Domestic biodiplomacy: Navigating between provider and user categories for genetic resources in Brazil and French Guiana

International Environmental Agreements: Politics, Law and Economics

Volumn 13, Issue 2, 2013, Pages 177-196

  Filoche, Geoffroy ^a,b  

^a INSTITUT DE RECHERCHE POUR LE DÉVELOPPEMENT   (France)

^b FEDERAL UNIVERSITY OF GOIÁS   (Brazil)

Author keywords

Access and benefit sharing; Decentralization; Genetic resources; Law making; Non state actors; Provider; User

Indexed keywords

DECENTRALIZATION; GENETIC RESOURCE; GOVERNANCE APPROACH; LEGAL SYSTEM; PUBLIC SECTOR; STEREOTYPIC BEHAVIOR;

BRAZIL; FRENCH GUIANA;

EID: 84876087926     PISSN: 15679764     EISSN: 15731553     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1007/s10784-012-9184-z     Document Type: Article

References (55)

1. Artuso, A. (2002). Bioprospecting, benefit sharing and biotechnological capacity building. World Development, 30(8), 1355-1368.
2. Aubertin, C., & Filoche, G. (2011). Creation of the Guyana Amazonian Park. Redistribution of powers, local embodiment and territorial divisions. In C. Aubertin & E. Rodary (Eds.), Protected areas, sustainable land? (pp. 105-121). Farnham: Ashgate/IRD Editions.
3. Azevedo, C., Lavratti, P. C., & Moreira, T. C. (2005). A Convenção sobre diversidade biológica no Brasil: considerações sobre sua implementação no que tange ao acesso ao patrimônio genético, conhecimentos tradicionais associados e repartição de benefícios. Revista de Direito Ambiental, 37, 113-143.
4. Beas Rodrigues, E. (2010). Tutela jurídica dos recursos da biodiversidade, dos conhecimentos tradicionais e do folclore. Rio de Janeiro: Elsevier.
5. Belas, C., Buclet, B., & Fortunato, D. (2009). Natura et les vendeuses d'herbes de Belém: cosmétique éthique contre savoirs traditionnels. Autrepart, 50(2), 33-50.
6. Bled, A. J. (2009). Business to the rescue: Private sector actors and global environmental regimes' legitimacy. International Environmental Agreements, 9(2), 153-171.
7. Boisvert, V., & Vivien, F.-D. (2005). The Convention on Biological Diversity: A conventionalist approach. Ecological Economics, 53, 461-472.
8. Buck, M., & Hamilton, C. (2011). The Nagoya Protocol on access to genetic resources and the fair and equitable sharing of benefits arising from their utilization to the Convention on Biological Diversity. Review of European Community & International Environmental Law, 20(1), 47-61.
9. Calixto, J. B. (2005). Twenty-five years of research on medicinal plants in Latin America. A personal view. Journal of Ethnopharmacology, 100, 131-134.
10. Chen, J. (2005). Biodiversity and biotechnology: A misunderstood relation. Michigan State Law Review, 1, 51-102.
11. Dávalos, L. M., et al. (2003). Regulating access to genetic resources under the Convention on Biological Diversity: An analysis of selected case studies. Biodiversity and Conservation, 12(7), 1511-1524.
12. Del Nero, P. (2008). Biotecnologia. Análise crítica do marco jurídico regulatório. São Paulo: Editora Revista dos Tribunais.
13. Filoche, G. (2012a). Biodiversity fetishism and biotechnology promises in Brazil: From policy contradictions to legal adjustments. Journal of World Intellectual Property, 15(2), 133-154.
14. Filoche, G. (2012b). Les savoirs traditionnels en Guyane: façade juridique et vices cachés d'un régime de partage équitable de la biodiversité. In A. Michelot (Ed.), Equité et environnement: quel(s) modèle(s) de justice environnementale? (pp. 173-195). Brussels: Larcier.
15. Firn, R. D. (2003). Bioprospecting-Why is it so unrewarding? Biodiversity and Conservation, 12(2), 207-216.
16. Fleury, M., Moretti, C., & Béreau, D. (2003). Usage des ressources forestières en Guyane: de la tradition à la valorisation. Revue Forestière Française, 55(Special Issue), 291-305.
17. Frisvold, G., & Rubenstein, K. D. (2008). Bioprospecting and biodiversity conservation: What happens when discoveries are made? Arizona Law Review, 50(2), 545-576.
18. Glowka, L. (1997). The next rosy periwinkle won't be free: Emerging legal frameworks to implement article 15. Environmental Policy and Law, 27, 441-458.
19. Görg, C., & Brand, U. (2006). Contested regimes in the international political economy: Global regulation of genetic resources and the internationalization of the State. Global Environmental Politics, 6(4), 101-123.
20. Grajal, A. (1999). Biodiversity and the Nation State: Regulating access to genetic resources limits biodiversity research in developing countries. Conservation Biology, 13(1), 6-9.
21. Grenand, F., Bahuchet, S., & Grenand, P. (2006). Environment and peoples in French Guiana: Ambiguities in applying the laws of the French Republic. International Social Science Journal, 58(187), 49-58.
22. Grenand, P., Jacquemin, H., Moretti, C., & Prévost, M.-F. (2004). Pharmacopées traditionnelles en Guyane. Paris: IRD Editions.
23. Grubb, P. W., & Thomsen, P. R. (2010). Patents for chemicals, pharmaceuticals, and biotechnology. Fundamentals of global law, practice, and strategy. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
24. Gupta, J. (2003). The role of non-State actors in international environmental affairs. Heidelberg Journal of International Law, 63(2), 459-486.
