Content uploaded by Brendan Coolsaet
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Brendan Coolsaet on Nov 23, 2015
Content may be subject to copyright.
A preview of the PDF is not available
Fair and Equitable Negotiations? African Influence and the International Access and Benefit-Sharing Regime
Abstract and Figures
In 2010, parties to the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) adopted the Nagoya Protocol on Access to Genetic Resources and the Fair and Equitable Sharing of Benefits Arising from their Utilization (access and benefit-sharing, or ABS). 1 Nagoya Protocol adoption resulted from a long set of negotiations on the making of an international ABS regime, triggered by a situation of distributive injustice: countries using genetic resources reap most of the benefits, while the costs related to the conservation and protection of these same resources are mainly carried by provider countries. Through the establishment of an international ABS regime, benefits and burdens arising from the use of genetic resources should thus be shared fairly between user and provider countries. Based on principles of distributive justice, 2 the notion of fair and equitable sharing raises two well-documented issues. First, theories of distributive justice are ill suited to the study of the underlying conditions that shape decisions leading to the distribution of benefits and burdens. These conditions are rooted in the material, social, cultural, and institutional circumstances within which the decision-making process takes place. 3 Second, given that different conceptions of morality and justice coexist, fair agreement conditions tend to be better approached by defining the conditions of a fair decision-making process. 4 Fairness and equity of a benefit-sharing agreement thus depend on a decision-making procedure governed by the principles of procedural justice. The complexity and interdependence of an ever-growing number of multilateral environmental agreements and the unequal distribution of resources and (bargaining) power among states generates unequal participation opportunities. This article explains how the supposedly most disadvantaged participants manage to influence the decision-making process and the outcome document, thereby tending to procedural justice.
Figures - uploaded by Brendan Coolsaet
Author content
All figure content in this area was uploaded by Brendan Coolsaet
Content may be subject to copyright.
Supplementary resource (1)
... Eknath and Hulata 2009). African countries were strong supporters of the concept of access and benefit sharing (ABS) during the negotiations of the 1992 Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) to ensure that low-income biodiverse-rich countries were not exploited for their genetic diversity and denied access to their own resources and commercial products produced by users of the resources and knowledge in other countries (Coolsaet and Pitseys 2015). To this end, the CBD acknowledged the sovereign rights of countries to their genetic resources, encouraged countries to facilitate access to their resources and required countries to ensure the fair and equitable sharing of benefits of the use of the resources with the provider (article 15). ...
... Humphries 2017). African countries have been particularly vocal during ABS discussions and framework negotiations because of their high biodiversity and dependence on biological resources and traditional knowledge for food and livelihood security (Coolsaet and Pitseys 2015). To promote regional guidance and capacity building for policy development, they adopted the African Model Legislation for the Protection of the Rights of Local Communities, Farmers and Breeders, and for the Regulation of Access to Biological Resources in 2000 (Organisation of African Unity 2000). ...
... Recognizing the importance of traditional knowledge associated with genetic resources held by Africa's Indigenous Peoples and Local Communities, African countries have also been instrumental in promoting and protecting the role of traditional knowledge and rights of Indigenous Peoples and Local Communities in ABS forums (Coolsaet and Pitseys 2015). Despite this, there were only four articles that examined how Uganda, Kenya and Tanzania manage traditional knowledge under their ABS laws, none of which mentioned considerations for traditional knowledge associated with aquaculture genetic resources. ...
Genetic resources are the building blocks for aquaculture breeding programs, biotechnology and conservation. The Convention on Biological Diversity and the Nagoya Protocol are international frameworks for access and benefit sharing (ABS) concerning: (a) the collection and use of genetic resources and associated traditional knowledge; and (b) sharing the benefits of their use with the provider. ABS laws in African countries increasingly apply to resources and knowledge used throughout the production chain for aquaculture, including genes and gene sequences. This paper reviews ABS legislation and peer-reviewed publications in Kenya, Malawi, Tanzania, Uganda and Zambia (leading aquaculture countries with ABS laws) to identify key knowledge gaps for ABS and aquaculture. Using a systematic quantitative literature review method and a qualitative analysis, the main findings are that despite established ABS laws in many of the reviewed countries, there are no analyses on the positive or negative effects of these laws for the conservation, sustainable use of genetic resources, digital sequence information and traditional knowledge relevant to aquaculture and the equitable sharing of benefits from their use. These knowledge gaps may significantly undermine the sharing of resources and knowledge necessary for ecologically sustainable aquaculture development in Africa, which is crucial to food security and livelihoods.
... The presence of African researchers and decision-makers in ABS activities, including the Nagoya Protocol, is significantly less than that from other regions ( Table 3). [14] Therefore, it can be said that African voices are less influential in shaping international debates on ABS despite the importance of genetic and biological resources for indigenous communities in Africa. Deplazes-Zemp et al. [72] describe how inequalities in the development and application of Nagoya Protocol negotiations could negatively impact on the global south, enhancing such inequalities. ...
