Search

Traditional knowledge systems of indigenous and local communities have been of immense value over millennia. They have filled the breadbasket that has fed the world, provided medicines that have healed the world, and provided for the sustainable management of resources, including biodiversity. In short, these knowledge systems have fed, clothed, and healed the world. They may yet hold the key to dealing with the risks posed by climate change. Yet today they are in danger of being marginalized. This article identifies the threats, the inadequacy of the international legal architecture, and the faltering national attempts to reassert their role. It identifies the varying interests and elements and assesses their influence in the marginalization and resuscitation of traditional knowledge systems; and finally argues for the emancipation of these systems and their restoration to the plurality of knowledge systems to provide sustainable solutions to natural resource management.

Over the years, researchers in public institutions and universities have accessed genetic materials from a variety of sources, freely exchanged them with fellow researchers and institutions and shared their research results with foreign and local collaborators. The 2010 Nagoya Protocol regulating access to genetic resources is set to change this scenario. This treaty requires country parties to put in place enhanced ABS measures regulating access to their genetic resources and to provide for the sharing of benefits arising from their utilization. These measures include minimum access standards, mandatory prior informed consent of indigenous and local communities, compliance with the domestic laws or requirements of the provider country and monitoring the utilization of genetic resources. This is aimed at commercial research. Non-commercial public research which contributes to the conservation and sustainable use of biological diversity is encouraged, particularly in developing countries, through simplified measures. There are undoubtedly practical challenges in operationalizing this provision without impeding research in the sector most potentially affected by ABS measures. This article presents the results of a survey of the practices of such researchers in one developing country, namely Malaysia. It examines the potential implications for the national implementation of the Protocol. Given country specificities, this study highlights and shows the importance of increasing knowledge about existing practices for an efficient design and implementation by developing countries of a complex legislation such as the Nagoya ABS Protocol.

The Nagoya–Kuala Lumpur Supplementary Protocol on Liability and Redress was finally adopted on 15 October 2010 at Nagoya, Japan. It was negotiated pursuant to a mandate established by the First Conference of the Parties serving as the Meeting of the Parties in 2004 under an enabling provision in the Cartagena Biosafety Protocol. The Supplementary Protocol seeks to deal with damage to biodiversity as well as ‘associated’ traditional material or personal damage. It delineates two pathways to dealing with such damage: the administrative approach that empowers a competent authority to deal with the matter administratively, without initial recourse to courts; and a civil liability approach that requires litigants to seek private law remedies through national legal systems. However, while the Supplementary Protocol has elaborate and comprehensive provisions implementing the administrative approach, it incorporates only a single article on civil liability which does little more than exhort parties to continue to apply their existing domestic law on the subject or establish rules to deal specifically with the matter. This was not the outcome anticipated when the negotiations started. It was the expectation, primarily of developing countries then, that the prospective protocol would deal essentially with civil liability and set out substantive and procedural rules on liability and redress. This article traces how and why all this came to pass. It also analyses the provisions, and the implications, relating to the administrative approach and the single enabling article on civil liability. It deals also with the challenges in implementing the administrative approach, novel to most countries. Finally, it examines the prospect for the emergence in the future of a more elaborate international civil liability regime.

Are the national laws regulating access to genetic resources that countries have enacted in exercise of their sovereign rights accorded by the Convention on Biological Diversity jeopardising food security by failing to take into account the distinctive features of genetic resources for food and agriculture? If so what can be done about it? What are the obstacles to doing so? And how can they be overcome, especially in the context of the present ongoing negotiations for an international regime on access and benefits sharing under the biodiversity convention? This article examines the impact of the national access laws and other instruments on the free access and exchange of these genetic resources and hence on the maintenance of agricultural biological diversity upon which food security hinges so critically. It highlights the obstacles that stand in the way of developing countries facilitating access to their genetic resources and proposes a multilateral non-market-orientated approach to overcome them.

The Seventh Meeting of the Conference of the Parties (2004) of the Convention on Biological Diversity established a mandate for the negotiation of an international regime on Access to Genetic Resources and Benefit Sharing arising from their utilization. Negotiations have been proceeding and have entered the final phase. Seven working group meetings have been held to date and there is expectation that an instrument will emerge by the final deadline � the Tenth Meeting of the Conference of the Parties in Nagoya, Japan in October 2010. A key component singled out for inclusion in the international regime relates to the recognition and protection of the rights of indigenous and local communities (ILCs) over their traditional knowledge (TK) associated with genetic resources. The Ninth Meeting of the Conference of the Parties (2008) established a Group of Technical and Legal Experts to assist the Working Group to deal with this issue. The Group met in India in June 2009 and has submitted a report. This article reflects on the key outcomes of this Expert Group report. In particular, it identifies the key issues that need to be considered and resolved for TK associated to genetic resources to form an integral and viable component of the proposed international regime.

This chapter highlights a few of the more important challenges relating to the scope of the Nagoya Protocol, access and compliance, as well as several issues related to traditional knowledge. It also explores specific challenges related to the implementation of the Protocol in federal systems. The chapter concludes by mapping the way forward, both in terms of developing national legislation and adopting Conference of the Parties (COP) / meeting of the Parties (MOP) decisions, offering potential solutions to key implementation challenges deriving from the final formulation of the Protocol, from an Asian developing country's perspective. To illustrate these challenges, Malaysia is referred to as a case study. Unlike the Nagoya Protocol, the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) includes no precondition that the requirements of prior informed consent (PIC) and mutually agreed terms (MAT) are to be fulfilled through a law or regulatory requirement. Keywords:Asian developing country; compliance; Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD); implementation challenges; Malaysia; mutually agreed terms (MAT); Nagoya Protocol; prior informed consent (PIC); traditional knowledge