Skip to main content Accessibility help
×
Home
  • Access
  • Open access
  • Print publication year: 2018
  • Online publication date: December 2018

10 - Access and Benefit-Sharing in the Age of Digital Biology

from Part III - New Technological Dynamics and Research Ethics
  • View HTML
    • Send chapter to Kindle

      To send this chapter to your Kindle, first ensure no-reply@cambridge.org is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about sending to your Kindle.

      Note you can select to send to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be sent to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

      Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

      Available formats
      ×

      Send chapter to Dropbox

      To send content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about sending content to Dropbox.

      Available formats
      ×

      Send chapter to Google Drive

      To send content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about sending content to Google Drive.

      Available formats
      ×

Summary

This chapter explores whether and how genomic resources can be protected by the communities from, or countries in which they are accessed. Specifically, it asks whether the Nagoya Protocol on Access and Benefit-Sharing can be an effective mechanism to reassure communities about the sharing of gene sequencing data. These questions are of particular importance to Indigenous peoples and local communities, as many have troubling historical experiences with colonization and associated natural resource exploitation. Many Indigenous and local communities (ILCs) live in developing countries, which are particularly sensitive to access and benefit-sharing (ABS) issues. Different but equally serious challenges exist for Indigenous peoples in developed countries like Canada, Australia, New Zealand and elsewhere. Until outcomes of implementation of the Nagoya Protocol are captured, Indigenous peoples and Local Communities (IPLCs) remain in a quandary as to how to protect digitized genetic resources within their territories or under their jurisdiction. To advance our understanding of legal and regulatory options, this chapter integrates normative and positive perspectives on the mechanisms for access and benefit-sharing in the age of digital biology.

