SpringerLink
Log in

Legal and Ethnoecological Components of Bioprospecting

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Bioprospecting

Part of the book series: Topics in Biodiversity and Conservation ((TOBC,volume 16))

  • 983 Accesses

Abstract

Innovation in the use of biological material has surged ahead over the past decades, closely followed by additions and amendments to the regulatory environment. The aim of this chapter is to explore the most important legal tools relating to the use of genetic resources and to identify the significant changes and additions. This article looks at the critical aspects for a successful implementation of the Nagoya Protocol. Three topics are especially covered: the need for (a) develo** sound access and benefit sharing (ABS) contracts; (b) establishing provider and user legislation or regulation in all countries; and (c) avoiding fragmentation at the international legal level concerning ABS. The regulatory environment is increasingly focused on strengthening intellectual property rights (patents and plant breeders’ rights) and access to and sharing of benefits arising from the use of genetic resources in terms of ABS. Whereas the regulation of use depends on the laws enacted in each country where bioprospecting occurs, the international arena has become increasingly important for law-making in the last 30 years.

Morten Walløe Tvedt is senior research fellow at the Fridtjof Nansen Institute and assistant professor 2 in law, P.O.Box 326, 1326 Lysaker, Norway. Tvedt has published extensively in the area of biological resources law and intellectual property in recent years (see www.fni.no for a complete list of publications). The research on which this article is based was partly funded by the Norwegian Research Council under the ELSA Program and forms part of the three-year project “Exploring Legal Conditions and Framework for Marine-based Bioprospecting and Innovation – International Law, Open Innovative Systems and Proposals for SMTA for Marbank”, project number 208543/O10.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution

Subscribe and save

Springer+ Basic
EUR 32.99 /Month
  • Get 10 units per month
  • Download Article/Chapter or Ebook
  • 1 Unit = 1 Article or 1 Chapter
  • Cancel anytime
Subscribe now

Buy Now

Chapter
GBP 19.95
Price includes VAT (United Kingdom)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
GBP 103.50
Price includes VAT (United Kingdom)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
GBP 129.99
Price includes VAT (United Kingdom)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free ship** worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
GBP 129.99
Price includes VAT (United Kingdom)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free ship** worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. 1.

    International Undertaking on Plant Genetic Resources [International Undertaking 8/83], Rome, FAO, Conference Resolution 8/83, entered into force 23 November 1983, adapted at the Twenty-second Session of the FAO Conference. The term ‘common heritage of mankind’ had already been introduced in the UN Law of the Sea regulating the legal status of exploitation of minerals in the deep sea bed, in the sense that “No State shall claim or exercise sovereignty or sovereign rights over any part of the Area or its resources, nor shall any State or natural or juridical person appropriate any part thereof.” Art. 136–137 of United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea [UNCLOS], United Nations, 10 December 1982, 1833 UNTS 3, entered into force 16 November 1994. FAO’s understanding of the term was less developed than UNCLOS’s, which provided for the creation of a governing authority to oversee the Common Heritage regime.

  2. 2.

    International Undertaking 8/83, Agreed Interpretation of the International Undertaking, Rome, FAO, Conference Resolution 4/89, entered into force 29 November 1989, adapted at the Twenty-fifth Session of the FAO Conference, and finally Agreed Interpretation of the International Undertaking, Rome, FAO, Conference Resolution 3/91, entered into force 25 November 1991, adopted at the Twenty-sixth Session of the FAO Conference.

  3. 3.

    International Convention for the Protection of New Varieties of Plants 1991 [UPOV-1991], UPOV, 2 December 1961, UPOV/INF/6/1, as amended on 10 November 1972, 23 October 1978 and 19 March 1991. For a discussion of the UPOV and farmers’ rights see Christinck and Tvedt (<CitationRef CitationID="CR4" >2015</Citation Ref>).

  4. 4.

    For a discussion of the term ‘genetic resources’, see Tvedt and Schei. “The Term ‘Genetic Resources’: Flexible and Dynamic while Providing Legal Certainty?” in Global Governance of Genetic Resources Access and Benefit Sharing after the Nagoya Protocol. Edited by Oberthür and Rosendal. New York, Routledge, 2014 and Schei and Tvedt. “Genetic Resources” in the CBD: The Wording, the Past, the Present and the Future. Lysaker, Fridtjof Nansens Institutt, 2010. (FNI Report, no. 4/2010)

  5. 5.

    Resolution 3 - The Interrelationship between the Convention on Biological Diversity and the Promotion of Sustainable Agriculture [Nairobi Resolution 3], entered into force 22 May 1992, the Nairobi Conference for the Adoption of the Agreed Text of the Convention on Biological Diversity.

