· Web viewAD HOC OPEN-ENDED INTER-SESSIONAL. WORKING GROUP ON ARTICLE 8 (j) AND. RELATED...

CBD

Distr.GENERAL

CBD/WG8J/11/INF/115 August 2019

ENGLISH AND SPANISH ONLY

AD HOC OPEN-ENDED INTER-SESSIONALWORKING GROUP ON ARTICLE 8 (j) ANDRELATED PROVISIONS OF THE CONVENTION ON

BIOLOGICAL DIVERSITYEleventh meetingItem 5 of the provisional agenda*

Montreal, Canada, 20-22 November 2019

COMPILATION OF VIEWS ON POSSIBLE ELEMENTS OF A FUTURE PROGRAMME OF WORK ON ARTICLE 8(J) AND RELATED PROVISIONS AS PART OF THE POST-2020 BIODIVERSITY

FRAMEWORK AS WELL AS POSSIBLE INSTITUTIONAL ARRANGEMENTS AND THEIR MODUS OPERANDI

Note by the Executive Secretary

INTRODUCTION

1. As requested by the Conference of the Parties in paragraphs 8, 9 and 10 of decision 14/17, the Executive Secretary is circulating herewith, for the information of participants in the eleventh meeting of the Ad Hoc Open-ended Inter-sessional Working Group on Article 8 (j) and Related Provisions, a compilation of views and comments submitted to the Secretariat regarding:

(a) Possible objectives to be considered to achieve an effective integration in the work of the subsidiary bodies on matters of direct relevance to indigenous peoples and local communities, and to enable full and effective participation of indigenous peoples and local communities in the work of the Convention;

(b) Possible elements of a programme of work on Article 8(j) and related provisions as part of the post-2020 biodiversity framework;

(c) Possible institutional arrangements, lessons learned and pros and cons of current arrangements;

2. Submissions were received from Argentina, Canada, China, the European Union and its Member States, Japan, Mexico, Nigeria, Venezuela (Bolivarian Republic of), the International Indigenous Forum on Biodiversity, the Society for Wetland Biodiversity Conservation-Nepal, the University of Puerto Rico and the Sámi Parliament in Sweden.

3. The submissions have been reproduced in the form and languages in which they were provided to the Secretariat.

* CBD/WG8J/11/1.

CBD/WG8J/11/INF/1

Contents

A. Submissions from Parties 3

Argentina 3Canada 4

China 7European Union and its Member States 7

Japan 10Mexico 10

Nigeria 12Venezuela 13

B. Submissions from relevant organizations 15International Indigenous Forum on Biodiversity 15

Sámi Parliament in Sweden 16Society for Wetland Biodiversity Conservation-Nepal 18

University of Puerto Rico 19

CBD/WG8J/11/INF/1

SUBMISSIONS

A. Submissions from Parties

Argentina

SUBMISSION

Aportes de la República Argentina para facilitar la preparación de los documentos para la 11° reunión del Grupo de Trabajo sobre el Articulo 8 j) y disposiciones conexas.

La Argentina considera que tras haber concluido el primer programa de trabajo del Grupo de Trabajo para la implementación del Artículo 8J del Convenio, y habiendo probado cómo funcionó la práctica de habilitar la amplia participación de los representantes de los pueblos indígenas y la comunidades locales (PILC) en las sesiones del Grupo, las Partes hemos adquirido la experiencia y la capacidad de pasar a una instancia superior que implique la integración de los conocimientos tradicionales vinculados a la conservación y el uso sustentable de la biodiversidad a cada uno de los temas vinculados al Convenio (dentro de su esquema de trabajo) en donde los mencionados conocimientos sean pertinentes.

Es decir, la participación de los pueblos indígenas y las comunidades locales en la CBD no está llamada a cubrir todos los asuntos de relevancia para los pueblos indígenas y las comunidades locales, sino que su valiosa y necesaria participación debe ser tenida en cuenta cuando existan conocimientos tradicionales, innovaciones y prácticas que puedan contribuir a la conservación y el uso sustentable de la diversidad biológica que, como Partes de la CDB debemos respetar, preservar y mantener, siempre con arreglo a la legislación nacional

La Argentina considera que es preferible evitar la proliferación de Grupos de Trabajo y que la creación de Organos Subsidiarios debe ser excepcional, pues en caso contrario, deberían crearse Grupos y Organos uno para cada uno de los artículos e incisos del Convenio.

La Argentina es de la posición que los Grupos de Trabajo deben funcionar con una limitación temporal para abordar una cuestión particular sobre la que se requiere prestando especial atención y luego de adquirir una práctica y expertise, integrarla al esquema de trabajo ordinario.

A criterio de la Argentina, la creación de un Organo Subsidiario tendría un doble efecto no deseado, por una parte, no permitiría capitalizar la experiencia adquirida durante el funcionamiento del Grupo de Trabajo, generaría duplicación de trabajo y aislaría a los conocimientos tradicionales de los pueblos indígenas y las comunidades locales del resto de los temas que se abordan en el esquema ordinario.

Los PILC los que se encuentran en mejor condición de señalar cuáles son sus conocimientos tradicionales de acuerdo a sus propias cosmovisiones, sin embargo, esto no excluye la responsabilidad del Estado de ponderarlas con relación al propósito de conservación y uso sustentable.

CBD/WG8J/11/INF/1

Canada

SUBMISSION

CBD/WG8J/11/INF/1

CBD/WG8J/11/INF/1

China

SUBMISSION

China is rich in traditional knowledge related to biodiversity. China has taken various measures to facilitate intergenerational transmission, promotion and widespread use of traditional knowledge. Recently, China has promulgated sets of laws and regulations related to traditional knowledge, such as Intangible Cultural Heritage Law and Traditional Chinese Medicine Law, in order to protect traditional knowledge and the rights of its holders. The government is conducting investigation, inventory and database of traditional knowledge at national scale to ensure the healthy development of TK-related industry.We welcome that all stakeholders can continuously, fully and effectively participate in the discussion on Article 8(j) and related provisions and support that indigenous peoples and local communities play significant and constructive role in the future working mechanisms. The working group 8(j) has achieved fruitful results with the cooperation and efforts of all stakeholders since its establishment. We recommend that the future mechanism of Article 8(j) could strengthen the supervision and guidance to the implementation of such results and make them be executed well. As for the future programme of work, we suggest that it may focus on development of practical tools, technologies and methodologies for protection, utilization and benefit-sharing of traditional knowledge, so that the existing achievements of Working Group 8(j) and the proposed post-2020 biodiversity framework could be efficiently implemented.

