Brazil's implementation of access and benefit-sharing and the Nagoya Protocol: Analyzing some trends and positions in the ongoing debate
Article Sidebar
Main Article Content
Abstract
Access and benefit-sharing (ABS) arising from the utilization of biodiversity’s genetic resources and traditional knowledge is the third objective of the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD). Since its inception, some parties to the CBD have enacted ABS-national legislation and in 2014, the Nagoya Protocol came into force, providing a global standard among ABS systems. Given this, Brazil has been working to implement ABS since 2001, especially after the enactment of the national Biodiversity Law (Law 13.123/2015), which is the domestic law for the Nagoya Protocol implementation. This paper examines how the implementation of ABS and the Nagoya Protocol is viewed, discussed and debated by some stakeholders. Based on qualitative semi-structured interviews, press releases, public declarations, legislation and grey literature, the paper reveals that although ABS has faced strong criticism and delivered modest results, most stakeholders consider it strategic and important, especially in the face of the bioeconomy–biodiversity nexus. In general, positions on the implementation of ABS policies and the Nagoya Protocol in Brazil can be devised in the following categories: 1) acceptance and optimistic appreciation of ABS, 2) acceptance of ABS mechanisms but impending need for adjustments, 3) acceptance of ABS mechanisms as a ‘bad with it, worse without it’ scenario, and 4) rejection of ABS. Our research also shows that when it comes to ABS and providers of genetic resources, debates centred on the topic of biopiracy have declined, while debates characterized by compromise, institutionalization and the steering of ABS via the implementation process are on the rise.
Article Details
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
Authors retain copyright of the articles published in Genetic Resources and grant the journal right of first publication with open access. All articles published in Genetic Resource are licensed under Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (CC BY 4.0) that allows others to download, share and adapt the work for commercial and non-commercial purposes as long as proper attribution to the original article is given. Genetic Resources permits and encourages authors to post items submitted to the journal (including the publisher's final layout) on personal websites or institutional repositories after acceptance and/or publication, while providing bibliographic details that credit their publication in Genetic Resources.
ABIHPEC (2017). Guia Orientativo de Acesso à Biodiversidade Brasileira. Associação Brasileira da Indústria de Higiene Pessoal, Perfumaria e cosméticos (ABIHPEC), GSS Sustentabilidade e Bioinovação Ltda. URL: https://abihpec.org.br/site2019/wp-content/uploads/2017/07/guia_biodiversidade_web.pdf.
Abramovay, R (2020). Amazônia: Por Uma Economia Do Conhecimento Da Natureza. Vol. 80. São Paulo: Editora Elefante, p. 80.
Alencar, G et al. (2003). “Alternativas de proteção aos conhecimentos tradicionais”. In: Quem cala consente? Subsídios para a proteção aos conhecimentos tradicionais. Ed. by A Lima and N Bensusan. Brasília: Instituto Socioambiental, pp. 93–122.
Amazon Socio-Biodiversity Meeting (2021). Letter from the Amazon 2021: To the participants of 26th United Nations Conference on Climate Change (COP26). October 20, 2021. URL: https://bit.ly/GRJ181-4.
Andrade, J P (2022). A proteção da biodiversidade pelos saberes comunitários: um estudo dos protocolos bioculturais na América Latina. Master thesis, Universidade Federal do Paraná, Curitiba.
Aubertin, C and G Filoche (2011). “The Nagoya Protocol on the use of genetic resources”. SustDeb 2. DOI: https://doi.org/10.18472/SustDeb.v2n1.2011.3906.
Backhouse, M et al. (2021). “Contextualizing the bioeconomy in an unequal world: Biomass sourcing and global socio-ecological inequalities”. In: Bioeconomy and global inequalities: Socio ecological perspectives on biomass sourcing and production. Ed. by M Backhouse et al. Berlin: Springer, pp. 3–24. URL: https://link.springer.com/content/pdf/10.1007/978-3-030-68944-5.pdf.
Bavikatte, K and D F Robinson (2011). “Towards a People’s History of the Law: Biocultural Jurisprudence and the Nagoya Protocol on Access and Benefit Sharing. Law”. Environment and Development Journal 7, S35–S52. URL: https://lead-journal.org/content/11035.pdf.
