Figure 1 - uploaded by Ximing Guo
Content may be subject to copyright.
Diversity of aquatic animal species in aquaculture (Source: FAO State of World Fisheries and Aquaculture 2008).
Context in source publication
Similar publications
Der etablierte Lebensmittelhandel zeichnet sich durch spezifische Praktiken der Selektion und Allokation von Lebensmitteln entlang etablierter, aber streitbarer Kriterien der Wertzuschreibung aus. Digitale Plattformen bieten neue Möglichkeiten die Kritik an den Formen der Wertzuschreibung zu formulieren, alternative Bedeutungskonstruktionen von Leb...
Citations
... Access and benefit sharing was an attempt to create fairness and economic incentives for conserving and sustainably using biological resources and their genetic diversity by requiring users of genetic resources to compensate those who bear the cost of conserving and providing genetic resources (Oberthür and Rosendal 2014;Lawson 2012). Conversely, resource exchange for commercially important aquaculture species generally flows from South to South or North to South (Bartley et al. 2009). Structural developments of the aquaculture sector are leading to fewer and larger companies, so conflicts are likely to evolve between small and large-scale private actors rather than between countries (Rosendal et al. 2013). ...
International regimes regulating access and benefit sharing were originally designed to promote conservation and fairness objectives concerning the use of the world’s biological resources for their genetic material value. These regimes determine from whom permission is required to take the resources and who obtains the benefits of their use. They have evolved separate frameworks in three distinct jurisdictional areas—within national jurisdiction, beyond national jurisdiction and in the Antarctic Treaty Area. This article argues that if these regimes continue to evolve separately, there is a strong temptation for countries to play ‘chicken’ with biological resource governance through forum shopping or opting out of agreements that do not suit their political ends. Using game theory and a transgenic tilapia fish example incorporating genetic material from the three jurisdictional areas, it illustrates the legal and ethical dilemmas that can arise from the territorial (jurisdictional) approach to access and benefit sharing—to the detriment of fairness and conservation in tilapia’s countries of origin. Tilapias are known as the ‘chicken of the sea’ because they dominate global farmed production and developing countries depend on them as their primary source of protein, livelihoods and trade. This means there will be serious consequences if the regimes do not achieve their fairness and conservation objectives for sharing their genetic material. This article concludes that a purpose-driven cooperative governance approach can sidestep the game of chicken and promote fairer and more conservation focused outcomes than the current jurisdictional approach for the developing country providers of migratory aquatic resources.
... Industrial aquaculture was virtually unknown 40 years ago but is now emerging as the fastest growing global food production sector, accounting for almost half of the food fish consumed by humans [6]. Developing countries provide about 80 per cent of global aquaculture production [7]. These countries generally have weaker patent laws than developed countries which may discourage investment in patents in developing countries. ...
... Some of the reasons why patents are likely to become an increasingly important option to protect investment in breeding and research is because of the high cost of investment for biotechnology related inventions, the expense and risk of developing fast-growing diseasefree fish [12] and the increasing concentration of big companies in aquaculture that can afford to claim and defend patents [7]. ...
Patents can have both a positive and negative effect on innovation in aquaculture. On the one hand they may encourage investment in aquatic biotechnology. On the other hand, they may tie up genetic resources and research tools that may have otherwise been freely used by breeders or researchers to develop new breeds. This article considers the role and use of patent law for protecting new strains in aquaculture from unauthorised replication. While patents are not yet as extensive in aquaculture compared with other fields, there are issues that need to be addressed from the outset to protect aquaculture’s increasing role in global food security. Depending on the laws in a particular jurisdiction, patents could be claimed over genetic material products, including those derived from conventional breeding, as well as over processes for example methods of gene research. A central problem for breeders is determining the extent to which a patent holder can control other people’s use of subsequent generations whose breeding line originally incorporated the patented invention. In addressing this problem, the article suggests that exceptions against infringement including experimental use exceptions may be a useful avenue for breeders. It also highlights breeding defences and innocent bystander defences that are emerging in agriculture but which may also have future relevance to aquaculture. The article concludes that as patents start to take hold in aquaculture, breeders need clarity on the circumstances in which they can make a cross with an aquatic strain that includes patented genetic materials (such as a sequence or trait) that are not expressed in their new strain.
