Implementation of Nagoya Protocol on access and benefit-sharing in Peru: Implications for researchers.

ETHNOPHARMACOLOGICAL RELEVANCE: The Peruvian Amazon holds more than 1000 plant species with commercial potential and the national sales of natural products derived from medicinal and aromatic plants have exceeded $ 400 million per year. Research and development activities carried out on the genetic and biochemical composition of Peruvian flora have to abide by national and international regulations, such as the Nagoya Protocol (NP). AIM OF THE STUDY: The aim of this paper is to describe the implications of the current implementation of the NP in Peru for performing research on national genetic resources. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A review of the current legal framework and status of the NP in Peru was performed accompanied by first-hand experience undertaken by submitting a request for access to genetic resources related to wild continental species. RESULTS: So far, Peru has issued 16 Internationally Recognized Certificates of Compliance (IRCCs) through 2 of the identified National Authorities. Some of the difficulties and challenges observed have to do with the degree of effective implementation of the Access and Benefit-Sharing (ABS) system, the fact that the application process is not sufficiently clear, and the wide gap between this formal system and what occurs informally outside of it. In response to this, training and implementation projects have been launched and a new law on the access to genetic resources has been proposed. CONCLUSIONS: The difficulties observed still represent an obstacle to scientific research and the development of new commercial products based on Peruvian traditional knowledge and genetic resources. Although improvements have been made to the ABS framework, there remain major challenges to encouraging and ascertaining the equitable and sustainable use of Peru's biodiversity.

Access and Benefit Sharing Under the Nagoya Protocol-Quo Vadis? Six Latin American Case Studies Assessing Opportunities and Risk.

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

25 years after the `Rio Convention'--Lessons learned in the context of sustainable development and protecting indigenous and local knowledge.

BACKGROUND: When in 1992 the Convention on Biological Diversity was adopted, it was a response to centuries of exploitative use of biodiversity and to a lack of recognition of the rights of the countries and regions of origin. At the same time, it was an outcome of the increasing drive, especially in many European and American countries, to ascertain more equitable sharing of wealth between the global North and South. It is a result of negotiations between states and driven by political consensus. AIM: With this review we aim to assess the situation 25 years after the adoption of the CBD, provide an overview on how we got to the current framework and offer a perspective on how such access rights and equitable benefit sharing can be ascertained. OUTCOMES AND DISCUSSION: Without doubt the CBD has resulted in a new framework for providing and securing access to biodiversity and for equitable benefit sharing. It has since been developed and amended in numerous treaties and protocols, most recently the Nagoya Protocol. This development is both driven by the historical experience of many countries in the exploitative extractions of biodiversity, and indigenous peoples' drive for the recognition of their rights. Examples of exploitative use of biodiversity include the species yielding quinine and rubber. Using Lepidium meyenii Walp. as an example, we assess the current patent basis and highlight why in this case equitable benefit sharing proved to be impossible. Today, there are well-established principles in place to establish intellectual property rights, both with respect to a country's ownership of genetic resources, and a research entity's invention based on them. There remains, however, a lack of investment as well as research and development opportunities based on these internationally binding agreements. In line with the aims of our review, this paper includes an overview on how the current patenting system can be used to ensure that the goals of the CBD can be achieved. CONCLUSION: In the context of the centuries of exploitative use of biodiversity, 25 years is a short time span and this review reiterates Posey and Dutfields' call (1996) to companies or other outside organization for developing 'a relationship in which the community is an equal partner'.