Bensusan, N (2003). “Breve histórico da regulamentação do acesso aos recursos genéticos no Brasil”. In: Quem cala consente? Subsídios para a proteção aos conhecimentos tradicionais. Ed. by A Lima and N Bensusan. Brasília: Instituto Socioambiental, pp. 9–16.
Bockmann, F A et al. (2018). “Brazil’s government attacks biodiversity”. Science 360(865). DOI: https://doi.org/10.1126/science.aat7540.
Brasil (1988). Constituição da República Federativa do Brasil. URL: https://www.planalto.gov.br/ccivil_03/constituicao/constituicao.htm.
Brasil (1998). Decreto n. 2.519 promulga a Convenção sobre Diversidade Biológica, assinada no Rio de Janeiro, em 05 de junho de 1992 of 16 March 1998. URL: https://bit.ly/GRJ181-1.
Brasil (2001). Medida Provisória N. 2.186-16 de 23 de agosto de 2001. URL: https://www.planalto.gov.br/ccivil_03/mpv/2186-16.htm.
Brasil (2004). Lei n. 10.973 dispõe sobre incentivos à inovação e à pesquisa científica e tecnológica no ambiente produtivo e dá outras providências of 2 December 2004. URL: https://bit.ly/GRJ181-3.
Brasil (2015). Lei de n. 13.123 of 20 May 2015. URL: https://www.planalto.gov.br/ccivil_03/_ato2015-2018/2015/lei/l13123.htm.
Brasil (2016). Decreto n. 8.772 of 11 May 2016. URL: https://www.planalto.gov.br/ccivil_03/_ato2015-2018/2016/decreto/d8772.htm.
Brasil (2017a). Estratégia e Plano de Ação Nacionais para a Biodiversidade-EPANB: 2016-2020. Brasília: Ministério do Meio Ambiente. URL: https://www.gov.br/mma/pt-br/assuntos/ecossistemas-1/biomas/arquivos-biomas/estrategia-e-plano-de-acao-nacionais-para-a-biodiversidade-epanb.pdf/view.
Brasil (2017b). MCTI. Estratégia Nacional de Ciência, Tecnologia e Inovação 2016/2022. Brasília: MCTI. URL: https://antigo.mctic.gov.br/mctic/export/sites/institucional/ciencia/SEPED/Arquivos/PlanosDeAcao/PACTI_Sumario_executivo_Web.pdf.
Brasil (2021b). Decreto Presidencial n. 10.886/2021 of 7 December 2021. URL: http://www.planalto.gov.br/ccivil_03/_ato2019-2022/2021/decreto/D10886.htm.
Brasil (2021c). Ministério de Relacoes Exteriores, Nota à Imprensa n. 21 of 04 March 2021. URL: https://www.gov.br/mre/pt-br/canais_atendimento/imprensa/notas-a-imprensa/brasil-passa-a-fazer-parte-do-protocolo-de-nagoia-nota-conjunta-do-ministerio-das-relacoes-exteriores-e-do-ministerio-do-meio-ambiente.
Brasil (2022). Manual de operacoes do fundo nacional para a reparticao de benefícios - FNRB. Brasília: FNRB. URL: https://www.gov.br/mma/pt-br/assuntos/bioeconomia/patrimonio-genetico/reparticao-de-beneficios-1/fundo-nacional-para-a-reparticao-de-beneficios/arquivod/item-6-minuta-manual-de-operacoes-fnrb.pdf.
Brasil (2023b). Decreto n. 11.349 of 1 January 2023. URL: https://www.planalto.gov.br/ccivil_03/_ato2023-2026/2023/decreto/D11349.htm.
Brasil (2023c). Ministério do Meio Ambiente e Mudança do Clima, Acordos de Repartição de benefícios não monetária confirmados. URL: https://www.gov.br/mma/pt-br/assuntos/bioeconomia/patrimonio-genetico/reparticao-de-beneficios-1/acordos-de-reparticao-de-beneficios-nao-monetaria/arbs-firmados.
