Regarding the implementation of these provisions, Guinea-Bissau has appointed a national focal point for the Nagoya Protocol, linked to the Ministry responsible for the environment, currently the Ministry of Environment and Climate Action . This appointment ensures institutional dialogue with the Secretariat of the Convention on Biological Diversity and facilitates national communication and coordination regarding access and benefit-sharing.

However, Guinea-Bissau does not yet have one or more national authorities formally designated and specifically mandated to perform the roles of the competent national authority on access and benefit-sharing, as provided for in Article XIII(2) of the Nagoya Protocol. This institutional gap is directly related to the lack, to date, of a specific legal framework on access and benefit-sharing that clearly establishes the competences, attributions, procedures and responsibilities of the different public entities dealing with access to genetic resources and the sharing of benefits arising from their utilization

However, the creation of the checkpoint has not yet materialized due to the lack of a legal framework, as mentioned earlier. Consequently, no information has been published on the ABSCH website, as it has not yet been established.

Guinea-Bissau lacks hitherto a specific and comprehensive legal framework that establishes, domestically, the rules and procedures necessary for implementing the obligations arising from the Nagoya Protocol on Access to Genetic Resources and the Fair and Equitable Sharing of Benefits Arising from their Use. Nevertheless, a Draft Law on Access to Genetic Resources and the Fair and Equitable Sharing of Benefits Arising from their Utilization has been prepared and approved by the Council of Ministers on behalf of the Government. This legislation aims to establish the legal and institutional framework applicable to access to genetic resources and associated traditional knowledge, as well as the fair and equitable sharing of benefits arising from their use The Draft Law, however, is not yet in force, since, due to the nature of the subject matter to be regulated, its final approval is incumbent on the People's National Assembly, in accordance with the Constitution and applicable legislation. After parliamentary approval, the legislation shall be submitted to the President of the Republic for promulgation, and subsequently published in the Official Gazette, requirements necessary for its entry into force, in accordance with the national legal system.The delay in wrapping up this legislative process stems, among other factors, from the persistent political and institutional instability that has affected the normal functioning of State institutions, notably the dissolution of the National People's Assembly and consequent falls of Government. Notwithstanding these limitations, the current Government expresses its commitment to taking the necessary steps to wrap up the legislative process, with a view to the approval, promulgation and publication of the legislation and the consequent entry into force of the specific legal regime for access and benefit-sharing. Until specific legislation on access to genetic resources and benefit-sharing is adopted and enters into force, the national implementation of the Nagoya Protocol is based, in part, on the existing environmental and natural resource management legal framework, whose provisions may contribute, albeit in a fragmented and indirect way, to the fulfilment of certain obligations arising from the Protocol. In this context, the Framework Law on Protected Areas, approved by Law No. 5-A/2011 of March 1, takes on added relevance. This law establishes the legal regime applicable to protected areas, including the rules relating to their creation, classification and declassification, management models, zoning and conditions of access to and use of natural resources existing in these areas.In summary, the legal framework currently in force in Guinea-Bissau presents normative elements that can contribute, directly or indirectly, to the implementation of certain aspects of the Nagoya Protocol. However, the lack, to date, of specific legislation on access to genetic resources and the fair and equitable sharing of benefits arising from their utilization constitutes one of the main gaps in the national legal system. Overcoming this shortcoming will depend largely on the wrapping up of the ongoing legislative process and the subsequent operationalization of the institutional and administrative mechanisms necessary for the effective implementation of the access and benefit-sharing regime.

Unfortunately, this information was not disclosed at the ABS Clearing House. This situation is due to lack of follow-up on past emissions. However, it is expected that all information will be shared soon.

The lack of a legal framework and a robust structure governing the implementation of the APA limits control over access to and the sharing of genetic resources and associated knowledge. For this reason, access to genetic resources authorised by the Ministry of the Environment and Climate Action did not take into account the views of the local community, even though they had participated in the fieldwork. Translated with DeepL.com (free version)

The rule was laid down in a draft bill which has not yet been passed.

In fact, no information has been provided or published on how to gain access to, or request access to, the country’s genetic material. This is because there is no specific law governing this matter, owing to a lack of legal provisions. However, it will be published as soon as it has been approved and enacted.

This provision has been made in the event that the bill is passed. It has been stipulated that the competent national authority will issue a decision following the submission of an expert opinion, which will be sought whenever a request for genetic material is made.

Provision had been made for the issue of a permit, and five access permits have already been issued. These permits were submitted by the Ministry of the Environment and Climate Action.

