User menu

Accès à distance ? S'identifier sur le proxy UCLouvain

The Challenges for Implementing the Nagoya Protocol in a Multi-Level Governance Context: Lessons from the Belgian Case

Primary tabs

download
  • Open access
  • PDF
  • 272.60 K
Coolsaet, Brendan [UCL] Dedeurwaerdere, Tom Pitseys, John

The Nagoya Protocol on Access and Benefit-sharing is the latest protocol to the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD). Its implementation can lead to two fundamentally different processes: a market-oriented self-regulatory approach, which emphasizes the self-regulating capacity of the economic actors involved, or a normative institutionalist approach, which focuses on the norms and formal rules of institutions that not only support and frame, but also shape and constrain the actions of the players acting within them. This paper analyzes the challenges related to the implementation of the Nagoya Protocol in the specific case of Belgium, and evaluates the possibility of moving from a self-regulatory to an institutional approach of implementation, which we argue is necessary to achieve the objectives of the Protocol. This move is analyzed in the specific multi-level governance context characterizing the Nagoya Protocol, which has a natural tendency towards a market-oriented self-regulatory approach.

Document type Article de périodique (Journal article) – Article de recherche
Access type Accès libre
Publication date 2013
Language Anglais
Journal information "Resources" - Vol. 2, no. 4, p. 555-580 (2013)
Peer reviewed yes
Publisher Université catholique de Louvain (Louvain-la-Neuve)
issn 2079-9276
e-issn 2079-9276
Publication status Publié
Affiliations UCL - SSH/JURI/PJTD - Théorie du droit
UCL - SSH/SPLE - Institut de sciences politiques Louvain-Europe
Keywords self-regulation ; institutionalism ; European environmental policy ; biodiversity governance ; access and benefit-sharing (ABS) ; Nagoya Protocol ; implementation challenges
Links
  1. (1992)
  2. MGBEOJI IKECHI, Beyond Rhetoric: State Sovereignty, Common Concern, and the Inapplicability of the Common Heritage Concept to Plant Genetic Resources, 10.1017/s092215650300147x
  3. Hufty Marc, La gouvernance internationale de la biodiversité, 10.7202/704254ar
  4. Vogel (2007)
  5. Rosendal, 79 (2006)
  6. Aubertin, Sustentabilidade Em Debate, 2, 51 (2011)
  7. Dedeurwaerdere (2013)
  8. Chiarolla, 11 (2010)
  9. Aubertin (2007)
  10. Dedeurwaerdere Tom, From bioprospecting to reflexive governance, 10.1016/j.ecolecon.2004.10.013
  11. Shepsle (2006)
  12. Bolton (2005)
  13. Meyer John W., Rowan Brian, Institutionalized Organizations: Formal Structure as Myth and Ceremony, 10.1086/226550
  14. Scott (2001)
  15. Auld (2009)
  16. Senden, Electron. J. Comp. Law, 9, 1 (2005)
  17. Martin Adrian, McGuire Shawn, Sullivan Sian, Global environmental justice and biodiversity conservation : Global environmental justice and biodiversity conservation, 10.1111/geoj.12018
  18. De Jonge Bram, What is Fair and Equitable Benefit-sharing?, 10.1007/s10806-010-9249-3
  19. Hall Peter A., Taylor Rosemary C. R., Political Science and the Three New Institutionalisms, 10.1111/j.1467-9248.1996.tb00343.x
  20. Morgan, 6 (2003)
  21. Jessop Bob, Capitalism and its future: remarks on regulation, government and governance, 10.1080/096922997347751
  22. Bries (2011)
  23. (2011)
  24. Gunningham N., Environment Law, Regulation and Governance: Shifting Architectures, 10.1093/jel/eqp011
  25. O’Toole, 169 (2008)
  26. Powell, 295 (2002)
  27. Castells (2000)
  28. Stoker Gerry, Governance as theory: five propositions, 10.1111/1468-2451.00106
  29. Newig, Ecol. Soc., 15 (2010)
  30. Sørensen, 169 (2008)
  31. Kooiman, 1 (1993)
  32. Dixit (1993)
  33. Fischer (2003)
  34. Fischer (1993)