... [74] This agreement, which arose out of nine years of negotiations between these stakeholders, is a good example of how the principles of the Nagoya Protocol can be applied to a specific industry and involving the relevant stakeholders, with reference to IP, social and distributive justice, and sustainability. [14] This shows how different stakeholders in an African context can work collaboratively towards an equitable solution for producers, communities, industry and researchers alike. [74] Exploitation of environmental resources and the global commons Air, water, soils and vegetation can be considered as global commons, and thus are key resources that governments should collaboratively manage and steward for future generations, both locally and globally. ...
The 2010 Nagoya Protocol is an international framework for access and benefit sharing (ABS) of the use of genetic and biological resources,
with particular focus on indigenous communities. This is especially important in Africa, where local communities have a close reliance on
environmental resources and ecosystems. However, national legislation and policies commonly lag behind international agreements, and this
poses challenges for legal compliance as well as practical applications. This study reviews the academic literature on the Nagoya Protocol and
ABS applications, and then considers the implications of this analysis for research in Africa. Results show that there is uneven engagement with
the principles of the Nagoya Protocol across different academic disciplines; local communities are sometimes sidelined in these studies; and only
8% of researchers in the literature analysed are located in Africa. Future developments should focus on ensuring national compliance with the
Nagoya Protocol, and that researchers and industry work in partnership with local African communities on ABS issues.
... This is a starting point for identifying areas of shared practice, how governments and agencies can work together on shared goals with respect to transboundary research and research management issues, and comparing the efficacy of different administrative structures, methods and procedures for ABS, reporting and community engagement. These goals have been previously identified as critical to the success of ABS and compliance with the Nagoya Protocol (Oberth€ ur and Po _ zarowska, 2013;Coolsaet and Pitseys, 2015;Wynberg et al., 2015;Avil es-Polanco et al., 2019;Vogel et al., 2022). Based on the evidence presented, a generalised and qualitative summary of compliance to the Nagoya Protocol by different SADC nations is shown in Table 2. Overall, there is a variable level of engagement with international bodies and statutes (CBD, ABSCH, ITPGRFA) and with the development of domestic legislation and policies to comply with the Nagoya Protocol, but mainly with a focus on biological rather than specifically genetic resources. ...
... Thus, genetic resources are hosted within plants and animals and their wider ecosystems, used by local people. As such, attention to the requirements of the Nagoya Protocol is an important way to conserve genetic (and by extension biological) resources and to ensure that the benefits of resource exploitation are shared equitably, in particular to local communities in the developing world (Coolsaet and Pitseys, 2015;Rakotondrabe and Girard, 2021). The Nagoya Protocol, therefore, speaks to wider issues of sustainable development, reducing socioeconomic disparity and ecosystem conservation and management which are of particular relevance in a developing world context. ...
The 2010 Nagoya Protocol is an international framework for access and benefit sharing (ABS) of the use of genetic and biological resources, with particular focus on indigenous communities. This is especially important in Africa, where local communities have a close reliance on environmental resources and ecosystems. However, national legislation and policies commonly lag behind international agreements, and this poses challenges for legal compliance as well as practical applications. This study reviews the academic literature on the Nagoya Protocol and ABS applications, and then considers the implications of this analysis for research in Africa. Results show that there is uneven engagement with the principles of the Nagoya Protocol across different academic disciplines; local communities are sometimes sidelined in these studies; and only 8% of researchers in the literature analysed are located in Africa. Future developments should focus on ensuring national compliance with the Nagoya Protocol, and that researchers and industry work in partnership with local African communities on ABS issues.
... Participatory processes and CbA may hence potentially reinforce, rather than reduce, inequities and power imbalances (Eriksen et al. 2015;Buggy and McNamara 2016;Nightingale 2017;Ensor et al. 2018;Mikulewicz 2018). This violates the principle of procedural justice (Coolsaet and Pitseys 2015). Research into climate change adaptation must take into account power and procedural justice, i.e. examine who is involved in decision-making, whose voices(s) are heard-as well as whose voices(s) are not heard, at all levels (Scoville-Simonds et al. 2020). ...
... However, the negotiations are not a level playing field; smaller and poorer countries are at a disadvantage because of unequal access, different delegation sizes, and differences in expertise and language skills (cf. Chasek and Rajaman 2003;Paavola and Adger 2006;Bulkeley and Newell 2010;Roberts and Parks 2014;Coolsaet and Pitseys 2015). The late arrival of adaptation onto the negotiation agenda reflects these power inequalities: adaptation was long considered a "developing country issue" that powerful industrialised countries could keep off the agenda, not least for fears of attribution of responsibility and claims for compensation (Schipper 2006). ...
