scholarly journals DSMZ: the European Union’s first Registered Collection under the Nagoya Protocol

2019 ◽  
Vol 40 (3) ◽  
pp. 108 ◽  
Author(s):  
Andrey Yurkov ◽  
Hilke Marie Püschner ◽  
Amber Hartman Scholz
Keyword(s):  
Biological Diversity ◽  
Lessons Learned ◽  
Convention On Biological Diversity ◽  
The European Union ◽  
Culture Collections ◽  
Nagoya Protocol ◽  
Microbial Resources ◽  
New Challenges ◽  
Legal Mechanism ◽  
The Eu

The Convention on Biological Diversity and the Nagoya Protocol have created new challenges for international microbiological research. With the implementation of the Nagoya Protocol in 2014, the European Union created a new voluntary legal mechanism, the Register of Collections, to help users of collections, including culture collections, have an easier path to Nagoya Protocol compliance by using a so-called ‘registered collection'. The Leibniz Institute DSMZ is the first, and so far only, collection to successfully be entered into the Register. The challenges and lessons learned during this process can be informative for culture collections and users of microbial resources beyond the EU and indeed around the world.

scholarly journals International postal, quarantine and safety regulations

2019 ◽  
Vol 40 (3) ◽  
pp. 117
Author(s):  
David Smith ◽  
Matthew Ryan
Keyword(s):  
Biological Diversity ◽  
Safety Information ◽  
Health And Safety ◽  
Relevant Information ◽  
Control Measures ◽  
Convention On Biological Diversity ◽  
World Federation ◽  
Culture Collections ◽  
Biological Resource Centres ◽  
Microbial Resources

There are numerous legislative regulations that impact on microbiology, microbial Biological Resource Centres (mBRCs) and culture collections, with which all microbiologists must comply. These affect access for collection, handling, distribution/shipping and utilisation of microbial resources. Areas where regulations are triggered are international post, quarantine and safety. The legislation and supporting documents are often difficult to find and understand, therefore the World Federation for Culture Collections (WFCC) has a long history in providing advice and guidance to help compliance with such legislation. A visit to the WFCC library (http://www.wfcc.info/wfcc_library/) will provide information on postal requirements shipping dangerous goods and on control measures in place for biosecurity to control access to dangerous pathogens. This paper will update such communications and provide relevant information on: Health and Safety (H&S); Quarantine regulations; and Postal Regulations and Safety. Other papers in this special issue will address elements that impact on distribution and use of microorganisms for example in packaging, legislation on the proliferation, distribution and misuse of dangerous pathogens, export licensing measures, the Convention on Biological Diversity and the Nagoya Protocol, ownership of Intellectual Property Rights (IPR) and the provision of safety information to the recipient of microorganisms. The advice is generic and users are advised to refer to their own National guidance and implementation acts to ensure they are compliant. The work was compiled from authors' efforts in their management of an mBRC and most recently contributions to the EMBRIC project (http://www.embric.eu/) in particular Deliverable 6.1 ‘Microbial pipeline from environment to active compounds' (http://www.embric.eu/deliverables).

Protecting Traditional Knowledge Holders' Interests and Preventing Misappropriation—Traditional Knowledge Commons and Biocultural Protocols: Necessary but Not Sufficient?

2012 ◽  
Vol 19 (3) ◽  
pp. 401-422 ◽  
Author(s):  
Krishna Ravi Srinivas
Keyword(s):  
Informed Consent ◽  
Traditional Knowledge ◽  
Biological Diversity ◽  
Indigenous Communities ◽  
Benefit Sharing ◽  
Convention On Biological Diversity ◽  
Access And Benefit Sharing ◽  
Nagoya Protocol ◽  
Prior Informed Consent ◽  
Knowledge Commons

AbstractThe experience of the indigenous communities regarding access and benefit sharing under the national regimes based on provisions of Convention on Biological Diversity and Bonn Guidelines has not been satisfactory. The communities expect that noncommercial values should be respected and misappropriation should be prevented. Some academics and civil society groups have suggested that traditional knowledge commons and biocultural protocols will be useful in ensuring that while noncommercial values are respected, access and benefit sharing takes place on conditions that are acceptable to the communities. This proposal is examined in this context in the larger context of access and benefit sharing under the Convention on Biological Diversity and implementing prior informed consent principles in access and benefit sharing. This article examines knowledge commons, provides examples from constructed commons in different sectors and situates traditional knowledge commons in the context of debates on commons and public domain. The major shortcomings of traditional commons and bicultural protocol are pointed out, and it is suggested that these are significant initiatives that can be combined with the Nagoya Protocol to fulfill the expectations of indigenous communities.