  35. Pitseys, Rev. Interdiscip. Etud. Jurid., 58, 150 (2007)
  36. Beroe Inc Web Pagehttp://www.beroeinc.com/insights/whitepapers/nagoya-protocol-and-its-implication-pharmaceutical-industry
  37. Czarniawska (2004)
  38. Czarniawska (1997)
  39. Pitseys, Droit et Société.
  40. Frison (2006)
  41. Young (2009)
  42. Laird (2012)
  43. West, Law Environ. Dev. J., 8, 21 (2012)
  44. SONNENFELD DAVID A., MOL ARTHUR P. J., Globalization and the Transformation of Environmental Governance : An Introduction, 10.1177/0002764202045009003
  45. Richerzhagen Carmen, Effective governance of access and benefit-sharing under the Convention on Biological Diversity, 10.1007/s10531-011-0086-0
  46. Coolsaet, 249 (2013)
  47. Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) Web Pagehttp://www.cbd.int/absicnp1/documents/
  48. Pierre, 14 (2000)
  49. Jessop (2004)
  50. Aman, Globalization, Democracy, and the Need for a New Administrative Law, 10.2979/gls.2003.10.1.125
  51. RHODES R. A. W., THE HOLLOWING OUT OF THE STATE: THE CHANGING NATURE OF THE PUBLIC SERVICE IN BRITAIN, 10.1111/j.1467-923x.1994.tb00441.x
  52. Raustiala Kal, Victor David G., The Regime Complex for Plant Genetic Resources, 10.1017/s0020818304582036
  53. Oberthür (2013)
  54. Sand Peter H., Sovereignty Bounded: Public Trusteeship for Common Pool Resources?, 10.1162/152638004773730211
  55. The Federal government and the federated entities ratified the CBD on 22 November 1996 (Belgian Official Journal, 2 April 1997; pp. 7671–7692)http://www.biodiv.be/implementation/ratification/
  56. The International Treaty Web Pagehttp://www.planttreaty.org/content/texts-treaty-official-versions
  57. Medaglia (2013)
  58. Riccardo, 185 (2012)
  59. Vivas-Eugui (2012)
  60. World Trade Organization Web Page. For the latest developments and documents concerning the review of Article 27.3(b) of the TRIPS Agreementhttp://www.wto.org/english/tratop_e/trips_e/art27_3b_e.htm
  61. Carr, J. Transnatl. Law Policy, 18, 131 (2008)
  62. Decreet betreffende het Natuurbehoud en het Natuurlijk Milieu, 21 October 1997http://codex.vlaanderen.be/Zoeken/Document.aspx?DID=1005915
  63. Code Wallon de l’aménagement du Territoire, de L’urbanisme, du Patrimoine et de L’énergiehttp://wallex.wallonie.be/index.php?doc=1423
  64. Buck Matthias, Hamilton Clare, The Nagoya Protocol on Access to Genetic Resources and the Fair and Equitable Sharing of Benefits Arising from their Utilization to the Convention on Biological Diversity : THE NAGOYA PROTOCOL, 10.1111/j.1467-9388.2011.00703.x
  65. Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) Web Pagehttp://www.cbd.int/abs/text/articles/default.shtml?sec=abs-06
  66. (2007)
  67. Withana (2012)
  68. Kamau, Law Dev. J., 6, 248 (2010)
  69. Hoare Alison L., Tarasofsky Richard G., Asking and Telling: Can "Disclosure of Origin" Requirements in Patent Applications Make a Difference?, 10.1111/j.1747-1796.2007.00318.x
  70. See the letter dated 11 May 2005 by the Permanent Delegation of the European Commission to the International Organizations in Geneva addressed to WIPO’s Intergovernmental Committee on Intellectual Property and Genetic Resources, Traditional Knowledge and Folklore (WIPO/GRTKF/IC/8/11)http://www.wipo.int/edocs/mdocs/tk/en/wipo_grtkf_ic_8/wipo_grtkf_ic_8_11.pdf
  71. Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) Web Pagehttp://www.cbd.int/abs/text/default.shtml
  72. Greiber, 372 (2012)
  73. Täuber (2011)
  74. Tvedt, J. World Intellect. Prop., 14, 383 (2011)
Bibliographic reference Coolsaet, Brendan ; Dedeurwaerdere, Tom ; Pitseys, John. The Challenges for Implementing the Nagoya Protocol in a Multi-Level Governance Context: Lessons from the Belgian Case. In: Resources, Vol. 2, no. 4, p. 555-580 (2013)
Permanent URL http://hdl.handle.net/2078.1/134650