Fair and Equitable Benefit-Sharing at the Cross-Roads of the Human Right to Science and International Biodiversity Law
Abstract
:1. Introduction
2. Science in International Environmental and Human Rights Law
3. The Relevance of Fair and Equitable Benefit-Sharing as Developed under International Biodiversity Law
4. Fair and Equitable Benefit-Sharing and the Right to Science
4.1. Access to or Sharing of Benefits?
4.2. The Other Three Dimensions of the Right to Science
5. Specific Areas for Cross-Fertilization
5.1. Information-Sharing and Scientific Cooperation as Benefit-Sharing
5.2. Technology Transfer as Benefit-Sharing
5.3. Sharing Benefits from the Use of Traditional Knowledge
5.3.1. Questions of Recognition
5.3.2. Prior Informed Consent and Benefit-Sharing Standards
5.3.3. Business Responsibility to Respect Indigenous Peoples’ Rights
6. Conclusions
Conflicts of Interest
References and Notes
- Pia M. Kohler, Alexandra Conliffe, Stefan Jungcurt, Maria Gutierrez, and Yulia Yamineva. “Informing Policy: Science and Knowledge in Global Environmental Agreements.” In The Roads from Rio: Lessons Learned from Twenty Years of Multilateral Environmental Negotiations. Edited by Pamela Chasek and Lynn M. Wagner. London: Routldge, 2012, p. 59. [Google Scholar]
- David Freestone, and Ellen Hey, eds. The Precautionary Principle and International Law: The Challenge of Implementation. Hong Kong: Kluwer, 1996.
- Arie Trouwborst. Evolution and Status of the Precautionary Principle in International Law. Hong Kong: Kluwer, 2002. [Google Scholar]
- Elizabeth Fisher. Risk Regulation and Administrative Constitutionalism. London: Bloomsbury Publishing, 2007. [Google Scholar]
- Anthony Giddens. “Risk and Responsibility.” Modern Law Review 62 (1999): 1–10. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Andresen Steinar, and Jon Birger Skjærseth. “Science and Technology: From Agenda Setting to Implementation.” In Oxford Handbook of International Environmental Law. Edited by Daniel Bodansky, Jutta Brunnée and Ellen Hey. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2007, p. 183. [Google Scholar]
- Laurence Boisson de Chazournes. “Technical and Financial Assistance.” In Oxford Handbook of International Environmental Law. Edited by Daniel Bodansky, Jutta Brunnée and Ellen Hey. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2007, p. 984. [Google Scholar]
- Sheila Jasanoff. “Serviceable Truths: Science for Action in Law and Policy.” Texas Law Review 93 (2015): 1723. [Google Scholar]
- Sheila Jasanoff. “Technologies of Humility.” Nature 450 (2007): 33. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Sheila Jasanoff. “Technologies of Humility: Citizen Participation in Governing Science.” Minerva 41 (2003): 223–44. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Sheila Jasanoff. “A New Climate for Society.” Theory, Culture & Society 27 (2010): 233. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Nico Stehr. “The Social and Political Control of Knowledge in Modern Society.” Science Journal 55 (2003): 643–55. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Saskia Vermeylen, George Martin, and Roland Clift. “Intellectual Property, Rights Systems and the Assemblage of Local Knowledge Systems.” International Journal of Cultural Property 15 (2008): 201–21. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- “Special Issue on Science and Technology Studies and Neoliberal Science.” Social Studies of Science 40 (2010).
