Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Small and smart: the role of Switzerland in the Cartagena and Nagoya protocols negotiations

  • Original Paper
  • Published:
International Environmental Agreements: Politics, Law and Economics Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

This paper looks at Switzerland to examine the role of a small state during the negotiations of the Cartagena and the Nagoya Protocols to the Convention on Biological Diversity. The influence of this small country was substantial at some point in the negotiation processes and on important features of the protocols. The main explanatory factors for this influence are identified as the competence and the tactical skills of the Swiss delegations as well as the flexible and timely mandates they received. This was reinforced by the way the position formation process was organized at the domestic level, namely a lead ministry strongly committed to the process and an efficient coordination between domestic actors, including the delegations. The Swiss delegations were thus able to support the progress of the negotiations, and in parallel to secure some of their interest, by assuming entrepreneurial and intellectual leadership strategies in function of the evolution of domestic and international constraints and opportunities.

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

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. Castree (2003: 36) defines bioprospection as ‘the systematic search for genes, natural compounds, designs and whole organisms in wildlife with a potential for product development.’ Buses in bioprospection were labeled ‘biopiracy’ by the ETC Group (RAFI 1993).

  2. Derivatives are substances derived from genetic resources and modified to have new properties (Biber-Klemm et al. 2010). Pathogens are microorganisms that can cause diseases.

  3. Following Cox and Jacobson (1973), Strange (1989), Corell and Betsill (2008), we distinguish power, the set of resources at the disposal of an actor, from influence, the capacity for an actor to modify another actor’s behavior.

  4. Defining a small state is challenging. One practical solution is to consider as such states that perceive themselves and are seen by others as small (Hey 2003).

  5. These are rather demanding requirements and in the course of this research, we encountered some limitations. Some confidential documents, such as the Swiss delegations’ official mandates, were not accessible, identifying the goals and strategies in detail was therefore not feasible. Some of these mandates were described orally by interviewees, but this material could not be used formally since it was unverifiable.

  6. The key moments we were able to identify are restricted to successful instances of influence, even if, undeniably, much could also be learned from setbacks. The sensibility of getting information on setbacks through interviews and their methodological treatment led us to this restriction.

  7. As some of our interviewees were not formally part of the delegations, they have been treated as a ‘control group.’

  8. A detailed list appears on the Web site of ‘Mandat International’ (www.genevainternational.org) under the section ‘Environment & Climate.’

  9. The sector employs around 19,000 people in over 250 companies and has an annual turnover of around 9 billion Swiss francs (SBA 2012), 1.5 % of Swiss Gross Domestic Product. The focus of the Swiss biotech industry is on medical rather than agricultural applications (Lévy and Pastor Cardinet 2007) with some important “green” biotech firms (i.e., Syngenta).

  10. A written document presented a Party’s proposition on an issue under discussion and distributed to other parties.

  11. When compared with other Parties’ submissions: African Group 58; Norway 48; Cuba 41; USA 41; Australia 35; EU 34; Ecuador 34; Colombia 29, etc. (CBD 2003).

  12. Created in 1888, the Federal Institute for Intellectual Property is a legally independent organization. It acts contractually as a federal agency, advising the Federal Council, preparing bills, and representing Switzerland in some international treaties.

  13. Since 1959, the Federal Council is composed of seven ministers from a large coalition of the four main political parties, each overseeing different offices.

  14. The Head of the International Affairs Division has the rank of ambassador, but it was only during the Cartagena Protocol negotiations that Ambassador Nobs actively led the Swiss delegation.

  15. Some of these experts were regularly also part of Swiss delegations to other international treaty negotiations, supporting the “honest broker” reputation due to a high consistency of Swiss positions across different forums (Morin and Orsini 2011).

Abbreviations

ABS:

Access and benefit sharing

BSWG:

Ad hoc working group on biosafety

CBD:

Convention on biological diversity

CoP:

Conference of the parties to the convention on biological diversity

ExCoP:

Extraordinary meeting of the CoP

FOAG:

Federal office for agriculture

FOEN:

Federal office for the environment

GMOs:

Genetically modified organisms

GR:

Genetic resources

IPI:

Federal institute for intellectual property

NGOs:

Non-governmental organizations

NSAs:

Non-state actors

SECO:

State secretariat for economic affairs

WGABS:

Ad hoc open-ended working group on access and benefit sharing

References

  • Akasaka, K. (2002). Japan. In C. Bail, R. Falkner, & H. Marquard (Eds.), The Cartagena protocol on biosafety (pp. 200–206). London: RIIA & Earthscan.

