Just like the Bangladesh-US trade deal, the signing of the Bangladesh-Japan Economic Partnership Agreement (EPA) at the end of the interim government’s tenure has sparked much debate. There are concerns that this agreement could put the country’s sovereignty, agriculture and food systems, traditional knowledge, economy, and intellectual property rights at risk.

To ensure a stable and rules-based trade framework, Bangladesh has entered into this economic partnership agreement with a developed country for the first time. The 1,272-page agreement, consisting of 22 chapters and nine annexes, covers tariff reduction or elimination on goods, liberalisation of services, investment protection and promotion, customs and trade facilitation, and the protection of intellectual property rights. The EPA includes provisions about protecting genetic resources, geographical indications (GI), and intellectual property rights (IPR) in line with the World Trade Organization’s (WTO’s) Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPS) Agreement.

However, Article 27.3(b) of TRIPS remains highly controversial for allowing patents on inventions derived from genetic resources and traditional knowledge. If implemented without adequate safeguards, this could threaten the rights of farmers, rural communities, and Indigenous peoples over their traditional knowledge, bio-cultural resources, and intellectual property. Therefore, this agreement should not be implemented without full public consent, meaningful participation, and a strong public framework to protect national interests.

Local genetic resources, traditional knowledge, and the biopiracy debate

Across the world, in the name of research, development, bioprospecting, or innovation, numerous cases of biopiracy have taken place without the consent of local and Indigenous communities. Vandana Shiva’s Biopiracy: The Plunder of Nature and Knowledge (1997) and Graham Dutfield’s Intellectual Property, Biogenetic Resources and Traditional Knowledge (2004) both highlight these dangers and call for stronger protection of community rights over traditional knowledge.

Beyond Ayurveda, Unani, and Chakma traditions, numerous medicinal plants are used in traditional healing practices among Bangalee and indigenous communities in Bangladesh. The EPA could put these local herbal resources, their traditional uses, and local markets at risk. Foreign companies may isolate specific pharmacological properties, create new formulations, patent them, and engage in unilateral commercialisation. There is no strong public framework or registry in Bangladesh to prevent biopiracy or protect traditional intellectual property.

Authoritarian patents and IPR

Philosophically, Bangladesh’s subaltern communities have long opposed the patenting of life. Yet, under the global patent regime, both biological and intellectual resources are increasingly appropriated. Several plants widely used in Bangladeshi traditional medicine have already been patented abroad. In 1990, the US company W.R. Grace patented Neem; in 1995, the University of Mississippi Medical Center patented turmeric; and in 1997, RiceTec attempted to patent Basmati rice—sparking global debates on intellectual property rights. Japan holds patents related to the Berela plant ( Sida cordifolia ), commonly used in Bangladesh. Japanese companies, including Fujifilm Corporation, Morishita Jintan Co. Ltd., and Kobayashi Pharmaceutical Co. Ltd., have patented applications involving Salacia reticulata , traditionally used in diabetes treatment.

Under the Bangladesh-Japan EPA, intellectual property includes copyright, trademarks, GI, industrial designs, patents, plant variety protection, integrated circuit layout designs, and the protection of undisclosed information. Article 12 of the EPA states that Japan and Bangladesh will work together to ensure effective and balanced protection of intellectual property in line with international agreements. But how can Bangladesh, with its still fragile institutional framework, build capacity equal to that of a wealthy and technologically advanced country like Japan?

According to the Bangladesh Patent Act, 2022, only technological inventions that are novel, involve an inventive step, and are industrially applicable are patentable. Natural objects, agricultural methods, literature, performing arts, music, artworks, and innovations derived from traditional knowledge are excluded from patentability.

On the other hand, under Article 12.33 of the EPA, any new, inventive, and industrially applicable product or process is patentable without discrimination. However, inventions against the interest of humans, plants, animals, or the environment cannot be patented, while plants, animals, and essentially biological processes are also excluded. However, microorganisms and microbiological processes may still be patented. This has serious implications. Traditional fermented foods, drinks, and many heritage agricultural products rely on microbial processes. The commercial patenting of such microorganisms, techniques, or preparations could undermine the collective ownership embedded in the cultural practices.

Will local innovators receive recognition?

While the EPA permits Bangladesh to develop its own unique ( sui generis ) laws for plant protection, it requires that these laws be “effective.” Because the TRIPS agreement fails to define “effectiveness,” the term often functions as a legal loophole. In practice, international trade pressure typically forces developing nations to abandon local protections in favour of rigid, corporate-friendly standards—such as Union for the Protection of New Varieties of Plants (UPOV)—effectively neutralising any laws designed to protect traditional farming practices.

In light of the Convention on Biological Diversity (1992) and TRIPS, Bangladesh enacted the Plant Variety Protection Act in 2019 as its sui generis system. However, this law has yet to become fully effective in protecting crop varieties. Many locally developed rice varieties created by farmers and breeders still await formal recognition. A local variety from Jashore known as Khaskhani was later refined through pure-line selection and released as BRRI Dhan-34. Through the EPA, will Japan recognise this rice as Khaskhani or simply as BRRI Dhan-34? Will the farmer who preserved and developed the original variety receive any share of the benefits? Bangladesh still lacks a national benefit-sharing guideline and policy for traditional knowledge and genetic resources. Through the EPA, foreign companies or institutions could use aromatic local rice varieties like Kalijira, Kataribhog, Chinigura, or Tulshimala, and develop innovations and patent them. This would violate farmers’ age-old seed rights.

If Bangladesh is required to join the International UPOV under the EPA, farmers could lose their traditional ownership of crop varieties, as UPOV recognises only breeders’ rights. This would strengthen the multinational seed companies and erode farmers’ rights to save and exchange seeds.

GI and Nakshikantha rights

Bangladesh enacted the Geographical Indications of Goods (Registration and Protection) Act in 2013. Although Nakshikantha is woven across the country, on April 24, 2024, it was granted GI of Jamalpur (GI-35). According to the Department of Patents, Designs and Trademarks, Bangladesh has 62 GI products. The EPA states that each country must protect GI under its own laws in a manner consistent with TRIPS (Article 12.25). This is intended to prevent misuse of names and the marketing of counterfeit or misleading products.

Since 1985, the Bangladesh-Japan Cultural Exchange Association has supported a Nakshikantha project involving rural women in Jashore’s Sharsha upazila, and Nakshikanthas collected from various sources have been exported to Japan. If GI protection is to be enforced under the EPA, will Nakshikantha be branded solely as Jamalpuri Nakshikantha, or will versions from other regions also receive GI recognition?

According to the agreement, the two countries will, through a sub-committee, regularly discuss and coordinate on the protection of intellectual property and will seek to recognise each other’s GIs. However, the agreement does not explain how the representation of farmers, cottage industry workers, artisans, weavers, and rural craftspeople will be ensured in this sub-committee.

Let citizens unite to protect public resources

The resources included within the EPA’s framework are part of the living heritage of both countries. Shaped by the complex interplay of nature and culture, they embody history, heritage, existence, identity, and pride. The commercialisation, degradation, appropriation, or control of these public resources without consent through any agreement will not be accepted. For a comprehensive public review, the agreement should be made accessible to people of all classes and groups in the country.