- Audrey R. Chapman. “Towards an Understanding of the Right to Enjoy the Benefits of Scientific Progress and its Application.” Journal of Human Rights 8 (2009): 1–36. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Mikel Mancisidor. “Is There such a Thing as a Human Right to Science in International Law? ” European Society of International Law 4 (2015): 1–6. Available online: http://www.esil-sedi.eu/node/896 (accessed on 16 December 2015). [Google Scholar]
- William A. Schabas. “Study of the Right to Enjoy the Benefits of Scientific and Technological Progress and its Applications.” In Human Rights in Education, Science and Culture: Legal Developments and Challenges. Edited by Yvonne Donders and Vladimir Volodin. Farnham: Ashgate Publishing, 2007, p. 297. [Google Scholar]
- Aurora Plomer. Patents, Human Rights and Access to Science. Broadheath: Edward Elgar, 2015. [Google Scholar]
- Aurora Plomer. “The Human Rights Paradox: Intellectual Property Rights and Rights of Access to Science.” Human Rights Quarterly 35 (2013): 143–75. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- George Martin, and Saskia Vermeylen. “Intellectual Property, Indigenous Knowledge and Biodiversity.” Capitalism Nature Socialism 16 (2005): 27–48. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Lea Shaver. “The Right to Science and Culture.” Wisconsin Law Review 1 (2010): 121–84. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- WTO, WIPO, and WHO. Promoting access to Medical Technologies and Innovation: Intersections between Public Health, Intellectual Property and Trade. Geneva: World Trade Organization, 2013. [Google Scholar]
- Aphrodite Smagadi. Medicinal Bioprospecting: Policy Options for Access and Benefit-Sharing. London: British Institute of International and Comparative Law, 2009. [Google Scholar]
- Riccardo Pavoni. “The Nagoya Protocol and WTO Law.” In The 2010 Nagoya Protocol on Access and Benefit-Sharing in Perspective: Implications for International Law and National Implementation. Edited by Elisa Morgera, Matthias Buck and Elsa Tsioumani. Leiden and Boston: Brill and Martinus Nijhoff, 2013, p. 185. [Google Scholar]
- Francesco Francioni. “International Human Rights in an Environmental Horizon.” European Journal of International Law 21 (2010): 41–55. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Donald K. Anton, and Dinah L. Shelton. Environmental Protection and Human Rights. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2012. [Google Scholar]
- Alan Boyle. “Human Rights and the Environment: Where Next? ” European Journal of International Law 23 (2012): 613–42. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Patricia W. Birnie, and Alan E. Boyle. International Law and the Environment. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2009. [Google Scholar]
- Elisa Morgera, Elsa Tsioumani, and Matthias Buck. Unraveling the Nagoya Protocol: Commentary on the Protocol on Access and Benefit-Sharing to the Convention on Biological Diversity. Leiden: Martinus Nijhoff, 2014. [Google Scholar]
- Elisa Morgera. “Against All Odds: The Contribution of the Convention on Biological Diversity to International Human Rights Law.” In Unity and Diversity of International Law. Essays in Honour of Professor Pierre-Marie Dupuy. Edited by Denis Alland, Vincent Chetail, Olivier de Frouville and Jorge E. Viñuales. Leiden: Martinus Nijhoff, 2014, p. 983. [Google Scholar]
- Adriana Bessa. “Traditional Local Communities in International Law.” Ph.D. Thesis, European University Institute, Florence, Italy, 13 December 2013. [Google Scholar]
- Olivier de Schutter. “The Emerging Human Right to Land.” International Community Law Review 12 (2010): 303–34. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Riccardo Pavoni. “Mutual Supportiveness as a Principle of Interpretation and Law-Making: A Watershed for the WTO-and-Competing-Regimes Debate? ” European Journal of International Law 21 (2010): 649–79. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Campbell Mclachlan. “The Principle of Systemic Integration and Article 31(3)(c) of the Vienna Convention.” International and Comparative Law Quarterly 54 (2005): 279–320. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Jutta Brunnée. “COP-ing with Consent: Law-Making under Multilateral Environmental Agreements.” Leiden Journal of International Law 15 (2002): 1–52. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Alan E. Boyle, and Christine M. Chinkin. The Making of International Law. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2007. [Google Scholar]
- Elisa Morgera. “The Need for an International Legal Concept of Fair and Equitable Benefit-sharing.” Edinburgh School of Law Research Paper No. 2015/20; Edinburgh, UK: University of Edinburgh, 2015, Available online: http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2633939 (accessed on 16 December 2015).European Journal of International Law, 2016, volume 27, forthcoming.
