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

Abstract

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.

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

“…Providers in biodiverse countries have limited capacity for tracking and enforcing agreed terms and conditions of national ABS procedures meaning user country compliance measures are vital to build trust and ensure that benefits are shared and actions are taken if not. Simultaneously, the non‐commercial research sector needs to continue to work hard to develop and use best practices and sectoral codes of conduct (Davis, 2018) ensuring that they can navigate the developing national legislations, ABS agreements are in place and prior informed consent obtained (Kariyawasam & Tsai, 2018; Wynberg, 2017). Effective implementation of compliance measures, legal transparency, and certainty will be critical to deliver the CBD objectives.…”

Fifty years of capacity building in the search for new marine natural products

“…In contrast, a subtle increase in the proportion of lead authorship has been recorded for countries such as Egypt, Indonesia, and Mexico since the 2000s (SI Appendix, Fig. S6), which might be associated with increased efforts to implement the decisions of the latest CBD conventions, particularly on issues concerning access and benefit-sharing (25).…”

“…Using country case studies to better understand how each country is implementing the access to its marine bioresources and benefit-sharing is critical to highlight examples of capacity-building, as well as to pinpoint potential issues associated with “biopiracy” ( 25 ). Such case studies should be headed by the bioprospecting community and by policymakers to provide feasible and customized solutions, as illustrated in the Queensland Biodiversity Collaboration ( 32 ).…”

Preserving US microbe collections sparks future discoveries

“…New obstacles to building collections include the Nagoya Protocol. Since 2014, countries have been enacting legislation to ensure that the country of origin receives some benefits from commercialization of their biodiversity, which has resulted in new hurdles for isolating microbes from outside the United States (Kariyawasam and Tsai 2018). It is now extremely difficult to build a geographically diverse microbial collection.…”