Abstract

The effectiveness and success of benefit-sharing measures to date, particularly in contributing towards the conservation and sustainable use of biodiversity, has been questionable. This is likely related to the degree of beneficial impacts versus burden on the users and regulatory authorities in terms of administrative complexities. It is, therefore, timely to reconsider which forms of benefit-sharing may most favourably balance the associated beneficial and burdensome aspects. The aim of this paper is to develop and demonstrate a benefit-sharing balance methodology which can be used as a tool to help decision-makers to select options in an objective and transparent manner. Application in the biodiversity beyond national jurisdiction context provides a useful example of how this tool can be used. Results suggest that sharing of genetic sequence data and research results provide the most favourable balance in terms of non-monetary benefit sharing, whilst the most favourable monetary benefit-sharing options were associated with research funding and salaries. The benefit-sharing balance methodology presented here provides a useful tool and starting point, which can be built upon in the future, to include more detailed information gathered from expert groups to consolidate the perceived balance of beneficial impacts versus burden. In addition, the equation can be tailored according to different policy settings where different benefit-sharing factors may be more appropriate. Ultimately, use of this tool could help to enhance implementation of benefit-sharing policies/legislation with greater potential to balance beneficial impacts with associated burden, thereby enhancing workability of the access and benefit-sharing system as a whole.

Highlights

  • According to Article 1 of the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD, 1992), the objective of the Convention is ‘the conservation of biological diversity, the sustainable use of its components and the fair and equitable sharing of the benefits arising out of the utilization of genetic resources’1.Article 15.7 of the Convention takes a step further by stating that Parties shall take measures to share benefits such as results of research and development (R&D) and benefits arising from commercial and other utilization of genetic resources (CBD, 1992)

  • Results suggest that sharing of genetic sequence data and research results provide the most favourable balance in terms of non-monetary benefit sharing, whilst the most favourable monetary benefit-sharing options were associated with research funding and salaries

  • BBNJ context: relevant goals include contributing towards conservation of marine biological diversity of ABNJ, promoting sustainable use of MGR from ABNJ, fostering scientific R&D and promoting fair and equitable benefit-sharing (Art 140, UNCLOS, 1982; CBD, 1992; Harden-Davies and Gjerde, 2019; Collins et al, 2020)

Read more

Summary

Introduction

According to Article 1 of the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD, 1992), the objective of the Convention is ‘the conservation of biological diversity, the sustainable use of its components and the fair and equitable sharing of the benefits arising out of the utilization of genetic resources’1.Article 15.7 of the Convention takes a step further by stating that Parties shall take measures to share benefits such as results of research and development (R&D) and benefits arising from commercial and other utilization of genetic resources (CBD, 1992). According to Article 1 of the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD, 1992), the objective of the Convention is ‘the conservation of biological diversity, the sustainable use of its components and the fair and equitable sharing of the benefits arising out of the utilization of genetic resources’. Of biological diversity, the sustainable use of its components and the fair and equitable sharing of the benefits arising out of the utilization of genetic resources, including by appropriate access to genetic resources and by appropriate transfer of relevant technologies, taking into account all rights over those resources and to technologies, and by appropriate funding.’. The terms ‘fair’ and ‘equitable’ are not clearly defined (de Jonge, 2011; Morgera, 2014) This can lead to difficulties between stakeholder groups in terms of different interpreted definitions and requirements associated with benefit-sharing, as well as differences in motivation with respect to the notion (de Jonge, 2009, 2011). A list of types of nonmonetary and monetary benefits that can be shared are listed in the Annex of the Nagoya Protocol (2011)

Objectives
Methods
Results
Discussion
Conclusion
Full Text
Paper version not known

Talk to us

Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have

Schedule a call

Disclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.