  6. 6.

    International Treaty on Plant Genetic Resources for Food and Agriculture [ITPGRFA], Food and Agriculture Organization, 3 November 2001, 2400 UNTS 303, entered into force 29 June 2004.

  7. 7.

    Nevertheless, plant variety protection and plant patents are assuming that it is possible to identify the individual and unique contribution of individuals to new traits in the plant varieties. See UPOV-1991 and Agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property (Annex 1C of the Agreement establishing the World Trade Organization) [TRIPS Agreement], WTO, 15 April 1994, especially Art. 27.

References

  • ABS Capacity Development Initiative (2014). http://www.abs-initiative.info/countries-and-regions/global/italy/the-international-treaty-and-the-nagoya-protocol-a-tandem-workshop/

  • Arico S (2010) Marine genetic resources in areas beyond national jurisdiction and intellectual property rights. In: Vidas D (ed) Law, technology and science for oceans in globalisation: IUU fishing, oil pollution, bioprospecting, outer continental shelf. Martinus Nijhoff, Leiden, pp. 383–396

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Chiarolla C, Louafi S, Schloen M (2013) An analysis of the relationship between the nagoya protocol and instruments realted to genetic resources for food and agriculture and farmers’ rights. In: Morgera E, Buck M, Tsioumani E (eds) The 2010 nagoya protocol on access and benefit-sharing in perspective – implications for international law and implementation challenges. Martinus Nijhoff, Leiden, pp. 83–122

    Google Scholar 

  • Christinck A, Tvedt MW (2015) The UPOV convention, farmers’ rights and human rights – an integrated assessment of potentially conflicting legal frameworks. Deutsche Gesellschaft für Internationale Zusammenarbeit (GIZ) GmbH, Bonn

    Google Scholar 

  • Correa CM (2013) Plant genetic resources under the management and control of the contracting parties and in the public domain: how rich is the ITPGRFAʼs multilateral system? In: Halewood M, López Noriega I, Louafi S (eds) Crop genetic resources as a global commons – challenges in international law and governance. Routledge, New York, pp. 177–186

    Google Scholar 

  • Drankier P, Elferink AGO, Bert Visser B, Takács T (2012) Marine genetic resources in areas beyond national jurisdiction: access and benefit-sharing. Int J Mar Coas Law 27(2):375–433

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Elferink AGO (2007) The regime of the area: delineating the scope of application of the common heritage principle and freedom of the high seas. Int J Mar Coas Law 22(1):143–175

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • FAO (2015). Report of the Commission on Genetic Resources for Food and Agriculture. FAO, 15th Session, Rome, 19–23 January 2015 (CGRFA-15/15/Report)

    Google Scholar 

  • FNI (2014). http://www.fni.no/

  • Greiber T (2011). Access and benefit sharing in relation to marine genetic resources from areas beyond national jurisdiction: a possible way forward. Bonn: IUCN. (BfN-Skripten, no. 301)

    Google Scholar 

  • Halewood M, Andrieux E, Crisson L, Rwihaniza Gapusi J, Wasswa Mulumba J, Kouablan Koffi E, Yangzome Dorji T, Raj Bhatta M, Balma D (2013) Implementing ‘mutually supportive’ access and benefit sharing mechanisms under the plant treaty, convention on biological diversity, and nagoya protocol. Law, Environment and Development Journal 9(2):70–96

    Google Scholar 

  • Hendrickx F, Koester V, Prip C (1993) The convention on biological diversity – access to genetic resources: a legal analysis. Environ Policy Law 23(6):250–258

    Google Scholar 

  • Medaglia JC, Tvedt MW, Perron-Welch F, Jørem A, & Phillips F-K (2013). The interface between the Nagoya Protocol on ABS and the ITPGRFA at the international level – potential issues for consideration in supporting mutually supportive implementation at the national level. FNI Report, no. 1/2013. Fridtjof Nansens Institutt, Lysaker

    Google Scholar 

  • Oberthür S and Rosendal GK, (2014). Global Governance of Genetic Resources: Background and Analytical Framework. In: Oberthür S, Rosendal GK (eds) Global governance of genetic resources access and benefit sharing after the nagoya protocol. Routledge, New York, pp. 1–18

    Google Scholar 

  • Prip C, Rosendal GK, Andresen S, & Tvedt MW (2014). The Australian ABS framework – a model case for bioprospecting? FNI Report, no. 1/2014. Lysaker; Fridtjof Nansens Institutt

    Google Scholar 

  • Schei PJ, & Tvedt MW (2010). ‘Genetic resources’ in the CBD: the wording, the past, the present and the future. FNI Report, no. 4/2010. Fridtjof Nansens Institutt, Lysaker

