Biopiracy after the Nagoya Protocol: Problem Structure, Regime Design and Implementation Challenges

Rabitz, Florian

doi:10.1590/1981-38212014000200010

Cited by 21 publications

(13 citation statements)

References 19 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…The Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) was the first international agreement to regulate access to and research on genetic resources and biotechnology and resulting benefit sharing (Rubin & Fish 1994). The Nagoya Protocol on Access to Genetic Resources and the Fair and Equitable Sharing of Benefits Arising from their Utilization (henceforth: Nagoya Protocol) from 2014 implements the objectives of the CBD, focusing specifically on access to genetic resources, biotechnology, and associated traditional knowledge (Young 2013;Oberthür & Rosendal 2013;Rabitz 2015). It is often misunderstood that the Nagoya Protocol implies new national regulations that did not previously exist, when in fact most parties to the protocol had such regulations in place even long before the CBD, and the Nagoya Protocol is only an instrument to implement international control on these regulations as agreed upon in the CBD more than twenty years prior.…”

Section: The Nagoya Protocol: Improvement or Impediment To The Sciencmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Therefore, the bulk of the bureaucratic burden associated with the protocol, both for researchers and for the administrators checking these data, lies in fields of basic research that are not part of the problem actually targeted by these regulations. It has also been argued that the protocol, while putting additional burdens on noncommercial biodiversity research, does not effectively prevent biopiracy (Rabitz 2015). Further, the measure comes at a time when the pharmaceutical industry has largely shifted to synthetic, combinatorial chemistry (Beutler 2009), and results in terms of drugs derived from broad-scale biodiversity screening programs are very limited (Snader & McCloud 1994).…”

Section: Three Challenges To Contemporaneous Taxonomymentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Three challenges to contemporaneous taxonomy from a licheno-mycological perspective

Lücking

2020

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This paper discusses three issues that challenge contemporaneous taxonomy, with examples from the fields of mycology and lichenology, formulated as three questions: (1) What is the importance of taxonomy in contemporaneous and future science and society? (2) An increasing methodological gap in alpha taxonomy: challenge or opportunity? (3) The Nagoya Protocol: improvement or impediment to the science of taxonomy? The importance of taxonomy in society is illustrated using the example of popular field guides and digital media, a billion-dollar business, arguing that the desire to name species is an intrinsic feature of the cognitive component of nature connectedness of humans. While continuous societal support of a critical mass of taxonomists is necessary to catalogue all species on Earth, it is shown that this is a finite task, and a proposal is made how a remaining 10 million species can be catalogued within 40 years by 1,000 well-trained and dedicated taxonomists, with an investment of $4 billion, corresponding to 0.0001% of the annual global GDP or 0.005% of annual military expenditures. Notorious undercitation of actually used taxonomic resources and lack of coverage of impact metrics for monographs and other taxonomic work that cannot be published in indexed journals is discussed and suggestions are made how this problem can be remedied. An increasing methodological gap in approaches to taxonomy, between classic morphological and advanced genomic studies, affects in particular taxonomists in biodiversity-rich countries and amateurs, also regarding proper training to apply advanced methods and concepts. To counterbalance this problem, international collaborations bringing different expertise to the table and undertaking mutual capacitation are one successful remedy. Classic taxonomy still works for many groups and is a first approach to catalogue species and establish taxon hypotheses, but ultimately each taxonomic group needs to be studied with the array of methods proper to the group, including descriptive work. Finally, the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) and the Nagoya Protocol has put additional burden on basic biodiversity science. Using lichenology in Latin America and Brazil as an example, it is shown that the spirit of non-monetary benefit-sharing proper to taxonomy and systematics, namely capacitation, joint publications, and shared reference collections, has been increasingly implemented long before the CBD and the Nagoya Protocol, and does not need additional “policing”. Indeed, the Nagoya Protocol puts the heaviest burden on taxonomy and researchers cataloguing biodiversity, whereas for the intended target group, namely those seeking revenue gain from nature, the protocol may not actually work effectively. The notion of currently freely accessible digital sequence information (DSI) to become subject to the protocol, even after previous publication, is misguided and conflicts with the guidelines for ethical scientific conduct. Through its implementation of the Nagoya Protocol, Colombia has set a welcome precedence how to exempt taxonomic and systematic research from “access to genetic resources”, and hopefully other biodiversity-rich countries will follow this example.

