Biodiversity & Conservation

, Volume 12, Issue 7, pp 1511–1524 | Cite as

Regulating access to genetic resources under the Convention on Biological Diversity: an analysis of selected case studies

  • Liliana M. Dávalos
  • Robin R. Sears
  • Gleb Raygorodetsky
  • Benjamin L. Simmons
  • Hugh Cross
  • Taran Grant
  • Tonya Barnes
  • Louis Putzel
  • Ana Luz Porzecanski
Article

Abstract

In 1992 parties to the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) agreed to develop and implement policies to regulate and facilitate access to genetic resources (AGR). We examine regulations and agreements in Brazil, Colombia, and the Philippines in detail and discuss how these countries are implementing the AGR mandate. In particular, we evaluate progress toward achieving the CBD objectives of conserving biological diversity, using its components in a sustainable manner, and equitably sharing the benefits arising from the use of genetic resources. We highlight the difficulties in developing and implementing these policies, arising from the conflicting goals of regulating and facilitating AGR, as well as the special character of genetic resources, existing ex situ collections, issues of ownership and tenure, and the dearth of legal, institutional, and scientific capacity in many countries. We recommend (1) independent, multidisciplinary evaluation of the success of the access policy in achieving CBD objectives, (2) resolution of the conflict between traditional land tenure and legal property rights of genetic resources so as to match conservation obligations with benefit-sharing rights, (3) recognition that benefits obtained from AGR may be entirely non-monetary, and (4) that countries provide a 'two-track’ AGR application process separately for commercial and non-commercial users.

