Article 1. Objective

The management of access to genetic resources, traditional knowledge (TK), and benefit sharing among indigenous people and local communities in the worldwide is extensively addressed in international legal instruments, including the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) and its Nagoya Protocol on Access to Genetic Resources and the Fair and Equitable Sharing of Benefits (ABS) Arising from their Utilization. The CBD aims to promote the conservation of biological resources, the sustainable use of biodiversity components and the equitable, fair sharing of benefits arising from the use of genetic resources. The Nagoya Protocol sets out core obligations for its contracting Parties to take measures in relation to ABS and compliance. In 2021, the Secretariats of the CBD released the first draft of the Post-2020 Global Biodiversity Framework with the mission for the period up to 2030, aiming towards the 2050 vision: “To take urgent action across society to conserve and sustainably use biodiversity and ensure the fair and equitable sharing of benefits from the use of genetics resources, to put biodiversity on a path to recovery by 2030 for the benefit of planet and people.” Therefore, capacity building and development for the implementation of the Nagoya Protocol are crucial, especially for developing countries. One of the most commonly identified new capacity building needs is digital sequence information on genetic resources and their roles in ABS. As a member of the CBD and the Nagoya Protocol, Vietnam has obligations to develop the National Strategy Framework on Biodiversity to 2030, with a vision to 2050, consistent with the requirements of the Post-2020 Global Biodiversity Framework, Protocols, and relevant Agreements. This includes developing recommendations on management of access to genetic resources and TK, as well as benefit sharing within the Draft of the National Biodiversity Strategy and Action Plan. This research aims to contribute to implement the Post-2020 Global Biodiversity Framework and the Nagoya Protocol in Vietnam by assessing the status of management regarding access to genetic resources, TK, and benefit sharing.

