“…The indigenous and local communities' actual representation, participation, and engagement of the indigenous and local communities in the national and bilateral political processes remain largely inadequate. Koutouki and Bieberstein (2012) establish a low transition from international to national and local protection and benefits access concerning traditional knowledge and benefits access. This also violates intergenerational justice, noting that conventional systems are passed from one generation to the next, hence the need for a robust protocol that promotes more representation and engagement of the indigenous communities in the decision-making process.…”
Section: Aichi Biodiversity Targets Nagoya Protocol On Access and Benefit Sharing And Cartagena Protocol On Biosafetymentioning
Deforestation and forest degradation of tropical forests are major global concerns due to their ecological, social, and economic roles. In the wake of climate change and its diverse global effects, fragmentation and degradation of tropical forests have jeopardized their ability to support livelihoods and regenerate climate regulating services. Concerted efforts by local, national, and international players, which are primarily scientific, technological, or economic, have borne minimal results in safeguarding these forests from destruction, necessitating a more integrated and inclusive approach. The Rio Earth Summit (1992) brought together world leaders to set targets and priorities on the global sustainability agenda and laid a strong foundation for international policy cooperation in the future. This study employed a systematic review of articles published between 1992 and 2020 to establish how various policy mechanisms have been developed and evolved to bridge forests and climate change discourse in tropical forests while highlighting their strengths and weaknesses. The initial search of peer-reviewed publications and gray literature yielded 2622 records, which were subjected to inclusion and exclusion criteria based on The Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Review and Meta Analyses guidelines, resulting in a final list of 65 records for in-depth qualitative analysis. The study establishes that the mechanisms in place have contributed mainly to more coordination and incentives to manage climate risks, primarily through tropical forests conservation. However, hurdles such as inadequate participation and involvement of the local and indigenous people, insufficient national and local policy frameworks and bureaucracies around emissions monitoring, measuring, reporting, and verification processes continue to slow tropical forest conservation. Thus, there is a need for more integrated, multilevel, and diverse stakeholder engagement to achieve the set global targets effectively.
“…The indigenous and local communities' actual representation, participation, and engagement of the indigenous and local communities in the national and bilateral political processes remain largely inadequate. Koutouki and Bieberstein (2012) establish a low transition from international to national and local protection and benefits access concerning traditional knowledge and benefits access. This also violates intergenerational justice, noting that conventional systems are passed from one generation to the next, hence the need for a robust protocol that promotes more representation and engagement of the indigenous communities in the decision-making process.…”
Section: Aichi Biodiversity Targets Nagoya Protocol On Access and Benefit Sharing And Cartagena Protocol On Biosafetymentioning
Deforestation and forest degradation of tropical forests are major global concerns due to their ecological, social, and economic roles. In the wake of climate change and its diverse global effects, fragmentation and degradation of tropical forests have jeopardized their ability to support livelihoods and regenerate climate regulating services. Concerted efforts by local, national, and international players, which are primarily scientific, technological, or economic, have borne minimal results in safeguarding these forests from destruction, necessitating a more integrated and inclusive approach. The Rio Earth Summit (1992) brought together world leaders to set targets and priorities on the global sustainability agenda and laid a strong foundation for international policy cooperation in the future. This study employed a systematic review of articles published between 1992 and 2020 to establish how various policy mechanisms have been developed and evolved to bridge forests and climate change discourse in tropical forests while highlighting their strengths and weaknesses. The initial search of peer-reviewed publications and gray literature yielded 2622 records, which were subjected to inclusion and exclusion criteria based on The Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Review and Meta Analyses guidelines, resulting in a final list of 65 records for in-depth qualitative analysis. The study establishes that the mechanisms in place have contributed mainly to more coordination and incentives to manage climate risks, primarily through tropical forests conservation. However, hurdles such as inadequate participation and involvement of the local and indigenous people, insufficient national and local policy frameworks and bureaucracies around emissions monitoring, measuring, reporting, and verification processes continue to slow tropical forest conservation. Thus, there is a need for more integrated, multilevel, and diverse stakeholder engagement to achieve the set global targets effectively.
