Book contents
- Frontmatter
- Contents
- List of figures
- List of tables
- List of contributors
- Preface
- Acknowledgements
- Foreword
- Introduction
- 1 Do we really care about biodiversity?
- Part I Causes of biodiversity loss
- Part II The value of biodiversity
- Part III Policies for biodiversity conservation
- 14 Auctioning biodiversity conservation contracts: an empirical analysis
- 15 An evolutionary institutional approach to the economics of bioprospecting
- 16 An ecological-economic programming approach to modelling landscape-level biodiversity conservation
- 17 The effectiveness of centralised and decentralised institutions in managing biodiversity: lessons from economic experiments
- 18 Conserving species in a working landscape: land use with biological and economic objectives
- 19 Balancing recreation and wildlife conservation of charismatic species
- 20 Modelling the recolonisation of native species
- Part IV Managing agro-biodiversity: causes, values and policies
- Index
- References
15 - An evolutionary institutional approach to the economics of bioprospecting
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 11 August 2009
Book contents
- Frontmatter
- Contents
- List of figures
- List of tables
- List of contributors
- Preface
- Acknowledgements
- Foreword
- Introduction
- 1 Do we really care about biodiversity?
- Part I Causes of biodiversity loss
- Part II The value of biodiversity
- Part III Policies for biodiversity conservation
- 14 Auctioning biodiversity conservation contracts: an empirical analysis
- 15 An evolutionary institutional approach to the economics of bioprospecting
- 16 An ecological-economic programming approach to modelling landscape-level biodiversity conservation
- 17 The effectiveness of centralised and decentralised institutions in managing biodiversity: lessons from economic experiments
- 18 Conserving species in a working landscape: land use with biological and economic objectives
- 19 Balancing recreation and wildlife conservation of charismatic species
- 20 Modelling the recolonisation of native species
- Part IV Managing agro-biodiversity: causes, values and policies
- Index
- References
Summary
Introduction
There is a significant strategic interest by ‘Northern’ industries of accessing and using genetic resources (GR) and associated traditional knowledge (TK) from the South. Such repository of bioresources in the South co-evolves through the development of TK and the continuous GR refinement adaptations in natural and managed ecosystems. The North/South debates over ownership, intellectual property rights (IPR) and access to the GR-TK stock were crystallized in the negotiations of the United Nations' Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) which came into force in 1993, and now establishes the legal framework for the reciprocal transfer of bioresources between countries (Bhat 1999). In fact, the CBD stands as the only major international negotiated instrument that makes explicit provisions for the special link between TK, biodiversity and local and indigenous communities by granting rights to the latter in order to protect TK (Bodeker 2000). The CBD also regulates bioprospecting activities carried out by industrial (usually Northern) firms and it assigns a formal protocol for sharing the benefits from bioprospecting activities based on the ‘access and benefit sharing’ (ABS) agreement to GR-TK between the parties. In addition, it also calls for a free prior informed consent to be obtained from the holders of GR-TK prior to the bioprospecting activities taking place (Berlin and Berlin 2003). In addition, the CBD effectively asserts the property rights of the bioresources and GR in particular to the source country (c.f. CBD Article 15: Access to Genetic Resources).
- Type
- Chapter
- Information
- Biodiversity EconomicsPrinciples, Methods and Applications, pp. 417 - 445Publisher: Cambridge University PressPrint publication year: 2007
References
, , and 1993. Experiments on the difference between willingness to pay and willingness to accept. Land Economics. 69. 416–427.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
1998. Sharing with the Kanis: a case study from India. Secretariat to the Convention on Biological Diversity, Fourth Meeting of the Conference of the Parties to the CBD, Bratislava, Slovakia.Google Scholar
2002. Bioprospecting, benefit sharing, and biotechnological capacity building. World Development. 30 (8). 1355–1368.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
, and 2003. User Measures. Tokyo: United Nations University Institute of Advanced Studies Report.Google Scholar
and 2000. Is bioprospecting a viable strategy for conserving tropical ecosystems?Ecological Economics. 34. 293–300.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
1999. On biodiversity access, intellectual property rights and conservation. Ecological Economics. 29. 391–403.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
and 2003. NGOs and the process of prior informed consent in bioprospecting research: the Maya ICBG project in Chiapas, Mexico. International Social Science. 55 (4). 629–638.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
2000. Indigenous medical knowledge: the law and politics of protection. Oxford Intellectual Property Research Centre seminar. St Peter's College, Oxford. 25 January.Google Scholar
2003. Integrating conservation and development: a case of institutional misfit. Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment. 1 (9). 479–487.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brush, S. B. 1996. Is common heritage outmoded? In and (eds.). Valuing Local Knowledge: Indigenous People and Intellectual Property Rights. Washington, DC: Island Press.Google Scholar
1998. Bio-cooperation and the benefits of crop genetic resources: the case of Mexican maize. World Development. 26. 755–766.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
2002. The Lighthouse and the Potato: Internalizing the Value of Crop Genetic Diversity. University of Massachussets at Amherst: Political Economy Research Institute Working Paper No. 37.
