage says happens to crop variety once patented seeds spread, then match that effect to the options.
Updated On: Jul 14, 2026
  • is throttling the interest of global biodiversity
  • is working to help sustain global biodiversity
  • is being sustained by global biodiversity
  • is what the global biodiversity needs
Show Solution

The Correct Option is A

Solution and Explanation

The question asks what the author believes about the effect of intellectual property rights on global biodiversity. The way to answer this is to trace the cause and effect chain the author lays out, rather than guess from the general topic.

  1. is throttling the interest of global biodiversity: The passage says CBD's Article 16.5 requires IP rights to not conflict with biodiversity, then says this rule was totally ignored while framing TRIPs. It follows this with the agriculture example, where patented high yield seeds push out varied crops and narrow the genetic base, making farming more open to disease. That is IP rights actively working against biodiversity.
  2. is working to help sustain global biodiversity: This is the reverse of what the passage says. TRIPs is shown pushing conformity while CBD pushes diversity, and the passage frames these as being in conflict, not in support of one another.
  3. is being sustained by global biodiversity: The passage never suggests biodiversity is what keeps intellectual property rights going. This gets the relationship backwards.
  4. is what the global biodiversity needs: The author's tone throughout is critical of TRIPs ignoring biodiversity concerns, so this positive framing does not match the passage.

Since the passage gives a direct example of patent driven farming choices narrowing genetic diversity and increasing disease risk, the author is saying that IP rights and TRIPs are choking off biodiversity, which is option A.

Let's summarize:

  • TRIPs pushes conformity, CBD pushes diversity, and the author treats these as opposed forces.
  • The farming example (fewer crop varieties, narrower genetic base, more disease risk) is the author's proof that IP rights harm biodiversity.

So the correct answer is that IP rights and their administration are throttling global biodiversity. $\boxed{\text{Option A}}$

Was this answer helpful?
0

Top Questions on Reading Comprehension


Questions Asked in SNAP exam