CBD/WG8J/11/INF/1

European Union and its Member States

SUBMISSION

The EU and its Member States stress the important role that indigenous peoples and local communities (IPLC) have had for the implementation of the CBD. IPLC representatives in many parts of the world have conducted a substantial proportion of the practical work concerning conservation and sustainable use of biodiversity. The Work Programme of Article 8(j) has enabled a considerable progress such as developing voluntary guidelines and plans of action, as well as institutional arrangements. There is still a lot of work in implementation of the COP Decisions by Parties and stakeholders, and for ensuring the full and effective participation of indigenous peoples and local communities in the work of the CBD Convention. The understanding of the importance of traditional knowledge and awareness of the general principles of the rights of indigenous peoples, in accordance with relevant national legislation, has arisen among parties also because of the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (UNDRIP), adopted in 2007. Progress has been made possible to take steps towards the next level of taking advantage of all potential synergies between indigenous peoples' and local communities' customary sustainable governance and practices and biodiversity conservation. Traditional knowledge and customary sustainable use, as illustrated in the Local Biodiversity Outlooks1 offer a good and complementary knowledge base in the implementation of the CBD in the future. The development of a new programme of work on Article 8(j) and related provisions, as a fully integrated part of the post-2020 biodiversity framework is important.

The summary of submissions in response to notification 2018-047 on possible elements of a future programme of work on article 8(j) and related provisions as part of the Post 2020 biodiversity framework, including Annex I and Annex II on elements, made available to the online forum 19.2.2019 (CBD/A8j/OM/2019/1/2) is a good base for further considerations.

In addition, we would like to highlight the UNGA Resolutions “Enhancing the participation of indigenous peoples’ representatives and institutions in meetings of relevant United Nations bodies on issues affecting them” (A/RES/71/321) and “Outcome document of the high-level plenary meeting of the General Assembly known as the World Conference on Indigenous Peoples” (A/RES/69/2). In order to maintain the awareness and progress on the rights of Indigenous Peoples, the development of a future programme of work as well as institutional arrangements must be founded on a rights based approach. The existing institutional arrangements, providing for the full and effective participation of IPLC in the work of the CBD have, to some extent, constituted guiding principles for how IPLC related issues can be integrated in other multilateral co-operation under the UN. The full and effective participation of IPLC representatives in the CBD work has resulted in inter-cultural interactions and learning across governments, the IPLC representatives, and other experts. These interactions can stimulate further collaborative projects back home on national level, such as through the Plan of Action on Customary Sustainable Use (Decision XII/12), and IPLC contribution to National Reporting through Community Based Monitoring and Information Systems (XII/12). Consultations and full and effective participation of IPLCs in elaboration and implementation of NBSAPs, is an important base for this. The institutional arrangements for the future work need to build on the experiences already gained, and the EU and its Member States are ready to engage in a process that will make the interactions between governments and IPLCs even more efficient and transparent, taking advantage of the ecosystem approach and governance models that build on synergies between customary sustainable use and biodiversity conservation. Also, the experiences from the implementation of both protocols to the Convention related to these issues need to be used. The EU and its Member States would also like to stress the fact that the representatives for IPLC may have limited capacity and resources to follow and to engage in the CBD-process continuously. Much work has been conducted by voluntary contribution from individuals. The EU and its Member States believe that the institutional arrangements should provide for continuity and regularity so that IPLCs can prepare in good time for their engagement and follow the CBD process 1 https://beta.localbiodiversityoutlooks.net.

CBD/WG8J/11/INF/1

over time. We should not promote an arrangement where the IPLCs are requested to participate on voluntary and ad hoc basis on issues relating to Article 8(j) and other matters that explicit concerns them, their knowledge, their land and resources, and their livelihoods. We do not support an “expert body” that limits participation to selected indigenous experts. The EU reiterates the importance of open and full effective participation and of retaining the strengths of the current Working group concerning the participation of IPLCs. It is important to maintain the open-ended and inclusive spirit of the current structure. The following principles should be applied: 1) Continuity: future work should build on the accomplishments of the work in the WG8j, especially given that it has served as a good practice in the wider UN system and has led to constructive partnerships, including with IPLCs; 2) IPLC participation: We must ensure full and effective participation of IPLCs on matters directly affecting them; 3) Increased focus on implementation: future arrangements should reflect the need to progressively shift the focus of further work on IPLCs to the implementation of existing guidance;

4) Efficiency: Any future arrangements should be cost-efficient and without significant budget implications compared to the current arrangement. The new Article 8(j) programme of work should be an effective intercultural learning platform, for exchange of experiences and information, across governments, IPLCs and other experts, based on equity and reciprocity and usefulness for all involved, applying a Multiple Evidence Base approach (COPXII/12), where the diversity of indigenous, local and scientific knowledge systems are seen as equally valid and contributing to conservation and sustainable use each on their own term. Seeing as indigenous peoples’ knowledge is a living knowledge system that continues to develop, the work with indigenous peoples’ knowledge in the context of Article 8(j), should reflect both the backward-looking aspects and the forward looking aspects of this knowledge system. The specific tasks that should constitute the foundation in the future programme of work on Article 8(j) and 10(c) should be seen as cross-cutting through the Convention and need to be developed in an iterative manner to become efficient for the implementation of the post-2020 biodiversity framework. This requires that a parallel development of the framework in close interaction with other related subjects in the Post2020 Global Biodiversity Framework during the process, in line with the COP 14 decision (CBD/COP/14/17), are considered. During COP 14 the IIFB (International Indigenous Forum on Biodiversity) stated, that the timeframe for the completion of the organizational framework along with the Issues and Tasks of the Program of work by COP 15 is too short. IIFB stressed as well that this creates significant challenges for IPLC’s and for the Parties of the convention. IIFB underlined the need for WG8j 12 to complete this work. There should thus be a structure and process agreed upon at COP 15, to be in place for a continued process between COP 15 and COP 16, when the new PoW should be comprehensively adopted, after an indicative decision integrated in the Post2020 global biodiversity framework agreed on at COP 15. The EU and its Member States proposed in 2018 that during the intersessional period between COP 14 and 15, an AHTEG should provide the elements of a PoW and then further developed by the open-ended working group for Article 8(j) at its eleventh meeting (WG8j 11). COP 14 did not commission an AHTEG for this purpose. EU and its Member States proposed an alternative b) para 9, decision CBD/COP/14/17“Continuing the Ad Hoc Open-ended Working Group on Article 8(j) and Related Provisions with a revised mandate within the framework of the post-2020 biodiversity framework” until to the COP 16 as a solution. In line with this, we would now like to suggest the AHTEG for outlining the final version of the new PoW on 8(j) as a crosscutting issue, to be held after COP15, and before WG8j 12. This means that COP15 has to agree on the ToR for such ATHEG. As stressed in SBI 2 recommendations (Item 14), it is important to advance and monitor implementation and application of concluded elements, such as voluntary guidelines, in order to enhance the implementation further. This also applies to COP decisions of relevance to IPLCs and traditional knowledge. It might be necessary to evaluate if existing methods and tools for implementation and follow-up of such decisions are sufficient with an increased awareness and understanding of traditional knowledge and inclusion of IPLCs as a cross-cutting issue through the CBD and its Protocols.