    Google Scholar 

  • Schloen M, Louafi S & Dedeurwaerdere T (2011). Access and benefit-sharing for food and agriculture – current use and exchange practices, commonalities, differences and user community needs – a report from a multi-stakeholder expert dialogue. FAO Commission on Genetic Resources on Food and Agriculture, CGRFA, Rome (no. 59)

    Google Scholar 

  • Schrijver N (2008) Sovereignty over natural resources: balancing rights and duties. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge

    Google Scholar 

  • Tvedt MW (2013). Disentangling rights to genetic resources illustrated by aquaculture and forest sectors. Law Environ Dev J 9(2): 127–141. http://www.lead-journal.org/content/13127.pdf

  • Tvedt MW (2014) Beyond nagoya: towards a legally functional system of access and benefit-sharing. In: Oberthür S, Rosendal GK (eds) Global governance of genetic resources access and benefit sharing after the nagoya protocol. Routledge, New York, pp. 158–178

    Google Scholar 

  • Tvedt MW (2015a) Access to plant genetic resources – legal questions for material on its way into the multilateral system of the plant treaty. Law Environ Dev J 11(1):3–16

    Google Scholar 

  • Tvedt MW (2015b) Changes in the plant treaty – how can benefit sharing happen and the link to intellectual property rights – assessing the mutually supportiveness. Law Environ and Dev J 11(1):3–14

    Google Scholar 

  • Tvedt MW, Schei PJ (2014) The term ‘Genetic resources’: flexible and dynamic while providing legal certainty? In: Oberthür S, Rosendal GK (eds) Global governance of genetic resources access and benefit sharing after the nagoya protocol. Routledge, New York, pp. 18–33

    Google Scholar 

  • Tvedt MW & Young TR (2007). Beyond access: exploring implementation of the fair and equitable sharing commitment in the CBD. IUCN Environmental Policy and Law Paper, no. 67/2. Gland: IUCN

    Google Scholar 

  • Young TR (2013) An international cooperation perspective on the implementation of the nagoya protocol. In: Morgera E, Buck M, Tsioumani E (eds) The 2010 nagoya protocol on access and benefit-sharing in perspective – implications for international law and implementation challenges. Martinus Nijhoff, Leiden, pp. 451–506

    Google Scholar 

Agreements and Conventions

  • Agreed Interpretation of the International Undertaking, Rome, FAO, Conference Resolution 4/89, entered into force 29 November 1989, adapted at the Twenty-fifth Session of the FAO Conference.

    Google Scholar 

  • Agreed Interpretation of the International Undertaking, Rome, FAO, Conference Resolution 3/91, entered into force 25 November 1991, adapted at the Twenty-sixth Session of the FAO Conference.

    Google Scholar 

  • Agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property (Annex 1C of the Agreement establishing the World Trade Organization) [TRIPS Agreement], WTO, 15 April 1994.

    Google Scholar 

  • International Convention for the Protection of New Varieties of Plants 1991 [UPOV-1991], UPOV, 2 December 1961, UPOV/INF/6/1, as amended on 10 November 1972, 23 October 1978 and 19 March 1991.

    Google Scholar 

  • International Undertaking on Plant Genetic Resources [International Undertaking 8/83], Rome, FAO, Conference Resolution 8/83, entered into force 23 November 1983, adapted at the Twenty-second Session of the FAO Conference.

    Google Scholar 

  • International Treaty on Plant Genetic Resources for Food and Agriculture [ITPGRFA], Food and Agriculture Organization, 3 November 2001, 2400 UNTS 303, entered into force 29 June 2004.

    Google Scholar 

  • Resolution 3 - The Interrelationship between the Convention on Biological Diversity and the Promotion of Sustainable Agriculture [Nairobi Resolution 3], entered into force 22 May 1992, the Nairobi Conference for the Adoption of the Agreed Text of the Convention on Biological Diversity.

    Google Scholar 

  • United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea [UNCLOS], United Nations, 10 December 1982, 1833 UNTS 3, entered into force 16 November 1994.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Fridtjof Nansen Institute, 326, 1326, Lysaker, Norway

    Morten Walløe Tvedt

Authors
  1. Morten Walløe Tvedt
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Morten Walløe Tvedt .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Centre of Biological Engineering, University of Minho, Braga, Portugal

    Russell Paterson

  2. Centre of Biological Engineering, University of Minho, Braga, Portugal

    Nelson Lima

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2017 Springer International Publishing AG

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Tvedt, M.W. (2017). Legal and Ethnoecological Components of Bioprospecting. In: Paterson, R., Lima, N. (eds) Bioprospecting. Topics in Biodiversity and Conservation, vol 16. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-47935-4_2

Download citation

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation