The new Brazilian legislation on access to the biodiversity (Law 13,123/15 and Decree 8772/16)

Silva, Manuela da; Oliveira, Danilo Ribeiro de

doi:10.1016/j.bjm.2017.12.001

Cited by 23 publications

(8 citation statements)

References 0 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…France, Spain, Malaysia, and the Republic of Korea all introduced legislation in 2017, and the Dominican Republic in 2018 (Figure 1). Under its original access legislation, Brazil (Provisional Act nº 2.186‐16/2001;), did not require authorization for fundamental research (da Silva & de Oliveira, 2018), however, the 2015 Biodiversity Law, now requires all research to be registered electronically (SisGen). Operational since November 2017, this has attracted some criticism from Brazilian scientists (Box 2).…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…However, measures to regulate access to GR (Davis & Borisenko, 2017; Rosendal & Andresen, 2016) have brought criticism that overly complex legislation is hampering scientific research (Alves et al., 2018; Neumann et al., 2018; da Silva & de Oliveira, 2018; Smith, da Silva, Jackson, & Lyal, 2017). Although regulatory access measures are only one of the reasons countries are failing to see expected benefits needed to support national conservation efforts (Dalle, 2015; Vogel, Alvarez‐Berrios, Quinones‐Vilches, & Medina‐Muniz, 2011), they have a major impact.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Conservation Policy: Helping or hindering science to unlock properties of plants and fungi

Williams

Walsh

Vaglica

et al. 2020

Plants People Planet

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Conservation Policy: Helping or hindering science to unlock properties of plants and fungi

Williams

Walsh

Vaglica

et al. 2020

Plants People Planet

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Corresponding: Sold as cure for sinusitis in Boa Vista (LUZ, 2001). Commonly used for the same purpose in Latin America (CÁCERES, 1996;SILVA et al, 2018), and shows antimicrobial activity against Streptococcus and Staphylococcus species (SCALIA et al, 2015).…”

Section: Cucurbitaceaementioning

confidence: 99%

Traditional Medicines Amongst Indigenous Groups in Roraima, Brazil: A Retrospective

Milliken

2021

ethnoscientia

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Surveys of medicinal plants and fungi among five indigenous groups in Roraima, Brazil, were identified in the 1990s but not published. Most of the 52 species reported here were unknown in the literature for the same medicinal purpose when the data were collected, but 25 years later this has changed. Some of the ‘repeated’ data were collected in Roraima, but most were recorded elsewhere. It is likely that some of the traditional knowledge will have been lost by now, with old informants not passing their knowledge to younger generations. More work should be done on recording indigenous knowledge in Roraima, preferably by indigenous people. Efforts to recuperate traditional knowledge will benefit indigenous culture health and livelihoods.

show abstract

“…Article 4 of the Decree 8.722 describes CGEN's numerous responsibilities, inter alia; coordinate drafting and implementation of policies regarding access to TK and the sharing of benefits, determine technical standards of ABS agreement, supervise the access to GR or TK, create and maintain a database of information related to TK, etc. On the other hand, FNRB by Article 96 of the Decree 8.722instituted by Law 13.123 and controlled by the Ministry of Environmentwill receive money from monetary benefit-sharing and fines, and aims to support actions and activities that recognize the value of GR and associated TK, and promote their sustainable use [21].…”

Section: Institutionsmentioning

confidence: 99%

A Comparative Study on the Legal Protection of Indigenous Peoples Rights towards Traditional Knowledge in Brazil and Indonesia

Panjaitan¹,

Roisah²

2021

Proceedings of the 2nd International Conference on Law, Economic, Governance, ICOLEG 2021, 29-30 June 2021, Semarang, Indonesia

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

International law has provided regulations -Convention on Biological Diversity and Nagoya Protocolto protect indigenous peoples' rights to Traditional Knowledge (TK). Countries could implement these established international standards to protect indigenous peoples towards their TK. This comparative study aims to describe how countries implement international standards of TK protection to the national level. Brazil and Indonesia share the resemblance of: (i) being developing countries; (ii) countries with abundant biodiversity; (iii) and having concern for TK protection arrangement in the international community. The method used in this research is a normative judicial approach. This research shows, Brazil and Indonesia show resemblance by acknowledging indigenous people's rights constitutionally and having a registry system to anticipate the misappropriation to TK. Furthermore, the difference on both countries to this matter are mainly divided into several aspects: (i) the definition of TK. Brazil associates TK with biodiversity, while Indonesia defines it in a wider scope; (ii) the rights given to indigenous peoples to TK. Brazil regulates specific rights given to indigenous peoples, while Indonesia only gives recognition right of indigenous peoples to TK from its Patent Law; (iii) Prior and Informed Consent. Brazil has stipulated the methods of acquiring TK, one of which is to earn Prior and Informed Consent. Indonesia has also regulated the Prior and Informed Consent principle, but hasn't laid down the technical methods; (iv) Benefit Sharing regulation. Brazil has regulated the benefit-sharing process, procedure, and outcome (monetary and non-monetary benefits), while Indonesia doesn't specify the ends and means to conduct a Benefit Sharing; and (v) institutions that oversees. Brazil established two specific bodies to oversee the rights of indigenous peoples to TK, while Indonesia, in its regulation, only appoints a Minister, but doesn't clearly specify which ministry body. In general, it could be concluded Brazil has conducted positive and Indonesia is using the defensive protection method in regards to indigenous peoples' rights towards Traditional Knowledge.

show abstract

The new Brazilian legislation on access to the biodiversity (Law 13,123/15 and Decree 8772/16)

Cited by 23 publications

References 0 publications

Conservation Policy: Helping or hindering science to unlock properties of plants and fungi

Conservation Policy: Helping or hindering science to unlock properties of plants and fungi

Traditional Medicines Amongst Indigenous Groups in Roraima, Brazil: A Retrospective

A Comparative Study on the Legal Protection of Indigenous Peoples Rights towards Traditional Knowledge in Brazil and Indonesia

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About