Brasil (2023d). Secretaria Especial para Assuntos Jurídicos promulga o Protocolo de Nagoia sobre Acesso a Recursos Genéticos e Repartição Justa e Equitativa dos Benefícios Derivados de sua Utilização à Convenção sobre Diversidade Biológica, firmado pela República Federativa do Brasil em Nova Iorque, em 2 de fevereiro de 2011. URL: https://bit.ly/GRJ181-6.
Brasil (2024). Ministério do Desenvolvimento, Indústria, Comércio e Serviços. Nova indústria Brasil – forte, transformadora e sustentável: Plano de Ação para a neoindustrialização 2024-2026. Brasília: MDICS.
Braun, V (2024). At the End of property: Patents, plants and the crisis of propertization. Bristol: Bristol University Press Bristol, p. 214.
Bugge, M, T Hansen, and A Klitkou (2016). “What Is the Bioeconomy? A Review of the Literature”. Sustainability 8, pp. 691–691. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3390/su8070691.
Carta de Belém (2022). Bioeconomia é um museu de grandes novidades. URL: https://fase.org.br/pt/noticias/carta-de-belem-bioeconomia-e-um-museu-de-grandes-novidades/.
Castro, B S, De, and A C C Santos (2022). “Conselho de Gestão do Patrimônio Genético e a coordenação da política de acesso e repartição de benefícios no Brasil”. Ambient. soc 25, e01781. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1590/1809-4422asoc20200178r1vu2022L1AO.
CBD (2011). Access to Genetic Resources and the Fair and Equitable Sharing of Benefits Arising from their Utilization to the Convention on Biological Diversity: Text and Annex. Montréal: Secretariat of the Convention on Biological Diversity. URL: https://www.cbd.int/abs/doc/protocol/nagoya-protocol-en.pdf.
CNI (2017). Access and Benefit-Sharing Around the World: The Brazilian law contrasted with international regulations. Brasília: CNI: Natura Brasília, p. 688.
Coolsaet, B (2015). Implementing the Nagoya Protocol: Comparing Access and Benefit-Sharing regimes in Europe. Leiden: Brill Nijhoff, p. 410.
Costa, C R (2017). O marco institucional da Biodiversidade para o desenvolvimento do Sistema Farmacêutico de Inovação Brasileiro. Rio de Janeiro.
Dallagnol, A, M Silva, and W Overbeek (2016). “Lei da Biodiversidade Brasileira: Um Avanço ou uma Ameaça? Advogado Popular da Terra de Direitos; Movimento dos Pequenos Agricultores”. Boletim WRM 227. URL: https://wrm.org.uy/pt/artigos-do-boletim-do-wrm/secao1/lei-da-biodiversidade-brasileira-um-avanco-ou-uma-ameaco/.
Davis, K et al. (2016). Implementation of the Nagoya Protocol on Access and Benefit Sharing: Dialogue between Brazil and the European Union. Brasília: EU-Brazil Sector Dialogues Support Facility. DOI: https://doi.org/10.13140/RG.2.2.36253.31201.
Dutfield, G (2015). “Traditional Knowledge, Intellectual Property and Pharmaceutical Innovation: What’s Left to Discuss?” In: The Sage handbook of intellectual property. Ed. by M David and D Halbert. Los Angeles, London, New Delhi: SAGE Publications Ltd, pp. 649–664.
Eimer, T R and F Donadelli (2022). “Paradoxes of Ratification: The Nagoya Protocol and Brazilian State Transformations”. The Journal of Environment & Development 31. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/10704965211058570.
FAO (2009). International treaty on plant genetic resources for food and agriculture. URL: https://openknowledge.fao.org/server/api/core/bitstreams/a9d0de2a-8e98-4f75-98a8-673078841030/content.
FDCL, GeN (2022). Biodiversitäts-Konvention am Scheideweg? (Berlin: FDCL; Gen-ethisches Netzwerk e. V). URL: https://www.fdcl.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/04/Briefing-von-FDCL-und-GeN-zu-GeneDrives-und-DSI-vor-der-CBD-COP-15.pdf.