In 2007 the Indonesian government cited the United Nations’ Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) when it claimed sovereignty over influenza viruses isolated from within its territory, denying the World Health Organization (WHO) access to physical samples of H5N1 influenza virus. In response, WHO Member States adopted the Pandemic Influenza Preparedness Framework (PIP Framework) for the sharing of influenza viruses with human pandemic potential. This ended the political stalemate between Indonesia and the WHO, but the international community never addressed the broader legal issue at the core of Indonesia’s claim: do countries have sovereign authority over viruses isolated from within their territories? Answering this question is the starting point of this thesis and is crucial to creating legal certainty for international virus sharing and defending global health security. Genetic resources were largely treated as global public goods under international law until the entry into force of the CBD in 1993. This binding and widely-adopted convention situates genetic resources within the sovereign domain of the Nation State, allowing national governments to regulate access to genetic resources pursuant to their own environmental policies. The domestic laws and policies implemented in the wake of the CBD have created a diverse and complicated regime for accessing genetic resources and sharing benefits associated with their utilisation, referred to as ‘access and benefit-sharing’ (ABS). Until the present research, it has not been clear how these rules apply to viruses outside the narrow remit of pandemic influenza viruses under the PIP Framework. Virus samples are essential for ecological, agricultural and medical research and are vital inputs for the production of vaccines and antivirals. Most viruses are still accessed freely from the environment and shared informally between networks of scientific colleagues without regard to the domestic ABS policies of originating Nation States. This is starting to change as States begin to restrict access to virus samples to exchange them for monetary or non-monetary benefits. This trend is likely to impact scientific research and the development of novel biotechnologies, but it has the most disturbing consequences in the field of public health, where international negotiations over access to pathogenic virus samples can delay outbreak response efforts. This research examines the legalities of claiming sovereignty over viruses under international law and represents the first systematic effort to situate viruses within the international ABS regime. This research aims to: (1) clarify the status of viruses under international ABS law, (2) examine the facets of the international ABS regime that will shape future virus sharing practices, and (3) determine the impact of virus ABS on virological research. It draws together the key themes of law, scientific research and viruses. The legal question originally posed by Indonesia in 2007 and restated here as the first aim of this research is addressed by means of a textual analysis of the CBD and its Nagoya Protocol. Chapter 2 (published in the European Intellectual Property Review) demonstrates that all viruses are unequivocally ‘genetic resources’ within the remit of these international instruments. This finding clarifies the previously ambiguous status of all viruses as sovereign genetic resources under international law and forms the theoretical basis for the preponderance of this research. In effect, influenza viruses with human pandemic potential are regulated by the PIP Framework and all other viruses are subject to regulation under the CBD and Nagoya Protocol. Four chapters of this thesis address the second aim of this research, examining the facets of the current international ABS regime that will shape future virus sharing arrangements. Chapter 3 (published in the Journal of Law and Medicine) analyses temporality and the conceivable extension of sovereign rights to virus isolates collected before the entry into force of the CBD on 29 December 1993, using the ex situ repositories of smallpox virus held by the United States of America and the Russian Federation as a case study. Chapters 4 and 5 (published in the Journal of Law and Medicine and the Journal of World Intellectual Property respectively) are the first published papers to examine how provisions of the CBD and Nagoya Protocol relating to ‘traditional knowledge associated with genetic resources’ apply to viruses. These chapters provide proof of principle that Indigenous Peoples and Local Communities could possess virus-associated traditional knowledge that can be subject to benefit-sharing obligations. Chapter 6 (published in The Milbank Quarterly) critiques the ABS provisions of the PIP Framework as the only international virus-specific de facto ABS instrument. The Nagoya Protocol creates the flexibility to adopt specialised instruments outside of the default bilateral ABS system created by the CBD and Nagoya Protocol. Chapter 6 demonstrates that while the PIP Framework may be considered a multilateral ABS agreement, it secures just the access side of the ABS ‘grand bargain’ enshrined by the CBD. Chapter 6 cautions against the current proposals to expand the scope of the PIP Framework to include other pathogens. Chapter 7 (published in the Journal of Science Policy and Governance) addresses the third aim of this research by examining how ABS measures have impacted scientific research in the biological disciplines. It shows how domestic legislative, administrative and policy measures implementing the CBD and Nagoya Protocol create legal barriers to accessing genetic resources for biological research and can limit scientific innovation. It demonstrates that ABS policies will have a cooling effect on biotechnological research utilising viral genetic resources if countries start to impose similar legal barriers to accessing virus samples. Chapter 8 concludes that the international ABS regime already fetters virus sharing with unforeseen adverse impacts on global health security. Scientists require access to virus samples for research and development, and timely access to viruses that can cause diseases in humans, plants and animals is critical. As countries start to exercise their sovereign authority over viruses and restrict access to virus samples in order to influence benefit-sharing negotiations, it is ever more important that the international community comprehends the form and structure of virus ABS. This thesis fills the literature void as the first published research to explore the legal and practical issues of accessing virus samples and sharing the benefits associated with their use under the CBD and Nagoya Protocol. Given the deficiencies of the current ABS regime, this research forms the basis for an international debate about alternative models for regulating access to viruses and sharing the associated benefits. During public health emergencies, legal ambiguities around who can control access to viruses and at what price can delay the public health response and ultimately cost lives.

Oberthür, Sebastian, and G. Kristin Rosendal, eds. 2014. Global Governance of Genetic Resources: Access and Benefit Sharing after the Nagoya Protocol. New York and London: Routledge.

Protection of the Associated Traditional Knowledge on Genetic Resources: Beyond the Nagoya Protocol