CBD/WG8J/11/INF/1

Specific efforts to support inclusion of Articles 8(j) and 10(c), including collaborative project between government and IPLCs is important.

Elements such as: • Enhancing integration of Article 8(j) and related provisions as a mainstreamed issue in the implementation of the convention and its protocols; • Biodiversity and climate change in the perspective of the IPLCs and the implementation of Article 8(j) and related provisions; • The importance of traditional knowledge in climate mitigation and adaptation, and the vulnerability of communities affected by rapid environmental changes; • Synergies between the UNFCCC LCIP Platform established in 2017; • Linking the IPBES work on procedures and approaches for working with Indigenous and Local Knowledge, including outcomes of the IPBES Thematic and Regional Assessment, ensuring its uptake in the implementation work of the CBD, and the use of the outcomes of the IPBES assessments in relation to ILK (TK) in terms of methods as well as outcomes of the assessment. • Development of a post-2020 specific safeguards framework on indigenous peoples and local communities under the Convention, based on principles, standards and guidelines adopted under the Convention, and addressing any additional gaps identified, including gender equality considerations.

The EU and its Member States believe that the institutional arrangements should be an integral part of the development of the post 2020 global biodiversity framework taken place in 2019-2020.

Japan

SUBMISSION

With regard to Notification 2019-004, Japan would like to submit its view on possible institutional arrangements and their modus operandi for the implementation of Article 8(j) and related provisions in response to decision 14/17, paragraph 9, as follows:

Japan believes that the contents of a new programme of work on Article 8(j) and related provisions should be taken into account in the consideration on possible institutional arrangements and their modus operandi, as it is envisaged that a key role of a future body would be providing the Conference of the Parties with advice relating to the implementation of the programme of work. In other words, what kind of institutional arrangement is required would depend on the contents of the programme of work. Accordingly, Japan is of the view that we should develop the programme of work first and then decide an appropriate institutional arrangement and its modus operandi for that at a later COP. This approach would be realistic in light of the workload during this biennium when we have to concentrate on developing the post-2020 global biodiversity framework.

Although Japan would rather wait to see the development of the programme of work, its position is basically negative about the option to establish a permanent subsidiary body on Article 8(j) and related provisions. This is because the necessity for the establishment is unclear and there is concern in terms of administrative efficiency. Therefore, Japan is in favour of the other options, namely, continuing the Ad Hoc Open-ended Working Group with a revised mandate, or integrating the work on Article 8(j) and related provisions into the work of existing subsidiary bodies while ensuring the effective participation of indigenous peoples and local communities.

CBD/WG8J/11/INF/1

Mexico

SUBMISSION

Para la agenda global de diversidad biológica posterior a 2020, ¿cuál puede ser un objetivo del futuro Programa de trabajo sobre conocimientos tradicionales y cuestiones conexas con los pueblos indígenas y las comunidades locales en el marco del CDB? ¿Cómo puede este objetivo también considerar el trabajo en el marco de los Protocolos de Nagoya y Cartagena? Comparte tus opiniones.

Promover en el marco del Convenio, una aplicación justa del Artículo 8j) y disposiciones conexas, en concordancia con lo dispuesto en sus Protocolos (Nagoya y Cartagena), particularmente en cuanto a la participación justa y equitativa en los beneficios que se deriven de la utilización de los recursos genéticos, y protección en la esfera de la transferencia, manipulación y utilización seguras de los organismos vivos modificados resultados de la biotecnología moderna, a nivel local, nacional, regional e internacional, garantizando la participación plena y efectiva de las comunidades indígenas y locales en todas las etapas y niveles de su aplicación, y el respeto a sus derechos, particularmente en cuanto a la protección y conservación de los conocimientos tradicionales derivados de procesos de consulta a los pueblos indígenas y comunidades locales.

Por favor, identifique uno o dos elementos y tareas para un futuro programa de trabajo relacionado con los pueblos indígenas y las comunidades locales que se pueden considerar para el marco de la diversidad biológica global posterior al 2020. Por ejemplo, algunos puntos de vista recibidos identificaron la necesidad de trabajar en la documentación, el registro y la transmisión de los conocimientos tradicionales como un elemento y como una tarea relacionada. Esto alentaría a los pueblos indígenas y las comunidades locales a desarrollar e implementar procesos para facilitar la recopilación, documentación, almacenamiento y difusión de los conocimientos tradicionales.

● Financiamiento, garantías de movilización de recursos, y acciones colectivas de pueblos indígenas y comunidades locales.

o Creación de mecanismos de financiamiento.o Que el Grupo de Trabajo u Órgano Subsidiario cuenta con un Fondo de

Contribuciones Voluntarias para las acciones de los pueblos indígenas y comunidades locales

● Elementos legales

o Que el Grupo de Trabajo u Órgano Subsidiario evalúe los instrumentos nacionales e internacionales existentes, que puedan llegar a tener efectos en la protección de los conocimientos, innovaciones y prácticas de las comunidades indígenas y locales.

o Que el Grupo de Trabajo u Órgano Subsidiario promueva garantías, mecanismos de quejas y reparación sobre problemas relacionados con los derechos de los pueblos indígenas y comunidades locales.

o Desarrollar lineamientos para la protección, promoción y conservación de los conocimientos tradicionales indígenas en consulta con ellos.

o Facilitar el desarrollo de sistemas sui generis de protección de conocimientos tradicionales indígenas.

