The Nagoya Protocol on Access and Benefit-sharing is the latest protocol to the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD). Its implementation can lead to two fundamentally different processes: a market-oriented self-regulatory approach, which emphasizes the self-regulating capacity of the economic actors involved, or a normative institutionalist approach, which focuses on the norms and formal rules of institutions that not only support and frame, but also shape and constrain the actions of the players acting within them. This paper analyzes the challenges related to the implementation of the Nagoya Protocol in the specific case of Belgium, and evaluates the possibility of moving from a self-regulatory to an institutional approach of implementation, which we argue is necessary to achieve the objectives of the Protocol. This move is analyzed in the specific multi-level governance context characterizing the Nagoya Protocol, which has a natural tendency towards a market-oriented self-regulatory approach.
References
[1]
Convention on Biological Diversity; United Nations, 1992.
[2]
Mgbeoji, I. Beyond rhetoric: State sovereignty, common concern, and the inapplicability of the common heritage concept to plant genetic resources. Leiden J. Int. Law 2003, 16, 821–837, doi:10.1017/S092215650300147X.
[3]
Hufty, M. La gouvernance internationale de la biodiversité. études Int. 2001, 32, 5–29. (in French).
[4]
Vogel, J.H. Reflecting Financial and Other Incentives of the TMOIFGR: The biodiversity Cartel. In A Moving Target: Genetic Resources and Options for Tracking and Monitoring Their International Flows; Muller, M.R., Lape？a, I., Eds.; International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN): Gland, Switzerland, 2007.
[5]
Rosendal, K.G. The Convention on Biological Diversity: Tensions with the WTO Trips Agreement over Access to Genetic Resources and the Sharing of Benefits. In Institutional Interaction in Global Environmental Governance: Synergy and Conflict among International and EU Policies; Oberthu？r, S., Gehring, T., Eds.; MIT Press: Cambridge, UK, 2006; pp. 79–102.
[6]
Aubertin, C.; Filoche, G. The Nagoya Protocol on the use of genetic resources: One embodiment of an endless discussion. Sustentabilidade Em Debate 2011, 2, 51–64.
[7]
Dedeurwaerdere, T.; Broggiato, A.; Manou, D. Global Scientific Research Commons under the Nagoya Protocol: Governing Pools of Microbial Genetic Resources. In Common Pools of Genetic Resources: Equity and Innovation in International Biodiversity Law; Kamau, E.C., Winter, G., Eds.; Taylor & Francis: London, UK, 2013.
[8]
Chiarolla, C. Making Sense of the Draft Protocol on Access and Benefit Sharing for COP 10; Institute for Sustainable Development and International Relations (IDDRI): Paris, France, 2010; p. 11.
[9]
Aubertin, C.; Pinton, F.; Boisvert, V. Les Marchés de la Biodiversité ,. (in French) , IRD ed. ed.; Institut de Recherche Pour le Développement: Paris, France, 2007.
[10]
Dedeurwaerdere, T. From bioprospecting to reflexive governance. Ecol. Econ. 2005, 53, 473–491, doi:10.1016/j.ecolecon.2004.10.013.
[11]
Shepsle, K.A. Rational Choice Institutionalism. In The Oxford Handbook of Political Institutions; Rhodes, R.A.W., Binder, S.A., Rockman, B.A., Eds.; Oxford University Press: Oxford, UK, 2006.
[12]
Bolton, P.A.; Dewatripont, M.A. Contract Theory; MIT Press: Cambridge, UK, 2005.
[13]
Meyer, J.W.; Rowan, B. Institutional organizations: Formal structure as myth and ceremony. Am. J. Soc. 1977, 83, 340–363.
[14]
Scott, W.R. Institutions and Organizations; SAGE Publications: Thousand Oaks, CA, USA, 2001.
[15]
Auld, G.; Balboa, C.; Bernstein, S.; Cashore, B. The Emergence of Non-State Market-Driven (NSMD) Global Environmental Governance: A Cross-Sectoral Assessment. In Governance for the Environment; Delmas, M.A., Young, O.R., Eds.; Cambridge University Press: Cambridge, UK, 2009.
[16]
Senden, L. Soft law, self-regulation and co-regulation in European law: Where do they meet? Electron. J. Comp. Law 2005, 9, 1–27.