- Roland Kläger. Fair and Equitable Treatment in International Investment Law. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2013. [Google Scholar]
- Thomas M. Franck. Fairness in International Law and Institutions. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1995. [Google Scholar]
- Rachel Wynberg, and Maria Hauck. “People, Power and the Coast: Towards an Integrated, Just and Holistic Approach.” In Sharing Benefits from the Coast: Rights, Resources and Livelihoods. Edited by Rachel Wynberg and Maria Hauck. Cape Town: University of Cape Town Press, 2014, p. 143. [Google Scholar]
- Marcos A. Orellana. “Saramaka People v Suriname Judgment.” American Journal of International Law 102 (2008): 841–47. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Adrian Martin, Anne Akol, and Jon Phillips. “Just Conservation? On the Fairness of Sharing Benefits.” In The Justices and Injustices of Ecosystem Services. Edited by Thomas Sikor. London: Routledge, 2014, p. 69. [Google Scholar]
- Rachel Wynberg, and Maria Hauck. “People, Power, and the Coast: A Conceptual Framework for Understanding and Implementing Benefit Sharing.” Ecology and Society 19 (2014): 27. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ernita van Wyk, Charles Breen, and Wayne Freimund. “Meanings and Robustness: Propositions for Enhancing Benefit Sharing in Social-Ecological Systems.” International Journal of the Commons 8 (2014): 576–94. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Sheila Jasanoff. “Bridging the Two Cultures of Risk Analysis.” Risk Analysis 13 (1993): 123–29. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Simm Kadri. “Benefit-sharing: An Inquiry regarding the Meaning and Limits of the Concept of Human Genetic Research.” Genomics, Society and Policy 1 (2005): 29. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Elsa Tsioumani. “Exploring Fair and Equitable Benefit-Sharing from the Lab to the Land (Part I): Agricultural Research and Development in the Context of Conservation and the Sustainable Use of Agricultural Biodiversity.” Edinburgh School of Law Research Paper No. 2014/44. Edinburgh, UK: University of Edinburgh, 2014. Available online: http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2524337 (accessed on 16 December 2015).
- Martha Nussbaum, and Amartya Sen. The Quality of Life. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1993. [Google Scholar]
- Elisa Morgera. “Justice, Equity and Benefit-Sharing Under the Nagoya Protocol to the Convention on Biological Diversity.” Italian Yearbook of International Law 25 (2015): 113. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Tom Dedeurwaerdere, Arianna Broggiato, and Dimitra Manou. “Global Scientific Research Commons under the Nagoya Protocol.” In Common Pools of Genetic Resources: Equity and Innovation in International Biodiversity Law. Edited by Evanson Chege Kamau and Gerd Winter. London: Routledge, 2014, p. 224. [Google Scholar]
- Tomme Rosanne Young. “An International Cooperation Perspective on the Implementation of the Nagoya Protocol.” In The 2010 Nagoya Protocol on Access and Benefit-Sharing in Perspective: Implications for International Law and National Implementation. Edited by Elisa Morgera, Matthias Buck and Elsa Tsioumani. Leiden and Boston: Brill and Martinus Nijhoff, 2013, p. 451. [Google Scholar]
- Tomme Rosanne Young. “Access to Information and the Biosafety Clearing-House.” In Legal Aspects of Implementing the Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety. Edited by Marie-Claire Cordonier Segger, Frederic Perron-Welch and Christine Frison. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2013, p. 137. [Google Scholar]
- The International Treaty. “The Benefit-sharing Fund in Brief.” Available online: http://www.planttreaty.org/content/benefit-sharing-fund-brief (accessed on 16 December 2015).
- Sélim Louafi. Reflections on the Resource Allocation Strategy of the Benefit Sharing Fund. Berne: Swiss Federal Office for Agriculture, 2013. [Google Scholar]
- Olivier de Schutter. “The Right of Everyone to Enjoy the Benefits of Scientific Progress and the Right to Food: From Conflict to Complementarity.” Human Rights Quarterly 33 (2011): 304. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Sheila Jasanoff. “The Bhopal Disaster and the Right to Know.” Social Science and Medicine 27 (1988): 1113–23. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Laurelyn Whitt. Science, Colonialism and Indigenous Peoples. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2009. [Google Scholar]
- Suman Seth. “Putting Knowledge in its Place: Science, Colonialism and the Postcolonial.” Postcolonial Studies 12 (2009): 373–88. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Daniela Diz, Lynn Finnegan, Elisa Morgera, and Asterios Tsioumanis. “Summary of the Nineteenth Meeting of the Subsidiary Body on Scientific, Technical and Technological Advice and Ninth Meeting of the Working Group on Article 8(j) of the Convention on Biological Diversity.” Earth Negotiations Bulletin 9 (2015): 663. [Google Scholar]
- Claudio Chiarolla, and Annalisa Savaresi. “Indigenous Challenges under IPBES: Embracing Indigenous Knowledge and Beyond.” In The Intergovernmental Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services (IPBES): Challenges, Knowledge and Actors. Edited by Marie Hrabanski and Denis Pesche. London: Earthscan, 2016, forthcoming. [Google Scholar]
- Terry Williams, and Preston Hardison. “Culture, Law, Risk and Governance: Contexts of Traditional Knowledge in Climate Change Adaptation.” Climatic Change 120 (2013): 531. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Lorenzo Cotula. “Land: Property and Sovereignty in International Law.” In Research Handbook on International Law and Natural Resources. Edited by Elisa Morgera and Kati Kulovesi. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar, 2015, forthcoming. [Google Scholar]
- 1Article 27(1) (emphasis added).
