SUBSCRIBE TODAY!
Subscribing entitles a reader to complete stories on all topics released as they happen, special features, confidential documents and access to the complete, searchable story archive online back to 2004.
IP-Watch Summer Interns

IP-Watch interns talk about their Geneva experience in summer 2013. 2:42.

Inside Views

Submit ideas to info [at] ip-watch [dot] ch!

We welcome your participation in article and blog comment threads, and other discussion forums, where we encourage you to analyse and react to the content available on the Intellectual Property Watch website.

By participating in discussions or reader forums, or by submitting opinion pieces or comments to articles, blogs, reviews or multimedia features, you are consenting to these rules.

1. You agree that you are fully responsible for the content that you post. You will not knowingly post content that violates the copyright, trademark, patent or other intellectual property right of any third party or which you know is under a confidentiality obligation preventing its publication and that you will request removal of the same should you discover that you have violated this provision. Likewise, you may not post content that is libelous, defamatory, obscene, abusive, that violates a third party's right to privacy, that otherwise violates any applicable local, state, national or international law, that amounts to spamming or that is otherwise inappropriate. You may not post content that degrades others on the basis of gender, race, class, ethnicity, national origin, religion, sexual preference, disability or other classification. Epithets and other language intended to intimidate or to incite violence are also prohibited. Furthermore, you may not impersonate others.

2. You understand and agree that Intellectual Property Watch is not responsible for any content posted by you or third parties. You further understand that IP Watch does not monitor the content posted. Nevertheless, IP Watch may monitor the any user-generated content as it chooses and reserves the right to remove, edit or otherwise alter content that it deems inappropriate for any reason whatever without consent nor notice. We further reserve the right, in our sole discretion, to remove a user's privilege to post content on our site. IP Watch is not in any manner endorsing the content of the discussion forums and cannot and will not vouch for its reliability or otherwise accept liability for it.

3. By submitting any contribution to IP Watch, you warrant that your contribution is your own original work and that you have the right to make it available to IP Watch for all purposes and you agree to indemnify IP Watch, its directors, employees and agents against all damages, legal fees and others expenses that may be incurred by IP Watch as a result of your breach of warranty or of these terms.

4. You further agree not to publish any personal information about yourself or anyone else (for example telephone number or home address). If you add a comment to a blog, be aware that your email address will be apparent.

5. IP Watch will not be liable for any loss including but not limited to the following (whether such losses are foreseen, known or otherwise): loss of data, loss of revenue or anticipated profit, loss of business, loss of opportunity, loss of goodwill or injury to reputation, losses suffered by third parties, any indirect, consequential or exemplary damages.

6. You understand and agree that the discussion forums are to be used only for non-commercial purposes. You may not solicit funds, promote commercial entities or otherwise engage in commercial activity in our discussion forums.

7. You acknowledge and agree that you use and/or rely on any information obtained through the discussion forums at your own risk.

8. For any content that you post, you hereby grant to IP Watch the royalty-free, irrevocable, perpetual, exclusive and fully sub-licensable license to use, reproduce, modify, adapt, publish, translate, create derivative works from, distribute, perform and display such content in whole or in part, world-wide and to incorporate it in other works, in any form, media or technology now known or later developed.

9. These terms and your posts and contributions shall be governed and interpreted in accordance with the laws of Switzerland (without giving effect to conflict of laws principles thereof) and any dispute exclusively settled by the Courts of the Canton of Geneva.

Latest Comments
  • So simply put, we have the NABP saying that all ph... »
  • The original Brustle decision was widely criticise... »

  • For IPW Subscribers

    A directory of IP delegates in Geneva. Read more>

    A guide to Geneva-based public health and intellectual property organisations. Read More >


    Monthly Reporter

    The Intellectual Property Watch Monthly Reporter, published from 2004 to January 2011, is a 16-page monthly selection of the most important, updated stories and features, plus the People and News Briefs columns.

    The Intellectual Property Watch Monthly Reporter is available in an online archive on the IP-Watch website, available for IP-Watch Subscribers.