and 2001. The social value of biodiversity in new pharmaceutical product research. Environmental and Resource Economics. 18 (1). 1–17.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dedeurwaerdere, T. 2004. Bioprospecting, intellectual property law and evolutionary economics: the stake of a theory of reflexive governance. In , and (eds.). Innovative Roles of Biological Resources Centres. Tsukuba, Japan: World Federation for Culture Collections. 389–395.Google Scholar
2005. From bioprospecting to reflexive governance. Ecological Economics. 53 (4). 473–491.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
2005. The Evolutionary Foundations of Economics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
1988. Sources, procedures and microeconomic effects of innovation. Journal of Economic Literature. 26 (3). 1120–1171.Google Scholar
2000. Traditional knowledge, intellectual property and biopiracy: is a global bio-collecting society the answer?European Intellectual Property Review. 6. 245–250.Google Scholar
Dutfield, G. 2002a. Literature survey on intellectual property rights and sustainable human development Geneva: UNCTAD www.iprsonline.org/unctadictsd/docs/bioblipr.pdf
Dutfield, G. 2002b. 'Protecting traditional knowledge and folklore: A review of progress in diplomacy and policy formulation. UNCTAD/ICTSD Capacity Building Project on Intellectual Property Rights and Sustainable Development.
Dyer, G. A., Taylor, J. E. and Yúnez, A. 2000. Who pays the cost of in situ conservation?. Paper presented at the Symposium ‘Scientific basis of participatory plant breeding and conservation of genetic resources’. Oaxtepec, Mexico.
2005. Imperfect Insitutions: Possibilities and Limits of Reform. Ann Harbor, MI: University of Michigan Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
and 1994. Biotic exploration fund- protecting biodiversity through chemical prospecting. BioScience. 44 (2). 95–98.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Folke, C., Carpenter, S., Elmqvist, T., Gunderson, E., Holling, C. S., Walker, B., Bengtsson, J., Berkes, F., Colding, J., Danell, K., Falkenmark, M., Gordon, L., Kasperson, R., Kautsky, N., Kinzig, A., Levin, S., Mäler, K-G., Moberg, F., Ohlsson, L., Olsson, P., Ostrom, E., Reid, W., Rockström, J., Savenije, H. and Svedin, U. 2002. Resilience and Sustainable Development: Building Adaptive Capacity in a World of Transformations. Scientific Background Paper on Resilience for the process of The World Summit on Sustainable Development on behalf of The Environmental Advisory Council to the Swedish Government.
Goeschl, T. and Swanson, T. 2002. On the economic limits of technological potential: will industry resolve the resistance problem? In (ed.). The Economics of Managing Biotechnologies. Dordrecht/London/Boston: Kluwer Academic Publishers. 99–128.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Guerin-McManus, M., Nnadozie, K. C. and Laird, S. A. 2002. ‘Sharing financial benefits: trust funds for biodiversity prospecting’. In (ed.). Biodiversity and Traditional Knowledge: Equitable Partnership in Practice. London: Earthscan Publications Ltd. 333–359.Google Scholar
2004. Overlapping public and private governance: can forest certification fill the gaps in the global forest regime?. Global Environmental Politics. 4 (2). 75–99.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gupta, A. K. 2002. Value Addition to Local Kani Tribal Knowledge: Patenting, Licensing and Benefit-Sharing. IIMA Working Paper No. 2002–08–02. Ahmedabad: Indian Institute of Management.
Gupta A. K. 2004. The role of intellectual property rights in the sharing of benefits arising from the use of biological resources and associated traditional knowledge. World Intellectual Property Organization publications No. 769 (E).
