Thomas Greiber1. 1. Federal Agency for Nature Conservation, Head of Division I 1.3, Competent National Authority for the Nagoya Protocol. Konstantinstr. 110, Bonn 53179, Germany. Electronic address: thomas.greiber@bfn.de.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: In 2014 the Nagoya Protocol on Access to Genetic Resources and the Fair and Equitable Sharing of Benefits Arising from their Utilization entered into force. The Protocol aims to further concretize and improve the implementation of the access and benefit-sharing (ABS) obligations already foreseen under the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) since 1993. The European Union has accepted the challenge to establish the necessary monitoring and compliance measures which are envisaged in the Nagoya Protocol. For this two ABS Regulations (Regulation (EU) No 511/2014 and Implementing Regulation (EU) 2015/1866) were adopted in the European Union. HYPOTHESIS: However, the EU ABS legislation "only" provides a framework of instruments which now need to be tried out and tested in real life. RESULTS: As this paper shows competent national authorities in the European Union, such as the one in Germany, currently face a number of practical challenges ranging from ABS awareness raising in numerous and very diverse sectors, to clarification of the highly disputed scope of the EU ABS legislation, to the development of effective, proportionate and dissuasive compliance checks. CONCLUSIONS: The paper concludes that the implementation of ABS in general and the Nagoya Protocol in particular remain a highly complicated task influenced by rapid technological developments and a general lack of trust between countries as well as stakeholders.
BACKGROUND: In 2014 the Nagoya Protocol on Access to Genetic Resources and the Fair and Equitable Sharing of Benefits Arising from their Utilization entered into force. The Protocol aims to further concretize and improve the implementation of the access and benefit-sharing (ABS) obligations already foreseen under the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) since 1993. The European Union has accepted the challenge to establish the necessary monitoring and compliance measures which are envisaged in the Nagoya Protocol. For this two ABS Regulations (Regulation (EU) No 511/2014 and Implementing Regulation (EU) 2015/1866) were adopted in the European Union. HYPOTHESIS: However, the EU ABS legislation "only" provides a framework of instruments which now need to be tried out and tested in real life. RESULTS: As this paper shows competent national authorities in the European Union, such as the one in Germany, currently face a number of practical challenges ranging from ABS awareness raising in numerous and very diverse sectors, to clarification of the highly disputed scope of the EU ABS legislation, to the development of effective, proportionate and dissuasive compliance checks. CONCLUSIONS: The paper concludes that the implementation of ABS in general and the Nagoya Protocol in particular remain a highly complicated task influenced by rapid technological developments and a general lack of trust between countries as well as stakeholders.
Keywords:
Access and benefit sharing; Convention on Biological Diversity; EU legislation, Nagoya Protocol; Regulation (EU) No. 511/2014; Traditional knowledge