[17]
Martin, A.; McGuire, S.; Sullivan, S. Global environmental justice and biodiversity conservation. Geogr. J. 2013, 179, 122–131, doi:10.1111/geoj.12018.
[18]
De Jonge, B. What is fair and equitable benefit-sharing? J. Agric. Environ. Ethics 2011, 24, 127–146, doi:10.1007/s10806-010-9249-3.
[19]
Hall, P.A.; Taylor, R.C.R. Political science and the three new institutionalisms. Polit. Stud. 1996, 44, 936–957, doi:10.1111/j.1467-9248.1996.tb00343.x.
[20]
Morgan, B. Social Citizenship in the Shadow of Competition: The Bureaucratic Politics of Regulatory Justification; Ashgate Publishing: Surrey, UK, 2003; p. 6.
[21]
Jessop, B. Capitalism and its future: Remarks on regulation, government and governance. Rev. Int. Polit. Econ. 1997, 4, 561–581, doi:10.1080/096922997347751.
[22]
Bries, F.; Albert, S. Belgian Biotechnology; Belgian Foreign Trade Agency: Brussels, Belgium, 2011.
[23]
Figures from UN Comtrade, Medicinal and Pharmaceutical Products, other than Medicament (SITC 541) and Medicaments (including Veterinary Medicaments) (SITC 542). United Nations Commodity Trade Statistics Database: New York, NY, USA, 2011.
[24]
Geeraerts, K.; Tilche, N.; Gerstetter, C.; Smith, E.; Shine, C.; Pallemaerts, M.; Antoine, M.; Brink, P. Study to Analyse Legal and Economic Aspects of Implementing the Nagoya Protocol on ABS in the European Union; Institute for European Environmental Policy: Brussels, Belgium, 2012.
[25]
Proposal for a Regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council on Access to Genetic Resources and the Fair and Equitable Sharing of Benefits Arising from their Utilization in the Union; European Commission: Brussels, Belgium, 2012.
[26]
Committee on Development of the European Parliament. Draft Opinion on the Proposal for a Regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council on Access to Genetic Resources and the Fair and Equitable Sharing of Benefits Arising from their Utilization in the Union; European Parliament: Brussels, Belgium, 2013.
[27]
Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Food Safety of the European Parliament. Draft Report on the Proposal for a Regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council on Access to Genetic Resources and the Fair and Equitable Sharing of Benefits Arising from their Utilization in the Union; European Parliament: Brussels, Belgium, 2013.
[28]
Gunningham, N. Environment law, regulation and governance: Shifting architectures. J. Environ. Law 2009, 21, 179–212, doi:10.1093/jel/eqp011.
[29]
O’Toole, L.J. Governing Outputs and Outcomes of Governance Networks. In Theories of Democratic Network Governance; S？rensen, E., Torfing, J., Eds.; Palgrave Macmillan: Basingstoke, UK, 2008; p. 169.
[30]
Powell, W. Neither Market nor Hierarchy: Network Forms of Organizing. In Research in Organizational Behaviour; Staw, B., Kramer, R.M., Eds.; Elsevier: Amsterdam, The Netherlands, 2002; pp. 295–326.
[31]
Castells, M. The Rise of the Network Society: The Information Age: Economy, Society and Culture; John Wiley & Sons: Hoboken, NJ, USA, 2000.
[32]
Stoker, G. Governance as theory: Five propositions. Int. Soc. Sci. J. 1998, 50, 17–28.
[33]
Newig, J.; Günther, D.; Pahl-Wostl, C. Synapses in the Network: Learning in governance networks in the context of environmental management. Ecol. Soc. 2010, 15. Article 24.
[34]
S？rensen, E.; Torfing, J. Theoretical Approaches to Metagovernance. In Theories of Democratic Network Governance; S？rensen, E., Torfing, J., Eds.; Palgrave Macmillan: Basingstoke, UK, 2008; p. 169.
[35]
Kooiman, J. Modern Governance: New Government-Society Interactions; SAGE Publications: Thousand Oaks, CA, USA, 1993; pp. 1–280.