CBD/WG8J/11/INF/1

En su opinión, ¿qué mecanismos o posibles arreglos institucionales podrían ser necesarios para la implementación de un futuro programa de trabajo sobre conocimientos tradicionales después de 2020?Se considera que es necesario enfocar la atención sobre cuál es el mecanismo que puede promover y garantizar, de la mejor manera, lo dispuesto en el Art. 8j del CDB, así como la participación plena y efectiva de los pueblos indígenas y las comunidades locales en el marco del Convenio, por lo que se sugiere que la opción más viable para garantizar la integración del Artículo 8j) al Convenio, es que el Grupo de Trabajo se convierta en un órgano subsidiario consultivo permanente, por los siguientes motivos:

o Al convertirse en un órgano consultivo permanente se dará un reconocimiento formal a la relevancia y pertinencia de la temática indígena en el marco del Convenio, sin que se vea afectado por un carácter temporal como lo sería el Grupo de Trabajo.

o El órgano permanente puede desarrollar mecanismos para atender temas que posibilite la participación plena y efectiva de los pueblos indígenas y las comunidades locales (como por ejemplo, una representación balanceada al interior de los órganos subsidiarios ya establecidos).

o En su carácter de órgano permanente podría contar con mejores canales para hacer recomendaciones y emitir opiniones a la Conferencia de las Partes, a los otros Órganos e, inclusive, a otros convenios que tocan temas relacionados con la biodiversidad, el conocimiento tradicional y la participación de los Pueblos Indígenas.

Nigeria

SUBMISSION

(A) Possible objectives to be considered to achieve an effective integration of matters of direct relevance to indigenous people and local communities in the work of the subsidiary bodies; and to enable the full and effective participation of indigenous peoples and local communities in the work of the convention.

(i) There must be a legal certainty and clarity to protect the indigenous peoples and local communities as it affect genetic resources.

(ii) The indigenous peoples and local communities granting access to genetic resources should be facilitated at a minimum cost.

(iii) The indigenous peoples and local communities being the custodian of the resources, should be given an incentive on their genetic resources.

(B) Possible elements of program of work on Article 8(j) and related provision as parts of the post 2020 biodiversity frameworks.

(a) Recognition of the sovereign right of the country of Origin, in terms of taking away their genetic resources both constitutionally and otherwise.

(b) Adequate sensitization of the Indigenous Peoples and Local Communities (IPLCs) on the need to protect their Traditional Knowledge (TK) from undue exploitation without benefit accruing to them.

(c) The capacity building in various areas should be identified in the framework.

CBD/WG8J/11/INF/1

(C) Possible institutional arrangements including lessons learned, and pros and cons of current status:(i) Establishment of community Protocols for the granting of Prior Informed Consent (PIC)

which will facilitate issuance of permit by the competent national authority. (ii) Each party shall take appropriate, effective and proportionate legislative, administrative or

policy measures, as appropriate to provide the traditional knowledge associated with genetic resources utilized within their jurisdiction has been accessed in accordance with prior informed consent or approval and involvement of indigenous and local communities and that mutually agreed terms has been established as required by domestic access and genetic resource legislation or regulatory requirements of other party where such indigenous and local communities are located.

(iii) Each party shall take appropriate, effective and proportionate measures to address situations of non- compliance with measure adopted in accordance with paragraph 1 above.

(iv) Parties shall, as far as possible and as appropriate, cooperate in case of alleged violation of domestic access and genetic resources legislation or regulatory requirement referred to in paragraph 1 above.

(D) Progress report on implementation of the programme of work on Article 8(j) and related provisions .The following programme of work is being anticipated for the period 2019-2025(i) Legal and institutional developments.(ii) Promotion of equity and fairness in negotiations such as training to negotiate mutually

agreed terms.(iii) Special measures to increase the capacity of relevant stakeholders in relation to genetic

resources.(iv) Special measures to increase the capacity of indigenous and local communities with

emphasis on enhancing the capacity of women within those communities in relation to access the genetic resources or traditional knowledge.

(E) Possible elements of work aimed at bringing about a rapprochement of nature and culture in the post 2020 global biodiversity fame work.

(i) Establishment of traditional Institutions in all the 774 local government areas in the Country which will help to identify knowledge and practices through their various associations including medical practitioners who are the stakeholders in biodiversity conservation.

(ii) Training and Capacity Building: The indigenous people and local communities should be trained on the relevant matters as it affects the importance of genetic resources and traditional knowledge on how to preserve and protect its divers culture and tradition.

(iii) Education and Awareness Creation- Education plays a vital role in the life of those in the local communities to ensure that they have value to their genetic resources. It will prevent a foreigner from having access without due process.

CBD/WG8J/11/INF/1

Venezuela (Bolivarian Republic of)

SUBMISSION

Respuesta República Bolivariana de Venezuela/Notificación CDB 2019-004: Presentación de opiniones e información de acuerdo al Programa de Trabajo sobre el Artículo 8 j) y disposiciones conexas

a) Posibles elementos de un programa de trabajo sobre el artículo 8 j) y disposiciones conexas como parte del Marco Mundial de Diversidad Biológica posterior a 2020: Como parte de un nuevo Plan de Trabajo sobre el artículo 8 j) relacionado con el Marco de la Diversidad Biológica posterior a 2020, la República Bolivariana de Venezuela sugiere incluir los siguientes elementos: Sistemas propios de protección de los conocimientos tradicionales por parte de los pueblos indígenas y las comunidades locales. Valoraciones lingüísticas y patrimoniales de los pueblos indígenas y las comunidades locales sobre sus conocimientos tradicionales, asociados con la diversidad biológica. Seguimiento y revisión de la implementación de las directrices, y demás estándares adoptados por la Conferencia de las Partes. Apoyo a la implementación del Protocolo de Nagoya (asistencia a los pueblos indígenas y las comunidades locales en el desarrollo de capacidades sobre el consentimiento informado previo, los términos mutuamente acordados y la participación en los beneficios). Conservación in situ (prácticas agroecológicas indígenas, y apoyo a iniciativas comunitarias que contribuyan a la utilización consuetudinaria sostenible de la diversidad biológica). Impulso del marco de políticas y el respeto de las prácticas de conservación de los pueblos indígenas y la comunidades locales (áreas conservadas por pueblos indígenas y comunidades locales, y sitios sagrados). Desarrollo de mecanismos para involucrar a los pueblos indígenas y las comunidades locales en temas como: la elaboración de protocolos comunitarios, restauración de ecosistemas, biología sintética, información digital sobre secuencia de recursos genéticos, organismos vivos modificados, geoingeniería, edición de genes, entre otros. Promoción de la mitigación y adaptación al cambio climático basada en los ecosistemas, tomando en cuenta las prácticas, innovaciones y conocimientos tradicionales de los pueblos indígenas y las comunidades locales. Comunicación, educación y concienciación (sensibilización sobre el CDB y sus protocolos dirigida a los pueblos indígenas y las comunidades locales). Integración de los conocimientos tradicionales al uso sostenible de la biodiversidad en sectores claves, por ejemplo: agricultura, pesca, turismo, y silvicultura. Vínculos entre la ciencia y el conocimiento tradicional. Desarrollo de directrices y pautas para la protección, promoción y utilización de los conocimientos tradicionales, en consulta y con la participación de los pueblos indígenas y las comunidades locales.