The Agreement on Marine Biodiversity of Areas Beyond National Jurisdiction (BBNJ) is poised to play a critical role in regulating access to and benefit-sharing from Marine Genetic Resources (MGR) located in areas beyond national jurisdictions. MGR are increasingly valued for their potential in biotechnology, pharmaceuticals, and other scientific advancements, raising urgent questions about equitable benefit-sharing from these resources. The BBNJ Agreement introduces specific measures aimed at addressing these issues, but its effectiveness depends on harmonizing with other international frameworks, notably the Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPS), the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD), and the WIPO Treaty on Intellectual Property, Genetic Resources and Associated Traditional Knowledge (GRATK). This paper explores these intersections and identifies challenges to ensuring that benefits derived from MGR flow equitably to all parties, including developing nations and indigenous communities.First, the BBNJ Agreement brings to light the unique legal status of MGR in areas beyond national jurisdiction, where no single state holds sovereignty. Unlike the CBD, which primarily covers genetic resources within national territories, the BBNJ must address MGR in international waters, requiring cooperative frameworks among states. However, the agreement does not fully resolve the question of access rights or the distribution of benefits from MGR, which could result in exploitation by entities from wealthier nations unless robust regulations are established.Furthermore, while the CBD has advanced mechanisms for benefit-sharing, it focus on resources within national borders. The BBNJ will need to create parallel mechanisms suited for international waters, yet compatible with existing CBD and other instruments, to ensure a seamless integration of benefit-sharing practices. An additional challenge lies in identifying and recording the origin of genetic material in international waters to enable fair benefit distribution. Advances in traceability and transparency technologies, as well as international cooperation, will be essential for implementing effective monitoring under the BBNJ.In Latin America, and specifically in Brazil, the implementation of benefit-sharing for MGR presents unique challenges, especially where MGR are connected to traditional knowledge. In Brazil, many marine genetic resources are intertwined with the cultural practices and traditional knowledge of Indigenous and local communities, who have preserved and utilized these resources for generations. Additionally, regional cooperation within Latin America could foster a collective approach to these challenges, creating aligned benefit-sharing frameworks and reinforcing protections for traditional knowledge.In conclusion, implementing effective benefit-sharing mechanisms under the BBNJ Agreement will require addressing the legal and procedural gaps among BBNJ, TRIPS, CBD, and GRATK. It demands concerted international cooperation, regulatory innovation, and the deployment of new traceability technologies. Only through harmonization of these frameworks can the BBNJ’s goals be realized, ensuring that MGR from international waters serve as a shared resource and source of equitable benefits, particularly for those nations and communities historically marginalized in global resource-sharing arrangements. This paper proposes potential policy recommendations for navigating these complex intersections and ensuring that the promise of the BBNJ Agreement is fulfilled through fair, transparent, and inclusive benefit-sharing practices.

The ecosystem approach—as endorsed by the Convention on Biological Diversity (CDB) in 2000—is a strategy for holistic, sustainable, and equitable natural resource management, to be implemented via the 12 Malawi Principles. These principles describe the need to manage nature in terms of dynamic ecosystems, while fully engaging with local peoples. It is an ambitious concept. Today, the term is common throughout the research and policy literature on environmental management. However, multiple meanings have been attached to the term, resulting in confusion. We reviewed references to the ecosystem approach from 1957 to 2012 and identified 3 primary uses: as an alternative to ecosystem management or ecosystem-based management; in reference to an integrated and equitable approach to resource management as per the CBD; and as a term signifying a focus on understanding and valuing ecosystem services. Although uses of this term and its variants may overlap in meaning, typically, they do not entirely reflect the ethos of the ecosystem approach as defined by the CBD. For example, there is presently an increasing emphasis on ecosystem services, but focusing on these alone does not promote decentralization of management or use of all forms of knowledge, both of which are integral to the CBD’s concept. We highlight that the Malawi Principles are at risk of being forgotten. To better understand these principles, more effort to implement them is required. Such efforts should be evaluated, ideally with comparative approaches, before allowing the CBD’s concept of holistic and socially engaged management to be abandoned or superseded. It is possible that attempts to implement all 12 principles together will face many challenges, but they may also offer a unique way to promote holistic and equitable governance of natural resources. Therefore, we believe that the CBD’s concept of the ecosystem approach demands more attention.La Necesidad de Desenredar Conceptos Clave del Argot Ambiente-EstrategiaResumenLa estrategia ambiental – como es promocionada por la Convención Biológica sobre Diversidad en 2000 – es una estrategia para un manejo holístico, sustentable y equitativo de recursos naturales, que habrá de implementarse por vía de los 12 Principios de Malawi. Estos principios describen la necesidad de manejar la naturaleza en términos de ecosistemas dinámicos, mientras se compromete totalmente con las personas locales. Es un concepto ambicioso. Hoy en día, el término es común en la investigación y la literatura de políticas sobre el manejo ambiente. Sin embargo, se han relacionado múltiples significados con el término, lo que resulta en confusión. Revisamos referencias a la estrategia ambiental de 1957 a 2012 e identificamos tres usos principales: como una alternativa para manejo ambiental o basado en ecosistemas; en referencia a una estrategia integrada y equitativa para el manejo de recursos según la CBD; y como un término que indica un enfoque en el entendimiento y la valuación de los servicios ambientales. Aunque los usos de este término y sus variantes pueden traslaparse en su significado, típicamente no reflejan en su totalidad los valores de la estrategia ambiental como fue definida por la CBD. Por ejemplo, actualmente hay un énfasis creciente en los servicios ambientales, pero enfocarse solamente en estos no promueve la descentralización del manejo o el uso de todas las formas de conocimiento, siendo ambas integrales para el concepto de la CBD. Resaltamos que los Principios de Malawi están en riesgo de ser olvidados. Para entender mejor estos principios, se requiere de más esfuerzo para implementarlos. Dichos esfuerzos deben ser evaluados, idóneamente con estrategias comparativas, antes de permitir que el concepto de la CBD de manejo holístico y comprometido socialmente sea abandonado o reemplazado. Es posible que los intentos por implementar los 12 principios juntos enfrentarán muchos obstáculos, pero también pueden ofrecer una forma única de promover el gobierno holístico y equitativo de los recursos naturales. Así, creemos que el concepto de estrategia ambiental de la CBD exige mayor atención.

