Biotechnology in agriculture and aquaculture - effects of intellectual property rights in the food production chain

Based on: Sebastian Oberthür and G. Kristin Rosendal (Eds.), forthcoming autumn 2013. Global governance of genetic resources: Access and benefit sharing after the Nagoya Protocol, New York and London: Routledge. Medaglia, Jorge Cabrera, Morten Walløe Tv edt, Frederic Perron-Welch, Ane Jørem and Freedom-Kai Phillips, The Interface between the Nagoya Protocol on ABS and the ITPGRFA at the International Level: Potential Issues for Consideration in Supporting Mutually Supportive Implementation at the Nationa l Level. FNI Report 1/2013. Lysaker, FNI, 2013. The book analyses the status and prospects of global governance of access to and benefit sharing (ABS) from genetic resources after the 2010 Nagoya Protocol on ABS to the 1992 Convention on Biological Div ersity (CBD), which itself had established new ABS principles for utilisation of genetic resources. It investigates the role of a variety of actors and actor constellations in the emergence of the Nagoya Protocol and discusses trends towards stability or change. Moreover, the book provides an assessment of core features of the design of global ABS governance. What is needed to achieve effective implementation of the Nagoya Protocol and a sustainable resolution of the ABS issue ? not least across a variety of related sectors? Which are the dynamics of the broader institutional complex and how can/should this complex evolve? The report deals with the debate on a sectoral approach to ABS in related international forums, a question highly relevant to blue a nd green biotechnology. Selected highlights / central findings: Balancing ambiguity and legal certainty: If the concept of genetic resources is understood narrowly, the ABS system may not be able to capture future potential value of genetic materia l. Hence, there is a dilemma between a flexible and dynamic definition that can adapt to new trends and a definition that provides the legal certainty necessary for enhancing enforcement. The study concludes that, so far, the CBD ABS regime has adapted to evolving technological and legal trends. Combining equity and conservation: The negotiations displayed a vagueness concerning whether ABS should be based on a moral (equity) or an environmental (conservation) foundation. Bolstering the former is ideal ly aimed at strengthening incentives for the latter, namely improved biodiversity conservation in poor, biodiversity rich countries. The study reveals reduced attentiveness to the environmental and conservation dimension of the biodiversity issue, as equi ty issues over ABS and intellectual property rights (IPR) dominate negotiations. Balancing ABS and IPR in a multi-institutional landscape: The norms and principles of the ABS regime penetrate an increasingly wide set of institutions and arenas. Still, ABS governance is complicated by its multi-institutional nature. Incentives are needed to balance access standards and user measures, and benefit-sharing and intellectual property rights. Actual progress on the ground still depends primarily on implement ation in ?user? countries (i.e. developed countries), while being challenged by technological progress and institutional complexity. Sectoral approaches to genetic resources: The Nagoya Protocol has clarified the division of labour within the broader i nstitutional complex; and more sectoral systems may emerge as a result. FAO parties are already discussing sectoral approaches to genetic resources for food and agriculture (including blue and green biotechnologies, i.a. aquatic, forest, microbiological, vertebrate genetic resources). However, the major conflict between ABS and IPR rules remain similar across sectors and is not addressed outside the CBD. FAO discussion, for example, emphasizes access rather than benefit sharing. This raises questions as to the appropriate reflection of developing country interests. Coalitions and interest structures: The ABS issue has similarities with other issue areas in becoming more multi-polar, and the formerly strong G77 coalition within biodiversity issues has disintegrated. The analysis of the Nagoya negotiations shows, however, that developing countries still harbor a high degree of compatible interests within the ABS issue. Provider countries were generally opposed to opening for sectoral approaches, whic h may involve high costs for poor countries in terms of negotiating ABS in a number of other forums, where power relations and foci differ from that of the CBD. This could indicate that the disintegration of G77 has not helped developing countries in achi eving their ABS goals.

The aim of the project Biotechnology in agriculture and aquaculture - effects of intellectual property rights in the food production chain is to investigate how intellectual property rights (IPR) and counterbalancing legal systems interact and apply to mo dern biotechnology in the food sector. The project will exploring the area of intellectual property law from a legal and political science perspective in close collaboration with researchers and business. Limited strategic thinking has been done in Norway to seek collaborative solutions about how IPRs may contribute to food production based on biotechnology. This is done by applying a trans-disciplinary approach by integrating analysis of law, political sciences, biology, biotechnology, policy advices cro ss sector between farm animals, aquaculture, forest tree and plants. The application of IPRs have till now been more extensive in the plant sector. The structure of biology, breeding and biotechnology applied to these four sectors is different. Therefore, this project will explore similarities and differences in how policy and law will apply to them respectively. The overall perspective for research in this project is looking at how IPR and balancing legal systems may or may not be conducive to sustaina bility, food security, innovation and global justice, as described in the call for proposals. The research group is large and diverse in order to bring together different competence, perspectives and countries. This will provide support for development of business practices for FUGE projects, for Norway in making policies and contribute to a better undertanding of IPRs and biotechnology in food production globally.