, and 1991. Statistical efficiency of double bounded dichotomous choice contingent valuation. American Journal of Agricultural Economics. 73. 1255–1263.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
(ed.). 2002. Biodiversity and Traditional Knowledge. Equitable Partnerships in Practice. People and Plants Handbook. London: Earthscan.Google Scholar
2000. Bioprospecting: lessons from benefit-sharing experiences. International Journal of Biotechnology. 2(1/2/3). 132–144.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
1997. Willingness to pay and willingness to accept: some evidence of an endowment effect. Applied Economics. 29. 411–417.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
1999. For whose benefit? Limits to the sharing in the bioprospecting regime. Environmental Politics. 8 (4). 35–65.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
1990. Institutions, Institutional Change and Economic Performance. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
2005. Understanding the Process of Economic Change. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
2000. Pathways for environmental evaluation: a walk in the (Hanging) Gardens of Babylon. Ecological Economics. 34. 175–193.Google Scholar
1984. The value of conserving genetic resources. Washington, DC: US Department of Interior. National Park Service.Google Scholar
Pearce, D. W. 2006. Do we really care about biodiversity? In , and (eds.). Frontiers in Biodiversity Economics. Chapter 1. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Pearce, D. W. and Purushothaman, S. 1992. Preserving biological diversity: the economic value of pharmaceutical plants. Discussion Paper: 92–27. CSERGE, London.
, and 2002. Equitability Sharing Benefits from the Utilization of Natural Genetic Resources: The Brazilian Interpretation of the Convention on Biological Diversity. Paper presented at the 6th conference of the parties of the Convention of Biological Diversity. The Hague, The Netherlands.Google Scholar
Pushpangadan, P. 2000. Pushpangadan model of benefit-sharing. Lucknow, India: National Botanical Research Institute. http://www.nbri-lko.org.
, , , , , , and 1988. Arogyappacha (Trichopus zeylanicus): The ginseng of Kani tribes of Agasthyar Hills (Kerala) for evergreen health and vitality. Ancient Sciences of Life. 7. 13–16.Google Scholar
RAFI 1996. Biopiracy Update: RAFI Communique. Ottawa: Rural Advancement Foundation International.
2001. Note and comment: market realities versus indigenous equities. Brooklyn Journal of International Law. 26. 1147–1175.Google Scholar
and 2000. Valuing research leads: bioprospecting and the conservation of genetic resources. Journal of Political Economy. 108 (1). 173–206.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
2000. Of green tulips and legal kudzu: repackaging rights in subpatentable innovation. Vanderbilt Law Review. 53. 1743.Google Scholar
, , , , , and 1993. Biodiversity Prospecting: Using Genetic Resources for Sustainable Development. Washington, DC: World Resource Institute.Google Scholar
Sahai, S. 2000. Commercialisation of Indigenous Knowledge and Benefit Sharing. UNCTAD Expert Meeting on Systems and National Experiences for Protecting Traditional Knowledge, Innovations and Practices. Geneva.
Sheldon, J. W. and Balick, M. J. 1995. Ethnobotany and the search for balance between use and conservation. In (ed.). Intellectual Property Rights and Biodiversity Conservation: An Interdisciplinary Analysis of the Values of Medicinal Plants. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
, , , and 1997. The Enclosure and Recovery of the Commons. New Delhi: Research Foundation for Science, Technology and Ecology.Google Scholar
, , , and 1994. Resolving differences in willingness to pay and willingness to accept. American Economic Review. 84. 255–270.Google Scholar
and 1996. Tropical forest protection: an empirical analysis of the costs borne by local people. Journal of Environmental Economics and Management. 31. 129–144.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
, and 2005. Biodiversity conservation, access and benefit sharing and traditional knowledge. Ecological Economics. 53 (4).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
, and 1996. Valuing biodiversity for use in pharmaceutical research. Journal of Political Economy. 104. 163–185.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
2000. Ecosystems, contingent valuation and ethics: the case of wetland recreation. Ecological Economics. 34. 195–215.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
and 2000. Responding to Bioprospecting: From Biodiversity in the South to Medicines in the North. Oslo: Spartacus Vorlag.Google Scholar
2000. Property rights involving plant genetic resources: implications of ownership for economic efficiency. Ecological Economics. 23 (1). 75–92.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Swanson, T. and Goeschl, T. 1998. The management of genetic resources for agriculture: ecology and information, externalities and policies. Centre for Social and Economic Research on the Global Environment, CSERGE Working Paper, University College London.
and 1999. The Commercial Use of Biodiversity – Access to Genetic Resources and Benefit-Sharing. London: Earthscan.Google Scholar
2002. Biopiracy: distrust widens the rich-poor divide. Molecular Therapy. 5 (2). 95.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
WGF 2003. Western Ghats Forum website: http://www.westernghatsforum.org/ Last accessed November 2005.
- 1
- Cited by