[36]
Dixit, A.K.; Nalebuff, B.J. Thinking Strategically: The Competitive Edge in Business, Politics, and Everyday Life; W. W. Norton & Company: New York, NY, USA, 1993.
[37]
Fischer, F. Reframing Public Policy: Discursive Politics and Deliberative Practices: Discursive Politics and Deliberative Practices; Oxford University Press: Oxford, UK, 2003.
[38]
Fischer, F.; Forester, J. The Argumentative Turn in Policy Analysis and Planning; Duke University Press: Durham, NC, USA, 1993.
[39]
Pitseys, J. Discipline et transparence: Aux sources de la Méthode Ouverte de Coordination (II). Rev. Interdiscip. Etud. Jurid. 2007, 58, 150–180. (in French).
[40]
The effectiveness of such a method, however, is subject to discussion and can be appreciated [37,38] or criticized [39].
[41]
Beroe Inc Web Page. Nagoya Protocol and Its Implications on Pharmaceutical Industry; Beroe Inc.: Cary, NC, USA, March 2011. Available online: http://www.beroeinc.com/insights/whitepapers/nagoya-protocol-and-its-implication-pharmaceutical-industry (accessed on 15 June 2013).
[42]
Czarniawska, B. Narratives in Social Science Research; SAGE Publications: Thousand Oaks, CA, USA, 2004.
[43]
Czarniawska, B. Narrating the Organization: Dramas of Institutional Identity; University of Chicago Press: Chicago, IL, USA, 1997.
[44]
Pitseys, J.; Ruwet, C. La Mise en Récit Comme Source de Motivation et de Légitimation au C？ur des Nouvelles Techniques de Regulation. Droit et Société. . Available online: http://biogov.uclouvain.be/staff/pitseys/Pitseys_Ruwet_2012.pdf (accessed on 15 June 2013). (in French).
[45]
Frison, C.; Dedeurwaerdere, T. Infrastructures Publiques et Régulations sur l’Accès Aux Ressources Génétiques et le Partage des Avantages qui découlent de Leur Utilisation Pour L’innovation de la Recherche des Sciences de la vie. Accès, Conservation et Utilisation de la Diversité Biologique dans L’intérêt Général. (in French); Université Catholique de Louvain: Louvain-la-Neuve, Belgium, 2006.
[46]
Young, T.R.; Bailet, F.N. Covering ABS: Addressing the Need for Sectoral, Geographical, Legal and International Integration in the ABS Regime; International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN): Gland, Switzerland, 2009.
[47]
Laird, S.; Wynberg, R. Bioscience at a Crossroads: Implementing the Nagoya Protocol on Access and Benefit-sharing in a Time of Scientific, Technological and Industry Change; Secretariat of the Convention on Biological Diversity: Montreal, Canada, 2012.
[48]
West, S. Institutionalised exclusion: The political economy of benefit sharing and intellectual property. Law Environ. Dev. J. 2012, 8, 21–41.
[49]
Sonnenfeld, D.A.; Mol, A.P.J. Globalization and the transformation of environmental governance: An introduction. Am. Behav. Sci. 2002, 45, 1318–1339, doi:10.1177/0002764202045009003.
[50]
Richerzhagen, C. Effective governance of access and benefit-sharing under the Convention on Biological Diversity. Biodivers. Conserv. 2011, 20, 2243–2261, doi:10.1007/s10531-011-0086-0.
[51]
Coolsaet, B.; Dedeurwaerdere, T.; Pitseys, J.; Batur, F. Study for the implementation in Belgium of the Nagoya Protocol on Access and Benefit Sharing to the Convention on Biological Diversity; Université Catholique de Louvain: Brussels, Belgium, 2013; p. 249.
[52]
Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) Web Page. Report of the First Meeting of the Open-Ended Ad Hoc Intergovernmental Committee for the Nagoya Protocol on Access to Genetic Resources and the Fair and Equitable Sharing of Benefits Arising from their Utilization. UNEP/CBD/ICNP/1/8; Secretariat of the Convention on Biological Diversity: Montreal, Canada, 2011. Available online: http://www.cbd.int/absicnp1/documents/ (accessed on 15 June 2013).
[53]
Pierre, J. Debating Governance; Oxford University Press: Oxford, UK, 2000; p. 14.
