Realizing access and benefit sharing from use of genetic resources between diverging international regimes: the scope for leadership

12Citations
Citations of this article
39Readers
Mendeley users who have this article in their library.

This article is free to access.

Abstract

This article examines how access and benefit sharing (ABS) in international transactions with genetic resources can be achieved and how Norway contributes to their realization. Regarding the first question, progress on the ground has been slow, but important principles have been agreed within the convention on biological diversity (CBD) and its Nagoya Protocol (NP). Although domestic legislation is adopted, key user countries remain reluctant. They argue that the ABS regime needs to be supplemented with sector approaches within forums such as the Food and Agriculture Organization. In principle, this may sound logical, but sector approaches may risk undermining the ABS regime of the CBD/NP. The principle of access is more user-oriented and benefit sharing is weaker in the relevant FAO negotiations. Against this background, the future practical significance of the ABS regime remains uncertain. Norway has played an important leadership role in ABS within the CBD/NP framework. This stems in part from ‘fortunate circumstances’, as Norway has relatively few stakes in this issue area, but also includes strong normative elements: Norway’s inclination to support weaker part, the South. The Norwegian position has also been solidified by good coordination and strong institutional capacity among the actors involved. However, there are indications of a growing split in the Norwegian position along sector lines. We do not yet have sufficient empirical evidence that this is the case—but if it is, achieving an effective ABS regime may be even more difficult.

Cite

CITATION STYLE

APA

Rosendal, K., & Andresen, S. (2016). Realizing access and benefit sharing from use of genetic resources between diverging international regimes: the scope for leadership. International Environmental Agreements: Politics, Law and Economics, 16(4), 579–596. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10784-014-9271-4

Register to see more suggestions

Mendeley helps you to discover research relevant for your work.

Already have an account?

Save time finding and organizing research with Mendeley

Sign up for free