... Negotiations resulted in a Protocol on Access and Benefit Sharing (ABS) at the 10th Conference of the Parties to the CBD in Nagoya, in October 2010. 2 The tension between the overlapping and often conflicting objectives of the various international treaties is a controversial North–south issue. Unlike plants, access to or exchange of fish genetic resources and legal protection of investments and research in aquaculture have not been addressed extensively (Greer and Harvey, 2004:5) until recent years by Rosendal et al. (2006), Olesen et al. (2007), Bartley et al. (2009, and Ramanna Pathak (2012). These international rules, policies and obligations need to be transferred to the national level for them to become applicable in a direct manner among private and public parties under national jurisdiction . ...
... Section 3.2 explores the biology of fish, as the importance of fish diversity may imply different perceptions of needs and interests in aquaculture compared to the plant and pharmaceutical sectors. This is relevant for the discussion about whether there is a need for a differentiated approach to ABS for various types of genetic resources (Bartley et al., 2009). In Section 3.3 we rely mostly on the methodology of law. ...
... This differs from aquaculture and animal husbandry, where breeding material has usually not moved from south to north. Without benefit sharing from utilisation of genetic resources, there may be less will and ability to conserve biodiversity in developing countries — although this particular dimension has less immediate relevance in aquaculture compared to the agricultural and pharmaceutical sectors (Bartley et al., 2009). Turning to domestic norms and regulations in Norway, the overall goals for aquaculture are linked to safeguarding coastal settlements and increasing value, sustainable management and innovation (White Paper, 2004–2005). ...
... To facilitate discussions and debate on ABS for GRFA, several background study papers on use and exchange patterns of genetic resources in the different subsectors of food and agriculture were commissioned. 128 These studies provide an overview of past, current and possible future use and exchange patterns, as well as a description of terms and modalities for the use and exchange of GRFA, in the subsectors dealing with animal, aquatic, forest, invertebrate, microbial and plant genetic resources. Additionally, cross-sectoral studies were prepared on the role of GRFA in existing ABS policies and arrangements, 129 on trends in IPR relating to GRFA, 130 and on the impact of climate change on countries' interdependence in the use of GRFA. ...
... To facilitate discussions and debate on ABS for GRFA, several background study papers on use and exchange patterns of genetic resources in the different subsectors of food and agriculture were commissioned. 128 These studies provide an overview of past, current and possible future use and exchange patterns, as well as a description of terms and modalities for the use and exchange of GRFA, in the subsectors dealing with animal, aquatic, forest, invertebrate, microbial and plant genetic resources. Additionally, cross-sectoral studies were prepared on the role of GRFA in existing ABS policies and arrangements, 129 on trends in IPR relating to GRFA, 130 and on the impact of climate change on countries' interdependence in the use of GRFA. ...
... Most fisheries harvest wild populations and, with a few exceptions, the majority of aquaculture species have short histories of domestication and thus are genetically much closer to their wild counterparts. Structured selective breeding programs have also been recently established and have been extremely effective for improving a range of characters for enhanced production (Bartley et al., 2009). Consequently, the fisheries and aquaculture sector has made less use of biotechnologies compared to the crop and livestock sectors. ...
In recent years, the land area under agriculture has declined as also has the rate of growth in agricultural productivity while the demand for food continues to escalate. The world population now stands at 7 billion and is expected to reach 9 billion in 2045. A broad range of agricultural genetic diversity needs to be available and utilized in order to feed this growing population. Climate change is an added threat to biodiversity that will significantly impact genetic resources for food and agriculture (GRFA) and food production. There is no simple, all-encompassing solution to the challenges of increasing productivity while conserving genetic diversity. Sustainable management of GRFA requires a multipronged approach, and as outlined in the paper, biotechnologies can provide powerful tools for the management of GRFA. These tools vary in complexity from those that are relatively simple to those that are more sophisticated. Further, advances in biotechnologies are occurring at a rapid pace and provide novel opportunities for more effective and efficient management of GRFA.
Botanic gardens and arboreta offer the opportunity to conserve and manage a wide range of plant diversity ex situ, and in situ in the broader landscape. The rationale that botanic gardens have a major role to play in preventing plant species extinctions is based on the assumptions that (1) there is no technical reason why any plant species should become extinct, and (2) that, as a professional community, botanic gardens possess a unique set of skills that encompass finding, identifying, collecting, conserving and growing plant diversity across the entire taxonomic spectrum. Botanic Gardens Conservation International (BGCI) is the pivotal centre of a global network of c. 2,600 botanic gardens and arboreta, which includes living collections representing at least one-third of known plant diversity; world class seed banks, glasshouses and tissue culture infrastructures; and technical knowledge networks covering all aspects of plant conservation. Following the example of the crop conservation community, BGCI is promoting the concept of a cost-effective, rational,botanic garden-centred Global System for the conservation and management of plant diversity.This system will aim to collect, conserve, characterise and cultivate samples from all of the world’s rare and threatened plants as an insurance policy against their extinction in the wild and as a source of plant material for human innovation, adaptation and resilience.