- 2An “international regime” on access and benefit-sharing has been identified as comprising: the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD), 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, the International Treaty on Plant Genetic Resources for Food and Agriculture (ITPGR), and the Bonn Guidelines on Access to Genetic Resources and Fair and Equitable Sharing of the Benefits Arising out of their Utilization (CBD Decision X/1 (2010), preambular para. 6). To these instruments one should add the World Health Organization (WHO) Pandemic Influenza Preparedness (PIP) Framework for the sharing of influenza viruses and access to vaccines and other benefits (effective 24 May 2011) WHO Doc WHA64.5.
- 3e.g., 1989 International Labour Organization (ILO) Convention (Indigenous and Tribal Peoples) No 169, Article 15(2); Inter-American Court of Human Rights, Case of the Saramaka People v. Suriname (judgment on preliminary objections, merits, reparations and costs), 28 November 2007, para. 138; African Commission on Human and Peoples’ Rights, Centre for Minority Rights Development (Kenya) and Minority Rights Group International on behalf of Endorois Welfare Council v. Kenya, Comm. No. 276/2003 (25 November 2009) para. 274; Expert Mechanism, Follow-up report on indigenous peoples and the right to participate in decision-making with a focus on extractive industries (2012) UN Doc A/HRC/21/52.
- 4World Summit on Sustainable Development (Rio+20) Outcome Document, The Future We Want, (2012) UN Doc A/RES/66/288, paras. 48, 76(g), 85(k), 88(d), 168, 204, 220, 271–272 and 276.
- 5Rio Declaration on Environment and Development (1992) UN Doc A/CNF.151/26, vol. 1, Annex I, Principle 15; International Court of Justice (ICJ), Case concerning Pulp Mills on the River Uruguay (Argentina v Uruguay), Judgement (20 April 2010), para. 164.
- 6Venice Statement on the Right to Enjoy the Benefits of Scientific Progress and its Applications, 2009, paras. 13(c) and 16.
- 7The latter aspect is reflected in the inclusion of the right to science in the 1966 Declaration on Social Progress and Development, (1969) General Assembly resolution 2542 (XXIV), article 13(a), which reads: “Equitable sharing of scientific and technological advances by developed and developing countries, and a steady increase in the use of science and technology for the benefit of the social development of society.”
- 8Article 15 (in slightly different wording than in the Universal Declaration). See also Charter of the Organization of American States, Article 38; American Declaration on the Rights and Duties of Man Article XIII and_Additional Protocol to the American Convention on Human Rights in the Area of Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, Article 14; and Arab Charter on Human Rights, Article 42.
- 9Report of the Special Rapporteur in the field of cultural rights: the right to enjoy the benefits of scientific progress and its applications (2012) UN Doc A/HRC/20/26 (hereinafter, Shaheed’s report).
- 10Shaheed’s report, paras. 1, 25, 30–43.
- 11Shaheed’s report, paras. 66–69.
- 12Shaheed’s report, para. 75a–b, based on Article 15 of the ICESCR.
- 13Report of the Fiftieth and Fifty-First Sessions of the Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (ECOSOC) (2014) UN Doc E/2014/22 E/C.12/2013/3, para. 74.
- 14Report of the Special Rapporteur in the field of cultural rights: patent policy and the right to science and culture (2015) UN Doc A/70/279. Note also that the first general discussion in ECOSOC on the right to science focused on IPRs, at its 24th Session (13 November–1 December 2000).
- 15This is the notable case of CBD Article 8(j).
- 16e.g., Report of the Tenth Session of the UN Permanent Forum on Indigenous Issues (2011) UN Doc. E/2011/ 43-E/C.19/2011/14, paras. 26–27; and CBD Decision XI/14 G (2012), para. 2.
- 17CBD Decision XII/12F (2014).