This reality is evident, and the Ministry of Environment and Climate Action (MAAC) has already granted a total of five authorizations for access to genetic material, of which three were established in Mutually Agreed Terms (MAT). The first two authorizations were granted in 2021, following a request from the Higher Institute of Agronomy of Lisbon University (ISA-UL), and permission was granted to obtain samples of genetic material from wild fauna. Subsequently, MAAC and ISA-UL signed a MAT. In 2022, a similar case occurred, with three requests submitted, all of which were approved and formalized in Mutually Agreed Terms (MAT). Since then, MAAC has no records of any new requests. However, according to information provided by IBAP, several requests of extraction of flora and fauna specimens were authorized for sea turtles and crustaceans. In addition, water samples for environmental DNA studies were also requested by two Guinean students.

Not yet, because it hasn’t been passed. So it remains merely a bill. However, it sets out the guidelines that must be followed in order to establish mutually agreed loan terms.

It has not yet been published, but will be published as soon as a specific law on access to and the sharing of genetic resources and associated knowledge has been enacted.

Appropriate, effective, and proportionate measures to ensure the use of resources under the jurisdiction of Guinea-Bissau based on prior and informed consent are foreseen in the draft law, which, to date, has not been approved. However, some laws apply, namely the Framework Law on Protected Areas and the Forestry Law. Nonetheless, these laws are not specific in nature, yet they safeguard national sovereignty over natural resources. The Framework Law on Protected Areas, although not specifically addressing the regulation of access to genetic resources or the sharing of benefits arising from their use, its legal regime presents nonetheless relevant points of contact with some objectives of the Nagoya Protocol. Indeed, considering the intrinsic relationship between biological and genetic resources, the rules governing access, use, and management of natural resources existing in conservation units can constitute complementary instruments for the implementation of some of the obligations arising from the Protocol, particularly with regard to the control and regulation of access to resources.Another relevant piece of legislation is the Forestry Law, approved by Law No. 5/2011, of February 22, establishing the legal regime for the protection, conservation, use, and management of forest resources. This law, inter alia, subjects access to, and exploitation of, the public forest domain to compliance with certain conditions and the securing of prior authorization from the competent authorities. For the purposes of implementing the Nagoya Protocol, the recognition of local communities’ role in the management, conservation, and use of forest resources is of particular importance. The Forestry Law recognizes, namely, the existence of sacred woods and forests subject to the management of local communities in accordance with their respective uses and customs, thus recognizing the relevance of traditional and customary systems of natural resource management. The forestry legislation also provides for the possibility of the State assigning the management of certain portions of the forest territory to local communities, through the regime of community forests. This mechanism can be seen as an important legal basis for recognizing the participation of local communities in the management of natural resources and can contribute to the realization of certain principles underlying the Nagoya Protocol, especially regarding the participation of communities in decision-making concerning the natural resources under their management. However, the existing forestry legal framework does not specifically establish the mechanisms required by the Nagoya Protocol for access to genetic resources and associated traditional knowledge. In particular, the legislation does not establish a complete legal regime regarding the prior informed consent of local communities or other rights holders, the mutually agreed terms applicable to access, nor the mechanisms for the fair and equitable distribution of monetary and non-monetary benefits arising from the use of genetic resources and associated traditional knowledge. In this context, although the legislation relating to protected areas and forest resources contains provisions that may contribute to the implementation of certain elements of the Nagoya Protocol, legal gaps remain, thus justifying the adoption of a specific legal regime for access and benefit-sharing. It is also important to mention the existence of a draft law specifically aimed at the protection, conservation, and management of mangrove ecosystems, which has undergone technical validation and is awaiting approval from the relevant authorities. This instrument’s eventual adoption could contribute to strengthening the national legal framework for biodiversity conservation and the sustainable management of natural resources associated with mangrove ecosystems and could also complement the legal instruments relevant to the Nagoya Protocol’s implementation.

This scheme was set out in the draft bill, which has not yet been passed.

This scheme was set out in the draft bill, which has not yet been passed.

Established in the second paragraph of Article XVI of the Protocol. Each Party shall adopt appropriate, effective and proportionate measures to address situations of non-compliance with appropriate legislative, administrative or policy measures, in order to ensure that traditional knowledge associated with genetic resources used within its jurisdiction has been obtained with prior informed consent, or with the approval and participation of indigenous and local communities, and that mutually agreed terms have been established, in accordance with the legislation’s guidelines (SCBD, 2014). However, lack of specific national legislation prevents the implementation of these measures, since compliance with the rules is not required given the absence of a regulatory normative regime.

For the time being, there is only one draft bill. No measures have been adopted to ensure the appropriate use of traditional knowledge for the benefit of the local community.

At the time of writing this report, no control point had been established to monitor access to genetic material, owing to the fact that the protocol has not been fully implemented in the country.

Due to the successive political problems the country has been facing, it has not been possible to adopt measures aimed at developing the protocol. This includes establishing terms that encourage the implementation of mutually agreed-upon terms.