Feres, Chein et al. (2019). “As origens do marco legal da biodiversidade - as políticas de acesso e remessa”. R. Fac. Dir. UFG 42, S35–S64. DOI: https://doi.org/10.5216/rfd.v42i3.49540.
Ferreira, S N (2020). Desafios e oportunidades na implementação do Protocolo de Nagoia no Brasil. URL: https://bit.ly/GRJ181-5.
Ferreira, S N and M J A Sampaio Moraes (2013). Biodiversidade e conhecimentos tradicionais associados: implementação da legislação de acesso e repartição de benefícios no Brasil. Brasília: SBPC.
Friso, F et al. (2020). “Implementation of Nagoya Protocol on access and benefit-sharing in Peru: Implications for researchers”. Journal of ethnopharmacology 259. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jep.2020.112885.
Görg, C (2002). “Biodiversität: ein neues Konfliktfeld in der internationalen Politik”. In: Wem gehört die Natur? Konflikte um genetische Ressourcen in Lateinamerika. Ed. by U Brand and M Kalcsics. Frankfurt am Main: Brandes & Apsel, pp. 18–29.
Governo do Estado do Amazonas (2021). Diretrizes para a Construção Conceitual da Bioeconomia no Amazonas, Manaus. URL: https://www.sedecti.am.gov.br/wp-content/uploads/2021/07/NT_Bioconomia_01_SECTI-SEDECTI-AM_Bioeconomia_no_Amazonas.pdf.
Governo do Estado do Pará (2022). Plano Estadual de Bioeconomia: PlanBio (2022) Pará, Belém do Pará. URL: https://www.semas.pa.gov.br/planbio/.
Greiber, T (2019). “Implementation of the Nagoya Protocol in the European Union and in Germany”. Phytomedicine 53, pp. 313–318. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.phymed.2018.10.020.
GSS Sustentabilidade e Bioinovação Ltda, Croda International Plc, Natura & Co (2022). Brogota Project: ABS around the world: The Brazilian Law contrasted with international regulations. São Paulo.
Guetta, M and N Bensusan (2018). “Tutela dos conhecimentos tradicionais face à sua diversidade: A emergência dos protocolos comunitários”. In: Propriedades em transformação: Abordagens multidisciplinares. Ed. by D Ungaretti et al. São Paulo: Blucher, pp. 117–140.
Halewood, M et al. (2023). “New benefit-sharing principles for digital sequence information”. Science 382. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1126/science.adj1331.
Hayden, C (2003). When nature goes public: The making and unmaking of bioprospecting in Mexico. Princeton: Princeton Univ. Press, p. 284.
Ido, V H P and L Valentini (2018). “Quem tem a propriedade da transformação? Propriedade intelectual e figurações equívocas da circulação dos conhecimentos indígenas”. In: Propriedades em transformação. Abordagens multidisciplinares. Ed. by D Ungaretti et al. São Paulo: Blucher, pp. 97–116.
Kaiser, G (2012). Eigentum und Allmende: Alternatives zu exklusiven geistigen Eigentumsrechten an genetischen Ressourcen. München: Oekom, p. 229.
Kamau, E C (2019). Implementation of the Nagoya Protocol: Fulfilling new obligations among emerging issues. Bonn: Bundesamt für Naturschutz.
Kamau, E. C. (2022). “Transformations in international law on access to genetic resources and benefit-sharing and domestic implementation: Introduction, synthesis, observations, recomendations and conclusions”. In: Global transformations in the use of biodiversity for research and development. Post Nagoya Protocol implementation amid unresolved and arising issues. Ed. by E C Kamau. Cham: Springer, pp. 3–48.
Laird, S et al. (2020). “Rethink the expansion of access and benefit sharing”. Science 367, pp. 1200–1202. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1126/science.aba9609.
Lima, M G Bastos (2021). “Corporate Power in the Bioeconomy Transition: The Policies and Politics of Conservative Ecological Modernization in Brazil”. Sustainability 13, pp. 6952–6952. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3390/su13126952.
Lima, M G Bastos and U Palme (2022). “The Bioeconomy-Biodiversity Nexus: Enhancing or Undermining Nature’s Contributions to People?” Conservation 2, pp. 7–25. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3390/conservation2010002.
