scholarly journals JUSTICE, EQUITY AND BENEFIT-SHARING UNDER THE NAGOYA PROTOCOL TO THE CONVENTION ON BIOLOGICAL DIVERSITY

2015 ◽  
Vol 24 (1) ◽  
pp. 113-141
Author(s):  
Elisa Morgera
Keyword(s):  
Environmental Justice ◽  
Genetic Resources ◽  
International Law ◽  
Traditional Knowledge ◽  
Biological Diversity ◽  
Benefit Sharing ◽  
Convention On Biological Diversity ◽  
Legal Concept ◽  
Nagoya Protocol ◽  
Case Basis

This article attempts to bridge the multi-disciplinary debate on environmental justice and the traditional international legal debate on equity with a view to analysing the legal concept of benefit-sharing in international law. To that end, the article uses the Nagoya Protocol to the Convention on Biological Diversity as a testing ground for: (i) unpacking different notions of justice that may be pursued through fair and equitable benefit-sharing from access to genetic resources and the use of associated traditional knowledge; and (ii) relating different notions of justice to the different functions that equity plays in international law. The aim is to test the potential wider application of linking a pluralist notion of environmental justice to different functions of equity in other areas of international law that refer to benefit-sharing. It is argued that this helps systematically unveil implicit legal design choices in relation to the pursuit of justice through international lawmaking, and interpret international legal instruments in ways that can contribute to negotiate concrete understandings of justice on a case-by-case basis.

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.

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. 

scholarly journals Positive Protection: Protecting Genetic Resources Related to Traditional Knowledge in Indonesia

FIAT JUSTISIA ◽  
2018 ◽  
Vol 11 (2) ◽  
pp. 122
Author(s):  
Rohaini Rohaini ◽  
Nenny Dwi Ariani
Keyword(s):  
Developing Countries ◽  
Intellectual Property ◽  
Genetic Resources ◽  
Traditional Knowledge ◽  
Biological Diversity ◽  
Patent Law ◽  
Intellectual Property Right ◽  
Benefit Sharing ◽  
Convention On Biological Diversity ◽  
International Pressure

Genetic Resources is a foundation of human life, as a source of food, industrial raw materials, pharmaceuticals, and medicines. From its utilization may provide a financial benefit to the provider and the user of it. Unfortunately, most of it obtained from developing countries through biopiracy, including Indonesia. Furthermore, in the early 1980s, access and benefit sharing (ABS) to genetic resources became an international issue. It leads to the adoption of the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) in 1992. However, since it was approved, the whole ideas of excellence of it could not be implemented, a problem on it still arises. Intellectual property right laws, in certain aspects, are possible for using to protect traditional knowledge from their utilization. However, at the same time, intellectual property regime also becomes “a tool” to legitimate of biopiracy practices. Due to massive international pressure, mostly in developing countries, it proposes two kinds of protections, which are positive protection and defensive protection. This paper will examine one of it, which is positive protection. By using the normative method and qualitative approach, this paper identified at least two kinds of positive protections that we can develop to protect genetic resources related to traditional knowledge, which are optimizing the patent law and developing the sui generis law. Furthermore, it can be done by some revision by adding new substances, an improvement on the articles, or even by doing the deletion on certain articles. Moreover, in order to develop the sui generis law, it identified several minimum elements that shall be contained on it, inter alia: the purposes of protection; scope of protection; criteria of protection; the beneficiaries of protection: the holder of traditional knowledge; the kind of rights to be granted; how the rights acquired; how to enforce it; how the rights lost or expired; and dispute resolution.  Keywords: Positive Protection, Genetic Resources, Traditional Knowledge.

scholarly journals Awareness of the Convention on Biological Diversity and provisions regarding access and benefit sharing among multiple stakeholder groups in Bhutan

Oryx ◽  
2019 ◽  
Vol 54 (5) ◽  
pp. 735-742
Author(s):  
Sonam Wangyel Wang ◽  
Woo Kyun Lee ◽  
Jeremy Brooks ◽  
Chencho Dorji
Keyword(s):  
Rural Communities ◽  
Traditional Knowledge ◽  
Biological Diversity ◽  
National Level ◽  
Benefit Sharing ◽  
Convention On Biological Diversity ◽  
Structured Interviews ◽  
Access And Benefit Sharing ◽  
Nagoya Protocol ◽  
Stakeholder Groups

AbstractAs part of the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD), the Nagoya Protocol on Access and Benefit Sharing calls for ‘fair and equitable sharing of benefits’ derived from the use of genetic resources and traditional knowledge. However, implementation of the Convention and the Nagoya Protocol has been challenged by the inadequacies of existing policies, lack of national-level frameworks, and inadequate knowledge among stakeholders. We used focus group meetings and structured interviews with rural communities, government representatives, researchers and Members of Parliament in Bhutan to collect data on awareness, knowledge and perceptions of components of the CBD related to access and benefit sharing. Our study indicated generally low levels of awareness about most components of the Convention, particularly among rural residents. Although local people in rural communities feel that benefits derived from local biological resources and traditional knowledge should be shared, there is uncertainty about who owns these resources. These results indicate that there is an urgent need to develop educational and awareness programmes, using a variety of media, to target particular stakeholder groups, with emphasis on residents in rural communities. This could empower local communities to participate meaningfully in decision-making processes to develop Bhutan's national access and benefit sharing framework, and to allow them to benefit from the conservation and sustainable use of local resources.

scholarly journals Facing the Harsh Reality of Access and Benefit Sharing (ABS) Legislation

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Frank Michiels ◽  
Ulrich Feiter ◽  
Stéphanie Paquin-Jaloux ◽  
Diana Jungmann ◽  
Axel Braun ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Genetic Resources ◽  
Biological Diversity ◽  
Benefit Sharing ◽  
Convention On Biological Diversity ◽  
Legal Requirements ◽  
Access And Benefit Sharing ◽  
Nagoya Protocol ◽  
Equitable Sharing ◽  
Harsh Reality ◽  
Practical Constraints

Access and Benefit Sharing (ABS) is a framework which refers to a relatively recent type of legal requirements for access to and/or use of “genetic resources”. They are based on diverse national and regional laws and regulations, which mostly result from the implementation of the United Nations’ Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) and its supplementary agreement, the Nagoya Protocol. Their ambition is to achieve fair and equitable sharing of benefits arising out of the use of genetic resources as an incentive to conserve and sustainably use them. This paper describes the experiences, practical constraints and complexities encountered by users of genetic resources when dealing with ABS legislation, with a focus on users from the private sector. We provide insights on how ABS laws have fundamentally changed the way of working with genetic resources in the hope that it inspires re-thinking of the ABS framework, to better support the overall objectives of the CBD.

scholarly journals How to regulate access and benefit-sharing: Stakeholder insights on provider country legislation

2019 ◽  
Vol 3 ◽  
Author(s):  
Ays Sirakaya
Keyword(s):  
Genetic Resources ◽  
Environmental Sustainability ◽  
Biological Diversity ◽  
Regulatory Mechanisms ◽  
Benefit Sharing ◽  
Convention On Biological Diversity ◽  
Access And Benefit Sharing ◽  
Nagoya Protocol ◽  
National Implementation ◽  
Rich Countries

The over-arching aim of the access and benefit-sharing (ABS) of genetic resources under the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) and the Nagoya Protocol is to enable fair distribution of benefits between the users (such as universities and biotech companies) and providers (such as biodiversity-rich countries) so as to both open the doors for innovation and create incentives for biodiversity conservation. Access to genetic resources is crucial not only for research related to conservation of genetic resources, but essential to many different research disciplines in general. Therefore, access to genetic resources in general as well as benefit-sharing from that access is a key element of the United Nations Sustainable Development Goal 15 Target 6 of the and in order to secure research as well as environmental sustainability and resource availability. ABS is a rapidly developing and evolving field that is shaped by the implementation of the Parties. This means that the national implementation of the Parties determines how ABS goals are realised and how ABS principles find form within regulatory mechanisms. These principles are found in international legal documents such as the CBD as well as the Nagoya Protocol. Additionally, decisions and guidelines drafted by the Conference of the Parties to the Convention on Biological Diversity shape these principles that are then to be fulfilled by the Parties when drafting their ABS laws by means of implementing these principles into their national legal systems. This article reviews a portion of these national ABS laws, implemented by provider countries throughout the world with the aim of describing the different types of regulatory mechanisms provider countries use. This descriptive approach is then followed by an empirical comparative analysis through semi-structured stakeholder interviews in order to identify the most beneficial regulatory mechanisms according to ABS experts that belong in four different stakeholder groups (provider countries, academic users, industrial users and collections).

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 The Rooibos Benefit Sharing Agreement–Breaking New Ground with Respect, Honesty, Fairness, and Care

2019 ◽  
Vol 29 (2) ◽  
pp. 285-301
Author(s):  
DORIS SCHROEDER ◽  
ROGER CHENNELLS ◽  
COLLIN LOUW ◽  
LEANA SNYDERS ◽  
TIMOTHY HODGES
Keyword(s):  
Traditional Knowledge ◽  
Indigenous Peoples ◽  
Biological Diversity ◽  
Indigenous Communities ◽  
Benefit Sharing ◽  
Convention On Biological Diversity ◽  
Global Policy ◽  
Nagoya Protocol ◽  
Major Benefit ◽  
Government Leadership

AbstractThe 1992 Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) and its 2010 Nagoya Protocol brought about a breakthrough in global policy making. They combined a concern for the environment with a commitment to resolving longstanding human injustices regarding access to, and use of biological resources. In particular, the traditional knowledge of indigenous communities was no longer going to be exploited without fair benefit sharing. Yet, for 25 years after the adoption of the CBD, there were no major benefit sharing agreements that led to significant funding streams for indigenous communities. This changed with the signing of the Rooibos Benefit Sharing Agreement in South Africa, described in this paper. As the authors report, the Rooibos Agreement is a superlative in two respects. It is the biggest benefit sharing agreement between industry and indigenous peoples to date. It is also the first industry-wide agreement to be formed in accordance with biodiversity legislation. This article is a co-production between traditional knowledge holders, the lawyer who represented their interests, the Co-Chair of the Nagoya Protocol negotiations, and an ethicist who analyzed the major challenges of this historic agreement. With no precedent in the benefit sharing world, the agreement stands as a concrete example of the ‘art of the possible.’ Although the rooibos case is unique in a number of aspects, the experience offers many transferable insights, including: patience; incrementalism; honesty; trust; genuine dialogue; strong legal support; a shared recognition that a fair, win-win deal is possible; government leadership; and unity amongst indigenous peoples. Such ingredients of success can apply well beyond southern Africa.

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.

Managing Institutional Complexity and Fragmentation: The Nagoya Protocol and the Global Governance of Genetic Resources

2013 ◽  
Vol 13 (3) ◽  
pp. 100-118 ◽  
Author(s):  
Sebastian Oberthür ◽  
Justyna Pożarowska
Keyword(s):  
Genetic Resources ◽  
Division Of Labor ◽  
Biological Diversity ◽  
Benefit Sharing ◽  
Convention On Biological Diversity ◽  
Nagoya Protocol ◽  
Collective Decisions ◽  
Management Perspective ◽  
The Impact ◽  
Interplay Management

This article explores the impact of the Nagoya Protocol to the Convention on Biological Diversity on the complex of international institutions involved in the governance of access to, and benefit sharing from, genetic resources. Conceptually, we develop an interplay management perspective that focuses on the governance of institutional complexes and their internal division of labor by means of collective decisions within the elemental institutions. We seek to understand interplay management with reference to constellations of actors' interests and power, as well as institutional factors (commitments, inter-institutional consistency). We argue that the strength of status-quo forces led to the Nagoya Protocol consolidating and clarifying (rather than changing) the existing interinstitutional division of labor. The analysis demonstrates the difficulty of changing existing inter-institutional balances, yet suggests that a consolidation of an inter-institutional equilibrium can induce important new, pathdependent developments in fragmented governance architectures.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document