In an era of a rapidly shrinking biological resources, the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) is a historic landmark, being the first global agreement on the conservation and sustainable use of biological diversity. The CBD is one of the few international agreements in the area of natural resource conservation in which sustainability and equitable benefit-sharing are central concerns. The CBD links traditional conservation efforts to the economic goal of using biological resources sustainably and sets forth principles for the fair and equitable sharing of the benefits arising from the use of genetic resources, notably those destined for commercial use. Importantly, the CBD also gives traditional knowledge its due place in the sustainable use of genetic resources. The CBD also covers the rapidly expanding field of biotechnology, addressing technology development and transfer, benefit-sharing and biosafety, in an equitable framework. In the coming years, the CBD is likely to have major repercussions on the way biodiversity is conserved and benefits thereof, shared between the developing and developed worlds. The following commentary on the CBD has drawn heavily from a document produced by Secretariat of the Convention on Biological Diversity, at the United Nations Environment Programme. Articles 1 to 21 of the CBD have also been reproduced here in order to disseminate knowledge regarding the principles of the CBD-Editor.

The continued sustenance of human being is, to a large extent, dependent on the conservation and/or preservation of the biological diversity in his particular environment. The totality of living thing around human being - ecosystems, species and genetic resources - is useful for his existence and sustained development as well. But over the ages, biological diversity has been challenged by different issues like degradation, pollution, alien invasions and so forth which has led to the extinction of some biological diversity at one time or the other. In addition to these is the crucial challenge of patenting the traditional knowledge in genetic resources of traditional communities without due regard to same as their cultural heritage that need yield economic interest as well as morally deserving attribution. The international frameworks to tackle this challenge have also addressed the need to have different interests protected including the local or indigenous communities. With the aid of doctrinal method of research, this work aim at exploring the provisions of the international instruments being the Convention on Biological Diversity and the Nagoya Protocol on Access to Equitable Sharing of Benefits arising from the utilization of genetic resources cum how they relate to the protection of local and indigenous communities. It concludes that the instruments are targeted towards human sustainability generally but needs domestication and enforcement in our developing environments for there to be efficacy in the protection of the traditional knowledge in the biodiversity of local communities from misuse, misappropriation and abuse.

The Nagoya Protocol on Access and Benefit-sharing (ABS) of the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) is a fundamental international agreement that plays a crucial role in the protection and equitable utilization of plant genetic resources. While this agreement is essential for conservation and sustainable use, it presents specific challenges to coffee research and industry. One major issue is the requirement to obtain prior informed consent (PIC) from the source country or community, which can be a complex and time-consuming process, especially in regions with limited governance capacity. Additionally, the mandates of this agreement necessitate benefit-sharing with the source community, a requirement that poses implementation challenges, particularly for small businesses or individual researchers. Despite these challenges, the importance of the Nagoya Protocol in the coffee sector cannot be overstated. It contributes significantly to the conservation of coffee genetic resources and the sustainable utilization of these resources, ensuring fair distribution of benefits. To address the complexities presented by this international framework, coffee researchers and industry need to engage proactively with source countries and communities. This includes developing clear and equitable benefit-sharing and implementing strategies for compliance. This article explores the impact of the Nagoya Protocol on the coffee industry, particularly emphasizing the need for balancing scientific investigation with the ethical considerations of resource sharing. It also discusses practical strategies for navigating the complexities of this agreement, including research focused on authenticity control and the challenges in conducting large-scale coffee studies. The conclusion underscores the potential for international collaboration, particularly through platforms like the International Coffee Organization (ICO), to harmonize research activities with the ethical imperatives of the Nagoya Protocol.

The Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) is one of the successful international treaties that is steadily progressing with the realization of its stated objectives. Conservation of biological diversity, sustainable use of biological resources and equitable sharing of benefits with the people for utilization of their traditional knowledge and resources are gaining global acceptance. When the CBD addresses the larger issues of global biodiversity conservation and utilization of biological resources for developmental purposes, the specific problems concerning biosafety brought out by biotechnology, and access and benefit sharing are left to the Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety and the Nagoya Protocol on Access and Benefit Sharing, respectively. The Nagoya-Kuala Lumpur Supplementary Protocol on Liability and Redress emerging out of living modified organisms is the latest addition under the CBD. India, being one of the oldest surviving civilizations with indigenous people and their wisdom and as one of the megadiverse countries, has high stakes in conserving biological diversity and protecting the traditional knowledge base of its indigenous and local communities. India has many domestic legal and policy instruments to govern biodiversity and biosafety issues. This chapter critically looks at the international legal obligations for India under the CBD as well as the Cartagena Protocol, Nagoya Protocol and the Nagoya-Kuala Lumpur Supplementary Protocol and evaluates the level of their domestic implementation in India. Recently, the Government of India has ratified both the Protocols under the CBD, and many changes are expected in the domestic regulatory frameworks. This chapter will examine the effectiveness of existing domestic regulatory mechanisms and the alternative options available to India in implementing the CBD and its Protocols.

Article 27 of the Nagoya Protocol establishes the institutional and procedural linkages between the Protocol and the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD). The article 27 addresses: the performance of functions by subsidiary bodies of the CBD in relation to the Protocol; which States are entitled to participate in the proceedings of subsidiary bodies; and who is entitled to act as an officer of a subsidiary body. Notably, the Nagoya Protocol foresees the possibility that CBD subsidiary bodies will support the work of the Nagoya Protocol Conference of the Parties (COP) serving as the Meeting of the Parties (MOP) to the Nagoya Protocol, without the need for a decision to this end to be taken by the COP/MOP. The CBD subsidiary bodies, such as the Working Group on Review of Implementation or the Working Group on Article 8(j) on traditional knowledge, could address issues related to the implementation of the Protocol.Keywords: Conference of the Parties (COP); Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD); Meeting of the Parties (MOP); Nagoya Protocol; subsidiary bodies

With the advent of synthetic biology, scientists are increasingly relying on digital sequence information, instead of physical genetic resources. This article examines the potential impact of this shift on the access and benefit-sharing (ABS) regime of the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) and the Nagoya Protocol. These treaties require benefit-sharing with the owners of genetic resources. However, whether “genetic resources” include digital sequence information is unsettled. The CBD conceives genetic resources as genetic material containing functional units of heredity. “Material” implies tangibility, and for some scholars, “functional units of heredity,” undefined in both treaties, mean full-coding sequences. This article argues that digital sequence information obtained from physical genetic resources, full-coding or not, should be treated as genetic resources. Literal construction of the CBD risks eroding its usefulness and the ABS regime. This is because through bioinformatics, sequence information can easily be obtained from genetic resources for utilization, without physically moving them or concluding ABS agreement with owners. The CBD must evolve with scientific progress also because sequence functionality depends on the state of knowledge. These arguments are vindicated by domestic ABS laws equating genetic information with genetic resources; Nagoya Protocol provisions deeming research exploiting the genetic composition of genetic resources as utilization of genetic resources; and CBD provisions requiring the sharing of benefits from the utilization of genetic resources. Moreover, treaty interpretation and case law demand that generic, scientific terms, such as “genetic resources” and “functional units of heredity” be interpreted in an evolutionary manner to capture scientific developments.