Objective:
To present one of the first national dietary guidelines that incorporates food sustainability principles into its public health recommendations.
Design:
The paper outlines recommendations and utilizes an ecological framework of policy analysis to examine context, drivers, consequences and future suggestions in establishing and maintaining sustainability principles within the Qatar Dietary Guidelines.
Setting:
Qatar.
Subjects:
Population of Qatar.
Results:
Qatar has produced one of the first national dietary guidelines to integrate principles of food sustainability. National interest in environmental sustainability and food security, population concern over food waste (reinforced by Islamic religious law), strong authority of the Supreme Council of Health (supported by an Emirate government), a small domestic food industry and a lack of food industry influence on the guidelines have contributed to the inclusion of sustainability principles within the document.
Conclusions:
Whether these principles will be embraced or rejected by the population in the long term will likely be determined by the Dietary Guidelines Task Force and the Supreme Council of Health's commitment to educating the population about the relevance and importance of these principles and establishing champions to advocate for them.
The Nagoya Protocol on Access to Genetic Resources and the Fair and Equitable Sharing of Benefits (ABS) which was adopted in 2010 provides in general for a bilateral exchange of genetic resources and envisages that the country of origin of a resource and its user negotiate the conditions for access and benefit-sharing on a case-by-case basis. However, the Scientific Advisory Board (Scientific Advisory Board for Biodiversity and Genetic Resources at the Federal Ministry of Food, Agriculture and Consumer Protection) takes the view that this type of bilateral exchangeis not suited to the use of genetic resources in agricultural research and breeding. There is some concern that the implementation of ABS measures as specified in the Nagoya Protocol will complicate and discourage the use of genetic resources in agriculture if the distinctive features of agricultural resources and their use are not also taken into consideration. In the face of new challenges such as climate change and continuing population growth, there is an urgent need for cross-boundary research and breeding efforts in the food, agriculture, forestry and fisheries sectors. Fast, uncomplicated and legally reliable access to the genetic resources
for food and agriculture is a basic prerequisite for the development of new crop varieties, livestock breeds and fish strains which are better adapted to quickly changing environmental, cultivation and production conditions and also result in high yields. Unlike in other sectors, genetic resources for food and agriculture are closely associated with human use and are sometimes specifically adapted to local conditions, which sets them apart with respect to the ABS system. Genetic resources for food and agriculture do not match the basic assumptions on the use of genetic
resources reflected in the Nagoya Protocol, namely: that untreated genetic resources are discovered in nature, are collected, scientifically described and put to use through additional technical measures; that each of these steps can be precisely attributed to individual actors; and that specifiable human intervention creates significant commercial and monetary value. These ideas originated in the field of pharmaceutical and cosmetic use of genetic resources but fail when it comes to genetic resources for food and agriculture and the specific exchange structures and innovation processes related to them. The trade in agricultural resources is characterized, inter alia, by complex and mutual exchange relations between the countries involved. Hence it is often impossible to clearly distinguish between „provider countries“ and
„user countries“. Furthermore, the diversity of breeds and species used results from human intervention in agricultural breeding and usage. In this sense, preserving the diversity of these resources is always linked to their sustainable use. In the area of crop and livestock breeding it
is generally impossible to draw a clear line between genetic resources as commodities and as products. The products themselves often serve as a genetic resource for further breeding or for research and development. It is often impossible to determine a single country of origin or to trace a product back to a single exchange of a
specific resource. Agricultural products, plant varieties and animal breeds are often based on variegated resources from several countries of origin and necessarily also on manifold exchange relations between multiple actors within the value-added chain. As a result, any significant breeding success is typically not derived from
a single resource which can be attributed to a specific country of origin but is rather the effect of complex interactions among several stakeholders, multiple resources and often various countries of origin. Elements of a future ABS system should include both the negotiation of conditions for access and benefit-sharing and the implementation of monitoring and tracking measures to follow up on the development of genetic resources.
Given the large number of exchange events, bilateral negotiations for each resource including
monitoring and tracking arrangements would cause significant transaction costs for the
agricultural sector. As the required human and financial resources would easily exceed any
expected financial or other benefit both provider and user countries would abstain from any
exchange in genetic resources.