- 18Resulting in the adoption of the ambiguous expression “prior informed consent or approval and involvement” in the Nagoya Protocol, Articles 6–7.
- 19Nagoya Protocol, preambular recital 26.
- 20UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (UNGA Res 61/295, 13 September 2007).
- 21Under the CBD Working Group on Article 8(j) (traditional knowledge), the fullest possible participation of indigenous and local communities is ensured in all Working Group meetings, including in contact groups, by welcoming community representatives as Friends of the Co-Chairs, Friends of the Bureau and Co-Chairs of contact groups; without prejudice to the applicable rules of procedure of the Conference of the Parties establishing that representatives duly nominated by parties are to conduct the business of CBD meetings so that any text proposal by indigenous and local communities’ representatives must be supported by at least one party. Report of the Seventh meeting of the Ad Hoc Open-ended Working Group on Article 8(j) and Related Provisions (2011) UN Doc. UNEP/CBD/COP/11/7, para. 20.
- 22Reliance on: CBD Article 8(j) in ‘Review of Developments pertaining to the Promotion and Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms of Indigenous Peoples’ (2001) UN Doc E/CN.4/Sub.2/AC.4/2001/2, para. 15; CBD Akwé: Kon Voluntary Guidelines on socio-cultural and environmental impact assessments, CBD Decision VII/16C (2004), Annex, as a pre-condition for benefit-sharing by the Inter-American Court of Human Rights, Inter-American Court of Human Rights, Case of the Saramaka People v. Suriname (Interpretation of the Judgment on Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations and Costs), Judgment of 12 August 2008, para. 41 and fn 23; by the Special Rapporteur on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, Report of the Special Rapporteur on Indigenous People’ Rights on the situation of human rights and fundamental freedoms of indigenous people (2010) UN Doc A/HRC/15/37, para. 73, and by the Expert Mechanism on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (2010) UN Doc A/HRC/15/35, para. 37, which also referred to the CBD work programme on protected areas, CBD Decision VII/28 (2004).
- 23Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties (VCLT), Article 31(3)(c).
- 24VCLT, Art. 31(3)(b); First and Second Report on Subsequent Agreements and Subsequent Practice in relation to Treaty Interpretation, (2013) UN Doc A/Cn.4/660 and (2014) UN Doc A/CN.4/671.
- 25The whole international community is party to the CBD, with the notable exception of the United States.
- 26Namely, CBD, Nagoya Protocol and International Treaty on Plant Genetic Resources for Food and Agriculture (ITPGR); but also taking into account the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea and ILO Convention No. 169.
- 27Special Rapporteur on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, Report to the Human Rights Council (2009) UN Doc A/HRC/12/34, para. 53; Special Rapporteur on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, Study on Extractive Industries and Indigenous Peoples (2013) UN Doc A/HRC/24/41, para. 88.
- 28e.g., ‘Review of Developments pertaining to the Promotion and Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms of Indigenous Peoples’ (2001) UN Doc E/CN.4/Sub.2/AC.4/2001/2, para. 19; and Report of the High-level Task Force on the Implementation of the Right to Development on its Second Meeting (2005) UN Doc. E/CN.4/2005/WG.18/TF/3, para. 82.
- 30CBD Article 1; Nagoya Protocol Article 1; ITPGR Article 1.
- 31See notably Nagoya Protocol preambular para. 8.
- 32This reflects interpretative practice under the ILO Convention No 169, where a textual reference to participate in benefits has been understood as benefit-sharing: e.g., Observation (ILO Committee of Experts on the Application of Conventions and Recommendations)—adopted 2009, published 99th International Labour Conference session (2010), para. 11.
- 33International Bioethics Committee of the UN Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO), Draft Report on the Principle of the Sharing of Benefits (2015) UN Doc SHS/YES/IBC-22/15/3.
- 34Shaheed’s report, para. 22.
- 35I am grateful to Margherita Brunori for drawing my attention to this point.
- 36e.g., Draft report of the nineteenth meeting of the CBD Subsidiary Body on Scientific, Technical and Technological Advice (2014) UN Doc UNEP/CBD/SBSTTA/19/L.1.
- 37I am grateful to Saskia Vermeylen for drawing my attention to this point.
- 38Nagoya Protocol Annex. Compare with Universal Declaration on Bioethics and Human Rights, adopted by UNESCO’s General Conference on 19 October 2005, Article 15.
