scholarly journals Access and benefit sharing, farmers’ rights and plant breeders’ rights: reflections on the African Model Law

2019 ◽  
Vol 9 (1) ◽  
pp. 105-121 ◽  
Author(s):  
Titilayo Adebola
Keyword(s):  
Benefit Sharing ◽  
Small Scale ◽  
African Countries ◽  
Access And Benefit Sharing ◽  
Farming Community ◽  
Personal Experiences ◽  
Protection Systems ◽  
Model Law ◽  
Variety Protection ◽  
Small Scale Farmer

This article discusses the protection of new plant varieties in Africa and the African Model Law through the lens of its key protagonist, Professor Johnson Ekpere. It urges African countries to consult the African Model Law as a guide when designing plant variety protection systems. It is hoped that by offering Professor Ekpere's biography, personal experiences, and first-hand account of the African Model Law, African countries may better understand the Model Law as a significant response to the small-scale-farmer- and farming-community-centred agricultural systems on the continent and embrace its continued relevance.

scholarly journals ‘Poisoned Chalice’: Law on Access to Biological and Genetic Resources and Associated Traditional Knowledge in Namibia

Resources ◽  
2020 ◽  
Vol 9 (7) ◽  
pp. 83
Author(s):  
Wana W. Chinsembu ◽  
Kazhila C. Chinsembu
Keyword(s):  
Genetic Resources ◽  
Traditional Knowledge ◽  
Local Level ◽  
Developed Countries ◽  
Green Economy ◽  
Benefit Sharing ◽  
African Countries ◽  
Access And Benefit Sharing ◽  
Definition Of ◽  
Commercial Research

Many countries in Africa provide ethnobiological resources (more especially ethnomedicinal plants), which are converted by companies and users from developed countries into biopharmaceutical products without any monetary benefits to the countries of origin. To mitigate the lack of benefits, African countries are beginning to enact access and benefit-sharing (ABS) legislation, though their wheels turn very slowly. Since many African ABS laws have not been appraised for their feasibility, this paper presents a contextual analysis of Namibia’s new ABS law: The Access to Biological and Genetic Resources and Associated Traditional Knowledge Act No. 2 of 27 June 2017. Even if several international conventions on ABS and local institutional structures guided the evolution of the 2017 Act, the main drivers for the enactment of the ABS legislation in Namibia are: Inequitable sharing of monetary benefits from the green economy, putative, but unproven cases of biopiracy, and political power contestations over ethnobiological resources. A critical analysis of important challenges faced by Namibia’s new ABS law include: Lack of adequate participatory consultations and technical capacity at the local level, discount of the non-commodity cultural value of TK, ambiguous and narrow definition of the term ‘community’, lack of a clause on confidentiality, and assertions that the new ABS law negatively impacts research in Namibian universities and botanic gardens. In contrast to South Africa’s ABS law, Namibia’s law is more onerous because it does not differentiate between commercial and non-commercial research.

Africa and Intellectual Property Rights for Plant Varieties

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Titilayo Adebola
Keyword(s):  
Intellectual Property ◽  
Property Rights ◽  
Intellectual Property Rights ◽  
African Country ◽  
Biological Diversity ◽  
Plant Genetic Resources ◽  
Benefit Sharing ◽  
Small Scale ◽  
Model Law ◽  
Plant Breeders Rights

The entry into force of the Agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPS) on 1 January 1995 reversed Africa’s relationship with intellectual property rights for Plant Varieties. Except for Kenya, South Africa, and Zimbabwe, no other African country had intellectual property rights systems for plant varieties before TRIPS. However, the obligation set out in Article 27.3(b) of TRIPS for all World Trade Organization (WTO) members to protect plant varieties through patents, an effective sui generis system, or a combination of systems, heralded revisions to the intellectual property laws and policies on the continent. Africa’s response to Article 27.3(b) of TRIPS was the Organization for African Unity (now African Union—AU) African Model Law for the Protection of the Rights of Local Communities, Farmers, and Breeders, and for the Regulation of Access to Biological Resources (African Model Law), adopted in 2000. Grounded on the dynamic social, economic, and political realities in Africa, the African Model Law seeks to balance small-scale farmers’, farming communities’, and commercial plant breeders’ interests. The African Model Law rejects patents for plant varieties and the wholesale adoption of the 1991 version of the International Convention on the Protection of New Varieties of Plants (UPOV). Instead, it presents a TRIPS-compliant model sui generis option that provides for access and benefit-sharing principles from the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD), farmers’ rights from the International Undertaking on Plant Genetic Resources for Food and Agriculture (IUPGRFA), and plant breeders’ rights from UPOV 1978 and UPOV 1991. Despite the commendable efforts at creatively designing the Model Law and its historical significance as an African-rooted response to the international debates on the overlapping and conflicting international treaties for plant varieties, the Model Law failed to gain traction in Africa. No African country has adopted it. On the contrary, there is increasing pressure through a coalition of Global North countries, international organizations, and multinational firms for African countries to adopt UPOV-1991-styled plant breeders’ rights systems.

scholarly journals Assessing the extent of access and benefit sharing in the wildlife trade: lessons from horticultural orchids in Southeast Asia