Beyond Unbridled Optimism and Fear: Indigenous Peoples, Intellectual Property, Human Rights and the Globalisation of Traditional Knowledge and Expressions of Folklore: Part II

2014 ◽  
Vol 16 (1) ◽  
pp. 3-37
Author(s):  
Caroline Joan S. Picart ◽  
Caroline Joan S. Picart ◽  
Marlowe Fox
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
Intellectual Property ◽  
Traditional Knowledge ◽  
Indigenous Peoples ◽  
Biological Diversity ◽  
Convention On Biological Diversity ◽  
Nagoya Protocol ◽  
Trade Law ◽  
International Trade Law ◽  
Traditional Cultural Expressions

Abstract In Part I of this two-part article, we explained why western assumptions built into intellectual property law make this area of law a problematic tool, as a way of protecting traditional knowledge (tk) and expressions of folklore (EoF) or traditional cultural expressions (tce) of indigenous peoples. Part II of this article aims to: 1) provide a brief review of the Convention on Biological Diversity (cbd) and the Nagoya Protocol, and examine the evolution of the intellectual property rights of indigenous peoples from the Agreement on Trade Related Aspects of Intellectual Property (trips Agreement) to the cbd to the Nagoya Protocol; and 2) examine possible core principles, inducted (rather than deduced) from actual practices already in place in the areas of patents, copyrights, and trademarks in relation to protecting tk and EoF. These explorations could allow for discussions regarding indigenous peoples, human rights and international trade law to become less adversarial.

scholarly journals ACCESS AND BENEFIT SHARING UNDER NAGOYA PROTOCOL AND SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT: A CRITICAL ANALYSIS

2015 ◽  
Vol 9 (3) ◽  
pp. 38-45
Author(s):  
STELLINA JOLLY
Keyword(s):  
Sustainable Development ◽  
Genetic Resources ◽  
Biological Diversity ◽  
Environmental Law ◽  
Developing Nations ◽  
Benefit Sharing ◽  
Convention On Biological Diversity ◽  
Access And Benefit Sharing ◽  
Nagoya Protocol ◽  
Equitable Sharing

The debate over control and ownership of natural and bio genetic resources has a chequered history in International environmental law. Historically genetic resources were considered and acknowledged as part of common heritage of mankind. But with the development of technologies and the heightened north south divide over the issue of sovereign right over natural resources the developing nations became extremely concerned with the exploitation of biological and Genetic resources. Access to benefit sharing (ABS) was considered as an answer to balance the interests of developed and developing nations and to conserve and protect bio diversity. Adopted on October 2010 in Nagoya, Japan by the Parties to the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) of 1992, the Nagoya Protocol on Access to Genetic Resources and the Fair and Equitable Sharing of Benefits Arising from their Utilization (NP) has come into force after its 50th ratification on 2013. Nagoya protocol details on procedure for access and benefit sharing, disclosure mechanism, principles of transparency and democracy. The paper analyses the protection of access and benefit sharing envisaged under Nagoya protocol and its possible role in promoting sustainable development in the develoing nations. 

9. The European Union and Brexit

Public Law ◽  
2020 ◽  
pp. 355-396
Author(s):  
Mark Elliott ◽  
Robert Thomas
Keyword(s):  
European Union ◽  
Legal System ◽  
Lessons Learned ◽  
Eu Law ◽  
The European Union ◽  
Eu Membership ◽  
Parliamentary Sovereignty ◽  
The Uk ◽  
The Eu

This chapter focuses on the constitutional implications of the UK’s membership of the European Union and the constitutional implications of its exit from the EU (or ‘Brexit’). The chapter examines how EU law was accommodated within the UK legal system during the period of the UK’s membership of the EU, and in particular considers the consequences of the primacy of EU law for the doctrine of parliamentary sovereignty. The chapter also considers the extent to which lessons learned about the UK constitution as a result of EU membership will remain relevant now that the UK has left the EU.