    Access the Monthly Reporter Archive >

    EU’s Nagoya Protocol Ratification: How It Works

    Published on 7 May 2014 @ 12:52 pm

    By for Intellectual Property Watch

    The European Union Council of Ministers on 14 April adopted a decision approving the ratification of a protocol meant to facilitate access to genetic resources and to provide the fair sharing of commercial benefits with provider countries. The target date for ratification is July 2014, according to the EU.

    The Council adopted two texts related to the Nagoya Protocol on Access to Genetic Resources and the Fair and Equitable Sharing of Benefits Arising from their Utilization. One was a decision approving its ratification, and the other was a regulation (referred to as the “EU access and benefit-sharing regulation”), which modify the EU legislation in order to be in line with the requirements of the Protocol.

    The Nagoya Protocol of the UN Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) was adopted on 29 October 2010. Its purpose is to set minimal requirements on access and benefit-sharing (ABS) for the use of genetic resources (GR) and associated traditional knowledge (TK), including those belonging to indigenous people. It sets several principles such as prior and informed consent of the country of origin of the resource, or of the indigenous peoples through mutually agreed terms.

    The protocol will enter into force three months after the 50th ratification. At press time, the text had been ratified by 29 states [corrected]. The ongoing process of ratification by the EU and likely its member states is closely followed as it would lead to the number of 50 ratifications needed.

    If the Nagoya Protocol is ratified in time, it could lead to an entry into force of the Protocol by the next planned biennial high-level meeting of the CBD. That meeting, the Conference of the Parties serving as the first Meeting of the Parties to the Protocol (COP/MOP), is scheduled for October 2014 in Seoul, South Korea.

    Otherwise, the next opportunity to hold the first meeting of parties would be the next CBD Conference of Parties in 2016.

    As an additional impetus, parties to the CBD agreed in the Aïchi targets, which are part of the CBD parties’ strategic plan for biodiversity for 2011-2020, that the Nagoya Protocol should enter into force before the end of 2015 (Target 16).

    Why Now?

    The EU signed the Nagoya Protocol in July 2011. An analysis of the text by the European Commission in October 2011 concluded that the ratification would have economic impact and that “additional legislation is needed for the EU to fulfil its obligations as a Party to the ABS Protocol.” It was thus decided to adopt a legislation prior to a ratification.

    The EU legislative process was lengthy, including an online consultation and an impact assessment study (documents here), which led to a draft regulation analysed and modified both by the European Parliament and the European Council. The full legislative procedure is here.

    Both texts still have to be published in the Official Journal of the European Union, which might take a few weeks, according to Joe Hennon, spokesperson for Janez Potočnik, the European Commissioner for Environment.

    “The deposition of the ratification is envisaged ahead of July 2014,” Hennon told Intellectual Property Watch, which meets the objective to hold the first COP/MOP in October 2014, as the Nagoya Protocol will enter into force three months after the 50th ratification.

    Draft Regulation in Question

    The EU draft regulation has already been presented as insufficient to comply with all the objectives of the Nagoya Protocol, in particular regarding the protection of the rights of indigenous peoples over their genetic resources and associated traditional knowledge.

    In an article entitled “European Union Draft Law Threatens Indigenous Peoples’ Rights over their Traditional Knowledge and Genetic Resources,” published in the European Intellectual Property Review, Brendan Tobin, research fellow at the Australian Centre for Intellectual Property in Agriculture (ACIPA), argues that the scope of the draft regulation undermines the rights of indigenous peoples.

    First, the draft regulation defines traditional knowledge “for the purpose of protection” as “described in the mutually agreed terms applying to the use of genetic resources.” This “excludes all traditional knowledge that is not the subject of an access agreement,” Tobin said.

    In other words, this leads to exclusion of “all traditional knowledge accessed without prior informed consent and mutually agreed terms.” That in turns means that situations where there is no contract relating to access would be out of the scope of the EU protection against biopiracy.