[54]
Jessop, B. Multilevel governance and multilevel metagovernance. Changes in the EU as Integral Moments in the Transformation and Reorientation of Contemporary Statehood. In Multi-Level Governance; Bache, I., Flinders, M.V., Eds.; Oxford University Press: Oxford, UK, 2004.
[55]
Aman, A.C. Globalization, democracy, and the need for a new administrative law. Indiana J. Glob. Leg. Stud. 2003, 10, 125–155, doi:10.2979/GLS.2003.10.1.125.
[56]
Rhodes, R.A.W. The hollowing out of the state: The changing nature of the public service in Britain. Polit. Quart. 1994, 65, 138–151, doi:10.1111/j.1467-923X.1994.tb00441.x.
[57]
Raustiala, K.; Victor, D.G. The regime complex for plant genetic resources. Int. Organ. 2004, 58, 277–309.
[58]
Oberthür, S.; Po？arowska, J. The Impact of the Nagoya Protocol on the Evolving Institutional Complex of ABS Governance. In Global Governance of Genetic Resources: Access and Benefit Sharing after the Nagoya Protocol; Oberthu？r, S., Rosendal, G.K., Eds.; Taylor & Francis: London, UK, 2013.
[59]
Sand, H.P. Sovereignty bounded: Public trusteeship for common pool resources? Glob. Environ. Polit. 2004, 4, 47–71, doi:10.1162/152638004773730211.
[60]
The Federal government and the federated entities ratified the CBD on 22 November 1996 (Belgian Official Journal, 2 April 1997; pp. 7671–7692). Available online: http://www.biodiv.be/implementation/ratification/ (accessed on 18 October 2013).
[61]
The International Treaty Web Page. International Treaty on Plant Genetic Resources for Food and Agriculture, Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations; The International Treaty: Rome, Italy. Available online: http://www.planttreaty.org/content/texts-treaty-official-versions (accessed on 15 June 2013).
[62]
The text of the Treaty reads: “The objectives of this Treaty are the conservation and sustainable use of plant genetic resources for food and agriculture and the fair and equitable sharing of the benefits arising out of their use, in harmony with the Convention on Biological Diversity, for sustainable agriculture and food security.” (Article 1.1) and “These objectives will be attained by closely linking this Treaty to the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations and to the Convention on Biological Diversity.” (Article 1.2).
[63]
Medaglia, J.C.; Tvedt, M.W.; Perron-Welch, F.; J？rem, A.; Phillips, F.K. 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; Fridtjof Nansen Institute: Lysaker, Norway, 2013.
[64]
Riccardo, P. The Nagoya Protocol and WTO law. In The 2010 Nagoya Protocol on Access and Benefit-sharing in Perspective: Implications for International Law and Implementation Challenges; Morgera, E., Buck, M., Tsioumani, E., Eds.; Martinus Nijhoff Publishers: Leiden, The Netherlands, 2012; p. 185.
[65]
Vivas-Eugui, D. Bridging the Gap on Intellectual Property and Genetic Resources in WIPO？s Intergovernmental Committee (IGC); International Centre for Trade and Sustainable Development (ICTSD): Geneva, Switzerland, 2012.
[66]
Intergovernmental Committee on Intellectual Property and Genetic Resources, Traditional Knowledge and Folklore; World Intellectual Property Organization: Geneva, Switzerland, 2013.
[67]
World Trade Organization Web Page. For the latest developments and documents concerning the review of Article 27.3(b) of the TRIPS Agreement. Available online: http://www.wto.org/english/tratop_e/trips_e/art27_3b_e.htm (accessed on 15 June 2013).
[68]
Carr, J. Agreements that divide: TRIPS vs. CBD and proposals for mandatory disclosure of source and origin of genetic resources in patent applications. J. Transnatl. Law Policy 2008, 18, 131.
[69]
Decreet betreffende het Natuurbehoud en het Natuurlijk Milieu, 21 October 1997(Belgian Official Journal, 10 January 1998). (Regional environmental decree). Available online: http://codex.vlaanderen.be/Zoeken/Document.aspx?DID=1005915&AID=1024865¶m=inhoud (accessed on 15 June 2013).