25. Hermitte, M.-A. (1992). La Convention sur la Diversité Biologique. Annuaire Français de Droit International, 38, 844-870.
26. Jannuzzi, A. H. L., Vasconcellos, A. G., & Gomes de Souza, C. (2008). Especificidades do patenteamento no setor farmacêutico: modalidades e aspectos da proteção intelectual. Cadernos de Saúde Pública, 24(6), 1205-1218.
27. Jinnah, S., & Jungcurt, S. (2009). Could access requirements stifle your research? Science, 323, 464-465.
28. Juma, C. (2005). The new age of biodiplomacy. Georgetown Journal of International Affairs, 6(1), 105-114.
29. Kartal, M. (2007). Intellectual property protection in the natural product drug discovery, traditional herbal medicine and herbal medicinal products. Phytotherapy Research, 21, 113-119.
30. Kursar, T. A. (2011). What are the implications of the Nagoya Protocol for research on biodiversity? BioScience, 61(4), 256-257.
31. Li, J. W. H., & Vederas, J. C. (2009). Drug discovery and natural products: End of an era or an endless frontier? Science, 325, 161-165.
32. Louafi, S., & Varella, M. (2007). La régulation de la bioprospection au Brésil. In P. Jacquet & L. Tubiana (Eds.), Regards sur la Terre 2008. Biodiversité, nature et développement (pp. 155-164). Paris: Presses de Sciences Po.
33. Marques, F. (2011). Bioprospecção: emaranhado burocrático. Pesquisa FAPESP, 179, 28-33.
34. McAfee, K. (2012). The contradictory logic of global ecosystem services markets. Development and Change, 43(1), 105-131.
35. Moretti, C., & Aubertin, C. (2007). Stratégies des firmes pharmaceutiques: la bioprospection en question. In C. Aubertin, F. Pinton, & V. Boisvert (Eds.), Les marchés de la biodiversité (pp. 27-54). Paris: IRD Editions.
36. Newman, D. J., & Cragg, G. M. (2007). Natural products as sources of new drugs over the last 25 years. Journal of Natural Products, 70(3), 461-477.
37. Nijar, G. S. (2011). Food security and access and benefit sharing laws relating to genetic resources: Promoting synergies in national and international governance. International Environmental Agreements, 11(2), 99-116.
38. Nogueira, R. C., Cerqueira, H. F., & Soares, M. B. P. (2010). Patenting bioactive molecules from biodiversity: The Brazilian experience. Expert Opinion on Therapeutic Patents, 20(2), 1-13.
39. Oliveira, A. C. D., Reis, S. M. M., Vasconcellos, A. G., & Lage, C. L. S. (2011). Technological prospecting for patents on herbal medicines in Brazil. International Research Journal of Biotechnology, 2(5), 78-84.
40. Raustiala, K., & Victor, D. (2004). The regime complex for plant genetic resources. International Organization, 32(2), 147-154.
41. Richerzhagen, C. (2011). Effective governance of access and benefit-sharing under the Convention on Biological Diversity. Biodiversity and Conservation, 20, 2243-2261.
42. Roa-Rodriguez, C., & van Dooren, T. (2008). Shifting common spaces of plant genetic resources in the international regulation of property. Journal of World Intellectual Property, 11(3), 176-202.
43. Rosendal, G. K. (2006). Balancing access and benefit sharing and legal protection of innovations from bioprospecting: Impacts on conservation of biodiversity. Journal of Environment & Development, 15(4), 428-447.
44. Ryan, M. P. (2010). Patent incentives, technology markets, and public-private bio-medical innovation networks in Brazil. World Development, 38(8), 1082-1093.
45. Saccaro, N. L. (2011). A regulamentação de acesso a recursos genéticos e repartição de benefícios: disputas dentro e fora do Brasil. Ambiente & Sociedade, 14(1), 229-244.
46. Sánchez, V., & Juma, C. (Eds.). (1994). Biodiplomacy. Genetic resources and international relations. Nairobi: ACTS Press.
47. Sand, P. H. (1993). International environmental law after Rio. European Journal of International Law, 4, 377-389.
48. Santilli, J. (2005). Socioambientalismo e novos direitos. São Paulo: Peirópolis.
49. Stone, C. D. (1995). What to do about biodiversity: Property rights, public goods, and the Earth's biological riches. Southern California Law Review, 68, 577-620.
50. Straus, J. (2008). How to break the deadlock preventing a fair and rational use of biodiversity. Journal of World Intellectual Property, 11(4), 229-295.
51. Ten Kate, K., & Laird, S. (Eds.). (2002). The commercial use of biodiversity: Access to genetic resources and benefit sharing. London: Earthscan.
52. van Overwalle, G. (2005). Protecting and sharing biodiversity and traditional knowledge: Holder and user tools. Ecological Economics, 53(4), 585-607.
53. Vélez, A. (2010). Brazil's practical experience with access and benefit sharing and the protection of traditional knowledge. In A. Werth & S. Reyes-Knoche (Eds.), Triggering the synergies between intellectual property rights and biodiversity (pp. 233-247). Eschborn: Deutsche Gesellschaft für Technische Zusammenarbeit (GTZ).
54. Weiss, C., & Eisner, T. (1998). Partnerships for value-added through bioprospecting. Technology and Society, 20(4), 481-498.
55. Wynberg, R., & Laird, S. (2009). Bioprospecting, access and benefit sharing: Revisiting the 'grand bargain'. In R. Wynberg, D. Schroeder, & R. Chennells (Eds.), Indigenous peoples, consent and benefit sharing: Lessons from the San-Hoodia case (pp. 69-86). New York: Springer.