A communication system specifically designed to publicize the protocol has not yet been established. However, the country supports and encourages the use of communication channels—such as social media and traditional radio—as cost-effective tools.

Guinea-Bissau has encouraged the inclusion of provisions regarding disputes over access to and sharing of genetic resources. Clauses have been established to facilitate the resolution of such disputes.

The Guinean legal system ensures that legal remedies are available should there be a need to resolve disputes concerning access; although there is no specific law on this matter, there are other sector-specific laws.

The Guinean legal system guarantees justice for all, regardless of physical, racial, or economic status, thereby ensuring equality for all under the law.The Guinean legal system guarantees the possibility of using legal remedies to resolve disputes related to access, although there is no specific law to that effect. However, there are other sector-specific laws that can be invoked.

Not yet, since there is currently no provision ensuring the mutual recognition and enforcement of foreign judgments and non-arbitral awards. However, it is expected that, as implementation of the Protocol progresses, such a provision will be adopted.

Guinea-Bissau has always facilitated unrestricted access to genetic material for research purposes. Institutions working in the field of conservation provide access to genetic resources to any person or entity, provided it is for research purposes, without compromising the involvement of local experts in the research and the subsequent sharing of results. The development of legislation has reinforced the existing practice, emphasizing the community-based aspect.

The ABS bill took into account the possibility of an emergency situation arising; therefore, an ad hoc commission was established to analyze the situation and issue a technical opinion to the competent national authority, so that the authority can make a decision based on that analysis.

These terms have been considered, but no specific methods for their practical implementation have yet been established.

Through its ABS bill, Guinea-Bissau has established, in Article 12(c), that plant genetic resources listed in Annex I of the International Treaty on Plant Genetic Resources for Food and Agriculture, signed in Rome on June 6, 2002, are excluded when they are used strictly for agricultural and food purposes, as provided for in the Treaty. c) The acquisition or trade of resources, where such acquisitions or trade are not intended for, nor result in, the use of such assets as genetic resources for biotrade and bioprospecting related to genetic resources.

In Guinea-Bissau, it is only local communities that hold genetic resources and the associated knowledge.

The bill has yet to be approved by the courts. The local community is not authorized to grant access to genetic resources; that authority rests with the competent national authority (ANC). However, any establishment of a TMA must always take into account the community from which the genetic material will be collected.

A draft bill on access to genetic resources and associated knowledge has been drawn up.

This has not yet been taken into account, due to the limited progress made in implementing the protocol.

The specific bill in the ABS area in question, mentioned throughout this document, provides for the State's recognition and protection of the rights of local communities regarding the use of their traditional knowledge associated with the country's genetic resources. This safeguard encompasses the local communities’ intellectual property rights, granting them the privilege of consenting to access to their traditional knowledge and participating in the negotiation of the sharing of proceeds from the use of their resources and associated knowledge. However, as explained above, the bill lacks a legal framework, which prevents its application and, consequently, the implementation of the protocol’s Article XII.

With regard to the implementation of the protocol, there has been no direct support for local development, as no requests have ever been made for access to genetic resources for commercial purposes, which could have yielded economic benefits. All concessions issued as of the time of this report’s preparation are intended for scientific research purposes. The Government of Guinea-Bissau does not allocate funds for the implementation of the protocol or to support the communities from which genetic resources are collected. However, the Institute for Biodiversity and Protected Areas (IBAP) has supported community development, notably through the construction of wells, schools, and palm oil processing centers. This support falls under funding allocated for biodiversity conservation and the local development support component.

Yes, efforts have been made to prevent the illegal export of genetic material by helping communities understand the value of genetic resources through awareness-raising activities. However, there are still many cases of illegal exports of genetic material authorized directly by the community.

In the absence of specific and explicit legislation relating to the ABS in the country, the authorizations issued are exclusively meant for scientific research purposes. If information is shared with the aim of complying with the MATs, this can represent a significant contribution to the knowledge on the species, thus contributing to the development of national monitoring policies for these species

On the other hand, IBAP has already issued several authorizations on access, to and export of, genetic resources to its partners, such as ISPA (University Institute of Psychological, Social and Life Sciences) and ULisboa (Lisbon University), among others. This proposal aims to reformulate cooperation with partners in the development of scientific studies, aiming at analysing the state of the country's biodiversity. Sharing has produced concrete results for biodiversity conservation. The sharing of information through a regional study made it possible to verify that turtles that nest in Guinea-Bissau use the Banco Arguim National Park in Mauritania and the Saloum Delta in Senegal as feeding areas. This result promoted cooperation and regional support for nature conservation throughout the West African Coast.

There has not yet been any case of this nature. However, if such a case were to arise, the differences between the two parties would be taken into account.

There has not yet been any request of this nature. However, should such a request arise, the differences between the two parties will be taken into account. Guinea-Bissau has established conservation agreements with neighboring countries, notably Guinea (Conakry) and Senegal, which would greatly facilitate the resolution of any case involving both parties.