[70]
Code Wallon de l’aménagement du Territoire, de L’urbanisme, du Patrimoine et de L’énergie(in French)(Belgian Official Journal, 19 May 1984). (Regional environmental code). 14 May 1984. Available online: http://wallex.wallonie.be/index.php?doc=1423 (accessed on 15 June 2013).
[71]
Ordonnance Relative à la Conservation de la Nature, 1er Mars 2012(in French) (Belgian Official Journal, 16 March 2012). (Regional ordinance).
[72]
Buck, M.; Hamilton, C. The Nagoya Protocol on access to genetic resources and the fair and equitable sharing of benefits arising from their utilization to the Convention on Biological Diversity. Rev. Eur. Community Int. Environ. Law 2011, 20, 47–61, doi:10.1111/j.1467-9388.2011.00703.x.
[73]
Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) Web Page. Nagoya Protocol on Access to Genetic Resources and the Fair and Equitable Sharing of Benefits Arising from Their Utilization to the Convention on Biological Diversity; Nagoya, 29 October 2010. Article 6.3(g). 29 October 2010. Article 6.3(g). Available online: http://www.cbd.int/abs/text/articles/default.shtml?sec=abs-06 (accessed on 15 June 2013).
[74]
Belgian Co-ordinated Collections of Micro-Organisms (BCCM). Material Transfer Agreement, Terms and Conditions Applicable to the Use, Handling, Supply, Distribution, Sale, and Any Disposition of the Material; Belgian Co-ordinated Collections of Micro-Organisms: Brussels, Belgium, 2007.
[75]
Agreement on the Supply of Living Plant Material for Non-Commercial Purposes Leaving the International Plant Exchange Network; National Botanic Garden of Belgium: Meise, Belgium, 2012.
[76]
Withana, S.; Baldock, D.; Coolsaet, B.; Volkery, A. The Future of EU Environmental Policy: Challenges & Opportunities; Institute for European Environmental Policy: Brussels, Belgium, 2012.
[77]
Kamau, E.C.; Fedder, B.; Winter, G. The Nagoya Protocol on access to genetic resources and benefit sharing: What is new and what are the implications for provider and user countries and the scientific community? Law Dev. J. 2010, 6, 248–263.
[78]
Hoare, A.L.; Tarasofsky, R.G. Asking and telling: Can “Disclosure of Origin” requirements in patent applications make a difference? J. World Intellect. Prop. 2007, 10, 149–169, doi:10.1111/j.1747-1796.2007.00318.x.
[79]
See the letter dated 11 May 2005 by the Permanent Delegation of the European Commission to the International Organizations in Geneva addressed to WIPO’s Intergovernmental Committee on Intellectual Property and Genetic Resources, Traditional Knowledge and Folklore (WIPO/GRTKF/IC/8/11). World Intellectual Property Organization: Geneva, Switzerland, 2005. Available online: http://www.wipo.int/edocs/mdocs/tk/en/wipo_grtkf_ic_8/wipo_grtkf_ic_8_11.pdf (accessed on 15 June 2013).
[80]
Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) Web Page. Nagoya Protocol on Access to Genetic Resources and the Fair and Equitable Sharing of Benefits Arising from Their Utilization to the Convention on Biological Diversity; Secretariat of the Convention on Biological Diversity: Montreal, Canada. Available online: http://www.cbd.int/abs/text/default.shtml (accessed on 15 June 2013).
[81]
Greiber, T.; Moreno, S.P.; ？hrén, M.; Carrasco, J.N.; Kamau, E.C.; Medaglia, J.C.; Oliva, M.J.; Perron-Welch, F. An Explanatory Guide to the Nagoya Protocol on Access and Benefit-Sharing; IUCN: Gland, Switzerland, 2012; p. 372.
[82]
T？uber, S.; Holm-Müller, K.; Jacob, T.; Feit, U. An Economic Analysis of New Instruments for Access and Benefit-Sharing under the CBD—Standardisation Options for ABS Transactions; Bundesamt für Naturschutz: Bonn, Germany, 2011.
[83]
Tvedt, M.W.; Fauchald, O.K. Implementing the Nagoya Protocol on ABS: A hypothetical case study on enforcing benefit sharing in Norway. J. World Intellect. Prop. 2011, 14, 383–402.