Related content

Powered by UNSILO
Access and Benefit Sharing Canada, Report of Focus Groups on ABS, Moncton (2015); Ottawa (2016); Saskatoon (2017). www.abs-canada.org/resources/focus-group-reports/ Accessed April 2, 2018.
Bubela, T and Gold, ER. 2012. Genetic Resources and Traditional Knowledge: Case Studies and Conflicting Interests. Edward Elgar, Cheltenham.
Castle, D, Gold, ER. 2007. Traditional Knowledge and Benefit Sharing: From Compensation to Transaction. In: Phillips, P, Onweukwe, C (eds.), Accessing and Sharing the Benefits of the Genomics Revolution. Kluwer/Springer, Dordrecht.
Convention on Biological Diversity. What Is Traditional Knowledge? www.biodiv.org/programmes/socio-eco/traditional/default.asp. Accessed January 3, 2013.
Craig, D. 2007. Biological Resources, Intellectual Property Rights and International Human Rights: Impacts on Indigenous and Local Communities. In: Phillips, P, Onwuekwe, C (eds.), Accessing and Sharing the Benefits of the Genomics Revolution. Kluwer/Springer, Dordrecht, 81110.
Crookshanks, R and Phillips, P. 2013. A Comparative Analysis of Access and Benefits-Sharing Systems. Chapter 3, In: Bubela, T and Gold, ER (eds.), Genetic Resources and Traditional Knowledge: Case Studies and Conflicting Interests. Edward Elgar, Cheltenham.
De Beer, J and Dylan, D. 2015. Traditional Knowledge Governance Challenges in Canada. In: Rimmer, M (ed.), Research Handbook on Indigenous Intellectual Property. Edward Elgar.
Drahos, P and Frankel, S (eds.). 2012. Indigenous Peoples’ Innovation: Intellectual Property Pathways to Development, Australian National University E Press, Canberra.
Dutfield, G (2001). TRIPS-Related Aspects of Traditional Knowledge. Case Western Reserve Journal of International Law 33, 233–74.
Dutfield, G. 2004. Developing and Implementing National Systems for Protective Traditional Knowledge: Experiences in Selected Developing Countries. In: Twarog, S, Kapoor, P (eds.), UNCTAD summary publication Protecting and Promoting Traditional Knowledge: Systems, National Experiences and International Dimensions. United Nations Press, Geneva, pp 141–53. www.unctad.org/en/docs/ditcted10_en.pdf. Accessed January 3, 2013.
Economic Commission for Africa. 2002. Why Industrial Revolution Missed Africa: A ‘Traditional Knowledge’ Perspective. www.uneca.org/docs/Conference_Reports_and_Other_Documents/espd/2002/TKB.pdf. Accessed January 3, 2013.
Farnsworth, NR. 1988. Screening Plants for New Medicines. In: Wilson, EO, Peter, FM (eds.), BioDiversity. National Academy Press, Washington DC, pp 8397.
Global Environmental Facility. 2017. www.thegef.org/country/peru. Accessed October 2, 2017.
International Undertaking on Plant Genetic Resources. (1983) Available at: www.fao.org/docrep/x5563E/X5563e0a.htm. Accessed October 25, 2017.
Jensen, M, Johnson, B, and Lorenz, E et al. 2007. Forms of Knowledge and Modes of Innovation. Research Policy 36:680–93.
Koutouki, K and Von Bieberstein, K. R. 2012. The Nagoya Protocol: Sustainable Access and Benefits-Sharing for Indigenous and Local Communities. Vermont Journal of Environmental Law 13:513–36.
Law Introducing a Protection Regime for the Collective Knowledge of Indigenous Peoples Derived from Biological Resources, Law No 27811 (2002).
Mgbeoji, I. 2007. Lost in Translation? The Rhetoric of Protecting Indigenous Peoples’ Knowledge in International Law and the Omnipresent Reality of Biopiracy. In: Phillips, P, Onweukwe, C (eds.), Accessing and Sharing the Benefits of the Genomics Revolution. Kluwer/Springer, Dordrecht.
Oguamanam, C. 2010. Canada: Time to Take Access and Benefit Sharing over Genetic Resources Seriously. University of New Brunswick Law Journal 60:139–49.
Oguamanam, C. 2011. Genetic Resources & Access and Benefit Sharing: Politics, Prospects and Opportunities for Canada after Nagoya. Journal of Environmental Law and Practice 22(2):87201.
Oguamanam, C. 2015. Pressuring ‘Suspect Orthodoxy’: Traditional Knowledge and the Patent System. In Matthew, R (ed.), Indigenous Intellectual Property: A Handbook of Contemporary Research. Edward Elgar, Cheltenham, 313–33.
Oguamanam, C. 2018. Wandering Footloose: Traditional Knowledge and the Public Domain Revisited. Journal of World Intellectual Property, https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1111/jwip.12096
Phillips, P, Onwuekwe, C (eds.), 2007. Accessing and Sharing the Benefits of the Genomics Revolution. Kluwer/Springer, Dordrecht.
Phillips, P, Zhang, Sidi, Williams, Tara and DeBusschere, Laural. 2013. Canada’s First Nations’ Policies and Practices Related to Managing Traditional Knowledge. Chapter 8, In: Bubela, T and Gold, ER (eds.), Genetic Resources and Traditional Knowledge: Case Studies and Conflicting Interests. Edward Elgar.
Posey, DA (ed.). 1999. Cultural and Spiritual Values of Biodiversity. United Nations Environment Programme, Nairobi.
Richards, M-A. 2008. Cultural and Economic Importance of Traditional Knowledge, Traditional Cultural Expressions and Genetic Resources for Caribbean Countries. Presentation at WIPO/GRTK/KIN/08 Meeting, Kingston, Jamaica, March 18. www.wipo.int/meetings/en/doc_details.jsp?doc_id=114456. Accessed October 15, 2012.
Rules on Access to Genetic Resources (Peru). 2008. www.wipo.int/wipolex/en/details.jsp?id=6666. Accessed October 3, 2017.
Secretariat of the Convention on Biological Diversity. 2000. Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety to the Convention on Biological Diversity. Secretariat of the Convention on Biological Diversity, Montreal.
Shiva, V. 2001. Protect or Plunder? Understanding Intellectual Property Rights. Zed Books, London.
Stone, D. 1989. Causal Stories and the Formation of Policy Agendas. Political Science Quarterly 104(2):281300.
Sullivan, S. 2004. Plant Genetic Resources and the Law: Past, Present, and Future. Plant Physiol 135(1):1015.
Tully, S. 2003. The Bonn Guidelines on Access to Genetic Resources and Benefit Sharing. Review of European Community & International Environmental Law 12(1):8498.
UN Environmental Program, Convention on Biological Diversity. 1996. Fair and Equitable Sharing of Benefits Arising from the use of Genetic Resources. Conference of the Parties to the Convention of Biological Diversity UNEP/CBD/COP/3/Inf53. www.cbd.int/doc/meetings/abs/absep-01/other/absep-01-equitable-en.pdf. Accessed March 5, 2013.
Union for Ethical BioTrade. 2016. ABS IN PERU. http://ethicalbiotrade.org/dl/Peru%20ABS%20fact%20sheet_FINAL.pdf Accessed October 2, 2017.
Wynberg, R. & Laird, S. (2007) Bioprospecting. Environment 49(10): 2032.