English (United Kingdom)

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/featured_content/oa?rat=en

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/highlighted_journal/

Global: Zendy Plus annual

Presents the access of premium content as premium feature

Premium Content

Presents the keyphrase highlighting as premium feature

Keyphrase Highlighting

Presents the summarisation as premium feature

Summarisation

Insights

Presents the pdf analysis as premium feature

PDF Analysis

Presents the zaia usage as premium feature

ZAIA

Global: Zendy Tools annual

Global: Zendy Free Plan

Global: Zendy Tools monthly

Global: Zendy Plus monthly

Recently enacted two international laws – Nagoya Protocol on access and benefit sharing (ABS) and International Treaty on Plant Genetic Resources for Food and Agriculture (ITPGRFA) – deal with the access/utilization of and benefit sharing arising out from genetic resources and associated traditional knowledge (TK). Both the instruments lack relevant appropriate provisions guiding the countries to take administrative or legislative measures for covering and addressing the benefit sharing from the ex situ collections of genetic resources that were accessed well before the Nagoya Protocol came into existence. Developed nations show no willingness to share the benefits arising from the biological resources which they accessed from developing countries and retain ex situ. As a result, most affected entity would be the indigenous people and local communities (ILCs) – the custodians of most of the local biological resources – who would receive no benefits. The implications on this crucial issue will be critically reviewed in this article to identify appropriate solutions to this bottleneck using a few case studies.

Debate on Genetic Resources Accessed Ex Situ in the context of the Nagoya Protocol