With its position paper, and given the fact that a bilateral system of ABS will create significant
barriers to the transboundary exchange of genetic resources for food and agriculture, the
Scientific Advisory Board wants to initiate a discussion and work process in order to develop
rules governing the access to genetic resources for food and agriculture and fair and equitable
benefit-sharing and which take account of the particular features of these resources and their
usage. For this purpose, the paper analyses the particularities of the agricultural sectors with
respect to ABS, it highlights potential areas of conflict in the implementation of the Nagoya
Protocol and formulates recommendations for ABS regimes in food and agriculture. The
Scientific Advisory Board will continue to observe the negotiations on the implementation of
the Nagoya Protocol and, if necessary, specify its recommendations by issuing additional
statements.
The Scientific Advisory Board bases its deliberations on the following considerations:
1) The guiding principle for future regulations governing ABS should be to maintain or to
provide reliable and facilitated access to genetic resources for food and agriculture for
breeding, research and training purposes; to create legal security for all transaction partners;
to minimise transaction costs per exchange and to generate a benefit which results in a maximum
contribution to the preservation of genetic resources and does not need to be confined to
monetary value.
2) With respect to agricultural resources, the Nagoya Protocol should be implemented in a
uniform manner across the EU. An important objective for this large economic area is to
facilitate the exchange of genetic resources within the EU. Moreover, efforts should be
undertaken to also facilitate the exchange between EU and non-EU countries.
3) For agricultural genetic resources, it is generally recommended that ABS procedures
should be standardised and aggregated, and that benefit-sharing should be decoupled from
both individual providers of genetic resources and the individual genetic resource. We therefore
suggest developing multilateral mechanisms. Such mechanisms may be intergovernmental
or voluntary agreements between public institutions and the main private stakeholders
that are directly affected. Compared to bilateral solutions, multilateral agreements have the
advantage that additional transaction costs are kept low.
4) The development of ABS systems should differ according to types of use, also taking into account
the differences in the respective innovation processes. While the bilateral approach might be
appropriate for the pharmaceutical or cosmetic use of genetic resources as envisaged in the
Nagoya Protocol, significant progress in breeding and research of genetic resources for food and
agriculture, including their use as renewables and for energy purposes, is only possible if
access to the many required genetic resources is as open and as easy to handle as possible.
5) When implementing the Nagoya Protocol, interventions in private law should be kept
to an absolute minimum, i.e. the rules should be limited to genetic resources which are
under public control. For sectors where the majority of genetic resources are privately
owned, we recommend the establishment of ex situ collections of genetic resources in public
domain, i.e. in public genebanks. Not only would they make an important contribution towards
preserving the respective resources; by using standardised access and benefit-sharing rules,
they could also be designed in a way that allows for free access for agricultural research and
breeding while any benefit claims could be used to finance conservation activities.
6) Developing ABS rules for genetic resources for food and agriculture (GRFA) requires
precise delimitation and definition. This will present some difficulties as not all current and
potential uses are known. At the beginning of the negotiations of GRFA-specific ABS systems,
the Scientific Advisory Board suggests, as a first step, compiling a list of species/genera for each
sector for which specific uses in plant and animal breeding are already known and for which a
system with facilitated access and benefit-sharing could be developed. These lists of species/genera
could be extended in the future. It may also be possible to develop ABS systems where the type of
use determines the relevant rules on access and benefit-sharing. However, the experience gained
from the negotiations on the Multilateral System of the International Treaty on Plant Genetic
Resources for Food and Agriculture highlights the fact that such an approach faces major problems
of acceptance at global level.
7) The country of origin of a resource should be disclosed, if known, in patent applications
that are based on genetic resources. Such a requirement to disclose the country of
origin should be introduced into the respective international negotiations.
8) Microorganisms and invertebrates which are of relevance for the food and agriculture sectors
could be included in the drafting of an overall regulation on ABS for GRFA. However, in this
paper the Scientific Advisory Board only describes the particularities of this group of organisms with
respect to ABS.
9) Even though the requirements and conditions of the different sectors differ in detail, the
aspects they have in common, as identified in this paper, justify the conclusion that rules on
access and benefit-sharing should be found at a higher level and for all genetic resources for
food and agriculture. The Federal Ministry of Food, Agriculture and Consumer Protection
should therefore support such overarching agreements during the upcoming negotiations
on ABS, both at FAO level and at the level of the Contracting Parties to the CBD. On the one hand,
this is intended to facilitate access to the genetic resources for food and agriculture provided by
Germany. On the other hand, these efforts should also aim at supporting German stakeholders in
their attempt to gain uncomplicated access to genetic resources in other countries.
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.
KeywordsBiodiversity–Developing countries–Food security–Genetic resources for food and agriculture–Regulating access and benefit sharing
