Unraveling the Nagoya Protocol

Benefit Sharing in the Arctic: A Systematic View

“…The term "fair and equitable benefit sharing" is rooted in international conventions on biodiversity, international human rights, maritime law, and the right to science [20,21] (p. 353). Today, it is a normative concept in the field of natural resources and benefit sharing agreements [22,23]. Fairness and equitability in benefit sharing are required by EO100TM (Equitable Origin's EO100TM Standard for Responsible Energy Development), a private standard of voluntary certification.…”

Justice, Equity and Benefit-Sharing Under the Nagoya Protocol to the Convention on Biological Diversity

“…90 User countries providing such assistance could create conditions in provider countries that unduly favour the access side of the exchange, particularly when provider countries find themselves dependent on external support or are offered ready-made solutions that may not fit their particular circumstances. 91 It remains to be seen in future practice whether the involvement of multilateral bodies providing guidance 92 or channelling resources 93 may be able to balance procedural and contextual justice in this regard.…”

“…96 In the end, most commentators agree that the Protocol does not apply to genetic resources acquired prior to the entry into force of the Convention. 97 But it remains debatable whether benefit-sharing obligations arise under the Protocol for new or continuing uses of genetic resources and traditional knowledge acquired in the interim period between the entry into force of the CBD and that of the Protocol, 98 which could provide some corrective justice for more recent appropriations of genetic resources and traditional knowledge. Until that is clarified, by a decision of the Protocol governing body or its compliance mechanism for instance, the role of corrective justice under the Protocol remains an open question.…”

“…This is the case of the obligation to put in place national measures on access, on international cooperation on compliance with national ABS measures of other State Parties, and on financial and technological solidarity, which should arguably be assesses on the basis of whether they identify reasonable and appropriate measures to genuinely contribute to realize fair and equitable benefit-sharing. 156 In that connection, benefit-sharing serves to provide a benchmark for applying proportionality: the measures to be adopted at the national level need to be suitable and necessary to share benefits fairly and equitably -that is, to realize justice of exchange, distributive and procedural justice as discussed above. So understood, benefitsharing as equity infra legem sets material limits to States' margin of discretion and provides a yardstick to scrutinize the suitability of domestic measures 157 in pursuing both bilateral and global benefits for the purposes of both commutative and distributive justice.…”

From Corporate Social Responsibility to Accountability Mechanisms: The Role of the Convention on Biological Diversity

“…139 All these instruments include specific procedures underpinning private companies' interactions with indigenous and local communities. 140 The CBD has thus provided a virtually universal forum for reaching intergovernmental consensus on standards for corporate environmental accountability with significant human rights dimensions. 141 This has occurred even before the Convention parties and Secretariat started activities specifically targeting the involvement of the business community into the CBD implementation in 2005.…”