Lopes, C L and J Chiavari (2022). Bioeconomia na Amazônia Análise Conceitual, Regulatória e Institucional. Instituto Clima e Sociedade. Vol. 39. Rio de Janeiro: PUC RIO and Instituto Clima e Sociedade, p. 39. URL: https://amazonia2030.org.br/wp-content/uploads/2022/09/Bioeconomia-na-Amazonia-1.pdf.
Marinello, L R (2020). A ratificação do Protocolo de Nagoia e os reflexos para a indústria cosmética. Migalhas, online. URL: https://www.migalhas.com.br/depeso/331929/a-ratificacao-do-protocolo-de-nagoia-e-os-reflexos-para-a-industria-cosmetica.
Matland, R E (1995). “Synthesizing the Implementation Literature: The Ambiguity-Conflict Model of Policy Implementation”. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory 5. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1093/oxfordjournals.jpart.a037242.
Melo, M (2023). “Geraldo Alckmin anuncia decreto para gerir o Centro de Biotecnologia da Amazônia”. Agencia Amazonia.
Meuser, M and U Nagel (2016). “Experteninterview”. In: Handbuch Professionsentwicklung. Ed. by M Dick, W Marotzki, and H A Mieg. Bad Heilbrunn: Verlag Julius Klinkhardt, pp. 342–352.
Michiels, F et al. (2022). “Facing the Harsh Reality of Access and Benefit Sharing (ABS) Legislation: An Industry Perspective”. Sustainability 14(277). DOI: https://doi.org/10.3390/su14010277.
Montgomery, J D (2000). “Social Capital as a Policy Resource”. Policy Sciences 33, pp. 227–243. URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/4532502.
Mozini, L M (2020). “Brazil: New ABS legislation and practice”. In: Fulfilling new obligations among emerging issues. Ed. by E C Kamau. Bonn: Bundesamt für Naturschutz, pp. 65–72.
Müller, M Ruiz (2018). Access to genetic resources and benefit sharing 25 years on: Progress and challenges. Geneva: ICTSD, p. 25.
Nobre, C and I N Nobre (2019). “Projeto ‘Amazônia 4.0’: Definindo uma Terceira Via para a Amazônia”. Futuribles, pp. 7–20.
Nogueira, M (2022). Eco-Inovação e conhecimentos tradicionais associados. São Paulo: Dialética.
Queiroz-Stein, G, F S De Martinelli, et al. (2024). “Disputing the bioeconomy-biodiversity nexus in Brazil: Coalitions, discourses and policies”. Forest Policy and Economics 158. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.forpol.2023.103101.
Queiroz-Stein, G, De, and K M Siegel (2023). “Possibilities for mainstreaming biodiversity? Two perspectives on the concept of bioeconomy”. Earth System Governance 17. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biocon.2019.04.016.
Rabitz, F (2015). “Biopiracy after the Nagoya Protocol: Problem Structure, Regime Design and Implementation Challenges”. Brazilian Political Science Review 9. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1590/1981-38212014000200010.
Rädiker, S (2023). Doing Grounded Theory with MAXQDA. Vol. 48. Berlin: MAXQDA Press.
RAFI, HSCA (1998). An Inquiry into the potential for plant piracy through international intellectual property conventions: Plant breeders Wrongs. URL: https://www.etcgroup.org/sites/www.etcgroup.org/files/publication/400/01/occ_plant.pdf.
Relly, E (2023a). “Recursos genéticos e bioprospecção no Brasil: capitaloceno, protagonismo e os (des)caminhos até o Protocolo de Nagoya”. Caravelle 119, pp. 89–106. DOI: https://doi.org/10.4000/caravelle.13152.
Relly (2023b). The nature of DSI: an historian at the COP15 in Montreal. Niche - Network in Canadian History & Environment. URL: https://niche-canada.org/2023/02/28/the-nature-of-dsi-a-historian-at-the-cop15-in-montreal/.
Robinson, D F (2010). Confronting biopiracy: Challenges, cases and international debates. London: Earthscan, p. 190.