Fortalecimiento de capacidades para la adopción de medidas legislativas, administrativas y de políticas sobre seguridad de la biotecnología, que involucren la participación de los pueblos indígenas y las comunidades locales. Desarrollo de capacidades para asegurar que los beneficios que se derivan de la utilización de los conocimientos tradicionales asociados con los recursos genéticos, se compartan de manera justa y equitativa con los pueblos indígenas y las comunidades locales que poseen dichos conocimientos. b) Posibles arreglos institucionales para la aplicación del artículo 8 j) y disposiciones conexas: Venezuela considera que el establecimiento de un Órgano Subsidiario sobre el artículo 8 (j) y disposiciones conexas, permitiría contar con un espacio permanente por medio del cual los pueblos indígenas y las comunidades locales puedan desde sus perspectivas únicas e importantes, contribuir al trabajo del CDB. Este nuevo órgano, podría asesorar a la COP, a otros órganos subsidiarios, y a las COP-

CBD/WG8J/11/INF/1

MOP de los Protocolos, en temas que incidan directamente en las costumbres y prácticas de los pueblos indígenas y las comunidades locales pertinentes para la conservación y utilización sostenible de la diversidad biológica. c) Posibles elementos de trabajo tendientes a lograr un acercamiento entre la naturaleza y la cultura en el Marco Mundial de la Diversidad Biológica Posterior a 2020. Venezuela recomienda los siguientes elementos de trabajo que podrían facilitar la incorporación de aspectos asociados a cultura y diversidad biológica, en el Marco Mundial posterior a 2020: Protección de las expresiones culturales tradicionales de los pueblos indígenas y las comunidades locales relacionadas con la diversidad biológica. Promoción y conservación de las lenguas indígenas, como parte del patrimonio biocultural. Apoyo a programas de enseñanza y sensibilización del público relacionados con la preservación de los conocimientos, las innovaciones y las prácticas de los pueblos indígenas y las comunidades locales que entrañen estilos de vida pertinentes para la conservación y la utilización sostenible de la diversidad biológica. Esta acción podría desarrollarse mediante las cátedras UNESCO.

CBD/WG8J/11/INF/1

B. Submissions from relevant organizations

International Indigenous Forum on Biodiversity

SUBMISSION

CBD/WG8J/11/INF/1

Sámi Parliament in Sweden

SUBMISSION

Building on previous submission from the International Indigenous Forum on Biodiversity (IIFB) compiled in CBD/COP/14/INF/5, the Sámi Parliament in Sweden hereby presents views and information regarding the abovementioned notification.

Introduction Indigenous peoples and local communities play a vital role in fulfilling the objectives of the CBD. In addition, traditional knowledge and inclusion and full, effective and meaningful participation of IPLC’s are cross-cutting issues to be applied throughout all of CBD and its protocols. We want to stress the importance of ensuring an ambitious and fully-integrated programme of work and consistent institutional arrangements which respects and strengthens Indigenous Peoples rights and recognizes IPLC’s traditional knowledge, innovations and practices, contributions and collective actions to the protection and sustainably use biodiversity. Rights based approach It is our opinion that a future PoW and institutional arrangements must be developed based on a human rights approach. For us this means applying ▪ the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (UNDRIP) including i.e. land tenure rights, the right to self-determination, traditional knowledge and free, prior and informed consent (FPIC).2

▪ other Human Rights instruments such as the International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination and the International Convention on Civil and Political Rights ▪ the UNGA Resolution “Enhancing the participation of indigenous peoples’ representatives and institutions in meetings of relevant United Nations bodies on issues affecting them” where further efforts are encouraged to facilitate the participation of indigenous peoples representatives and institutions in meetings of relevant UN bodies on issues affecting them, in accordance with their respective rules of procedure, inter alia, through the inclusion of indigenous peoples’ representatives and institutions in the modalities for relevant conferences, summits and other meetings convened by the UN on issues affecting them, in accordance with the relevant decisions established by the appropriate body or organization responsible for those meetings.3

▪ The UNGA Resolution “Outcome document of the high-level plenary meeting of the General Assembly known as the World Conference on Indigenous Peoples”. Recognizing that the traditional knowledge, innovations and practices of indigenous peoples and local communities make an important contribution to the conservation and sustainable use of biodiversity. We acknowledge the importance of the participation of indigenous peoples, wherever possible, in the benefits of their knowledge, innovations and practices.4

Other important considerations and tools The development of a future PoW and institutional arrangements should build upon work, experiences and progress already achieved and take into account tools developed by and synergies between other processes and bodies within and outside the Convention. ▪ the necessity of adequate funding /resource mobilization and capacity building to ensure full and effective participation of IPLC’s under the Convention and its protocols.

Ensuring the participation and capacity building of IPLC’s should be part of the core funding instead of relying on voluntary contributions. ▪ a focus on strong implementation mechanisms in terms of reporting, review and accountability.

2 See articles 3, 15, 25, 31, 3 A/RES/71/321 para 4 4 A/RES/69/2

CBD/WG8J/11/INF/1

Involvement of IPLC’s in development of NBSAP’s and national reporting and considerations of (new) review mechanisms ▪ the Local Biodiversity Outlooks5

▪ the Agenda 2030 and the Sustainable Development Goals ▪ the Indigenous Navigator Framework6

▪ that Traditional Knowledge and IPLC issues (FPIC, land tenure, wildlife management, sustainable customary use) are cross-cutting issues beyond the scope of Article 8(j) and related provisions.

