Art. 10 Nagoya Protocol

The third indicative question for round 2 of the online discussions on Article 10 of the Nagoya Protocol is as follows:

What influence might other articles of the Nagoya Protocol have in the context of a global multilateral benefit-sharing mechanism?

The second set of indicative and additional questions for round 2 of the online discussions on Article 10 of the Nagoya Protocol is as follows:

What could be the advantages and disadvantages of a global multilateral benefit-sharing mechanism?
- As a provider of genetic resources or associated traditional knowledge, what problems would a global multilateral benefit-sharing mechanism (a) create and (b) solve?
- As a user of genetic resources or associated traditional knowledge, what problems would a global multilateral benefit-sharing mechanism (a) create and (b) solve?
- If there is no global multilateral benefit-sharing mechanism, what problems would remain?

The first set of indicative and additional questions for round 2 of the online discussions on Article 10 of the Nagoya Protocol is as follows:

How might the operation of a global multilateral benefit-sharing mechanism co-exist with the underlying principles, objective and scope upon which the Nagoya Protocol is based?
- How to apply Art. 10 and 11 without causing harm to the principle of the sovereign right of states over their natural resources?
- How to ensure that a global multilateral benefit-sharing mechanism does not represent a disincentive for implementation of the bilateral system of the Protocol?

Round 2 of the discussion groups on Art. 10 of the Nagoya Protocol is now closed. Thank you all very much for your contributions to the discussions and the very active participation to date. All the postings from both rounds 1 and 2 will remain available online: http://absch.cbd.int/Art10_groups.shtml.

I invite you to turn your attention to round 3 of the discussion groups. Participants registered in the discussion groups will shortly receive messages with the next set of indicative and additional questions.

I hope you will continue to be as active in round 3 as you have been in the discussions to date.

Thank you,
Kathryn

Dear participants,

Please recall that discussions under this round will close this Sunday, May 5th at approximately 22h00 Montreal-time (02h00 UTC/GMT on Monday, May 6th, convert to your local time: http://www.timeanddate.com/worldclock/converter.html). Discussions on round 3 will open at approximately the same time.

Please also remember to be respectful in the tone of messages posted to the discussions and recall that intended nuances in tone may be lost in written discussions, particularly for those working in a second language. The terms and conditions of use of the online discussions may be found here: http://absch.cbd.int/cms/ui/forums/forumsterms.aspx. The Secretariat reserves the right to remove contributions or parts thereof that contain inappropriate language.

Thank you.

I have a comment which is difficult to exclusively relate to a single of the questions allowed in this round. May it nevertheless be heard.
1. The sharing of monetary gains as proposed by Prof. Vogel and Dr. Ruiz is commendable because it allows to get rid of the intricacies of PIC and MAT as well as of differentiating between non-commercial and commercial utilisation of genetic resources. Authors of the upcoming book “Common Pools of Genetic Ressources” (eds Evanson Chege Kamau and Gerd Winter) also support this idea although develop it rather from a sociological than economical perspective.
2. More important than the sharing of monetary gains is however the question how R & D on genetic resources and traditional knowledge can be organised in cooperation between resource and user states so that capacity building and technology development and transfer becomes reality. Such cooperative systems could at the same time take responsibility for monetary benefit sharing (if any). The interesting fact is that many multilateral systems of this kind already exist without an international legal framework. In the mentioned book we perceive them as transnational common pools of genetic resources and traditional knowledge (or transnational networks of the relevant actors). The following types can be distinguished:
- grassroots pools/networks which aim at local services
- basic research pools/networks encompassing collections of organisms and information
- applied research pools/networks
- commercial development pools/networks
An international legal instrument could be designed which sets a framework for such pools and networks helping them to develop further and cope with ABS requirements. Such instrument could be based on articles 4, 10 and 11 collectively.

Dear all,
To ensure this, the multilateral approach should be restricted to situations in which requirements linked to access to genetic resources and the sharing of benefits resulting from their utilization cannot be met on a bilateral level; the multilateral approach should aim to complement bilateral arrangements and enhance benefit-sharing under the Nagoya Protocol. Thus it could be used to address cases, for example, in which genetic resources had been accessed prior to the new international rules on ABS or in which the traditional knowledge utilized was dispersed across national boundaries.
Regards,
O.A.ElKawy