Andean Pact Biodiversity Bioprospecting Brazil Colombia Convention on Biological Diversity Genetic resources International environmental law Legislation Philippines 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Asebey E.J. 1996. Andes Pharmaceuticals Inc.: a new model for biodiversity prospecting. In: Feinsilver J. (ed.), Biodiversity, Biotechnology, and Sustainable Development in Health and Agriculture: Emerging Connections. Pan American Health Organization,World Health Organization, Washington, DC, pp. 47–76.Google Scholar
  2. Balick J.M. and Cox P.A. 1996. People, Plants and Culture: The Science of Ethnobotany. Scientific American Library, New York.Google Scholar
  3. Bryant D., Nielsen D. and Tangley L. 1997. The Last Frontier Forests Ecosystems and Economies on the Edge. WRI, WCMC, and WWF, Washington, DC.Google Scholar
  4. Comisión del Acuerdo de Cartagena 1996. Decisión 391 del 2 de julio de 1996. Régimen común sobre acceso a los recursos genéticos. Imprenta Nacional, Bogotá, Colombia.Google Scholar
  5. Convention on Biological Diversity 1992. Available online at: http://www.biodiv.org.Google Scholar
  6. Convention on Biological Diversity 2002. List of Parties to the Convention on Biological Diversity. Available online at: http://www.biodiv.org/world/parties.asp.Google Scholar
  7. Department of Agriculture, University of Utah, and Marine Science Institute of the University of the Philippines 1998. Commercial Research Agreement. Department of Agriculture, Manila, Philippines.Google Scholar
  8. EPS Workshop 1999. Access to genetic resources: an evaluation of the development and implementation of recent regulation and access agreements. School of International and Public Affairs Columbia University Environmental Policy Studies Working Paper #4. Available online at: http: //www.columbia.edu/cu/sipa /FUNC/EPS/eps-rsch.html.Google Scholar
  9. Flórez M. and Pimiento Chamorro S. 1998. Colombia, measures to control access and promote benefit sharing: a selection of case studies. In: Vallejo N. and Stone D. (eds), Measures to Control Access and Promote Benefit Sharing: A Selection of Case Studies. WWF, Gland, Switzerland, pp. 59–66.Google Scholar
  10. Glowka L.T., Plan P. and Stoll P.T. 1998. Best Practices for Access to Genetic Resources. IBN, Regensburg, Germany.Google Scholar
  11. Grajal A. 1999a. Biodiversity and the nation state: regulating access to genetic resources limits biodiversity research in developing countries. Conservation Biology 13: 1–6.Google Scholar
  12. Grajal A. 1999b. Régimen de acceso a recursos genéticos impone limitaciones a la investigación en biodiversidad en los paises Andinos. Interciencia 24: 63–69.Google Scholar
  13. Hardon J.J. 1989. Industrial patents, plant breeding and genetic resources: a plant breeder's view. Proceedings of an International Conference at the European Parliament on Patenting life forms in Europe, Brussels, 7–8 February 1989, ICDA, Barcelona, Spain., pp. 34–35.Google Scholar
  14. Kothari A. 1997. Understanding Biodiversity. Orient Longman Ltd, New Delhi, India.Google Scholar
  15. McNeely J.A., Miller K.R., Reid W.V., Mittermeier R.A. and Warner T.B. 1990. Conserving theWorld's Biological Diversity.World Conservation Union,World Resources Institute,World Wildlife Fund-US, and World Bank, Washington, DC.Google Scholar
  16. Peria E. 2002. The way we were, as we are now: access and benefit-sharing in the Philippines. Available online at: http://www.ictsd.org/dlogue/2002–04–19/Peria.pdf.Google Scholar
  17. Presidência da República 2001. Medida Provisória sobre Patrimôonio Genético, Conhecimientos Tradicionais Associados e Transferência de Tecnologia No. 2.186–16, de 23 de agosto de 2001. Available online at: http://www.mct.gov.br/legis/mp/mp2186–16.htm.Google Scholar
  18. Presidential Office of the Philippines 1992. Republic Act No. 7586 (The National Integrated Protected Areas System Act of 1992, Philippines). An Act Providing for the Establishment and Management of National Integrated Protected Areas System, Defining its Scope and Coverage, and for Other Purposes. Presidential Office, Manila, Philippines.Google Scholar
  19. Presidential Office of the Philippines 1995. Presidential Executive Order No. 247 Prescribing guidelines and establishing a regulatory framework for the prospecting of biological and genetic resources, their by-products and derivatives, for scientific and commercial purposes, and for other purposes. Presidential Office, Manila, Philippines.Google Scholar
  20. Presidential Office of the Philippines 1997. Republic Act No. 8371 (The Indigenous People's Rights Act of 1997, Philippines). An Act to Recognize, Protect and Promote the rights of Indigenous Cultural Communities/ Indigenous Peoples, Creating a National Commission on Indigenous Peoples, Establishing Implementing Mechanisms, Appropriating Funds therefore, and for Other Purposes. Presidential Office, Manila, Philippines.Google Scholar
  21. Rajaonarivony J.I.M. 1996. The Implementation of a Governmental Policy in Natural Products Research and Development in Madagascar. DCAAAS, Washington, DC.Google Scholar
  22. Rausser G.C. and Small A. 2000.Valuing research leads: bioprospecting and the conservation of genetic resources. Journal of Political Economy 108: 173–206.Google Scholar
  23. Robinson J. 1993. The limits to caring: sustainable living and the loss of biodiversity. Conservation Biology 7: 20–28.Google Scholar
  24. São Paulo State Government Environmental Secretariat (s.d.). Environmental Documents: Biodiversity protection Programme – PROBIO/SP, Brazil. PROBIO/SP, São Paulo.Google Scholar
  25. ten Kate K. 2002. Science and the convention on biological diversity. Science 295: 2371–2372.Google Scholar
  26. ten Kate K. and Wells A. 1998. The Access and Benefit-Sharing Policies of the United States National Cancer Institute: A Comparative Account of the Discovery and Development of the Drugs Calanolide and Topotecan. Royal Botanical Gardens, Kew, UK.Google Scholar
  27. Yusuf A. 1994. Technology and genetic resources: is mutually beneficial access still possible? In: Sanchez V. and Juma C. (eds), Biodiplomacy: Genetic resources and international relations. African Centre for Technology Studies Press, Nairobi, Kenya, pp. 233–240.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Kluwer Academic Publishers 2003

Authors and Affiliations

  • Liliana M. Dávalos
    • 1
    • 2
  • Robin R. Sears
    • 1
    • 3
  • Gleb Raygorodetsky
    • 1
    • 4
  • Benjamin L. Simmons
    • 5
    • 6
  • Hugh Cross
    • 1
    • 3
  • Taran Grant
    • 1
    • 2
  • Tonya Barnes
    • 6
  • Louis Putzel
    • 6
  • Ana Luz Porzecanski
    • 1
    • 2
  1. 1.Department of Ecology, Evolution, and Environmental BiologyColumbia UniversityNew YorkUSA
  2. 2.Division of Vertebrate ZoologyAmerican Museum of Natural HistoryNew YorkUSA
  3. 3.The New York Botanical GardenBronxUSA
  4. 4.Wildlife Conservation SocietyBronxUSA
  5. 5.Columbia University Law SchoolNew YorkUSA
  6. 6.School of International and Public AffairsColumbia UniversityNew YorkUSA

Personalised recommendations