During COP14 it became clearer than ever how considerations of and references to IPLC rights, traditional knowledge and sustainable use of biodiversity was addressed in a number of agenda items and decisions.6 It is therefore important that a PoW and institutional arrangements allow for and facilitate IPLC participation in all relevant matters across the Convention and its protocols. This, especially stresses the importance of inclusion of IPLC’s in mainstreaming and integration measures. Possible elements Potential elements of a future PoW have been outlined in detail in previous submissions by the IIFB, parties and other actors. We would like to highlight the following possible elements: ▪ Integration and mainstreaming measures of article 8(j) and relevant provisions in relevant areas such as climate change mitigation and adaptation ▪ Protected areas and customary sustainable use; indigenous lead conservation, ICCA’s and update and follow-up of the Plan of Action on Customary Sustainable Use ▪ Enhancing IPLC’s participation in development of NBSAP’s and National Reporting ▪ Financial safeguards and elimination of harmful subsidies, access to financial support ▪ Mechanisms for collecting relevant decisions (make them searchable in a catalogue/library), monitoring and follow-up on implementation of existing documents, voluntary guidelines, decisions etc. ▪ Linkages between cultural and biological diversity ▪ Implementation of existing indicators to Aichi target 18 and, following the content of new targets within the post 2020-framework, development of new indicators ▪ Capacity building measures ▪ Cooperation with other bodies and processes within and outside the convention e.g. the newly formed Facilitative Working Group established under the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) to operationalize the Local Communities and Indigenous Peoples Platform7

o the Expert Mechanism on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (EMRIP), o Intergovernmental Committee on Intellectual Property and Genetic Resources, Traditional Knowledge and Folklore Possible institutional arrangements and their modus operandi In addition to previous views submitted by IIFB on possible institutional arrangements and their modus operandi we would like to highlight following aspects and guiding principles. ▪ full and effective participation including in leadership roles taking into account the diversity of indigenous peoples and respecting their own procedures and structures ▪ a permanent, open-ended body ensuring consistency and continuity in addressing IPLC issues ▪ an inclusive body which is not an expert body ▪ that the development of institutional arrangements will interlink with the development of the post-2020 framework.

5 https://beta.localbiodiversityoutlooks.net 6 http://nav.indigenousnavigator.com/index.php/en/ 7 See decision 2/COP24/UNFCCC. The FWG will convene for the first time at SBSTA50 in June 2019.

CBD/WG8J/11/INF/1

Society for Wetland Biodiversity Conservation-Nepal

SUBMISSION

SOME POSSIBLE OBJECTIVES

● To be continue awareness, capacity building, cross-cultural training and networking among indigenous peoples and local communities and their respective organization within country and permanent body

● To be proactive and design a strong regional structural framework on Article 8(j) and related provisions and continue strengthen the spirit of the bridging network within region e.g. Asian bridging network Sri Lanka, India, Nepal and abroad to share experiences, lobby, coordinate with focal ministries, ngos, ingos, conservation organizations, academicians, research institutes, private and other to be full integration of Article 8(j) and related provisions

● To develop a frame of formal and non-formal educational programme on article (j) and related provision in accordance with convention “university for indigenous studies Nepal has been structuring, CBD Article 8(j) and its related provision is in the curriculum”

● To promote science-policy vs political a dialogue on Article 8(j) and related provision for better traditional knowledge and biological knowledge and cultural diversity. Some possible elements

● Progress and continue lobby on national focal point and advocacy to have a protection mechanism for traditional knowledge, practices and innovation of iplc in accordance with convention Article 8(j)

● IPLC readiness for collaboration and partnership in wide range to integrate the Article 8(j) and also internalise within

● Establish IPLC permanent body or partnership and internalise in nation and regional and global to continue 8(j) and its related provision

Lesson learned

The values and importance of Article 8(j) and related provisions and Permanent Body, integration and nature and culture.

Progress and continue and in progress

1. Permanent Body and partnership 2. IPLC National Plan of Action Nepal working Group on Article 8(j) and relevant provision

volunteer based in lobby and coordinate with focal ministry 3. Establish IPLC Network in local, province and central for better understanding, communication,

awareness and public education on Article 8(j) and its relevant provisions and internalise and localise in the contest of Nepal and frame out to lobby with governmental line agencies to have policies and mechanism to address the article 8(j) and related provisions.

4. It has been designed IPLC non-formal educational programme such as training, awareness workshops on Article 8(j) and related provisions on International biodiversity day

5. Volunteer contribution on the sixth national report whereas initiation has been internationalised TK, culture, religious and spiritual values on the report.

6. Few local governing policy recognise the importance of Article 8(j), 10c volunteering for internalise in local community

7. Initiative TK Science - policy and politician Dialogue and media 8. University for Indigenous Studies Nepal has been framed whereas the Article 8(j) and rerated

Provision is articulated in it for formal educational curriculum

CBD/WG8J/11/INF/1

9. Continue lobby and advocacy on ministry level to have national mechanism to integrate Article 8(j) and related Provision

10. Follow up the TK in ABS NP in national level 11. Setting up event to share the importance of Article 8(j) and related provision, Nature and Culture

on the occasion of Cultural diversity Day and international Biodiversity Day 2019

CBD/WG8J/11/INF/1

University of Puerto Rico

SUBMISSION

Unencumbered by Economic Reasoning: Submission of Views and Information on Article 8(j) and Related Provisions of the UN Convention on Biological Diversity, in accordance with Notification

No. 2019-004Simultaneous submission of English text and Spanish translation

4 March 2019Joseph Henry Vogel, PhD

Department of Economics, University of Puerto Rico-Río Piedras*(cc) Joseph Henry Vogel 2019

[email protected]

All five themes enumerated in the invitation for submission of views on Article 8(j) relate to “access and benefit sharing” (ABS) and lend themselves to economic reasoning.[1] The continuous need for submissions on the ABS of Traditional Knowledge (TK) suggests a problem of conceptualization. The need is not unique to the Conference of the Parties (COP) to the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD).[2] The World Intellectual Property Organisation (WIPO) is similarly frustrated. Nuno Pires de Carvalho, former Director of the Intellectual Property and Competition Policy Division of WIPO (1999-2015), analogizes the dynamic to Sisyphus in Greek mythology. Zeus condemned the King of Ephyra to push a boulder uphill only to have the rock tumble back down, in perpetuity.[3]

Carvalho offers an economic explanation for “Sisyphus redivivus”, which is worthy of quotation at length:

The real problem of Sisyphus resides in the inconsistency between the core function of I[ntellectual] P[roperty] and the expectations of TK...: IP does not exist to be enforced against clients...who steal or misappropriate intangible assets controlled by suppliers. IP can have that use, but incidentally only...IP essentially exists to prevent enterprises from reaping the intangible advantages sown by their competitors. In other words, the exclusive rights accorded by IP operate mainly in a horizontal, not a vertical, way...IP exists in a world of entrepreneurship, where it is used to ensure the differentiation of firms vis-a-vis their rivals and of products and services vis-à-vis the products and services of other undertakings.[4]

The economic explanation is incomplete. One must also consider (1) the diffusion of TK (2) the possibility of securing economic rents and (3) the low opportunity costs of maintenance other than the oral. Much TK has long entered the public domain through publication, which precludes the possibility of rents but not that of reparations. Just how much is not in the public domain is an empirical question whose answer would require substantial investment. Once ascertained, the transformation of the knowledge into trade secrets would be viable.[5] Alas, such transformation would not be sufficient. Other holders would also have the same trade secrets and compete (issue 2). Only cartelization of trade secrets would “prevent [other] enterprises from reaping the intangible advantages sown by their competitors” and integrate such knowledge with “a world of entrepreneurship, where it is used to ensure the differentiation of firms vis-à-vis their rivals”.

