tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5574479.post6670170396409025420..comments2024-03-28T16:45:51.051+00:00Comments on The IPKat: EU Implementation of the Nagoya Protocol - Heading to Catastrophe or Catastrophe averted?Verónica Rodríguez Arguijohttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05763207846940036921noreply@blogger.comBlogger12125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5574479.post-54894594091720297892013-12-20T13:29:36.768+00:002013-12-20T13:29:36.768+00:00I am writing this to indicate you to an example on...I am writing this to indicate you to an example on a different form of bio-piracy. I have done a case study on access to and benefit sharing from Ethiopian plants : Teff and Vernonia. Two European based companies signed material transfer agreement with the government of Ethiopia. The terms of the agreement sounds good, but the companies never complied with the terms of the agreement. The British company which signed the MTA on vernonia claims to be bankrupt. However, in reality the company is doing its business. The Dutch company has taken out a patent, and three plant variety rights based on the teff it accessed from Ethiopia. Hence, even if it may be difficult to find bio-piracy in its strict meaning, unless the company that took the plant come up with an outstanding product, which may attract the media,it will be difficult to trace which plant is from where. I have done a legal study on the above two Ethiopian cases , and if you are interested in it, you can read my book : "The Sustainability of Plants and Plant Intellectual Property Rights" : http://www.isbs.com/partnumber.asp?cid=28604&pnid=374851Dr Abeba Gebreselassienoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5574479.post-8754658686748897382013-12-18T23:24:30.512+00:002013-12-18T23:24:30.512+00:00Simon,
You are going to have to try harder to be...Simon, <br /><br />You are going to have to try harder to be facetious.<br /><br />If you discover something in the rope, then it is no longer merely old rope. <br /><br />It's now "New and Improved" old rope.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5574479.post-77759775983180204512013-12-18T18:40:27.588+00:002013-12-18T18:40:27.588+00:00If you are going to be facetious, I may as well jo...If you are going to be facetious, I may as well join in:<br /><br />If I took some hemp netting from your country to mine, and then found within the hemp a compound with a useful medicinal purpose, would your country expect to receive money for old rope?Simon Taornoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5574479.post-54729118359513123012013-12-18T16:03:52.507+00:002013-12-18T16:03:52.507+00:00"come with genetic resource responsibilities?..."<i>come with genetic resource responsibilities?</i>"<br /><br />You really do want blood from a stone, don't you?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5574479.post-27995422760858603802013-12-18T14:26:31.170+00:002013-12-18T14:26:31.170+00:00Like Darren, I could also call myself a biopiracy ...Like Darren, I could also call myself a biopiracy denier. I find the concept of a country having rights in the plants that just happen to grow there (in many cases but for the wind, they could grow elsewhere) more than a little strange. <br /><br />Tim, if a pharma company must enter into an Access and Benefit Sharing agreement with a 'country of origin' of a flu virus before working on a vaccine, then is it not right and fair that the 'country of origin' take some responsibility for the flu virus? Do these genetic resource rights not come with genetic resource responsibilities? <br /><br />If I owned a dog that attacked a stranger in the park, I would be held accountable for my dog’s actions. If a flu virus is the genetic resource of a country, should that country be held accountable for the damage caused by the virus? <br /><br />I think few people (me included) would think that a country should be held accountable for the damage caused by a virus that just happened to mutate there. But then again, before I read about Nagoya, I would have imagined that few people would think that a country has any ownership rights over the genetic material that just happens to grow there at the moment.<br />Simon Taornoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5574479.post-89326246200493711402013-12-16T19:58:06.854+00:002013-12-16T19:58:06.854+00:00I think I need to clarify my earlier comment. Yes,...I think I need to clarify my earlier comment. Yes, by saying "protecting", "conservation" was very much on my mind. But not some kind of ex situ conservation done by others. It should be noted that customary norms regulating use are likely to exist. These may effect the freedoms of others to use this knowledge. This may not be tantamount to "stopping" use by others but rather that the use is conditional. So conservation at the local level and protection may be two sides of the same coin. Needless to say perhaps, not all young indigenous people have much time for "the wisdom of the elders". But many do too.<br /><br />Also, there are provisions in Nagoya that require benefits to be shared with holders of traditional knowledge. The problem of course is that the circumstances in which such outcomes will ensure are likely to be rare.<br /><br />About influenza viruses I'm not sure anybody needs to worry about Nagoya. At least, that is my hope. The WHO did negotiate the so-called Pandemic Influenza Preparedness Framework for the Sharing of Influenza Viruses and Access to Vaccines and Other Benefits. It's available from the WHO website. I expect this now forms the rules of engagement for viral sample sharing. I haven't read it thoroughly but according to my superficial reading it's pretty sensible. <br /><br />I haven't responded to Dr No as I have with Tim and Darren as I'm not keen to engage with anonymous people.Graham Dutfieldnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5574479.post-10902405465696609032013-12-16T15:41:15.534+00:002013-12-16T15:41:15.534+00:00Dr No, undoubtedly there is an impact. Before you ...Dr No, undoubtedly there is an impact. Before you start work on a new flu vaccine you may need permission from the 'country of origin' and to enter into an Access and Benefit Sharing agreement with it. A 'country of origin' is one which possesses the genetic resource (the flu virus) in 'in situ conditions' (which presumably means in some local human being that has the disease). If there is more than one such, you might need to work out which country had it first, but more likely any one will do. Or you might wait until a visitor returns home from the afflicted area, and get samples from him (assuming that his returning home in possession of the virus without permission from the country where he caught it is not illegal). <br />When you say 'different member states', are you talking about Nagoya members, or EU members? Most of the EU are not planning to assert their genetic resouce rights (rumoured exceptions may be Spain and Denmark). As regards Nagoya, isolates from different countries may be the same, or essentially the same, or significantly different. Nagoya is not (I think) clear about genus and species. Safer not to work with any samples from countries you