As climate change impacts become increasingly apparent, adaptation becomes increasingly urgent. Accordingly, adaptation to climate change has shifted towards the centre of attention in both policy and research. In this article, we review the last 10 years of adaptation research (2008–2018), with a focus on work within the Earth System Governance network. We use the lens of access and allocation to structure our review and examine how adaptation affects, and is affected by, access to basic needs, basic rights, and decision-making on the one hand, as well as allocation of responsibilities, resources, and risks on the other. We find that questions of justice, equity, and fairness are fundamental to all dimensions of adaptation. The access perspective, for example, suggests that we need to assess vulnerability, understood broadly, while the allocation perspective focuses on questions of responsibility for being vulnerable, e.g. when people live, or move to, hazard-prone areas exposed to climate risk. This also relates to questions of who is responsible for selecting, implementing, and funding adaptation measures. Overall, we find that the framework of “access and allocation” and its subcategories offer a detailed approach to adaptation and adaptation research, but that it is not intuitive. The notion of “climate justice” seems to resonate more with both academic and policy debates.
... Relative to other environmental problems, the CBD is generally considered to be a rather inclusive arena (Coolsaet and Pitseys, 2015;Cordonier Segger and Phillips, 2015), even though debates on these questions are ongoing (Reimerson, 2013). At a local level, however, biodiversity governance most commonly remains in the control of external actors, both public and private, through management regimes that seek to amend local practices and override customary institutions . ...
Over fifty years of global conservation has failed to bend the curve of biodiversity loss, so we need to transform the ways we govern biodiversity. The UN Convention on Biological Diversity aims to develop and implement a transformative framework for the coming decades. However, the question of what transformative biodiversity governance entails and how it can be implemented is complex. This book argues that transformative biodiversity governance means prioritizing ecocentric, compassionate and just sustainable development. This involves implementing five governance approaches - integrative, inclusive, adaptive, transdisciplinary and anticipatory governance - in conjunction and focused on the underlying causes of biodiversity loss and unsustainability. Transforming Biodiversity Governance is an invaluable source for academics, policy makers and practitioners working in biodiversity and sustainability governance. This is one of a series of publications associated with the Earth System Governance Project. For more publications, see www.cambridge.org/earth-system-governance. This title is also available as Open Access on Cambridge Core.
... Likewise, when refining our conclusions related to the temporal scope, as well as the activity scope, and the implications on criteria N • 1 (predictability), N • 2 (legal certainty) and N • 3 (transparency) thereof, we resorted to many sources of literature (Seiler and Dutfield, 2001;Orsini et al., 2008;Andersen et al., 2010;Schei and Tvedt, 2010;Oliva, 2011;Coolsaet and Pitseys, 2014;Morgera et al., 2014;Prip and Rosendal, 2015;Wyss, 2017) in order to be able to rank the best option to enable the attainment of these goals. The diversity in our literature sources allowed us to enrich our conclusions regarding stakeholder opinion. ...
... Multiple coalition memberships help to identify and promote such shared positions. Similarly, by being present in several coalitions, countries can seek to ensure that their viewpoints and positions are reflected in the group positions of several coalitions, thus making it more likely that the country's national position will be heard in the negotiations (Coolsaet & Pitseys 2015;Penetrante 2013aPenetrante , 2013b. This also applies to the coalition level for very small delegations: when the delegation is too small to be present in all meetings, they can coordinate with fellow delegates from a coalition to ensure the group as a whole is present. ...
This study explores multiple coalition memberships in multilateral negotiations, with a focus on climate negotiations. Why do countries engage in multiple coalitions, and how do multiple coalition memberships affect their influence? I argue that coalitions differ in important respects. Accordingly, countries may belong to both, long-term and short-lived coalitions; they may consciously decide to join a coalition, but also be associated by default. Finally, larger coalitions confer numerical strength, while smaller (sub-)coalitions help voice common positions. Regarding effects, I propose two perspectives. The zero-sum perspective highlights coordination costs and potentially incompatible positions, while the win-win perspective focuses on the complementarity of different coalitions and the potential for mutual support. Anecdotal evidence from the climate negotiations offers support for these perspectives, but further empirical research is needed to better understand why countries join several coalitions, how they navigate these multiple coalition memberships, and how these affect their influence.
This chapter looks at the life-cycle of IEAs, from their formation to their evaluation. This chapter breaks down the life-cycle of IEAs into five phases: formation; treaty commencement and adoption by states; implementation; monitoring and review; and evaluation. This chapter first discusses some core aspects of IEA formation, looking at various processes of international environmental negotiations, the negotiation timeline, issue area characteristics, the skills of negotiators, and the North–South debate. This chapter discusses the role of science in influencing international environmental negotiations, as well as public perception and environmental and industrial disasters. The North–South contention is analyzed through two cases: land grabs and GMOs. This chapter then discusses each of the other phases of the life-cycle.