The word “cartelization” in the previous paragraph may startle the reader and result in dismissal. It should not. “Monopoly intellectual property” is descriptive of the economics of the limited-in-time protection grated by the State. A detailed rationale for its analog in oligopoly trade secrets was submitted by the author in response to Decision NP-2/10 (Paragraph 5) on Article 10 of the Nagoya Protocol (SCBD/ABS/VN/KG/NH/86849).[6] The title of that submission, “Economics Resolves ABS for Genetic Resources and Traditional Knowledge Once Both are Defined Accurately”, presages the title of the current submission.

Carvalho’s central message is correct. TK does not lend itself to IP. However, TK can become amenable once transformed as trade secrets and cartelized. The costs of doing so would have to be compared to

CBD/WG8J/11/INF/1

those of a sui generis IP regime. N.B: Under transformation and cartelization, Parties would not have to jump through the fiery hoops of a Diplomatic Conference so well described by Carvalho. Indeed, the knowledge would no longer be traditional per se. Sisyphus would no longer be redivivus.

Carvalho’s metaphor amuses in its imprecision. Sisyphus, after all, enjoyed some satisfaction before the boulder came tumbling down. Referring to the sixteen years of WIPO initiatives and several million Swiss francs spent, Carvalho observes that the “constan[t] pushing has scarcely moved the rock at all”. [7] The time and money spent by the UNCBD Secretariat on Article 8(j) is far greater, one daresay, than that incurred by WIPO.[8]

As long as the ABS of TK remains unencumbered by economic reasoning, that rock will not budge.

-------------------------------[1] UN CBD Secretariat, “Online Forum, submission of views, and information regarding the

Programme of Work on Article 8(j) and related provisions”, 24 January 2019.. https://www.cbd.int/doc/notifications/2019/ntf-2019-004-8j-en.pdf

[2] The UNCBD and WIPO are not alone. The FAO, UNCLOS and WHO must also grapple with the issue of DSI and ABS. See, Manuel Ruiz Muller, Klaus Angerer, Joseph Henry Vogel and Juan Carlos Torres-Acabá, “Heeding a 2018 UNCBD Secretariat Expert Report on ‘Digital Sequence Information’ by Considering the Unpublished Input “Common Ground, Cause and Sense for Users, Providers and Agents: ‘Bounded Openness’ over Genetic Resources’ by Joseph Henry Vogel, Juan Carlos Torres-Acabá”. Submission to the Secretary International Treaty on Plant Genetic Resources for Food and Agriculture in response to “ Invitation to submit views and other information on “Digital sequence information” (NCP GB8-016 MYPoW/DSI). Forthcoming online 2019.

[3] Nuno Pires de Carvalho, “Sisyphus Redivivus: The Work of WIPO on Genetic Resources andTraditional Knowledge”. Pages 337-349 in Charles R. McManis and Burton Ong (eds), Routledge Handbook on Biodiversity and the Law (London: Routledge, 2018).

[4] Ibid. 345-346.[5] Joseph Henry Vogel (ed), The Biodiversity Cartel: Transformation of Traditional Knowledge into

Trade Secrets (Quito: CARE, 2000).[6] Joseph Henry Vogel, “Economics Resolves ABS for Genetic Resources and Traditional Knowledge

Once Both are Defined Accurately”, simultaneous submission of original English text and Spanish translation in response to Decision NP-2/10 (Paragraph 5) on Article 10 of the Nagoya Protocol. The need for and modalities of a global multilateral benefit-sharing mechanism (Article 10), (SCBD/ABS/VN/KG/NH/86849), 4 April 2018. https://www.cbd.int/abs/submissions/np-2-10/joseph-henry-vogel-en.pdf

[7] Carvalho, ibid, 347.[8] Frustration also lends itself to satire, another legacy of Ancient Greece. See the narrative that

accompanies the musical clip by the same title, Joseph Henry Vogel, “Blowin’ in the [Brackets]: Tribute to the Convention on Biological Diversity” PLOS Synbio Community. 19 February 2019. https://blogs.plos.org/synbio/2019/02/19/wind-blowin-in-the-brackets-tribute-to-the-convention-on-biological-diversity/

Spanish versión

Libre del razonamiento económico: Presentación de opiniones e información en respuesta a Artículo 8(j) y disposiciones conexas del Convenio sobre la Diversidad Biológica de las Naciones

Unidas, de acuerdo con la Notificación Núm. 2019-004Entrega simultánea del texto original en inglés y su traducción al español

por el autor con revisión técnica de Alejandra Sánchez, PhD4rto de marzo de 2019

Joseph Henry Vogel, PhD

Departamento de Economía, Universidad de Puerto Rico-Río Piedras*(cc) Joseph Henry Vogel 2019

[email protected]

CBD/WG8J/11/INF/1

Todos los cincos temas enumerados en la invitación para presentar opiniones con respecto al Artículo 8(j) se relacionan con el “acceso y la participación de beneficios” (ABS, por sus siglas en inglés) y se prestan para un razonamiento económico.[1] La necesidad continua para presentaciones sobre el ABS y el Conocimiento Tradicional (CT) sugiere un problema de conceptualización. Dicha necesidad no es singular a la Conferencia de las Partes (COP, por sus siglas en inglés) al Convenio de Diversidad Biológica (CDB). La Organización Mundial de Propiedad Intelectual (OMPI) enfrenta el mismo problema.[2] El doctor Nuno Pires de Carvalho, ex-Director de la División de la Propiedad Intelectual y la Política de la Competencia de la OMPI (1999-2015) traza una analogía con el personaje Sísifo de la mitología griega.[3] El Zeus condena al Rey de Efira para empujar una roca cuesta arriba solo para que la roca vuelva a caer, en perpetuidad.

