Realizing access and benefit sharing from use of genetic resources between diverging international regimes: the scope for leadership

  • Kristin Rosendal
  • Steinar Andresen
Original Paper


This article examines how access and benefit sharing (ABS) in international transactions with genetic resources can be achieved and how Norway contributes to their realization. Regarding the first question, progress on the ground has been slow, but important principles have been agreed within the convention on biological diversity (CBD) and its Nagoya Protocol (NP). Although domestic legislation is adopted, key user countries remain reluctant. They argue that the ABS regime needs to be supplemented with sector approaches within forums such as the Food and Agriculture Organization. In principle, this may sound logical, but sector approaches may risk undermining the ABS regime of the CBD/NP. The principle of access is more user-oriented and benefit sharing is weaker in the relevant FAO negotiations. Against this background, the future practical significance of the ABS regime remains uncertain. Norway has played an important leadership role in ABS within the CBD/NP framework. This stems in part from ‘fortunate circumstances’, as Norway has relatively few stakes in this issue area, but also includes strong normative elements: Norway’s inclination to support weaker part, the South. The Norwegian position has also been solidified by good coordination and strong institutional capacity among the actors involved. However, there are indications of a growing split in the Norwegian position along sector lines. We do not yet have sufficient empirical evidence that this is the case—but if it is, achieving an effective ABS regime may be even more difficult.


Genetic resources Benefit sharing Global governance Institutional complexity Leadership Norway 



The authors would like to thank Morten Walløe Tvedt and two anonymous reviewers for their helpful comments on previous versions of this paper. Funding for this research was provided by the Norwegian Research Council through the project 220630 “Biotechnology in agriculture and aquaculture—effects of intellectual property rights in the food production chain”.


