Certifying Biodiversity: The Union for Ethical BioTrade and the Search for Ethical Sourcing

2020 ◽  
Vol 32 (3) ◽  
pp. 503-528
Author(s):  
Drossos Stamboulakis ◽  
Jay Sanderson
Keyword(s):  
Supply Chain ◽  
Biological Diversity ◽  
Sustainable Use ◽  
Local Environment ◽  
Convention On Biological Diversity ◽  
Nagoya Protocol ◽  
Biological Resources ◽  
Private Action ◽  
Ethical Sourcing ◽  
Private Actors

Abstract This article is concerned with the potential for private action to improve sourcing practices to promote biodiversity. More specifically this article examines the Union for Ethical BioTrade (UEBT) and its verification and certification of ‘sourcing with respect’: that is, sourcing ingredients from biodiversity in a way that is respectful to both the local environment and people. While key international biodiversity treaties and instruments—such as the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) and Nagoya Protocol—encourage public actors to work with private actors to develop methods for the sustainable use of biological resources, our examination of UEBT shows that there are concerns over the standards, implementation and enforcement of private initiatives. In conclusion, we suggest two key ways in which transnational or public/private initiatives can be strengthened. First, via more proactively promoting public/private cooperation, including about how certification is used to reduce inconsistency and consumer overload or confusion. Secondly, by placing greater emphasis on mechanisms that place pressure on supply chain actors to source in ways that promote biodiversity.

Justice and the Convention on Biological Diversity

2009 ◽  
Vol 23 (3) ◽  
pp. 267-280 ◽  
Author(s):  
Doris Schroeder ◽  
Thomas Pogge
Keyword(s):  
Biological Diversity ◽  
Natural Habitat ◽  
Sustainable Use ◽  
International Economic Order ◽  
Social Utility ◽  
Benefit Sharing ◽  
Convention On Biological Diversity ◽  
Social Rules ◽  
Biological Resources ◽  
Thomas Pogge

Justice and the Convention on Biological DiversityDoris Schroeder and Thomas PoggeBenefit sharing as envisaged by the 1992 Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) is a relatively new idea in international law. Within the context of non-human biological resources, it aims to guarantee the conservation of biodiversity and its sustainable use by ensuring that its custodians are adequately rewarded for its preservation.Prior to the adoption of the CBD, access to biological resources was frequently regarded as a free-for-all. Bioprospectors were able to take resources out of their natural habitat and develop commercial products without sharing benefits with states or local communities. This paper asks how CBD-style benefit-sharing fits into debates of justice. It is argued that the CBD is an example of a set of social rules designed to increase social utility. It is also argued that a common heritage of humankind principle with inbuilt benefit-sharing mechanisms would be preferable to assigning bureaucratic property rights to non-human biological resources. However, as long as the international economic order is characterized by serious distributive injustices, as reflected in the enormous poverty-related death toll in developing countries, any morally acceptable means toward redressing the balance in favor of the disadvantaged has to be welcomed. By legislating for a system of justice-in-exchange covering nonhuman biological resources in preference to a free-for-all situation, the CBD provides a small step forward in redressing the distributive justice balance. It therefore presents just legislation sensitive to the international relations context in the 21st century.

Convention on Biological Diversity: Towards a sustainable future

Social Change ◽  
2003 ◽  
Vol 33 (2-3) ◽  
pp. 173-191
Keyword(s):  
Genetic Resources ◽  
Biological Diversity ◽  
Technology Development ◽  
Sustainable Use ◽  
United Nations Environment Programme ◽  
Benefit Sharing ◽  
Convention On Biological Diversity ◽  
Biological Resources ◽  
Transfer Benefit ◽  
Global Agreement

In an era of a rapidly shrinking biological resources, the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) is a historic landmark, being the first global agreement on the conservation and sustainable use of biological diversity. The CBD is one of the few international agreements in the area of natural resource conservation in which sustainability and equitable benefit-sharing are central concerns. The CBD links traditional conservation efforts to the economic goal of using biological resources sustainably and sets forth principles for the fair and equitable sharing of the benefits arising from the use of genetic resources, notably those destined for commercial use. Importantly, the CBD also gives traditional knowledge its due place in the sustainable use of genetic resources. The CBD also covers the rapidly expanding field of biotechnology, addressing technology development and transfer, benefit-sharing and biosafety, in an equitable framework. In the coming years, the CBD is likely to have major repercussions on the way biodiversity is conserved and benefits thereof, shared between the developing and developed worlds. The following commentary on the CBD has drawn heavily from a document produced by Secretariat of the Convention on Biological Diversity, at the United Nations Environment Programme. Articles 1 to 21 of the CBD have also been reproduced here in order to disseminate knowledge regarding the principles of the CBD-Editor.