    Google Scholar 

  • Arquit Niederberger, A., & Schwager, S. (2004). Swiss environmental foreign policy and sustainable development. Swiss Political Science Review, 10(4), 93–123.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Arter, D. (2000). Small state influence within the EU: The case of Finland’s “northern dimension initiative”. JCMS: Journal of Common Market Studies, 38(5), 677–697.

    Google Scholar 

  • Barnett, M., & Duvall, R. (2005). Power in international politics. International Organization, 59(1), 39–75.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bonfadelli, H., Dahinden, U., & Leonarz, M. (2002). Biotechnology in Switzerland: high on the public agenda, but only moderate support. Public Understanding of Science, 11(2), 113–130.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Browning, C. (2006). Small, smart and salient? Rethinking identity in the small states literature. Cambridge Review of International Affairs, 19(4), 669–684.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Carr, E. (1939). The twenty years’ crisis, 1919–1939. London: Macmillan.

    Google Scholar 

  • CBD. (1998). Access to Genetic Resources and Means for Fair and Equitable Benefit Sharing. Case study submitted by Switzerland. UNEP/CBD/COP/4/INF.16.

  • CBD. (2001). Building a New Partnership: Draft Guidelines on Access and Benefit Sharing Regarding the Utilisation of Genetic Resources. Submission by Switzerland: UNEP/CBD/WG-ABS/1/INF/5 and UNEP/CBD/EP-ABS/2/INF/1.

  • CBD. (2003). The Cartagena protocol on biosafety: A record of the negotiations. Montreal: CBD Secretariat.

    Google Scholar 

  • CBD. (2005). Proposals by Switzerland regarding the declaration of the source of genetic resources and traditional knowledge in patent applications. UNEP/CBD/WG-ABS/3/INF/7.

  • Cooper, A., & Shaw, T. (2009). The diplomacies of small states at the start of the twenty-first century: How vulnerable? How resilient? In A. Cooper & T. Shaw (Eds.), Diplomacies of Small States (pp. 1–18). Houndsmills: Palgrave MacMillan.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Corell, E., & Betsill, M. (2008). Analytical framework: Assessing the influence of NGO diplomats. In M. Betsill & E. Corell (Eds.), NGO diplomacy: The influence of nongovernmental organizations in international environmental negotiations (pp. 19–42). Cambridge: MIT Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cox, R., & Jacobson, H. (1973). The anatomy of influence: Decision making in international organisation. New Haven: Yale University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dross, M., & Wolff, F. (2005). New elements of the international regime on access and benefit-sharing of genetic resources: The role of certificates of origin. BfN - Skripten No. 127.

  • Falkner, R. (2002). Negotiating the Cartagena protocol. In C. Bail, R. Falkner, & H. Marquard (Eds.), The Cartagena protocol on biosafety (pp. 3–22). London: RIIA & Earthscan.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fédéral, C. (2010). Rapport sur la politique extérieure 2010. Berne: Conseil Fédéral.

    Google Scholar 

  • FOEN/BAFU. (2010a). Bericht der Schweizer Delegation zur Fortsetzung des 9. Treffens der Arbeitsgruppe über den Zugang zu genetischen Ressourcen und den gerechten Vorteilausgleich (10–17. Juli 2010, Montreal, Kanada). Bern: Swiss Confederation.

  • FOEN/BAFU. (2010b). Bericht der Schweizer Delegation zum 9. Treffen der Arbeitsgruppe über den Zugang zu genetischen Ressourcen und den gerechten Vorteilausgleich (22–28 März 2010, Cali, Kolumbien). Bern: Swiss Confederation.

  • Freymond, J., & Boyer, B. (1998). Les organisations non gouvernementales et la politique extérieure de la Suisse . Etude dans le cadre du PNR “Politique extérieure de la Suisse”. Rapport de Synthèse. Berne: Programme National de Recherche 42.

  • Goetschel, L., Bernath, M., & Schwarz, D. (2005). Swiss foreign policy: Foundations and possibilities. London: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Harris, P. G. (2008). Bringing the in-between back in: Foreign policy in global environmental politics. Politics and Policy, 36(6), 914–943.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hey, J. (Ed.). (2003). Small states in world politics: Explaining foreign policy behavior. Boulder: Lynne Rienner.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hufty, M. (2001). La gouvernance internationale de la biodiversité. Études internationales, 32(1), 5–29.