Santilli, J (2004). Socioambientalismo e novos direitos: Proteção jurídica à diversidade biológica e cultural. São Paulo: Instituto Internacional de Educação do Brasil, p. 303.
Segundo, G S Amarante et al. (2018). “O marco legal da biodiversidade e sua aplicação na regularização das atividades com o uso do patrimônio genético brasileiro”. Ver. Dir: Dir Amb. e Desev. Suntent 15, pp. 297–325. DOI: https://doi.org/10.18623/rvd.v15i32.1268.
Shiva, V (2004). Biopiracy: The plunder of nature and knowledge. Boston: South End Press, p. 148.
Shiva, V (2007). “Bioprospecting as Sophisticated Biopiracy”. Signs: Journal of Women in Culture and Society 32. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1086/508502.
Siebenhüner, B and J Suplie (2005). “Implementing the access and benefit-sharing provisions of the CBD: A case for institutional learning”. Ecological Economics 53. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2004.10.012.
Silva, Da et al. (2021). “Comentários e recomendações para regulamentar o Protocolo de Nagoia no Brasil”. Revista do ABPI 171, pp. 28–49. URL: https://portal.fiocruz.br/sites/portal.fiocruz.br/files/documentos/revista_abpi_-_171_-_recomendacoes.regulamentar_protocolo_de_nagoia_1_0.pdf.
Silva, M D and D R Oliveira (2018). “The new Brazilian legislation on access to the biodiversity (Law 13, 123/15 and Decree 8772/16)”. Brazilian Journal of Microbiology 49, pp. 1–4. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bjm.2017.12.001.
Silva, M Da (2019). “Brazil, example of a non-Nagoya Protocol country”. Microbiology Australia 40, pp. 106–108. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1071/MA19029.
Souza Dias, B F de (2022). “Ensino da biodiversidade nas instituições de Ensino Superior”. In: Questões ambientais no século 21: oportunidades e desafios para a educacao superior no Brasil. Ed. by M O Pires and R d O Martins. Brasília: EduX21 Consultoria educacional, pp. 64–133. URL: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/360296954_Ensino_da_Biodiversidade_nas_Instituicoes_de_Ensino_Superior.
Souza, A L G, A A Santos Júnior, and G F Da Silva (2017). “Os “Royalties” das Aplicações Tecnológicas do Patrimônio Genético Nacional e dos Conhecimentos Tradicionais Associados: o Estado Brasileiro em Questão”. Revista Geintec-Gestao Inovacao e Tecnologias 7, pp. 4149–4158. URL: https://www.oasisbr.ibict.br/vufind/Record/AESPI-1_a13ff643a2c7c8a2d27ac6d8760e7298.
Suiseeya, K R M (2014). “Negotiating the Nagoya Protocol: Indigenous Demands for Justice”. Global Environmental Politics 14. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1162/GLEP_a_00241.
Terra de Direitos (2023). Carta Aberta de Recomendações da Sociedade Civil Brasileira para a 15ªConferência das partes da Convenção da Diversidade Biológica e seus Protocolos (COP 15). November 5, 2016. URL: https://terradedireitos.org.br/uploads/arquivos/Carta-web-COP15-Portugues.pdf.
UNEP (1992). Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD). URL: https://www.cbd.int/doc/legal/cbd-en.pdf.
Vanheusden, B and G Van Den Berghe (2017). “The Implementation of ’Access and Benefit sharing’ in Five EU Member States: The Achievements and Deficiencies of the Nagoya Protocol and the EU Regulation 511/2014”. Journal for European environmental & planning law 14, pp. 7–40. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1163/18760104-01401003.
Vogel, J H et al. (2018). “Bounded openness as the modality for the global multilateral benefit-sharing mechanism of the Nagoya Protocol”. In: Routledge Handbook of Biodiversity and the Law. Ed. by C. R. McManis. New York: Routledge, pp. 377–394.
Whitehorn, P R et al. (2019). “Mainstreaming biodiversity: A review of national strategies”. Biological Conservation 235. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biocon.2019.04.016.
This journal has been conceived as part of the