Implementation of Nagoya Protocol and its Ethical Dilemma – the Case Study of Indonesia

2020 ◽  
Vol 11 (2) ◽  
pp. 24-34
Author(s):  
Endang Sukara ◽  
Safendrri Komara Ragamustari ◽  
Ernawati Sinaga
Keyword(s):  
Ethical Dilemma ◽  
Biological Diversity ◽  
Intrinsic Value ◽  
Science And Technology ◽  
Sustainable Use ◽  
Convention On Biological Diversity ◽  
Nagoya Protocol ◽  
New Business ◽  
Pharmaceutical Industries ◽  
Developed Nations

Indonesia consists of more than 17,000 islands separated for hundreds of thousands of years making both the biodiversity and culture diverse. Strong connection between people and biodiversity form a vast array of traditional knowledges retaliated to the conservation and use of biological diversity. During the last 3 decades, tremendous advancement on science and technology has been able to uncover the intrinsic value of biodiversity. Many lead chemical compounds have been isolated and identified, and has opened up huge opportunities in developing new business based on biodiversity. International cooperation between Japan and Indonesia successfully isolated more than 1,000 species of actinomycetes from diverse ecosystems and more than 30% are new species. This group of microbe is important for future pharmaceutical industries. The consciousness on intrinsic value of biodiversity is, however, only being understood by countries having high science and technology capacity. The intrinsic value of biodiversity remains abstract to most of the people in the developing and less developed nations. The Convention on Biological Diversity (UN-CBD), Cartagena and Nagoya Protocol are legal documents to ensure conservation, sustainable use and sharing of the benefit from the utilization of biodiversity and its components. There is a high demand for the developed nations on access to biodiversity to uncover its benefit. The mechanism on access, fair and equitable sharing of the benefit from the utilization of biodiversity and its component are certainly full of ethical dilemma. For this, there is a great need for the developing country having rich biodiversity find the most appropriate way to manage biodiversity and traditional knowledge for their prosperity.  Trust between countries rich in biodiversity and countries having high science and technology capacity is a crucial factor. Greater transparency and the recognition on comprehensive rights of people providing biodiversity is a key element in maintaining trust. Ethical standards cannot depend solely on rules or guidelines.    

scholarly journals Implementation of the Nagoya Protocol in Livestock Sector: What Have We Learnt So Far?

Animals ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 11 (8) ◽  
pp. 2354
Author(s):  
Elzbieta Martyniuk ◽  
Aleksandra Haska
Keyword(s):  
Biological Diversity ◽  
Competent Authority ◽  
Convention On Biological Diversity ◽  
Sources Of Information ◽  
Nagoya Protocol ◽  
Biological Resources ◽  
Livestock Breeding ◽  
Livestock Sector ◽  
Other Information ◽  
The Subject

The aim of the paper was to analyze impacts of seven years of implementation of the Nagoya Protocol on the livestock sector based on available sources of information and literature. Interim National Reports on implementation of the Nagoya Protocol provided by countries and other information available at the ABS Clearing House managed by the Secretariat of the Convention on Biological Diversity, especially Internationally Recognized Certificates of Compliance (IRCC), were analyzed. Moreover, trends in geneflow of breeding products in selected countries, based on the national reports provided to the UN COMATRADE database, have been compared. Analysis from these sources showed limited impact of the implementation of the Nagoya Protocol for livestock breeding and conservation, as out of 2370 IRCC issued by 31 May 2021, only 573 were granted for animal genetic/biological resources including 90 with livestock as the subject matter. Only one IRCC was granted to a foreign user; all other IRCC were issued for domestic users. The intent was to use livestock genetic/biological resources as bioresources for innovation, which should lead to establishment of the Intellectual Property Rights (IPR) with benefits to be shared through the National Competent Authority or for research purposes.

