In Incorporating Indigenous Rights in the International Regime on Biodiversity Protection Federica Cittadino convincingly interprets the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) and its related instruments in light of indigenous rights and the principle of self-determination. Cittadino’s harmonisation of these formally separated regimes serves at least two main purposes. First, it ensures respect for the human rights framework that protects indigenous rights whilst implementing the biodiversity regime. Second, harmonisation allows for the full operationalisation of the indigenous related provisions of the CBD framework that concern traditional knowledge, genetic resources, and protected areas. Federica Cittadino successfully demonstrates that the CBD may allow for the protection of indigenous rights in ways that are more advanced than under current human rights law.
In Incorporating Indigenous Rights in the International Regime on Biodiversity Protection Federica Cittadino convincingly interprets the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) and its related instruments in light of indigenous rights and the principle of self-determination. Cittadino's harmonisation of these formally separated regimes serves at least two main purposes. First, it ensures respect for the human rights framework that protects indigenous rights whilst implementing the biodiversity regime. Second, harmonisation allows for the full operationalisation of the indigenous related provisions of the CBD framework that concern traditional knowledge, genetic resources, and protected areas. Federica Cittadino successfully demonstrates that the CBD may allow for the protection of indigenous rights in ways that are more advanced than under current human rights law.
In Incorporating Indigenous Rights in the International Regime on Biodiversity Protection Federica Cittadino convincingly interprets the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) and its related instruments in light of indigenous rights and the principle of self-determination. Cittadino's harmonisation of these formally separated regimes serves at least two main purposes. First, it ensures respect for the human rights framework that protects indigenous rights whilst implementing the biodiversity regime. Second, harmonisation allows for the full operationalisation of the indigenous related provisions of the CBD framework that concern traditional knowledge, genetic resources, and protected areas. Federica Cittadino successfully demonstrates that the CBD may allow for the protection of indigenous rights in ways that are more advanced than under current human rights law.
Germany has been actively involved in the development of the international regime for access and benefit-sharing (ABS) since its earliest stages. It signed the Convention of Biological Diversity (CBD) on 12 June 1992 and ratified it on 21 December 1993, just before the CBD entered into force.1 In October 2001, Germany hosted the meeting in Bonn at which the Ad Hoc Open-Ended Working Group on Access and Benefit-sharing adopted the draft of the Bonn Guidelines, which were subsequently approved by the Sixth Conference of the Parties (COP 6) in 2002. In 2008, Germany also hosted COP 9 in Bonn. Along with other European countries, it signed the Nagoya Protocol in 2011,2 the legally binding framework adopted at the 10th COP to promote the implementation of ABS; while already being also a signatory of the CBD International Treaty on Plant Genetic Resources (ITPGRFA), which entered into force in 2004; that treaty is considered to be a specialised ABS instrument, under Article 4.2 of the Nagoya Protocol. As a country with little natural resources, Germany clearly identifies itself not as a provider, but as a user of genetic resources originating from other countries. Germany’s public and private institutions invest largely in both basic and applied research3 and experimental development. Worldwide, Germany is ranked fifth in granting intellectual property rights over all inventions, especially patents.4 Consequently, Germany’s research-related industry is highly competitive. Some of these industries are related to the use of genetic resources in one way or the other. Industries related to such resources include
Collecting plant germplasm from the wild and farmers’ fields is an essential task for the acquisition of genetic resources for conservation and use. Until recently, this activity has been carried out within and across countries in a largely unregulated fashion. We have focused our study on understanding how the current regulatory framework is affecting germplasm collecting in Europe. Most of the studies around Access and Benefit-sharing (ABS) regulations and their effect on research and development activities have focused on developing countries. Very few works provide a comprehensive account of policies and laws regulating the conservation and use of genetic resources in Europe,1
This chapter illustrates an innovative perspective aimed at demonstrating that the inception of the international legal regime related to the management of genetic resources and traditional knowledge long predates the discussion on ABS of the CBD, and is the product of the interaction of different legal fields: the international law on development, trade, environment and intellectual property protection.
In implementing access and benefit-sharing (ABS), the need for practical guidance has proved as significant as challenging to address. The different types of genetic resources, the range of motives for their use, and the many actors and economic sectors engaged in biodiversity-based activities raise equally numerous and varied questions on how regulatory frameworks should establish the scope, procedures and requirements on ABS.1 The lack of certainty on the precise implications of ABS has discouraged companies and other organizations working with biodiversity in engaging in related discussions and actions.2 The Nagoya Protocol on Access to Genetic Resources and the Fair and Equitable Sharing of Benefits Arising from their Utilization (Nagoya Protocol) aims to provide additional guidance on ABS through various tools and mechanisms, including voluntary norms. Article 20 of the Nagoya Protocol encourages Parties to support the development and use of voluntary norms such as codes of conduct, guidelines, best practices and standards in relation to ABS.3 A prospective role is thus established for these instruments in supporting the implementation of international, regional and national laws and regulations on ABS.4 There is considerable potential in the interaction between traditional and innovative approaches to regulation. The value of new forms of instruments to advance public policy is increasingly recognized in environmental and sustainable development regimes.5 In the ABS context, rules and practices developed
Greece is situated on the southern end of the Balkan Peninsula, is part of the European eastern Mediterranean Sea and it has a total surface of 132,000km2, islands included. It is extremely rich in biodiversity with a wide variety of plants, animals, ecosystems and landscapes.1 Greece is a “biodiversity hot-spot” area for Europe since it is an important region for the European fauna and flora because of its high endemism,2 but it is also a land of the many rare species refugees.3 The flora of Greece is one of the richest in Europe consisting of 6,437 native plant taxa (species and subspecies), which correspond to approximately 50% of the plants of Europe, while 1,442 species and subspecies are endemic in the country.4 With regard to the fauna of Greece, according to official inventory5 23,130 species of land and freshwater have been recorded, in which 3,500 species of sea are not included. If a number of more species that has been recorded but not included in lists is added, the total number could reach about 30,000 species.6 The main objective of this study is to detect and record through a critical lens, and to evaluate the Greek legislation in terms of both public and private law, with regard to ABS. With regard to public law, this approach is performed under the light of the relevant ratified international conventions on biodiversity,
France not only provides a wealth of genetic resources, including from its metropolitan regions and overseas territories, its territorial sea and exclusive economic zone, for research and development (R&D) activities worldwide. It is also a user country with advanced biotechnology capacity, several economic and industrial sectors actively participating to the bioeconomy, and a multitude of public and private research institutes directly concerned by the application of access and benefit-sharing (ABS) requirements to their activities.1 Although in some overseas territories access to genetic resource and benefit-sharing issues are already regulated by local mechanisms,2 such as in the South Province of New Caledonia,3 in the Amazonian Park of Guiana4 and in
"Privateer, Pirate or Ghost Ship? An Inquiry into the Complementarity between Community Law and French Law for the Benefit of the Indigenous People of French Guiana" published on 01 Jan 2015 by Brill | Nijhoff.