Societal Impact StatementThe Fourth Industrial Revolution is underway. Controversy surrounds the choice of modality for access to genetic resources and the fair and equitable sharing of benefits arising from their utilization, as established in the third objective of the Convention on Biological Diversity. The modality chosen by the Conference of the Parties should promote conservation and sustainable use of genetic resources, which are the first and second objectives of the convention. “Bounded openness over natural information” achieves all three objectives by aligning incentives between users and Providers. With philanthropic support, the modality can also be applied to unpublished traditional knowledge, which would enhance food security.SummarySeveral international agreements have provisions for “access to genetic resources” and “fair and equitable sharing of benefits arising from [their] utilization” (ABS). The optimal modality has proven elusive for the United Nations Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) and Nagoya Protocol (NP). Such failure need not be so. We embrace reductionism and partition genetic resources into tangible and intangible attributes and classify the latter as natural or artificial information. The economics of information justifies “rents,” which is the difference between what is paid and what would have been paid in a competitive market. Fairness and equity imply protection for natural information equal to that of artificial information. Bilateralism eliminates rents through competition and renders royalties infinitesimal, thus defeating ABS. The proposed Global Multilateral Benefit‐Sharing Mechanism (GMBSM) could capture rents and distribute royalty income proportional to habitat for terrestrial species, and to CO2reductions for marine species and wild relatives of crops. Alignment of incentives for conservation would facilitate transition to half‐Earth. Domesticated species require stronger incentives for conservation than do nondomesticated species. The Multilateral System (MLS) of The International Treaty on Plant Genetic Resources for Food and Agriculture (ITPGRFA) should be expanded. Enclosure of traditional knowledge not yet in public domain through a benefit‐sharing mechanism could incentivize communities to deposit samples into the CGIAR Genebanks and resume seed exchange, which is essential for food security. A robust modality of ABS for the CBD, NP, ITPGRFA and other agreements is “bounded openness.”

Issues related to indigenous peoples and environmental law were discussed in 2010 in several human rights bodies and processes, at the tenth Conference of the Parties (COP-10) to the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD), and under or in connection with the international climate change regime. Highlights include the prominent inclusion of traditional knowledge in the Nagoya Protocol on Access to Genetic Resources and the Fair and Equitable Sharing of Benefits Arising from Their Utilization to the CBD (Nagoya Protocol), in-depth discussions on indigenous rights and corporate accountability, and progress on reducing emissions from deforestation and forest degradation, conservation of forest-carbon stocks, sustainable management of forests, and enhancement of forest-carbon stocks (REDD+). This report will start with a review of the general developments on indigenous peoples’ rights that are relevant for international environmental law, focusing on developments in human rights bodies and processes related to conflicts between environmental protection and indigenous rights, on the one hand, and corporate accountability with respect to indigenous peoples on the other. It will then review the outcomes of the CBD COP-10 that are of relevance for indigenous peoples, including an overview of the international obligations related to access to, and benefit sharing from, the use of traditional knowledge and genetic resources held by indigenous and local communities contained in the Nagoya Protocol. The report will turn to the indigenous rights implications of ongoing negotiations on REDD + in a post-2012 international regime on climate change, as discussed under the CBD, international programs supporting REDD pilot activities, and the international climate change regime.

The Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD), adopted in 1992 and entered into force at the end of 1993, established a global regime on access to genetic resources (GR) and sharing of benefits arising from their utilization (Access and Benefit Sharing (ABS) regime). Its protocol—the Nagoya Protocol (NP)—which entered into force 21 years later in 2014, clears up some terminological ambiguities of the Convention, clarifies and develops several procedural and instrumental elements of the regime, and obliges States Parties to implement some of its provisions, including the core instrument of the regime: the bilateral ABS agreement between users and providers of GR, that became a condition for obtaining access to the resource. However, scholars who analyzed the ABS regime as well as its official bodies find, and sometimes deplore, the small number of ABS agreements concluded so far, under the CBD as under the NP. This paper has two objectives: First, to assess the effectiveness of the ABS regime implemented by the CBD and the NP on the basis of its central instrument: the ABS agreements concluded between users and providers of GR. The aim is to accurately document the number of ABS agreements concluded since the entry into force of the regime. To our knowledge, such a counting that is neither piecemeal nor has an estimate yet been produced. To do so, I combine several sources, including first hand data collected from the official information agencies—the National Focal Points (NFP)—of each of the States Parties to the NP. Second, I provide a critical summary of the existing explanations of the low number of ABS agreements concluded and I evaluate the corresponding causal mechanisms, relying on the results I obtained regarding the number of permits and agreements.