    Second, Article 4(1) of the EU draft regulation states that users shall “exercise due diligence” to ensure that GR and associated TK are accessed and that “benefits are fairly and equitably shared upon mutually agreed terms, in accordance with any applicable legislation or regulatory requirements.”

    Thus, the EU legislation only applies “where relevant national legislation exists in the countries in which the relevant genetic resources and traditional knowledge are obtained,” which is non-compliant with articles 6 and 7 of the Nagoya Protocol, Tobin argues in his paper.

    The office of Sandrine Bélier, member of the EU Parliament and rapporteur of the EU draft regulation on ABS, told Intellectual Property Watch that there are some insufficiencies in the text. These concern the scope as well as controls on the use of genetic resources, as it requires reporting only during the research step and final steps of development of the product.

    “Member states did not have a constructive attitude during the negotiations and it was clear that many countries would have preferred that there is no regulation,” her office added.

    Bélier, during the vote on the text, also stated that “the negotiation with the Council was difficult, but its result, if less ambitious than the position adopted by the European Parliament in July 2013, is its regulation which enables the European Union to ratify the Nagoya Protocol and to be a stakeholder at the next UN conference for biodiversity” [translated]. [link to the video here.]

    Two-Tiered Ratification Process

    As the Nagoya Protocol concerns several domains of competence shared between the EU and its member states (See the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, articles 2-5), the EU does not have the exclusive competence to negotiate and ratify it. Thus, the upcoming ratification of the Nagoya Protocol by the EU would not lead to an automatic ratification by all member states.

    [corrected] According to Article 33 of the Nagoya Protocol, “any instrument deposited by a regional economic integration organization shall not be counted as additional to those deposited by member States of such organization.” In consequence, the EU ratification will not be counted as one if at least one of the EU member States ratify it after. So the 28 member states have to individually ratify it.

    Some 23 member states have signed the protocol (those which have not signed it are Croatia, Estonia, Latvia, Malta, and Slovakia) but none of them have yet ratified it.

    The fact that those countries did not ratify the protocol can be explained by the injunction of the European Commission to member states to not ratify the Nagoya Protocol before EU did it. Indeed, the European Commission in the document 15191/11 in 2011 considered that it was “excluded that individual EU [member States] would ratify unilaterally, prior to a ratification by the EU,” considering it would “be in conflict with the EU Treaty.”

    Still, the question remains whether all EU member states that signed the Nagoya Protocol intend to ratify it before July. As the EU draft regulation leaves a lot of issues to be settled by member states, these should have already prepared a national legislation and passed it before July, which remains uncertain.

    Hennon told Intellectual Property Watch that “The vast majority of EU member states has signed the Nagoya Protocol and have therewith expressed their commitment to ratify it and will do so either jointly with the EU ratification or in the months thereafter if the national requirements for ratification of international instruments require more time.”

    Bélier’s office expressed its hope that the adoption of the EU ABS regulation “will create a dynamic of ratification within member states,” underlying that France for example will adopt this year a “framework” law on biodiversity that includes the ratification and implementation of the Nagoya Protocol.

    A few weeks after the adoption of the EU regulation on 26 March, the French Ministry of Environment presented a draft bill on biodiversity, of which Title IV implements the draft EU ABS regulation and the Nagoya Protocol.

    However, the explanatory statements of the law on page 10 state that, “Like most European countries, France could make the choice not to regulate the access to its GR and associated TK.” Moreover, considering the legislative process time, the French government does not expect the entry into force of its legislation before 1 January 2015 (see draft bill, Article 17).

    The United Kingdom recently closed a consultation on the implementation of the Nagoya Protocol in the UK.

    In sum, there appears to been little chance that all EU member states will ratify the Nagoya Protocol before July 2014. Thus, the EU and its member states may not be among those by which the Nagoya Protocol has reached the 50 ratifications before the Seoul conference in October. But they could help to meet the Aïchi target, which states the Nagoya Protocol should enter into force before the end of 2015.