Gaps and challenges of the European network of protected sites in the marine realm

2017 ◽  
Vol 75 (1) ◽  
pp. 190-198 ◽  
Author(s):  
Antonios D Mazaris ◽  
Vasiliki Almpanidou ◽  
Sylvaine Giakoumi ◽  
Stelios Katsanevakis
Keyword(s):  
Marine Environment ◽  
Biological Diversity ◽  
Natura 2000 ◽  
Conservation Strategy ◽  
Convention On Biological Diversity ◽  
The European Union ◽  
Member States ◽  
Spatial Design ◽  
Marine Realm ◽  
Marine Surface

AbstractThe Natura 2000 network forms the cornerstone of the biodiversity conservation strategy of the European Union and is the largest coordinated network of protected areas (PAs) in the world. Here, we demonstrated that the network fails to adequately cover the marine environment and meet the conservation target of 10% set by the Convention on Biological Diversity. The relative percentage of marine surface cover varies significantly among member states. Interestingly, the relative cover of protected seascape was significantly lower for member states with larger exclusive economic zones. Our analyses demonstrated that the vast majority (93%) of the Natura 2000 sites that cover marine waters include both a terrestrial and a marine component. As a result, the majority of the protected surfaces is adjacent to the coastline, and decreases offshore; only 20% of Natura marine PAs is at depths >200 m. The lack of systematic planning processes is further reflected by the great variability in the distances among protected sites and the limited number of shared Natura sites among member states. Moreover, <40% of the marine sites have management plans, indicating the absence of active, or limited management in most sites. This work highlights the gaps in coverage and spatial design of the European conservation network in the marine environment, and raises questions on the unevenly treatment of marine vs. terrestrial areas.

The EU and Environmental Multilateralism: The Case of Access and Benefit-Sharing and the Need for a Good-Faith Test

2014 ◽  
Vol 16 ◽  
pp. 109-142
Author(s):  
Elisa Morgera
Keyword(s):  
Biological Diversity ◽  
Environmental Law ◽  
Good Faith ◽  
Benefit Sharing ◽  
Convention On Biological Diversity ◽  
International Environmental Law ◽  
Access And Benefit Sharing ◽  
Adoption And Implementation ◽  
Legal Principle ◽  
The Eu

AbstractThis chapter discusses the need for a good-faith test for assessing the legitimacy of ongoing and future EU initiatives aimed at contributing to the development and implementation of international environmental law. A test that is based on the international legal principle of good faith may serve to better understand when the EU is effectively supporting environmental multilateralism to the benefit of the international community, rather than seeking to unduly influence it purely for its own advantage. The test is developed mostly on the basis of EU efforts of contributing to climate change multilateralism, and is applied to a much less studied case: the adoption and implementation of the Nagoya Protocol on Access to Genetic Resources and Benefit-sharing under the Convention on Biological Diversity.

Training for Chairing: A Practical Approach

2006 ◽  
Vol 1 (2) ◽  
pp. 197-208 ◽  
Author(s):  
John Hemery ◽  
Paul Meerts
Keyword(s):  
European Union ◽  
Lessons Learned ◽  
Theory And Practice ◽  
Practical Approach ◽  
The European Union ◽  
Multilateral Negotiations ◽  
The Core ◽  
The Uk ◽  
The Eu

AbstractThis article draws on the experience of two series of courses in negotiation and chairing, fifty in all, conducted in preparation for the UK and Finnish Presidencies of the European Union, 2005 and 2006. It outlines the concept and design of the programme, and introduces a four-part analysis of the chair's role which provided the intellectual framework for the series. It examines in detail the structure of the courses and the practical exercises which formed the core of the training. A concluding section draws together the lessons learned. The article would be helpful specifically to those preparing officials for the Presidency of the EU, but also for multilateral negotiations more generally, as well as to those interested in the theory and practice of chairing.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document