The study of planetary justice is an emerging research field that explores questions of justice on a planetary scale, particularly in the context of the profound global environmental and systemic challenges our earth system is facing. The connection between environmental conditions, human well-being, and justice and equity has been established over the past decades through both academic research, and advocacy and campaigning. However, despite the growing attention and priority of this concept, divergences exist between what is meant by ‘justice’ by different actors in all arenas, including academia. This article uses a framework first developed by Biermann & Kalfagianni (2016, 2018) for empirically analysing what concepts of justice are present in global change research, how this has changed over time, and what patterns or contradictions can be observed. By exploring what concepts, principles and mechanisms of justice emerge from global change research, the paper supports the further development of a ‘planetary justice’ research agenda in the study of earth system governance.
This book presents a comprehensive, authoritative and independent account of the rules, institutions and procedures governing the international climate change regime. Its detailed yet user-friendly description and analysis covers the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change, the Kyoto Protocol, and all decisions taken by the Conference of the Parties up to 2003, including the landmark Marrakesh Accords. Mitigation commitments, adaptation, the flexibility mechanisms, reporting and review, compliance, education and public awareness, technology transfer, financial assistance and climate research are just some of the areas that are reviewed. The book also explains how the regime works, including a discussion of its political coalitions, institutional structure, negotiation process, administrative base, and linkages with other international regimes. In short, this book is the only current work that covers all areas of the climate change regime in such depth, yet in such a uniquely accessible and objective way.
American politics is the politics of interests. Throughout American history, a seamless web of commentary variously accepts, elevates, or bemoans the centrality of interests in political life. Thomas Paine, the first international revolutionary, denounced factions and parties for their tendency to subvert government by using it to further their own particular interests at the expense of the public good. 1 In the Federalist 10, James Madison acknowledged the inevitability of the faction, warned of its potential for majority tyranny, and defended the capacity of a representative republic to check and balance its mischief. Alexis de Tocqueville praised the propensity of Americans to join associations as an essential ingredient of democracy. The radical Democrat William Leggett (1836) recommended the “principle of combination” as the “only effectual mode” of opposing “a common enemy.” 2 The protection of interests was central to John C. Calhoun's (1853) theory of the “concurrent majority” that “tends to unite the most opposite and conflicting interests and to blend the whole in one common attachment to the country.” 3 Just past midcentury, the eminent political scientist Francis Lieber (1859) argued that “the American spirit of self-government” was dependent upon the nation's “all-pervading associative spirit.” During the latter half of the century, attention turned to the rise of the lobby-“an institution peculiar to America,” in the words of Arthur G. Sedgwick (1878). That peculiar institution figured prominently in the young Woodrow Wilson's (1885) critique of congressional government.
This book will be of interest to legal, political and other social theorists/philosophers. Unique in its topics as well as in its approach, the book takes substantial steps towards answering essential questions about political influence. It analyses the concepts of social, political and legal power with a view towards arriving at an adequate and theoretically relevant distinction between power and influence.
This volume
contains an extensive overview and critical assessment;
explores the conceptual relationship between freedom and power;
assesses the distinctions made in existing scholarship between power and influence;
presents the author’s own proposal for a definition of influence as opposed to power;
combines insights from political theory, legal philosophy and the general theory of norms;
is densely argued, yet accessible to all interested readers without any prerequisite of special prior knowledge;
is transparently structured, written in a clear style, avoiding social-scientific jargon and using ordinary language.
"Exact but not exacting, this is a fine work of overview and analysis; it makes an excellent contribution to the literature on power and freedom."
Philip Pettit, William Nelson Cromwell Professor of Politics, Princeton University
"In this work, the author assumes the task of a ‘logical clean-up’ – an extremely valuable contribution to the promotion of scientific rigour and clarity in political scholarship." [This book] "gives the reader orientation in a conceptual jungle." [It is] "an excellent analysis of the relationships between normative and social power."
Ernesto Garzón Valdés, Prof. em. of Legal Philosophy, President of The Tampere Club
"A genuinely pioneering contribution insofar as the author – to my knowledge: for the first time ever – succeeds in giving a conceptually rather clear profile to a descriptive-analytic and normative understanding of the phenomenon of influence and in elucidating – again, by way of thorough and profound analysis – that this is much more than an academic glass-bead game, because our understanding of such essential normative foundations of political theory as freedom and equality is inextricably linked to the concepts of power and influence, and because this is the only way how we can come to see the fundamental obstacles to a coherent interpretation and institutional realization of the idea of the democratic Rechtsstaat."
Rainer Schmalz-Bruns, Prof. of Political Theory, Darmstadt University of Technology