- 39CESCR, General Comment No 21 (2009) UN Doc. E/C.12/GC/21 para. 37.
- 40CBD Article 1, ITPGR Article 1, and Nagoya Protocol Article 1.
- 41Nagoya Protocol Article 8(b).
- 42Nagoya Protocol Annex, paras. 2(b), (d)–(e).
- 43e.g., Nagoya Protocol preambular recitals 5, 7 and 14.
- 44For instance, the governing body of the Nagoya Protocol: see the Strategic Framework for Capacity-Building and Development to Support the Effective Implementation of the Nagoya Protocol on Access and Benefit-Sharing in Decision NP-1/8 (2014), Annex.
- 45Nagoya Protocol Article 25.
- 46CBD Article 16(1).
- 47Nagoya Protocol Articles 1 and 9–10.
- 48ITPGR, preamble and Article 1; Nagoya Protocol preamble and Article 8(c).
- 49Nagoya Protocol, preamble and Article 8b(b).
- 50Nagoya Protocol Annex, para. 2(m).
- 51Nagoya Protocol Annex, para. 2(a) and (e).
- 52Nagoya Protocol Article 10.
- 53Note, for instance, Antarctic Treaty, Article III. I am grateful to Daniela Diz for drawing my attention to this point.
- 54It is left to “mutually agreed terms”: CBD Articles 15(7) and 19(2); Nagoya Protocol Article 5.
- 55CBD Article 18(3) and Cartagena Protocol Article 20. The ABS Clearing House (Nagoya Protocol Article 14) is more concerned with sharing information about implementation, than about scientific information as such.
- 56ITPGR Articles 13(2)(a) and 17.
- 57ITPGR resolution 3/2015 (IT/GB-6/15/Res 3).
- 58CBD Articles 1, 15(5), 16 and 19.
- 59Nagoya Protocol Annex, para. 2(b)–(e).
- 60Nagoya Protocol Article 8(a).
- 61CBD Article 15(6).
- 62ITPGR Article 13(2)(c).
- 63The priorities, eligibility criteria and operational procedures were adopted as annexes 1–3 to the Funding Strategy in 2007. See Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO), Report of the Governing Body of the International Treaty on Plant Genetic Resources for Food and Agriculture (FAO, 2007).
- 64CBD Articles 1 and 16 and ITPGR Article 13(2)(b). Reference could also have been made to Nagoya Protocol Article 1 and Annex.
- 65Shaheed’s Report, fn 76.
- 66Report of the Independent Expert on Human Rights and International Solidarity to the General Assembly (2013) UN Doc A/68/176, para. 27(d).
- 67In its so-called ‘third dimension’: Report of the High-level Task Force on the Implementation of the Right to Development on its Sixth Session: Right to Development Criteria and Operational Sub-criteria (2010) UN Doc A/HRC/15/WG.2/ TF/2/Add.2, criteria 3(b)(i)–(ii).
- 68Shaheed’s report, para. 68.
- 69e.g., CBD technology transfer work programme, Decision VII/29 (2004), paras. 3.2.8 and 3.2.9.
- 70FAO, Reports of Meetings on the Establishment of a Platform for the Co-development and Transfer of Technology (2013), FAO Doc IT/GB-5/13/Inf.16.
- 71ITPGR Resolution 4/2015 (2015) FAO Doc IT/GB-6/15/Res 4.
- 72Report on patent policy and the right to science and culture (n 14 above), paras. 54–55.
- 73CESCR, General Comment No 21 (2009) UN Doc. E/C.12/GC/21, para. 37.
- 74UN Permanent Forum on Indigenous Issues, Review of World Bank operational policies (2013) UN Doc E/C.19/2013/15, para. 27; Expert Mechanism on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, ‘Promotion and protection of the rights of indigenous peoples with respect to their cultural heritage’ (2015) UN Doc A/HRC/EMRIP/2015/2.
- 75In comparison to the Nagoya Protocol, neither the ILO Convention No 169 or UNDRIP link benefit-sharing and traditional knowledge. CESCR, General Comment No 21 (2009) UN Doc. E/C.12/GC/21 para. 37, refers to prior informed consent, but not benefit-sharing, with regard to traditional knowledge.
- 76CBD Article 8(j).
- 77Tkarihwaié:ri Code of Ethical Conduct on Respect for the Cultural and Intellectual Heritage of Indigenous and Local Communities, CBD Decision X/42 (2010), Annex, preamble (hereinafter, CBD Code of Ethical Conduct).
