• Michelle F Rourke.
• Griffith Law School, Griffith University, Gold Coast Queensland.
• J Law Med. 2018 Apr 1; 25 (3): 707-726.

AbstractThe United Nations' Convention on Biological Diversity (1992) (CBD) has become the focal point for the regulation of traditional knowledge (TK) held by indigenous and local communities (ILCs). The legally binding CBD is bolstered by a supplementary, non-binding agreement, The Nagoya Protocol on Access to Genetic Resources and the Fair and Equitable Sharing of Benefits Arising from their Utilization (2010) (Nagoya Protocol). Both instruments create the conditions for the access and benefit-sharing (ABS) of genetic resources, and for TK associated with those resources. There has been no consideration as to how TK might factor into virus ABS arrangements. Most of the literature on these issues relates to how the TK provisions of the CBD and Nagoya Protocol should be implemented; there is little guidance as to how to interpret the text itself. This article provides a textual analysis of all provisions of the CBD and Nagoya Protocol that relate to TK and the interests of ILCs. The analysis clarifies the differences in scope between the two instruments and will provide some insights as to how to interpret key terms, particularly indigenous and local communities, traditional knowledge and traditional knowledge associated with genetic resources. This is critical to understanding the obligations that apply to accessing virus samples that are regulated as genetic resources under the CBD.

10 keywords...

hide…