  1. Andersen, R. (2008). Governing agrobiodiversity: Plant genetics and developing countries. Aldershot: Ashgate.Google Scholar
  2. Burton, G. (2012). The JUSCANZ Group in Nagoya negotiations; the unlikely lot. In E. Morgera, M. Buck, & E. Tsioumani (Eds.), The 2010 Nagoya protocol on access and benefit sharing in perspective: Implications for international law and implementation challenges (pp. 295–330). Leiden: Martinus Nijhoff.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Chiarolla, C. (2011). Intellectual property, agriculture and global food security: The privatization of crop diversity. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. ENB. (2013). 14th meeting of the CGRFA. Highlights, Rome, Volume 09, Number 597, 16 April, 2013.Google Scholar
  5. ENB. (2014). Third meeting of the intergovernmental committee for the Nagoya protocol on access and benefit sharing. volume 09 Number 612, Monday, 24 February 2014.Google Scholar
  6. Ernst and Young (2001). Focus on fundamentals: The Biotechnology Report. 15th Annual Review.Google Scholar
  7. Ernst and Young (2005; 2008; 2012). Beyond Borders: The Global Biotechnology Report. Annual Review.Google Scholar
  8. Esquinas-Alcazar, J. (2005). Protecting crop genetic diversity for food security: Political, ethical, and technological challenges. Nature, 6(12), 946–953.Google Scholar
  9. Franck, T. M. (1990). The power of legitimacy among nations. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  10. Gehring, T., & Faude, B. (2013). The dynamics of regime complexes. Global Governance, 19(1), 119–130.Google Scholar
  11. Haas, P. M. (ed.) (1992). Knowledge, power, and international policy coordination, Special issue of International Organization, 46(1).Google Scholar
  12. Heywood, V. H. (Ed.). (1995). Global biodiversity assessment, UNEP. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  13. Hufty, M., Schulz, T., & Tschopp, M. (2014). The role of Switzerland in the Nagoya protocol negotiations. In S. Oberthür & G. K. Rosendal (Eds.), Global governance of genetic resources: Access to and benefit sharing after the Nagoya protocol (pp. 96–113). London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  14. Kamau, E. C., & Winter, G. (Eds.). (2009). Genetic resources, traditional knowledge and the law. London: Earthscan.Google Scholar
  15. Keohane, R. O. (1984). After hegemony: Cooperation and discord in the world political economy. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  16. Kloppenburg, J. R. (2004). First the seed (2nd ed.). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  17. Koester, V. (1997). The Biodiversity Convention negotiation process and some comments on the outcome. Environmental Policy and Law, 27(3), 175–192.Google Scholar
  18. Koester, V. (2012). The Nagoya protocol on ABS: Ratification by the EU and its member states and implementation challenges. Studies N 03/12, Paris: IDDRI.Google Scholar
  19. Laird, S. A. (2000). Benefit-sharing ‘best practice’ in the pharmaceutical and botanical medicine industries. In H. Svarstad & S. S. Dhillion (Eds.), Bioprospecting: From biodiversity in the South to medicines in the North (pp. 89–99). Oslo: Spartacus.Google Scholar
  20. Louwaars, N., Dons, H., von Overwalle, G., Raven, H., Arundel, A., Eaton, D., & Nelis, A. (2009). Breeding business: The future of plant breeding in the light of developments in patent rights and plant breeders’ rights. Wageningen: Center for Genetic Resources.Google Scholar
  21. Medaglia, J. C., Tvedt, M. W., 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. Lysaker: FNI Report 1/2013.Google Scholar
  22. Ministry of Foreign Affairs. (1988). Norwegian contributions to international activities for sustainable development (the ‘Blue Book’). Oslo: Ministry of Foreign Affairs.Google Scholar
  23. Ministry of the Environment. (1989). Environment and development: Programme for Norway’s follow-up of the Report of the World Commission on Environment and Development, Report No. 46 to the Storting (1988–1989), Ministry of the Environment, Oslo.Google Scholar
  24. Morgera, E., Buck, M., & Tsioumani, E. (Eds.). (2012). The 2010 Nagoya protocol on access and benefit sharing in perspective: Implications for international law and implementation challenges. Leiden: Martinus Nijhoff.Google Scholar
  25. Najam, A. (2005). Developing countries and global environmental governance: From contestation to participation to engagement’. International Environmental Agreements, 5(3), 303–321.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Oberthür, S., & Rosendal, G. K. (2014). Global governance of genetic resources: Access and benefit-sharing after the Nagoya protocol. Abingdon: Routledge.Google Scholar
  27. Oberthür, S., Gerstetter, C., Lucha, C., McGlade, K., Pozarowska, J., Rabitz, F. and Tedsen, E. (2011) Intellectual Property Rights on Genetic Resources and the Fight against Poverty, December 2011, Brussels: European Parliament, Directorate-General for External Policies of the Union, Policy Department.Google Scholar
  28. OECD. (2009). Biotechnology statistics, 2009.
  29. OECD. (2011). Key biotech indicators, share of countries in biotechnology patents filed under PCT, 2007–2009. Available at:
  30. Pavoni, R. (2013). The Nagoya protocol and WTO law. In E. Morgera, M. Buck, & E. Tsioumani (Eds.), The 2010 Nagoya protocol on access and benefit sharing in perspective (pp. 185–213). Leiden: Martinus Nijhoff.Google Scholar
  31. Pistorius, R., & van Wijk, J. (1999). The exploitation of plant genetic information. Amsterdam: Amsterdam University Press.Google Scholar
  32. Prip, C., Rosendal, G. K., Andresen, S. & Tvedt, M. W. (2014). The Australian ABS framework: A model case for bioprospecting? FNI Report 1/2014, Lysaker.Google Scholar
  33. Putnam, R. D. (1988). Diplomacy and domestic politics: The logic of two-level games. International Organization, 42(3), 427–460.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Raustiala, K., & Victor, D. G. (2004). The regime complex for plant genetic resources. International Organization, 58(2), 277–309.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Rosendal, G. K. (1991). International conservation of biological diversity: The quest for effective solutions, R:012-1991. Lysaker: FNI.Google Scholar
  36. Rosendal, G. K. (1995). The Biodiversity Convention: an analysis of the background for and implications of the US ‘no’ in Rio. In J. Calestous & V. Sànchez (Eds.), Biodiplomacy (pp. 87–103). Nairobi: ACTS Press.Google Scholar
  37. Rosendal, G. K. (2000). The convention on biological diversity and developing countries. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Rosendal, G. K. (2005). Biodiversity: International bungee jump—Domestic Bungle. In J. B. Skjærseth (Ed.), International regimes and Norway’s environmental policy: Crossfire and coherence (pp. 161–194). Hampshire: Ashgate.Google Scholar
  39. Rosendal, G. K. (2007). ‘Norway in UN environmental policies: Ambitions and influence’. Journal of International Environmental Agreements: Politics, Law and Economics. Special Issue.Google Scholar
  40. Rosendal, G. K. (2011). Biodiversity protection in international negotiations: Cooperation and conflict. In Shlomi Dinar (Ed.), Beyond resource wars: Scarcity, environmental degradation, and international cooperation (pp. 59–86). Cambridge: MIT Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Schei, P. J. (1997). ‘Konvensjonen om biologisk mangfold’. In W. M. Lafferty, O. S. Langhelle, P. Mugaas, & M. Holmboe Ruge (Eds.), Rio+ 5: Norges oppfølging av FN-konferansen om miljø og utvikling. Oslo: Tano Aschehoug.Google Scholar
  42. Schloen, M., Louafi, S. & Dedeurwaerdere, T. (2011). Access and benefit sharing for genetic resources for food and agriculture. Current use and exchange practices. Commonalities, differences and user community needs. Report from a multi-stakeholder expert dialogue. Rome: CGRFA Background study paper no. 59.Google Scholar
  43. Svensson, U. (1993). The Convention on Biodiversity—A new approach. In S. Sjøstedt & H. Aniansson (Eds.), International environmental negotiations: Process, issues and context. Stockholm: FRN Utrikespolitiska Institutet.Google Scholar
  44. Swanson, Timothy (Ed.). (1995). Intellectual property rights and biodiversity conservation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  45. Tvedt, M. W. (2010). Norsk genressursrett [Norwegian Gene Resource Law]. Oslo: Cappelen Akademiske Forlag.Google Scholar
  46. Tvedt, M. W. 2014. Beyond Nagoya: Towards a legally functional system of access and benefit-sharing? In S. Oberthür. & G.K. Rosendal (eds.) (pp. 158–177).Google Scholar
  47. Tvedt, M. W., & Young, T. (2007). Beyond access: Exploring implementation of the fair and equitable sharing commitment in the CBD. Gland: IUCN.Google Scholar
  48. Underdal, A. (1992). Leadership in international environmental negotiations: Designing feasible solutions. Working Paper 1992:08. Oslo: CICERO.Google Scholar
  49. Wallbott, L., Wolff, F., Pozarowska, J. (2014). The negotiations of the Nagoya protocol: Issues, coalitions and process. In Oberthür, S. & G.K. Rosendal (Eds.) (pp. 33–59).Google Scholar
  50. WCED, World Commission for Environment and Development. (1987). Our common future. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  51. Young, O. R. (1982). Resource regimes: Natural resources and social institutions. Berkeley: University of California Press.Google Scholar
  52. Young, O. R. (1991). Political leadership and regime formation: On the development of institutions in international society. International Organization, 45(3), 281–308.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2014

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Fridtjof Nansen Institute (FNI)LysakerNorway

Personalised recommendations