2017 ◽  
Vol 45 (3) ◽  
pp. 261-268 ◽  
Author(s):  
AMY HINSLEY ◽  
DAVID L. ROBERTS
Keyword(s):  
Southeast Asia ◽  
Natural Resources ◽  
Native Species ◽  
Biological Diversity ◽  
Wildlife Trade ◽  
Benefit Sharing ◽  
Convention On Biological Diversity ◽  
Small Scale ◽  
Access And Benefit Sharing ◽  
Wild Fauna

SUMMARYThe equitable sharing of benefits from natural resources is a key target of the Convention on Biological Diversity. Trade in its native species is one way in which a country can potentially benefit from its natural resources, and even small-scale traders can now access global markets online. However, little is known about the extent of benefit sharing for many products, and the extent to which the appropriate processes and permits are being used. We surveyed online trade in a lucrative and widely sold product in Southeast Asia (horticultural orchids) to assess the extent of access and benefit sharing. In total, 20.8% (n = 1120) of orchid species from the region were being sold. Although seven out of ten countries were trading, five had very little or no trade in their native species, and the majority of recently described endemic species being traded from non-range states had no reported Convention on the International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora exports from their country of origin. We suggest that addressing access and benefit-sharing gaps requires wider recognition of the problem, coupled with capacity building in the countries currently benefitting least: Laos, Myanmar and Cambodia. The priority should be to increase botanical capacity and enable these countries to better control the commercialization and trade of their native species.

scholarly journals The Namibian bioeconomy: transformation to a sustainable society?

2020 ◽  
Vol 1 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Anne Heeren-Hauser ◽  
Ahmad Cheikhyoussef ◽  
Percy M. Chimwamurombe
Keyword(s):  
Sustainable Development ◽  
Governance Structure ◽  
Development Project ◽  
Benefit Sharing ◽  
Small Scale ◽  
Access And Benefit Sharing ◽  
The People ◽  
Devil’S Claw ◽  
Trade Offs ◽  
Marketing Tool

AbstractWorldwide, bioeconomy is promoted as an ‘engine for sustainable development’. However, increasingly, the notion that ‘the bioeconomy’ will facilitate sustainable development per se is challenged. Based on the assumption that when leaving the relations between ‘nature’ and ‘society’ unquestioned, inherent inequalities are rather reproduced than overcome, we draw upon a social-ecological framework to analyse the societal relations to nature in the Namibian bioeconomy. In Namibia, with independence, an array of different benefit-sharing mechanisms have been developed to implement local participatory governance structure, which will be further streamlined under the newly introduced access and benefit-sharing law. Results show that despite efforts to facilitate a diversity-based bioeconomy, separating structures and trade-offs are persistent. Images of ‘nature’, like the ‘eternal Namibian landscape’, that draw upon colonial notions are frequently used to market indigenous natural products. Institutions to ‘nature’ that guarantee fair and equitable terms of trade are often only short-term and/or small-scale, e.g. as shown at the case of Devil’s claw, Hoodia and Namibian Myrrh. Even when perspectives cannot be assigned in a stereotypical way between user and provider, and instead, all actors refer to biodiversity and traditional knowledge as ‘welfare of the people’, ‘cultural heritage’, ‘input for R&D’, ‘community benefit’, and ‘marketing tool’, a rational-instrumental reasoning tends to be favoured of a normative-ethical one. A more diversified awareness towards the dialectics entailed in the conception, making, and management of ‘nature’ potentially inhibiting an inclusive sustainable development is relevant at any theory–practice interface, including development project-management and environmental policy-making.

scholarly journals A Regional Review of Genetic Resource Access and Benefit Sharing – Key Issues and Research Gaps

2021 ◽  
pp. 1-24
Author(s):  
Clare Morrison ◽  
Fran Humphries ◽  
Charles Lawson
Keyword(s):  
Intellectual Property ◽  
Traditional Knowledge ◽  
Biological Diversity ◽  
National Level ◽  
Sustainable Use ◽  
Benefit Sharing ◽  
Comparative Approach ◽  
Future Research ◽  
Access And Benefit Sharing ◽  
Legal Mechanism

Countries are increasingly using access and benefit sharing (ABS) as a legal mechanism to support the conservation and sustainable use of the world’s biological diversity. ABS regulates collection and/or use of genetic resources/traditional knowledge and sharing benefits from their use with the provider. The purpose of this review is to assess the trends, biases and gaps of ABS literature using a regional comparative approach about the key topics of concern between each region. It analyses four key topic groupings: (1) implementation of international, regional and national ABS policy and law; (2) intellectual property and ABS; (3) traditional knowledge; and (4) research, development and commercialisation. Findings included gaps in: (1) analysing effectiveness of national level implementation; (2) addressing apparent conflicts between support for intellectual property promoting exclusivity for traditional knowledge and challenges to intellectual property exclusivity for patents; (3) examining traditional knowledge of local communities (in contrast to Indigenous Peoples); and (4) lack of practical examples that quantify benefit sharing from research and commercialisation outcomes. We conclude that future research addressing the identified gaps and biases can promote more informed understanding among stakeholders about the ABS concept and whether it is capable of delivering concrete biological conservation, sustainable use and equity outcomes.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document