Domestic biodiplomacy: navigating between provider and user categories for genetic resources in Brazil and French Guiana

Filoche, Geoffroy

doi:10.1007/s10784-012-9184-z

Cited by 3 publications

(4 citation statements)

References 36 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Another lesson learnt is the need to investigate local political dynamics, including relations between resource users and providers within countries and between them, if we seek to understand the functionality of international regimes. Filoche (2013) makes this point clearly in his discussion of genetic resource regimes in Brazil and French Guiana, as there were shifts in orientation and implementation that reflected distinct approaches to the roles of users and providers of genetic material and North-South relations (Filoche, 2013). (Anyone denying the significance of national politics need only look as far as the elections of Donald Trump and Jair Bolsonaro as profound evidence to the contrary.)…”

Section: Understanding Local Political Dynamics Is Criticalmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…We do not attempt to ascertain why some themes have garnered broader coverage than others in the journal, but suspect in many cases that the timing of their appearance follows real-world events. For example, many papers cover various aspects of genetic resources, especially access and benefit sharing, but most of them appeared after the adoption of the Cartagena (adopted in 2000, entered into force in 2003) and Nagoya Protocols (adopted in 2010, entered into force in 2014) (Atisa, 2020;Birhanau, 2010;Filoche, 2013;Humphries, 2018;Nijar, 2013;Nijar, 2017;Rosendal, 2016;Schulz, 2017;Tidi, 2019;Zainal, 2015). Similarly, several papers reflect advancements in environmental diplomacy while covering protected areas and habitat conservation (Sand, 2001;Wilson, 2008); natural resource management and sharing (most visibly, fisheries : Axelrod, 2017;Haas et al, 2021;Kim, 2019;Pentz & Klerk, 2020) and, especially, forestry (Bezerra, 2018;Fernandez-Blanco, 2019;Gulbrandsen, 2005;Heim, 2018;Ituarte-Lima, 2019Kalaba, 2014Mbatu, 2016;Pattberg, 2005).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Lessons learnt in global biodiversity governance

Petersson

Stoett

2022

Int Environ Agreements

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

INEA has featured many articles covering the dilemmas, puzzles, and tensions related to global biodiversity governance; this coverage was infrequent in earlier issues but has steadily increased as both environmental diplomacy and international law on biodiversity conservation and environmental justice have expanded. Using the definition found in the Convention on Biological Diversity, we scanned INEA articles and derived several lessons learnt over the 2000-2020 period. These include: implementation remains a central challenge, but challenge should not be conflated with ineffectiveness; multilateral environmental agreements are vital for success; coordination and policy coherences are often lacking, insufficient, or superficial; institutional change and policy reform within existing institutions are incremental at best; understanding local political dynamics is critical; equity concerns remain central to biodiversity policy development at all levels; the role of non-state actors and private voluntary standards fluctuates; tensions over state sovereignty and collective action and the commons have often been visible but as often lurk in the shadows of environmental diplomacy and most ongoing discussions of global biodiversity governance. After elaborating on each of these lessons, we offer some insights on research gaps and potential thematic directions for future contributors to INEA.

show abstract

Section: Understanding Local Political Dynamics Is Criticalmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Lessons learnt in global biodiversity governance

Petersson

Stoett

2022

Int Environ Agreements

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…28 Several of these challenges were also identified by other publications. 29 Filoche (2013) highlighted the issues associated with some countries changing their status from provider to user countries of genetic resources. 30 More recently, Muzaka and Serrano (2019) provide a comprehensive overview of the issue of benefit sharing from genetic resource use in Brazil including a detailed description of the increasing significance of Brazil on the global stage in relation to genetic resource use and exchange policy and practice, intellectual property and benefit-sharing regimes.…”

Section: Guidance Document On the Scope Of Application And Core Obligations Of Regulation (Eu) No 511/2014 Of The European Parliament Andmentioning

confidence: 99%

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

Morrison

Humphries

Lawson

2021

EPL

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

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.

show abstract

“…The approach adopted in this paper is both formalist (law as a system of norms that can be interpreted and contested) and critical (law as a means of domination or emancipation). Our objective is to demonstrate the sociological meaning of the details of law, the latter being conceptualized both as a system aiming at organizing society (by creating institutions and distributing rights and obligations) and as a tool used by actors in order to secure their position or to gain opportunities (Filoche ). As such, law is, beyond what is written in a legal document and what is interpreted by public administration or judges, made by the set of agents who, while being determined by interests and constraints associated with their position in different fields (legal, but also political or religious), elaborate private revendications and confer to them a ‘social problem’ status (Bourdieu ).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Who Owns Guaraná? Legal Strategies, Development Policies and Agricultural Practices in Brazilian Amazonia

Filoche

Pinton

2013

Journal of Agrarian Change

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This paper offers a historical perspective on the interactions between legal standards and agricultural practices relating to guaraná, an energy‐inducing Amazonian plant that is in increasing demand. Guaraná is managed in a number of socio‐technical contexts, ranging from the fizzy drink industry to alternative agro‐ecological farming systems, and is subject to a great many legal rules that determine the conditions for its use and appropriation. The paper shows how, in guaraná's native region of Maués, Brazilian Amazonia, various stakeholders including the indigenous population, associations of smallholdings and multinationals use legal standards in order to gain prerogatives over the plant and/or win a share of a growing market. In spite of the fact that the plant has been domesticated by the Sateré‐Mawé and that traditional knowledge has been recognized in Brazil, to a certain extent history has dispossessed them of their rights to guaraná. New political and economic circumstances have favoured those actors committed to strategies of agricultural modernization and industrial processing. On the other hand, the ecologization of agriculture and the increasing numbers of instruments for differentiating production (such as fair trade, organic farming and geographical indications) seem to be favouring diversification in the methods of managing guaraná, as well as a certain re‐appropriation of the plant by local communities.

show abstract

Domestic biodiplomacy: navigating between provider and user categories for genetic resources in Brazil and French Guiana

Cited by 3 publications

References 36 publications

Lessons learnt in global biodiversity governance

Lessons learnt in global biodiversity governance

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

Who Owns Guaraná? Legal Strategies, Development Policies and Agricultural Practices in Brazilian Amazonia

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About