Unfortunately, to date, as of the preparation of this report, a model of mutually agreed terms has not been established. There are also no cases of promoting the development of voluntary codes of conduct or guidelines and best practices on access and fair sharing of benefits. However, as a member of the AU, Guinea-Bissau adopts and implements the AU's practical guidelines on ABS.

For now, due to the protocol's poor implementation.

As established in Article XXI of the protocol, the parties involved are responsible for promoting awareness and dissemination of the protocol and its objectives at the national level (SCBD, 2014). Following the ratification of the protocol in 2014, Guinea-Bissau implemented an awareness campaign covering four sectors in the country. This initiative involved representatives from the country’s eight regions, as well as the Bissau Autonomous Sector, i.e., the regions of Oio, Biombo, Bafatá, Gabu, Quinará, Bolama, Bijagós, Cacheu, Tombali, and the Bissau Autonomous Sector. The campaign primarily targeted traditional healers, health personnel, livestock farmers, and agricultural workers, constituting an integrated communication strategy to promote awareness and adherence to the protocol. In accordance with Article XXIX of the Nagoya Protocol, which requires Parties to monitor and report on the implementation of their obligations through the ABS Clearing-House platform, Guinea-Bissau benefited from UNEP support under the GEF 11908 Project, set up to finance the preparation of the first national reports. Owing to this support, MAAC drew up an activity plan aimed at collecting and compiling information on the Protocol’s implementation. Among the initiatives carried out, regional consultation meetings stood out, marking an initial data collection stage. These meetings aimed at providing a general approach to the Protocol, complemented by a survey on the participants' level of knowledge and on genetic resource sharing practices. The surveys took place in two formats: open meetings, which allowed for a collective exchange of opinions, and more restricted individual interviews, conducted using a questionnaire developed by the consultants. It was found locally that most people are unaware of the protocol guidelines. This situation probably arises from the lack of effective and continuous dissemination over the past twelve years, stemming from the lack of a functional structure and implementation of a specific law in this area, coupled with existing financial limitations. On institutional grounds, a gap was identified regarding the institutions' knowledge on the protocol. This applies to the institutions identified as "key," i.e., those that, in some way, deal with or work with genetic materials and the associated knowledge. As demonstrated by the consultation’s outcomes, a gap in the knowledge on the protocol is evident in these institutions, both nationally and internationally, including even among technical staff familiar with genetic material.

Measures aimed at building and developing capacity and strengthening human resources and institutional capabilities have not yet been established.

Measures aimed at building and developing capacity and strengthening human resources and institutional capabilities have not yet been established.

Regarding participation in research through cooperation and collaboration, IBAP is the entity best placed because it participates, in part, in the research, namely through data collection in the field. This has been one of the conditions required for granting authorization to conduct research in protected areas and, consequently, to use genetic material. However, this requirement is often not established through concrete clauses, but rather through verbal requirements, based on a spirit of collaboration and trust.

Broadly speaking, the country has not made any funds available for the protocol’s implementation. All activities carried out in this context so far have been financed with external resources.

In the early stages of the protocol's implementation at the national level, a fund of $20,000 was made available through a micro-project, originating from a contract established at the time between the DGA (Directorate General for the Environment) and UNEP (United Nations Environment Programme). The microproject aimed at dissemination, capacity building, and awareness raising. The use of this fund enabled the holding of dissemination meetings in various regions, with the participation of institutions that work directly or indirectly under the protocol. In the same context, thanks to external support provided by the German Agency for International Cooperation (GIZ), it was possible to fund the drafting of a bill o-n ABS. This action was budgeted at € 2,985, and a national consultant specializing in legislation was hired for this purpose.

The ongoing political instability that Guinea-Bissau has been experiencing has made it difficult to organize and approve a specific budget for the implementation of this protocol and the other environmental protocols.

The country lacks public or private employees working full-time in the attainment of the protocol’s goals. Instead, the protocol’s current representatives at the national level, the focal point and the representative of the relevant national authority are employees who perform other tasks. In short, the country lacks a mechanism for the creation and allocation of funds to a national entity responsible for coordinating and facilitating resource access and distribution.

The country is not a signatory to any specialized international instrument on access and benefit sharing. However, as a full member of the African Union (AU) , it establishes and adopts practical guidelines for the coordinated implementation of the Nagoya Protocol in Africa. These guidelines aim to provide African Union Member States with guidance on how national ABS systems can be implemented in a coordinated manner at the regional level, in accordance with the provisions of the Nagoya Protocol, in order to safeguard key African interests and positions, and avoid a warfare scenario pitting users of genetic resources and associated knowledge against African Union Member States and African indigenous peoples or local communities.