  • Hufty, M. (2011). Investigating policy processes: The governance analytical framework (GAF). In U. Wiesmann, H. Hurni, et al. (Eds.), Research for sustainable development: foundations, experiences, and perspectives (pp. 403–424). Bern: NCCR North–South/Geographica Bernensia.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hufty, M., Schulz, T., & Tschopp, M. (2014). The role of Switzerland in the Nagoya Protocol negotiations. In S. Oberthür & K. Rosendal (Eds.), Global governance of genetic resources: Access to and benefit-sharing after the Nagoya protocol (pp. 96–112). London: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • IISD/ENB. (2006). Summary of the Fourth Meeting of the ABSWG of the CBD: Jan. 30–Feb. 3. Earth Negotiations Bulletin, 9(344).

  • IISD/ENB. (2008). Summary of the Sixth Meeting of the Working Group on Access and Benefit-Sharing of the Convention on Biological Diversity: 21–25 January. Earth Negotiations Bulletin, 9(416).

  • IISD/ENB. (2009). Summary of the Eighth Meeting of the ABSWG of the CBD: Nov. 9–15. Earth Negotiations Bulletin, 9(489).

  • IISD/ENB. (2010). Summary of the Tenth Conference of the Parties of the CBD: Oct. 18–29. Earth Negotiations Bulletin, 9(544).

  • IPI (Institut fédéral de la propriété intellectuelle). (2008). Examen quant au fond des demandes de brevet nationales: Directives. Bern: IPI.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ivars, B. (2002). Norway. In C. Bail, R. Falkner, & H. Marquard (Eds.), The Cartagena protocol on biosafety (pp. 193–199). London: RIIA and Earthscan.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jackson, S. (2012). Small states and compliance bargaining in the WTO: An analysis of the Antigua–US gambling services case. Cambridge Review of International Affairs, 25(3), 367–385.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kassimeris, C. (2009). The foreign policy of small powers. International Politics, 46(1), 84–101.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Keohane, R. O. (1969). Lilliputians’ dilemmas: Small states in international politics. International Organization, 23(2), 291–310.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kraus, D., & Rüssli, M. (2009). Study on access and benefit sharing user measures in the swiss legal order. Study established for the Swiss federal office for the environment. Berne: Umbricht Attorneys at Law.

    Google Scholar 

  • Little, R. (2007). The Balance of Power in International Relations: Metaphors, Myths and Models. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

  • Mayr, J. (2002). Colombia. In C. Bail, R. Falkner, & H. Marquard (Eds.), The Cartagena protocol on biosafety (pp. 218–229). London: RIIA and Earthscan.

    Google Scholar 

  • Merson, J. (2000). Bio-prospecting or bio-piracy: intellectual property rights and biodiversity in a colonial and postcolonial context. Osiris, 15, 282–296.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Morin, J.-F., & Orsini, A. (2011). Linking regime complexity to policy coherency: The case of genetic resources. GR:EEN Working Paper Series no. 15. Online: GR:EEN Working Paper Series no. 15.

  • Nijar, G. (2011). The Nagoya protocol on access and benefit sharing of genetic resources: An analysis. CEBLAW Brief. University of Malaysia.

  • Nobs, B. (2002). Switzerland. In C. Bail, R. Falkner, & H. Marquard (Eds.), The Cartagena protocol on biosafety (pp. 186–192). London: RIIA and Earthscan.

    Google Scholar 

  • Osherenko, G., & Young, O. (1993). The formation of international regimes: Hypotheses and cases. In O. Young & G. Osherenko (Eds.), Polar politics: Creating international environmental regimes (pp. 1–21). Ithaca: Cornell University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Panke, D. (2010). Good instructions in no time? Domestic coordination of EU policies in 19 small states. West European Politics, 33(4), 770–790.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Panke, D. (2012a). Dwarfs in international negotiations: How small states make their voices heard. Cambridge Review of International Affairs, 25(3), 313–328.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Panke, D. (2012b). Small states in multilateral negotiations. What have we learned? Cambridge Review of International Affairs, 25(3), 387–398.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Raustiala, K., & Victor, D. (2004). The regime complex for plant genetic resources. International Organization, 58(2), 277–309.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ricci, E. & Cullet, P. (2004). Biosafety Regulation: The Cartagena Protocol. Les Cahiers du RIBios, Number 3. Biosafety Interdisciplinary Network. Geneva: Institut Universitaire d'Etudes du Développement.