Tackling biopiracy in Southeast Asia: the need for a legally binding regional instrument

2020 ◽  
Vol 23 (1) ◽  
pp. 74-98
Author(s):  
Jinyup Kim
Keyword(s):  
Southeast Asia ◽  
Traditional Knowledge ◽  
Biological Diversity ◽  
Benefit Sharing ◽  
Convention On Biological Diversity ◽  
Access And Benefit Sharing ◽  
Nagoya Protocol ◽  
Biological Resources ◽  
Knowledge Based ◽  
Consistent Manner

Biopiracy, largely defined as misappropriation of biological resources and associated traditional knowledge, has occurred all around the world. Southeast Asia, one of the world's biodiversity hotspots, has been a victim of biopiracy in a number of cases across the region. Despite the high occurrence of the exploitation of resources, the region has not responded to the problem of biopiracy adequately. One of the most important reasons for this lack of response to biopiracy is the absence of a legally binding regional instrument(s). However, considering that (i) biopiracy does not respect national borders, (ii) most of the Southeast Asian states have ratified the Nagoya Protocol to the Convention on Biological Diversity, and (iii) soft law instruments adopted so far have failed to tackle biopiracy, this article argues that a legally binding regional regime should be established to tackle biopiracy in a consistent manner. Following an analysis of a number of biopiracy cases in the region, this article discusses why a legally binding instrument(s) is necessary. It suggests how to improve the current regional instruments pertaining to access and benefit sharing in relation to biological resources and associated traditional knowledge, based on the analysis of instruments adopted to tackle biopiracy in other regions.

scholarly journals Nagoya Protocol on Access and Benefit-Sharing

2019 ◽  
Vol 40 (3) ◽  
pp. 103
Author(s):  
Beatriz Gómez-Castro ◽  
Regina Kipper
Keyword(s):  
Genetic Resources ◽  
Biological Diversity ◽  
Sustainable Use ◽  
Future Generations ◽  
Benefit Sharing ◽  
Convention On Biological Diversity ◽  
Legal Certainty ◽  
Access And Benefit Sharing ◽  
Nagoya Protocol ◽  
Equitable Sharing

The Nagoya Protocol advances one of the three objectives of the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD), namely ‘the fair and equitable sharing of the benefits arising from the utilization of genetic resources'. The Protocol promotes equity in the sharing of benefits from the use of genetic resources and encourages the reinvestment of benefits into the conservation and sustainable use of biodiversity and ecosystems. Binding obligations established under the Protocol aim at creating greater legal certainty and transparency as well as more equitable partnerships between users and providers of genetic resources and associated traditional knowledge. The Protocol has the potential to leverage tangible impacts in provider countries and foster sustainable development for present and future generations.

Right of Indigenous Communities to Prior Informed Consent under Article 7 of the Nagoya Protocol and a Comparative Analysis of Its Implementation by India and Bhutan

2021 ◽  
Vol 28 (1) ◽  
pp. 36-63
Author(s):  
Mohit Gupta
Keyword(s):  
Informed Consent ◽  
Biological Diversity ◽  
Sustainable Use ◽  
Indigenous Communities ◽  
Benefit Sharing ◽  
Convention On Biological Diversity ◽  
Access And Benefit Sharing ◽  
Nagoya Protocol ◽  
The Third ◽  
Prior Informed Consent

The Convention on Biological Diversity (cbd) was adopted in 1992. This Convention had three major objectives: conservation of biological diversity, sustainable use of its component, and access and benefit sharing of biological resources arising out of their utilisation. The Nagoya Protocol to the cbd was adopted in 2010 for the fulfilment of the third objective of the cbd, access and benefit sharing. Article 7 of the Nagoya Protocol imposes an obligation on states parties to ensure that “prior and informed consent or approval or involvement” of the indigenous and local communities is taken before their knowledge is accessed. The present study first analyses the contents of Article 7 of the Nagoya Protocol. It will throw light on the meaning of the phrase “prior and informed consent or approval and involvement” as used in Article 7. It then highlights the implementation of Article 7 by two states parties, namely, India and Bhutan.

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.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document