- 78e.g., Draft report of the nineteenth meeting of the CBD Subsidiary Body on Scientific, Technical and Technological Advice (2014) UN Doc UNEP/ CBD/ SBSTTA/19/L.1.
- 79IPBES, Update on Deliverable 1(c) Indigenous and Local Knowledge Procedures and Approaches, (2014) IPBES/3/INF/2, Annex II.
- 80See also the Knowledge, Information and Data Plan and draft strategy in IPBES, Update on Deliverable 1(d) Data and Knowledge (2014) IPBES/3/INF/3, Annex I, para. 9
- 81CBD Secretariat, “How Tasks 7,10 and 12 Could Best Contribute to Work under the Convention and to the Nagoya Protocol” (2013) UN Doc UNEP/CBD/WG8J/8/4/Rev.2, para. 23.
- 82CBD expanded work programme on forest biodiversity, CBD Decision VI/22 (2002), para. 31 and programme element 1; CBD work programme on protected areas (n 22 above), paras. 2(1)(3)–2(1)(5).
- 83Akwé: Kon Guidelines (n 22 above), para. 56.
- 84Addis Ababa Principles and Guidelines on the Sustainable Use of Biodiversity, CBD Decision VII/12 (2004), Annex II, operational guidelines to Principle 4; CBD expanded work programme on forest biodiversity (n 85 above), para. 13.
- 85This seems confirmed in proposed guidelines for the development of mechanisms, legislation or other appropriate initiatives to ensure the prior informed consent or approval and involvement of indigenous peoples and local communities for accessing their knowledge, innovations and practices, the fair and equitable sharing of benefits arising from the use and application of such knowledge, innovations and practices and for reporting and preventing unauthorized access to such knowledge, innovations and practices (2015) UN Doc UNEP/CBD/COP/13/3, Recommendation 9/1, para. 25(a) (hereinafter, CBD Draft Guidelines).
- 86Nagoya Protocol Article 12(4); ITPGR Article 9(3).
- 87Addis Ababa Principles and Guidelines (n 87 above), rationale to Principle 4; and CBD Guidelines on Tourism and Biodiversity, CBD Decision V/25 (2000), paras. 22–23 and 43.
- 88Note varying terminology in that respect: CBD Article 8(j) refers to “approval and involvement”; the CBD Work Programme of Work on the implementation of Article 8(j) (traditional knowledge) and related provisions, CBD Decision V/16 (2000) para. 4 to “prior informed consent or prior informed approval”; the Akwé: Kon Guidelines (n 22 above), para. 53, to “prior informed consent” and the Nagoya Protocol Articles 6–7 to “prior informed consent or approval and involvement”.
- 89“Subject to its national legislation” and “as far as possible and as appropriate”: CBD Article 8(j).
- 90CBD Article 10(c), which has then been reflected in all the thematic areas of work of the Convention: e.g., CBD revised work programme on inland water biodiversity, Decision VII/4 (2004) Annex, para. 9; CBD work programme on island biodiversity, Decision VIII/1 (2009) Annex, Target 9.2; and CBD work programme on drylands, Decision VIII/2 (2006), Target 9.2.
- 91Nagoya Protocol Articles 5(5) and 7; ITPGR Articles 9(2)(a) and 13(3).
- 92Consider, for instance, Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, “Climate Change 2007: Impacts, Adaptation and Vulnerability. Contribution of Working Group II to the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change” (2007), at 138 and 673; and UNESCO Declaration on Bioethics and Human Rights (2005), Article 17.
- 93See, for instance, how international finance institutions have reflected international biodiversity law on this point in their standards: International Finance Corporation (IFC), Performance Standard 8 (2012), para. 16.
- 94Nagoya Protocol Article 8(a), read with Article 5 and Annex, and Articles 16–17.
- 95CBD Code of Ethical Conduct, paras. 14 and 1, which indicate that the code is not intended to “interpret the obligations of the CBD”.
- 96CBD Draft Guidelines include section foreseeing that community protocols may include special measures for encouraging non-commercial research, participatory research and joint research for conservation and sustainable use of biodiversity: para. 24.
- 97CBD Code of Ethical Conduct, para. 14.