“…Koutouki makes a very salient observation that: Collective rights do not really exist in patent law either; instead, there is a stark preference for individualism. In other words, a community as a whole could not apply for a patent based on its collective knowledge and use of a particular plant (Koutouki and von Beiberstein, , p. 534).…”
Section: Community Rights and The Trips Regimementioning
confidence: 99%
“…Koutouki observes that this is a drawback for TK holders, as it does not then require parties to monitor or enhance transparency with regard to TK. Since most of the genetic resources of developing nations are in the form of TK, this could have negative impacts on the genetic resources held by traditional communities (Koutouki and von Beiberstein, , p. 530).…”
Section: The Treatment Of Community Rights In Other International Agrmentioning
This paper deals with community rights to intellectual property, in light of the individual-style ownership envisaged by the TRIPS Agreement. Community rights could either be the right held by traditional communities to their indigenous knowledge, or the right held by the community at large, to demand access to innovations that are protected by the intellectual property regime. This paper proposes to deal with the latter aspect of community rights. It will argue that the community at large has a stake in innovation, as it provides the foundation from which all innovation springs. The innovator should be given the requisite incentives to continue the good work, without which development cannot take place. However, no innovation can be justified if it does not serve the needs of society. Examining the developments in the pharmaceutical and agro-chemical industries, this paper will advocate that access should be facilitated through a system guaranteeing that vulnerable segments within the community are not disadvantaged due to the delays in the current system, which effectively denies them the opportunity to share in the benefits of innovation. The study will compare various jurisdictions in the Asian region to demonstrate how the lack of community rights negatively impacts on all these communities.Keywords community rights; intellectual property; Asia; access and benefit-sharingThe TRIPS agreement has been operative for almost two decades now.1 One of the stated objectives of its "parent"-the WTO, was the increase in access through the bringing down of barriers to trade.2 Yet, in terms of access to patented items-including essentials such as food and medicines, the level of access has not increased at all. Rather, we may surmise that access is slowly but surely being curtailed.3 If this is true, then what benefit has the TRIPS brought to the people whose lives it was supposed to benefit? How will people who are in dire need of essentials, have access to them? Do they have a right to access these essentials, or should the state intervene in such a case? Does the public/private divide matter when lives are at stake? Is the current system promoting the private appropriation of public wealth? Through a critical analysis of each of these questions, this paper will attempt to shed light on one of the fundamental questions that plagues intellectual property law: where does one draw the line of ownership?The paper addresses these issues by examining IP rights through an ownership model. It considers private and public (or collective) models from a geographical perspective, arguing that the "Western" model promotes the individual right, while the "Eastern" model promotes the collective right. It then analyses how adherence to the Western model (which influenced the contemporary rules on IP) has resulted in a lacuna in the legal framework to support the rights of those who hold traditional knowledge, whether as a traditional community, or as the "community at large", (both found in the developing nations of Asia), and how th...
“…In addition, despite efforts to the contrary, the Protocol, much like the CBD, continues to accord priority to state sovereignty over the rights of Indigenous People, which severs the all-important connection between community and biodiversity to the detriment of both (Koutouki & von Bieberstein, 2012). The rights bestowed upon ILCs over TK and its access (Secretariat of the CBD, 2010, see Articles 7 & 12) are considerably watered down by the repeated stress on "in accordance with domestic law" and "as appropriate."…”
Section: The International Regime On Access and Benefit Sharing And Imentioning
confidence: 99%
“…There is also concern around the concentration of rights at the state level, which allows them to grant access (including on behalf of ILCs) to third parties under Article 15. Finally, there is the perceived ineffectiveness and lack of implementation of the access and benefit-sharing regime (Koutouki & von Bieberstein, 2012;Nijar, 2013). There has been a lot of debate about whether parties are obligated to make prior and informed consent from ILCs a requirement of access to TK.…”
Section: The International Regime On Access and Benefit Sharing And Imentioning
In a neoliberal world, traditional knowledge (TK) of biodiversity possessed by Indigenous and Local Communities (ILCs) in the global South has become a valuable "commodity" or "bio-resource," necessitating the setting up of harmonized ground rules (international and national) in the form of an access and benefitsharing regime to facilitate its exchange in the world market. Despite criticisms that a regime with a neo-liberal orientation is antithetical to the normative ethos of ILCs, it could also offer a chance for developing countries and ILCs to generate revenue for socioeconomic development-to which they are gradually becoming open, but only under fair and equitable terms. Based on this context, this article proposes to look into the legal and policy frameworks and institutional regimes governing access and benefit sharing of TK associated with biological resources in two countries of South Asia: India and Bhutan. The article seeks to examine how such regimes are reconciling the imperatives of a neo-liberal economy with providing a just and equitable framework for ILCs and TK holders, which is truly participatory and not top-down.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