    Maëli ASTRUC is an intern at Intellectual Property Watch. She has a Master’s Degree in International Law from Aix-en-Provence University and a LL.M from Ottawa University. During her studies, she developed a high interest in intellectual property issues in particular related to agriculture and traditional knowledge.

     

    Maëli Astruc may be reached at info@ip-watch.ch.

     

    Comments

    1. IP-Watch Interns Provide Fresh Perspective, Solid Reporting | Intellectual Property Watch says:

      […] well as internet governance. During her internship, she provided in-depth stories in areas such as the ratification by the European Union of the Nagoya Protocol on Access to Genetic Resources and the Fair and […]


    Leave a Reply

    We welcome your participation in article and blog comment threads, and other discussion forums, where we encourage you to analyse and react to the content available on the Intellectual Property Watch website. By participating in discussions or reader forums, or by submitting opinion pieces or comments to articles, blogs, reviews or multimedia features, you are consenting to these rules.

    We welcome your participation in article and blog comment threads, and other discussion forums, where we encourage you to analyse and react to the content available on the Intellectual Property Watch website.

    By participating in discussions or reader forums, or by submitting opinion pieces or comments to articles, blogs, reviews or multimedia features, you are consenting to these rules.

    1. You agree that you are fully responsible for the content that you post. You will not knowingly post content that violates the copyright, trademark, patent or other intellectual property right of any third party or which you know is under a confidentiality obligation preventing its publication and that you will request removal of the same should you discover that you have violated this provision. Likewise, you may not post content that is libelous, defamatory, obscene, abusive, that violates a third party's right to privacy, that otherwise violates any applicable local, state, national or international law, that amounts to spamming or that is otherwise inappropriate. You may not post content that degrades others on the basis of gender, race, class, ethnicity, national origin, religion, sexual preference, disability or other classification. Epithets and other language intended to intimidate or to incite violence are also prohibited. Furthermore, you may not impersonate others.

    2. You understand and agree that Intellectual Property Watch is not responsible for any content posted by you or third parties. You further understand that IP Watch does not monitor the content posted. Nevertheless, IP Watch may monitor the any user-generated content as it chooses and reserves the right to remove, edit or otherwise alter content that it deems inappropriate for any reason whatever without consent nor notice. We further reserve the right, in our sole discretion, to remove a user's privilege to post content on our site. IP Watch is not in any manner endorsing the content of the discussion forums and cannot and will not vouch for its reliability or otherwise accept liability for it.

    3. By submitting any contribution to IP Watch, you warrant that your contribution is your own original work and that you have the right to make it available to IP Watch for all purposes and you agree to indemnify IP Watch, its directors, employees and agents against all damages, legal fees and others expenses that may be incurred by IP Watch as a result of your breach of warranty or of these terms.

    4. You further agree not to publish any personal information about yourself or anyone else (for example telephone number or home address). If you add a comment to a blog, be aware that your email address will be apparent.

    5. IP Watch will not be liable for any loss including but not limited to the following (whether such losses are foreseen, known or otherwise): loss of data, loss of revenue or anticipated profit, loss of business, loss of opportunity, loss of goodwill or injury to reputation, losses suffered by third parties, any indirect, consequential or exemplary damages.

    6. You understand and agree that the discussion forums are to be used only for non-commercial purposes. You may not solicit funds, promote commercial entities or otherwise engage in commercial activity in our discussion forums.

    7. You acknowledge and agree that you use and/or rely on any information obtained through the discussion forums at your own risk.

    8. For any content that you post, you hereby grant to IP Watch the royalty-free, irrevocable, perpetual, exclusive and fully sub-licensable license to use, reproduce, modify, adapt, publish, translate, create derivative works from, distribute, perform and display such content in whole or in part, world-wide and to incorporate it in other works, in any form, media or technology now known or later developed.

    9. These terms and your posts and contributions shall be governed and interpreted in accordance with the laws of Switzerland (without giving effect to conflict of laws principles thereof) and any dispute exclusively settled by the Courts of the Canton of Geneva.

     

     
    Your IP address is 23.20.30.63