  • Samper, C. (2002). The extraordinary meeting of the conference of the parties (ExCOP). In C. Bail, R. Falkner, & H. Marquard (Eds.), The Cartagena protocol on biosafety (pp. 62–75). London: RIIA and Earthscan.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schauzu, M. (2000). The concept of substantial equivalence in safety assessment of foods derived from genetically modified organisms. AgroBiotechNet, 2(April), 1–4.

    Google Scholar 

  • Siebenhüner, B., & Suplie, J. (2005). Implementing the access and benefit-sharing provisions of the CBD: A case for institutional learning. Ecological Economics, 53(4), 507–522.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Silverman, D. (2000). Doing qualitative research: A practical handbook. London: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Strange, S. (1989). States and markets. London: Pinter Publishers.

    Google Scholar 

  • Switzerland. (1999). Draft Guidelines on Access and Benefit Sharing Regarding the Utilisation of Genetic Resources. SECO-IPI-AEFL (FOEN). http://www.cbd.int/doc/meetings/abs/absep-01/other/absep-01-guidelines-en.pdf. Accessed 2 May 2012.

  • Thorhallsson, B. (2009). Can small states choose their own size? The case of a Nordic state: Iceland. In A. F. Cooper & T. M. Shaw (Eds.), The diplomacies of small states at the start of the twenty-first century (pp. 119–142). Houndsmills: Palgrave MacMillan.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tully, S. (2003). The bonn guidelines on access to genetic resources and benefit sharing. Review of European Community and International Environmental Law, 12(1), 84–98.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tvedt, M., & Rukundo, O. (2010). Functionality of an ABS protocol. Journal of World Intellectual Property, 9(2), 189–212.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Underdal, A. (1994). Leadership theory: Rediscovering the arts of management. In I. Zartman (Ed.), International multilateral negotiation: Approaches to the management of complexity (pp. 178–197). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass Publishers.

    Google Scholar 

  • Waltz, K. (1979). The Theory of International Politics. Addison-Wesley series in political science. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.

  • WIPO. (2003). Proposals by Switzerland regarding the declaration of the source of genetic resources and traditional knowledge in patent applications. WIPO/PCT/R/WG/4/1.

  • Young, O. (1991). Political leadership and regime formation: On the development of institutions in international society. International Organization, 45(3), 281–308.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Interviews

  • [ITV1] Philippe Roch, ex-Head FOEN, 2009.10.13.

  • [ITV2] François Pythoud, FOAG, ex-FOEN, 2010.06.09, Interview in French, our translation.

  • [ITV3] Beat Nobs, Ambassador, 2010.06.07.

  • [ITV4] François Meienberg, Bern Declaration, 2011.05.20.

  • [ITV5] Marco D’Alessandro, FOEN, 2011.06.03.

  • [ITV6] Martin Girsberger and Benny Müller, IPI, 2011.06.08.

  • [ITV7] Sylvia Martinez, ScNat, 2011.06.15.

  • [ITV8] Kaspar Sollberger, FOEN, 2011.06.16.

  • [ITV9] Axel Braun, Roche, 2011.07.09.

  • [ITV10] Peter Johan Schei, FNI, 2011.11.28.

Download references

Acknowledgments

We acknowledge the financial support of the Swiss State Secretariat for Education and Research (COST Section) for the project ‘Can small players make a difference? (SWIC)’. Partial results, limited to the Nagoya Protocol, were presented in Hufty et al. (2014).

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Swiss Federal Institute for Forest, Snow and Landscape Research WSL, Zürcherstrasse 111, 8903, Birmensdorf, Switzerland

    Tobias Schulz

  2. Graduate Institute for International and Development Studies (IHEID), Maison de la Paix, Chemin Eugène-Rigot 2, 1201, Geneva, Switzerland

    Marc Hufty

  3. Center for Development and Environment (CDE), University of Bern, Hallerstrasse 10, 3012, Bern, Switzerland

    Maurice Tschopp

Authors
  1. Tobias Schulz
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Marc Hufty
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Maurice Tschopp
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Marc Hufty.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Schulz, T., Hufty, M. & Tschopp, M. Small and smart: the role of Switzerland in the Cartagena and Nagoya protocols negotiations. Int Environ Agreements 17, 553–571 (2017). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10784-016-9334-9

Download citation

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10784-016-9334-9

Keywords

Search

Navigation