Open AccessA Regional Review of Genetic Resource Access and Benefit Sharing – Key Issues and Research Gaps
Author(s) -
Clare Morrison,
Fran Humphries,
Charles Lawson
Publication year - 2021
Publication title -
environmental policy and law
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
SCImago Journal Rank - 0.178
H-Index - 12
eISSN - 1878-5395
pISSN - 0378-777X
DOI - 10.3233/epl-201028
Subject(s) - intellectual property , traditional knowledge , business , equity (law) , indigenous , convention on biological diversity , genetic resources , knowledge sharing , knowledge management , key (lock) , resource (disambiguation) , sustainable development , environmental resource management , political science , biodiversity , economics , computer science , ecology , computer network , microbiology and biotechnology , computer security , law , biology
Countries are increasingly using access and benefit sharing (ABS) as a legal mechanism to support the conservation and sustainable use of the world’s biological diversity. ABS regulates collection and/or use of genetic resources/traditional knowledge and sharing benefits from their use with the provider. The purpose of this review is to assess the trends, biases and gaps of ABS literature using a regional comparative approach about the key topics of concern between each region. It analyses four key topic groupings: (1) implementation of international, regional and national ABS policy and law; (2) intellectual property and ABS; (3) traditional knowledge; and (4) research, development and commercialisation. Findings included gaps in: (1) analysing effectiveness of national level implementation; (2) addressing apparent conflicts between support for intellectual property promoting exclusivity for traditional knowledge and challenges to intellectual property exclusivity for patents; (3) examining traditional knowledge of local communities (in contrast to Indigenous Peoples); and (4) lack of practical examples that quantify benefit sharing from research and commercialisation outcomes. We conclude that future research addressing the identified gaps and biases can promote more informed understanding among stakeholders about the ABS concept and whether it is capable of delivering concrete biological conservation, sustainable use and equity outcomes.