Carvalho ofrece una explicación económica para “Sísifo redivivus”, la cuál vale la pena de citar en extenso:

El verdadero problema de Sísifo radica en la inconsistencia entre la función medular de la P[ropiedad] I[intelectual] y las expectativas de los titulares de CT......: la PI no existe para usarse en contra de los clientes...quienes roban o malversan los activos intangibles controlados por los proveedores. La PI puede tener esa función, pero solo incidentalmente … la IP existe para prevenir que empresas aprovechen de las ventajas intangibles generadas por su competencia. En otras palabras, los derechos exclusivos otorgados por la PI operan en mayor parte de manera horizontal y no vertical...la IP existen dentro de un mundo empresarial, donde se aprovecha para asegurar la diferenciación de las empresas frente sus rivales, de sus productos y servicios frente a los productos y servicios de otras empresas.[4]

Esa explicación económica es, sin embargo, incompleta por no considerarse (1) la difusión del CT (2) la posibilidad de obtener rentas económicas y (3) los bajos costos de oportunidad para su mantenimiento en medios de comunicación que no sean orales. Desde hace años mucho CT ha pasado al dominio público a través de publicaciones, lo cual limita la posibilidad de rentas pero no de reparaciones. Con relación a lo no ha entrado en el dominio público por publicación es una pregunta empírica cuya respuesta requerirá bastante inversión. Una vez determinada, la transformación de dicho conocimiento a secretos comerciales sería viable.[5] Por desgracia, dicha transformación no sería suficiente. Otros titulares también tendrán los mismos secretos comerciales y competirán (la cuestión 2). Solo la cartelización de los secretos comerciales podría “prevenir a [otras] empresas de llevarse las ventajas intangibles generadas por su competencia” e integrar dicho conocimiento en “un mundo empresarial, donde se aprovecha para asegurar la diferenciación de las empresas frente sus rivales”.

La palabra “cartelización” en el párrafo anterior también puede asustar, indebidamente, al lector y conducirlo al rechazo. La “propiedad intelectual monopolista” describe la economía de la protección limitada en el tiempo por el Estado. Un raciocinio pormenorizado por una analogía con secretos comerciales oligopólicos fue sometido por el autor en respuesta a la Decisión NP-2/10 (Párrafo 5) sobre el Artículo 10 del Protocolo de Nagoya (SCBD/ABS/VN/KG/NH/86849).[6] El título de dicho texto “La economía resuelve el problema de ABS una vez que se definan recursos genéticos y conocimientos tradicionales de forma precisa”, es el prólogo a esta opinión.

El mensaje central de Carvalho es correcto. El CT no se presta para la PI. No obstante, el CT puede volverse ameno una vez transformado a secretos comerciales y cartelizado. Los costos de hacerlo tendrían que compararse con un sistema sui generis de PI. N.B: Bajo la transformación y la cartelización, las Partes no tendrán que sortear la carrera de obstáculos de una Conferencia Diplomática, bien descrita por Carvalho. En verdad, el conocimiento ya no sería tradicional per se. Sísifo ya no sería redivivus.

La metáfora de Carvalho entretiene por su imprecisión. Sísifo, al fin y al cabo, disfruta cierta satisfacción antes de que la roca se caiga. Con respecto a los dieciséis años de las iniciativas de la OMPI y los varios millones de francos suizos gastados, Carvalho observa que “el empuje constante casi no ha desplazado nada la roca”.[7] El tiempo y el dinero gastados por la Secretaría del CDB sobre el Artículo 8(j), me atrevería a decir, supera lo que ha gastado la OMPI.

CBD/WG8J/11/INF/1

Mientras el ABS de CT quede desprovisto del razonamiento económico, la roca no se moverá. [8]

-------------------------------[1] Secretaría del CDB de la ONU, “Online Forum, submission of views, and information regarding the

Programme of Work on Article 8(j) and related provisions”, 24 de enero de 2019. https://www.cbd.int/doc/notifications/2019/ntf-2019-004-8j-en.pdf

[2] La Secretaría del CDB de la ONU y la OMPI no se encuentran aislados. La FAO, UNCLOS y OMS también han de lidiar con la DSI y el ABS. Ver, Manuel Ruiz Muller, Klaus Angerer, Joseph Henry Vogel and Juan Carlos Torres-Acabá, “Heeding a 2018 UNCBD Secretariat Expert Report on ‘Digital Sequence Information’ by Considering the Unpublished Input “Common Ground, Cause and Sense for Users, Providers and Agents: ‘Bounded Openness’ over Genetic Resources’ by Joseph Henry Vogel, Juan Carlos Torres-Acabá”. Opinión presentada al Secretario, Tratado Internacional sobre los Recursos Fitogenéticos para la Alimentación y la Agricultura en respuesta a “Invitation to submit views and other information on “Digital sequence information” (NCP GB8-016 MYPoW/DSI). Próximo en línea 2019.

[3] Nuno Pires de Carvalho, “Sisyphus Redivivus: The Work of WIPO on Genetic Resources andTraditional Knowledge”. Pages 337-349 in Charles R. McManis and Burton Ong (eds), Routledge Handbook on Biodiversity and the Law (London: Routledge, 2018).

[4] Ibid, 345-346.[5] Joseph Henry Vogel (ed), El cártel de la biodiversidad: tranformación de los conocimientos

tradicionales en los secretos comerciales (Quito: CARE, 2000).[6] Joseph Henry Vogel, “La economía resuelve el problema de ABS una vez que se definan recursos

genéticos y conocimientos tradicionales de forma precisa” Submissions on Article 10 of the Nagoya Protocol pursuant to =

[7] Carvalho, ibid, 347.[8] La frustración también se presta para la sátira, que es otro legado de la Grecia Antigua. Ver la

narrativa que acompaña el clip musical por el mismo título Joseph Henry Vogel, “Blowin’ in the [Brackets]: Tribute to the Convention on Biological Diversity” PLOS Synbio Community. 19 de febrero de 2019, https://blogs.plos.org/synbio/2019/02/19/wind-blowin-in-the-brackets-tribute-to-the-convention-on-biological-diversity/

__________

· Web viewAD HOC OPEN-ENDED INTER-SESSIONAL. WORKING GROUP ON ARTICLE 8 (j) AND. RELATED...

Documents

Transcript of · Web viewAD HOC OPEN-ENDED INTER-SESSIONAL. WORKING GROUP ON ARTICLE 8 (j) AND. RELATED...