show abstract

Section: The Nagoya Protocol: Improvement or Impediment To The Sciencmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Three Challenges To Contemporaneous Taxonomymentioning

confidence: 99%

Three challenges to contemporaneous taxonomy from a licheno-mycological perspective

Lücking

2020

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Hence, it was in their interests to establish better compliance mechanisms. To some extent, the Protocol addressed this issue through the introduction of Articles 15–18, but it is ineffective in relation to the level of compliance as it fails to specify any measures other than a qualification that compliance must be appropriate, effective and proportionate (Rabitz, , p. 30, 38; Richerzhagen, , p. 131, 146). In practice, user states and private companies seek the largest return from their investment and therefore lack the incentive to enforce benefit‐sharing objectives (Tvedt, ).…”

Section: Has There Been a Balance Between Users And Providers?mentioning

confidence: 99%

Access to genetic resources and benefit sharing: Implications of Nagoya Protocol on providers and users

Kariyawasam

Tsai

2018

World Intellectual Property

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The Nagoya Protocol is a comprehensive framework aimed at combating biopiracy (where genetic resources are utilised without the provider State's consent or in violation of mutually agreed contractual terms), rewarding the stewardship of genetic resources and traditional knowledge, and providing a tool for sustainable development. From a holistic perspective, the Protocol is an incredible achievement; however, it rests in its legal ambiguities which have minimised the regulatory impact on user States. This article examines the key components of the Nagoya Protocol and critically analyses whether the Protocol facilitates its objective of responding to asymmetries between the interests of biodiversity‐rich countries and the users of genetic resources.

show abstract

“…O desenvolvimento territorial a partir dos RGs depende diretamente dessa boa articulação, buscando evitar as contradições tal qual a biopirataria, que é um problema particularmente ruim resultante de conflitos entre os utilizadores (privados) e países provedores, a dificuldade técnica de monitorar a utilização de RG's num contexto transnacional, e os muitos interesses internacionais. (Rabitz, 2015, tradução nossa) 115…”

unclassified

“…"That biopiracy is a particularly malignant problem resulting from distributional conflicts between (private) users and provider countries, the technical difficulty of monitoring utilization of GR in a transnational context, and the international constellation of interests." (Rabitz, 2015).…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Da norma à ação: conflito pelo acesso aos recursos genéticos da Amazônia (Bolívia, Brasil, Colômbia, Equador, Peru e Venezuela)

Cunha¹

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The exploration of the natural resources of the peripheral countries by the central ones is historical. Within the current Labor International Division, this exploitation has been gaining more regulation in some countries. The countries in the Amazon basin, which are rich in genetic resources, may consider legal access to these resources in their territories, such as when a company or a researcher meets all the bureaucratic and practical requirements which are contained in the law, but the access may also be illegal, which constitutes biopiracy. The difference in this classification of land uses has been the subject of international controversy in a general context of the end of commercial barriers and in the discovering of the economic potential of natural resources previously despised by the market. This access involves relations at different scales and with different actors that participates the international geopolitical system, with regulations in regional and international agreements, and national laws. Among these actors stand out large corporations, national states and traditional populations competing unequally for control or influence over the territory. The simple way of framing and even describing a plant, for example, are enough to expose different strategies for the control and classification over the territory: such a plant could be evaluated simultaneously by its economic potential and its scientific properties, or by the risk of its disappearance and the defense of their isolation in relation to humans, or the antiquity and permanence of communitarian and empirical uses of its leaves and roots to guarantee the maintenance of the way of life of a traditional group. Within this framework, the objectives of this work are to understand the unfolding of the legal order on genetic resources in the Amazon region. We will do this work based on international agreements, national laws and publications of authors working on genetic resources in the Amazon.

show abstract

Biopiracy after the Nagoya Protocol: Problem Structure, Regime Design and Implementation Challenges

Abstract: As a result, in light of both problem structure and regime design, the Protocol only offers modest improvements over the status quo ante.

Cited by 21 publications

References 19 publications

Three challenges to contemporaneous taxonomy from a licheno-mycological perspective

Three challenges to contemporaneous taxonomy from a licheno-mycological perspective

Access to genetic resources and benefit sharing: Implications of Nagoya Protocol on providers and users

Da norma à ação: conflito pelo acesso aos recursos genéticos da Amazônia (Bolívia, Brasil, Colômbia, Equador, Peru e Venezuela)

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About