Access and Benefit Sharing Under the Nagoya Protocol-

Access and Benefit Sharing (ABS) Nagoya Protocol benefit sharing biological resources natural products traditional medicine

Journal

Frontiers in pharmacology
ISSN: 1663-9812
Titre abrégé: Front Pharmacol
Pays: Switzerland
ID NLM: 101548923

Informations de publication

Date de publication:
2020
Historique:
received: 10 03 2020
accepted: 07 05 2020
entrez: 26 6 2020
pubmed: 26 6 2020
medline: 26 6 2020
Statut: epublish

Résumé

Global challenges related to access and benefit sharing (ABS) of biological resources have become a key concern in the area of research on herbal medicines, ethnopharmacology, drug discovery, and the development of other high value products for which Intellectual Property protection can be secured. While the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD, Rio 1992) has been recognized as a huge step forward, the implementation of the Nagoya Protocol (NP) and of new forms of collaboration often remain unresolved, especially in the context of "the fair and equitable sharing of benefits arising from the utilization of genetic resources" (Convention on Biological Diversity, 2011). The vision and the specific implementation of this international treaty vary from country to country, which poses additional challenges. Using a case study approach, in this analysis we aim at understanding the specific opportunities and challenges for implementing international collaborations regarding ABS in six Latin American countries-Chile, Colombia, Guatemala, México, Panama, and Peru. Based on that analysis, we provide recommendations for the path ahead regarding international collaborations under ABS agreements in ethnopharmacological research. The implementation of the NP varies in the six countries; and while they are all rich in biodiversity, access and benefit sharing mechanisms differ considerably. There is a need to engage in a consultation process with stakeholders, but this has often come to a halt. Institutional infrastructures to implement national policies are weak, and the level of knowledge about the NP and the CBD within countries remains limited. Different policies in the six countries result in very diverse strategies and opportunities relating to the equitable use of biodiversity. A long-term strategy is required to facilitate a better understanding of the treaties and the resulting opportunities for a fairer development and implementation of transparent national polices, which currently differ in the six countries. So far, the benefits envisioned by the CBD and the NP remain unfulfilled for all stakeholders involved including local communities.

Sections du résumé

BACKGROUND BACKGROUND
Global challenges related to access and benefit sharing (ABS) of biological resources have become a key concern in the area of research on herbal medicines, ethnopharmacology, drug discovery, and the development of other high value products for which Intellectual Property protection can be secured. While the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD, Rio 1992) has been recognized as a huge step forward, the implementation of the Nagoya Protocol (NP) and of new forms of collaboration often remain unresolved, especially in the context of "the fair and equitable sharing of benefits arising from the utilization of genetic resources" (Convention on Biological Diversity, 2011). The vision and the specific implementation of this international treaty vary from country to country, which poses additional challenges.
AIMS OBJECTIVE
Using a case study approach, in this analysis we aim at understanding the specific opportunities and challenges for implementing international collaborations regarding ABS in six Latin American countries-Chile, Colombia, Guatemala, México, Panama, and Peru. Based on that analysis, we provide recommendations for the path ahead regarding international collaborations under ABS agreements in ethnopharmacological research.
RESULTS AND DISCUSSIONS CONCLUSIONS
The implementation of the NP varies in the six countries; and while they are all rich in biodiversity, access and benefit sharing mechanisms differ considerably. There is a need to engage in a consultation process with stakeholders, but this has often come to a halt. Institutional infrastructures to implement national policies are weak, and the level of knowledge about the NP and the CBD within countries remains limited.
CONCLUSIONS CONCLUSIONS
Different policies in the six countries result in very diverse strategies and opportunities relating to the equitable use of biodiversity. A long-term strategy is required to facilitate a better understanding of the treaties and the resulting opportunities for a fairer development and implementation of transparent national polices, which currently differ in the six countries. So far, the benefits envisioned by the CBD and the NP remain unfulfilled for all stakeholders involved including local communities.

Identifiants

pubmed: 32581783
doi: 10.3389/fphar.2020.00765
pmc: PMC7294742
doi:

Types de publication

Journal Article

Langues

eng

Pagination

765

Informations de copyright

Copyright © 2020 Heinrich, Scotti, Andrade-Cetto, Berger-Gonzalez, Echeverría, Friso, Garcia-Cardona, Hesketh, Hitziger, Maake, Politi, Spadafora and Spadafora.

Références

Phytomedicine. 2019 Feb;53:332-343
pubmed: 30318154
J Ethnopharmacol. 2020 Sep 15;259:112885
pubmed: 32311487
Evid Based Complement Alternat Med. 2013;2013:291903
pubmed: 24454490
Trends Biotechnol. 2018 Jan;36(1):1-3
pubmed: 28964595
Phytother Res. 2000 Nov;14(7):479-88
pubmed: 11054835
Ageing Res Rev. 2008 Jul;7(3):249-74
pubmed: 17913595
Science. 2018 Jun 29;360(6396):1405-1406
pubmed: 29954970
Planta Med. 2011 Jul;77(11):1189-202
pubmed: 21674433
Front Pharmacol. 2015 Oct 26;6:237
pubmed: 26578954
J Antibiot (Tokyo). 1975 Oct;28(10):727-32
pubmed: 1102509
Nat Prod Rep. 2014 May;31(5):676-93
pubmed: 24691743
Trends Ecol Evol. 1996 Sep;11(9):362-6
pubmed: 21237880

Auteurs

Michael Heinrich (M)

Research Group 'Pharmacognosy and Phytotherapy', UCL School of Pharmacy, University of London, London, United Kingdom.

Francesca Scotti (F)

Research Group 'Pharmacognosy and Phytotherapy', UCL School of Pharmacy, University of London, London, United Kingdom.

Adolfo Andrade-Cetto (A)

Laboratorio de Etnofarmacología, Facultad de Ciencias, Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México, Mexico City, Mexico.

Monica Berger-Gonzalez (M)

Centro de Estudios en Salud, Universidad del Valle de Guatemala, Guatemala City, Guatemala.

Javier Echeverría (J)

Departamento de Ciencias del Ambiente, Facultad de Química y Biología, Universidad de Santiago de Chile, Santiago, Chile.

Fabio Friso (F)

Departmento de Investigación, Centro de Rehabilitación de Toxicómanos y de Investigación de Medicinas Tradicionales-Takiwasi, Tarapoto, Peru.

Felipe Garcia-Cardona (F)

Instituto de Investigación de Recursos Biológicos, Alexander von Humboldt, Sede Venado del Oro, Bogotá, Colombia.

Alan Hesketh (A)

Indigena Biodiversity Limited, Gerrards Cross, United Kingdom.

Martin Hitziger (M)

Section of Epidemiology, Vetsuisse Faculty, University of Zurich, Zurich, Switzerland.

Caroline Maake (C)

Institute of Anatomy, University of Zurich, Zurich, Switzerland.

Matteo Politi (M)

Departmento de Investigación, Centro de Rehabilitación de Toxicómanos y de Investigación de Medicinas Tradicionales-Takiwasi, Tarapoto, Peru.
Department of Pharmacy, University of Chieti-Pescara, Chieti Scalo, Italy.

Carmenza Spadafora (C)

Centro de Biología Celular y Molecular de Enfermedades (CBCMe), Instituto de Investigaciones Científicas y Servicios de Alta Tecnología (INDICASAT AIP), Panama City, Panamá.

Rita Spadafora (R)

Asociación Nacional de Conservación de la Naturaleza (National Association for the Conservation of Nature), Cd. de Panama City, Panamá.

Classifications MeSH