Protection of the Associated Traditional Knowledge on Genetic Resources: Beyond the Nagoya Protocol

Methodological advances for hypothesis‐driven ethnobiology

“…Ethnobiology must embrace these quantitative tools without sacrificing the use of qualitative methods of inquiry which provide an invaluable context to quantitative results. Consistent with the Nagoya Protocol (Talaat, 2013;Teran, 2016), it is important to reiterate calls from other authors (Bussmann, 2019;Golan et al, 2019) for ethnobiologists to follow ethical protocols, obtain institutional review board (IRB) approval and undergo appropriate training prior to data collection. Under these principles, ethnobiological data collection must ensure that prior consent is obtained before interviews and should guarantee that the locations of culturally sensitive knowledge and culturally important species are protected from public access and that participant names are anonymized to ensure confidentially and the protection of indigenous rights during ethnobiological data collection (Vandebroek, 2017;McCune, 2018;Medinaceli, 2018).…”

Incentivizing research & innovation with agrobiodiversity conserved in situ: Possibilities and limitations of a blockchain-based solution

“…Thereafter, these international treaties were scanned to extract and study the provisions that deal specifically with agrobiodiversity conservation, use, access or benefit sharing. Under various provisions, the treaties underscore the key role played by indigenous communities and their traditional knowledge in safeguarding and bringing forward (agro)biodiversity from generation to generation [67,68]. Accordingly, these treaties emphasize and mandate benefit sharing with communities that grant access to their biodiversity, traditional knowledge and know-how for downstream use (including for use in research or for commercial purposes) (see Nagoya protocol Article 14-16; Article 10.2 of the ITPGRFA).…”

“…Beyond ensuring a "fair price" for these valuable resources, the goal of the benefit sharing regime is twofold: (i) to ensure that conservers of (agro)biodiversity, have the incentives and monetary means to continue their good work [54], and (ii) to give conservers of biodiversity concrete incentives to share (give access to) their resources and know-how with other stakeholders in the value or innovation chain [67,68].…”

Nuevos retos para los Estados respecto a la biopiratería en el contexto del discurso de la conservación de la biodiversidad: el caso de Ecuador

“…Como resultado de lo anteriormente mencionado, surgieron el Convenio sobre Diversidad Biológica y el Protocolo de Nagoya, que tienen como principal objetivo reglamentar el acceso al uso de recursos biológicos y genéticos y al conocimiento ancestral, así como la justa y equitativa repartición de los beneficios económicos entre usuarios y proveedores (Secretaría del Convenio sobre la Diversidad Biológica, 2011;ONU, 1992;Talaat, 2013). No obstante, alcanzar los cometidos de los tratados internacionales no ha sido una tarea fácil, puesto que la falta de una normativa clara ha permitido encontrar vacíos legales o mecanismos para burlar las legislaciones nacionales que protegen el uso de la biodiversidad (Silvestri, 2017;Harrop y Pritchard, 2011).…”