- 98CBD Decision XII/12D (2014) preambular para. 4 and para. 2, refers to “use and applications” of traditional knowledge, based on a mandate in CBD Decision V/16 (2000), Task 7.
- 99CBD Draft Guidelines, para. 25(c).
- 100CBD Code of Ethical Conduct, para. 25. See also CESCR, General Comment No 21, paras. 36 and 50(c).
- 101CBD Code of Ethical Conduct, paras. 17–18 and 15.
- 102FAO, 2012 Voluntary Guidelines on the Responsible Governance of Tenure of Land, Fisheries and Forests in the Context of National Food Security (VGGT), Article 8.6; and Committee on Food Security, Principles for Responsible Investment in Agriculture and Food Systems (2014), para. 23, iv.
- 103CBD Draft Guidelines, para. 6.
- 104CBD Draft Guidelines, para. 14.
- 105CBD Draft Guidelines, para. 15.
- 106CBD Draft Guidelines, para. 14.
- 107CBD Draft Guidelines, para. 9.
- 108Inter-American Court of Human Rights, Kichwa Indigenous Communitiy of Sarayaku v Ecuador (Merits and reparations, Judgment of 27 June 2012) para. 194.
- 109So benefit-sharing could contribute to culturally appropriate and effective consultations: Expert Mechanism on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, ‘Follow-up Report on Indigenous Peoples and the Right to Participate in Decision-making with a Focus on Extractive Industries’ (2012) UN Doc A/HRC/21/55, para. 43.
- 110Benefit-sharing would thus provide concrete expression of the accord granted by indigenous peoples on the basis of their own understandings and preferences: Study on Extractive Industries and Indigenous Peoples (n 27 above), para. 43.
- 111Shaheed’s Report paras. 70–73.
- 112Shaheed’s Report, paras 70–71 and fn 79.
- 113Report of the Special Representative of the Secretary-General on the Issue of Human Rights and Transnational Corporations and Other Business Enterprises, John Ruggie. ‘Protect, Respect and Remedy: A Framework for Business and Human Rights’ (2008) UN Doc A/HRC/8/35, paras. 25 and 58 (the Human Rights Council recognized the need to operationalize the framework through Resolution 8/7 of 2008, para. 2).
- 114IFC, Performance Standard 7 (2012), paras. 18–20; FAO, the International Fund for Agricultural Development (IFAD), the UN Conference on Trade and Development (UNCTAD) and the World Bank, Principles for Responsible Agricultural Investment that Respects Rights, Livelihoods and Resources (PRAI), principle 6; UN Global Compact Office, ‘Business Reference Guide to the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples’ (2013), at 76–77; Report of the Special Rapporteur on Indigenous People’ Rights (2010) UN Doc A/HRC/15/37, paras. 73–75.
- 115e.g., Maastricht Principles on Extraterritorial Obligations of States in the area of Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (2011).
- 116Human Rights Council, Resolution 26/9 of 26 June 2014.
- 117For instance, Report of the Special Rapporteur on Indigenous People’ Rights (2010) UN Doc A/HRC/15/37, paras. 73–80; and Report of the Special Rapporteur on Indigenous Peoples’ Rights (2009) UN Doc A/HRC/12/34, paras. 48 and 53.
- 118For instance, the Tkarihwaié:ri Code of Ethical Conduct, Annex, para. 14, addresses “other potential stakeholders in research projects related to traditional knowledge associated with biodiversity that are proposed to take place on, or that are likely to impact on, sacred sites and lands and waters traditionally occupied or used by communities.” Other CBD guidelines are similarly addressed to a variety of stakeholders, including also the private sector implicitly or explicitly.
- 119IFC Performance Standard 8 (2012), para. 16.
© 2015 by the author; licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
Share and Cite
Morgera, E. Fair and Equitable Benefit-Sharing at the Cross-Roads of the Human Right to Science and International Biodiversity Law. Laws 2015, 4, 803-831. https://doi.org/10.3390/laws4040803
Morgera E. Fair and Equitable Benefit-Sharing at the Cross-Roads of the Human Right to Science and International Biodiversity Law. Laws. 2015; 4(4):803-831. https://doi.org/10.3390/laws4040803
Chicago/Turabian StyleMorgera, Elisa. 2015. "Fair and Equitable Benefit-Sharing at the Cross-Roads of the Human Right to Science and International Biodiversity Law" Laws 4, no. 4: 803-831. https://doi.org/10.3390/laws4040803