don't have an agreement with?Tim Robertsnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5574479.post-11943133642138448102013-12-16T12:26:53.509+00:002013-12-16T12:26:53.509+00:00What does this mean for companies working in the m...What does this mean for companies working in the medical field. For example, if vaccines for bird flu or SARS are developed from viruses isolated and sequenced in other countries, how would this play out? What about those who are using clinical isolates from different member states, is there any impact?Dr Nonoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5574479.post-35900650792321652072013-12-15T17:53:16.511+00:002013-12-15T17:53:16.511+00:00"The value of traditional knowledge is primar..."The value of traditional knowledge is primarily local is worth protecting for that reason"<br /><br />For that reason it's worth conserving, agreed. But if by 'protecting' you mean stopping other people using it - or knowing it? - that's less clear.Tim Robertsnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5574479.post-30248216260040207062013-12-14T13:04:13.688+00:002013-12-14T13:04:13.688+00:00I detect a whiff of scornfulness in this particula...I detect a whiff of scornfulness in this particular Katpost. I do accept that most of what is said about biopiracy is exaggerated and unsupported by the evidence. There is in fact published corroborating evidence that it goes on. But to suggest it is some kind of "global pandemic", as some NGOs have done, is absurd, as is the presumption that much economic value is extracted in this way by the high tech industries. But note that the food, beverages and cosmetics sectors may be a very different story, though. <br /><br />About Indonesia, for what it's worth I was contacted out of the blue in the late noughties by somebody at the World Bank referring to Indonesia's refusal to hand over samples and asking whether I could come up with any legal arguments on the basis of the Biodiversity Convention for requiring Indonesia to hand them over under international law. I said there were no such arguments, and that while Indonesia's stance was unfortunate the country's position on the matter was understandable. My conviction does not of course require me to accept the validity of every single concern expressed at the time by people in the Indonesian government. I suggested that the best contribution the Bank could make would be to bring together the disputing parties, sponsor a reasoned debate, and facilitate a deal as soon as possible that provided Indonesia and other developing countries with certain assurances. I never heard back from my correspondent. <br /><br />Personally I have some problems with the ABS concept as set out in the CBD and Nagoya Protocol and feel it is unlikely to be workable. Moreover, the EC is unlikely to come up with anything sensible. This draft certainly isn't very good. <br /><br />As a supporter of indigenous peoples in my view what they really need are supportive local and national governments giving them sufficient autonomy to make decisions on matters affecting them rather than bureaucratic, vague and unworkable international legal instruments (and national laws). Much traditional knowledge has value but that value, while genuine, is limited in the life science industries context. So I do not see how any regulatory or legal regime can create international markets for TK transactions. Besides indigenous peoples have their own customary norms about knowledge access and exchange, and while often keen to engage in commercial activity tend to be uncomfortable with our intellectual property norms. Understandably they also lack confidence in licensing and contractual arrangement that are part of the stock in trade of commercial outfits (and lawyers). <br /><br />The value of traditional knowledge is primarily local and is worth protecting for that reason.<br /><br />Graham DutfieldGraham Dutfieldnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5574479.post-56569787640029240142013-12-12T23:02:34.390+00:002013-12-12T23:02:34.390+00:00Here's an interesting further spanner to throw...Here's an interesting further spanner to throw in the works... The Nagoya Protocol assumes that the State has sovereign rights over their natural resources. However in some countries, there are questions about whether the State has authority to determine access to genetic resources or to enact national legislation in relation to them. <br /><br />For example in New Zealand some Maori believe that the traditional knowledge of their people is the property of the "Crown" to use and benefit from. <br /><br />This introduces another layer of complexity for any legislation and accession to international treaties. <br /><br />Guess that's why you said you'd leave the traditional knowledge aspect for another day.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5574479.post-68485769054193123682013-12-12T14:41:32.954+00:002013-12-12T14:41:32.954+00:00The Intellectual Property Institute of Canada (the...The Intellectual Property Institute of Canada (the Canadian IP practitioners’ professional association) has raised similar concerns in its submissions regarding Canada’s possible signature of the Nagoya Protocol. The IPIC submission is a public document, and (with permission) I have uploaded a copy of it: http://bit.ly/1e7Qbdg<br /><br />IPIC’s main concerns are that both the scope of the right and the remedy are unclear and potentially very broad. I should emphasize at the outset that IPIC’s concerns, and certainly my own, do not relate to the sharing per se, but rather that it will be very difficult to determine ex ante whether sharing is required. The basic problem is that innovators will have to track their sources of knowledge, not just their sources of physical material. Because of the nature of the transmission of knowledge, there is considerable potential for inadvertent triggering of the requirement to share. This example is provided by IPIC:<br /><br />For example, suppose an anthropologist visits an indigenous tribe somewhere and is told that a certain plant, e.g. a particular species of yew, is used to treat a particular disease. The anthropologist reports this in an anthropology paper. Indirectly, this information (derived from the genetic resource) becomes known to a Canadian company. Because of the nature of transmission of knowledge, the Canadian company may not be aware of the anthropology paper itself and consequently may not be aware that the ultimate source was traditional knowledge. The Canadian company investigates a different species of yew that is native to Canada, and isolates a therapeutically important compound and patents and commercializes a derivative of that compound. After the world-wide success of the compound, the anthropologist becomes aware of the drug, and that it is based on yew, and makes the connection to her paper. It is subsequently established that the ultimate source of the biotech firm’s information that yew might be useful in the treatment of the disease is indeed the indigenous tribe. Could the tribe then have a claim to share in the profits, the terms being imposed ex post?<br />Normanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17573687140337856397noreply@blogger.com