Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Towards Mutual Supportiveness Between the Nagoya Protocol and the Andean ABS Regime: The Cases of Ecuador and Peru

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Global Transformations in the Use of Biodiversity for Research and Development

Part of the book series: Ius Gentium: Comparative Perspectives on Law and Justice ((IUSGENT,volume 95))

  • 300 Accesses

Abstract

Ecuador and Peru are parties to the Nagoya Protocol to the Convention on Biological Diversity. Before, in 1996, they became part of a sub-regional regime on access to genetic resources within the Community of Andean Nations. Article 4 of the Nagoya Protocol prevents State parties to pursue specialized access and benefit-sharing (ABS) instruments, which run counter to the objectives of the Protocol. Conceived as a binding instrument to prevent misappropriation of genetic resources, the Andean regime has proven complex and over-regulatory, failing to promote research and development on genetic resources in the region. At the domestic level, Ecuador and Peru have been confronted by a number of pre-established rules, which appear to give the State a disproportionate bargaining power vis-à-vis the user, rendering the implementation of the Protocol’s balanced approach a difficult task. This chapter identifies areas where Decision 391 and the Nagoya Protocol can be mutually supportive and provides examples of how the existing ABS legal framework in Ecuador and Peru can help reconcile possible areas of conflict.

Views expressed by the author do not reflect the views of the International Labour Organization.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution

Subscribe and save

Springer+ Basic
$34.99 /Month
  • Get 10 units per month
  • Download Article/Chapter or eBook
  • 1 Unit = 1 Article or 1 Chapter
  • Cancel anytime
Subscribe now

Buy Now

Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 129.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 169.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 169.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. 1.

    See CBD Country profiles.

  2. 2.

    The CAN is a sub-regional intergovernmental organization created to promote economic development and cooperation among Andean countries. See the Agreement for the Integration of the Andean Sub-region (Cartagena Agreement) of 1969, Art. 1.

  3. 3.

    Ruiz (2008a, b), p. 140; Ribadeneira (2017), p. 195; Silvestri (2016), p. 77; Gómez-lee (2012), p. 59.

  4. 4.

    Beck and Rodríguez (2017).

  5. 5.

    The Protocol was adopted on 29 October 2010 after 6 years of negotiation. It entered into force on 12 October 2014, after achieving 50 ratifications. Peru ratified the Protocol in 2014 whereas Ecuador did so in 2017.

  6. 6.

    Ribadeneira (2017), p. 195.

  7. 7.

    Pavoni (2010), p. 650.

  8. 8.

    UN Doc. CBD/SBI/2/INF/17 (2018), para. 18.

  9. 9.

    Ibid, para. 5.

  10. 10.

    Ibid, para. 39.

  11. 11.

    A/CN.4/L.682 13 (April 2006), para. 282.

  12. 12.

    Megiddo (2018).

  13. 13.

    Venezuela was bound by the regime until 2006.

  14. 14.

    Treaty creating the Tribunal of the Andean Community, Art. 3.

  15. 15.

    Decision 391, preamble.

  16. 16.

    Caillaux et al. (1999), pp. 10, 11.

  17. 17.

    Decision 391, preamble.

  18. 18.

    Ibid, Art. 5.

  19. 19.

    Ibid, Art. 6.

  20. 20.

    Ibid, Art. 3.

  21. 21.

    Ibid.

  22. 22.

    Ibid, Art. 4.

  23. 23.

    Ibid.

  24. 24.

    Ibid, Art. 1, para. 1.

  25. 25.

    Ruiz (2008a, b), p. 27.

  26. 26.

    Decision 391, Art. 1.

  27. 27.

    Ibid.

  28. 28.

    Ibid.

  29. 29.

    Deplazes-Zemp (2018), p. 89; CBD/DSI/AHTEG/2020/1/5 29 (29 January 2020), p. 16.

  30. 30.

    Caillaux et al. (1999).

  31. 31.

    Decision 391, Art. 26.

  32. 32.

    Ibid, Arts 26 and 41.

  33. 33.

    Ibid, Art. 29.

  34. 34.

    Ibid, Art. 32 to 47.

  35. 35.

    Ibid, Art. 33 and 35.

  36. 36.

    Ibid, Art. 41.

  37. 37.

    Ibid, Art. 7.

  38. 38.

    Caillaux (1999), p. 7.

  39. 39.

    Decision 391, Art. 10 (2).

  40. 40.

    Before its abolition, in 2012, CAN had announced the reactivation of the Committee.

  41. 41.

    Andean Council of Ministers, Decision 797 of 2014.

  42. 42.

    Decision 391, Art. 47.

  43. 43.

    Acts of the Third Meeting of the Ad-Hoc Andean Committee on Intellectual Property of the Andean Community of Nations, 9 September 2016, p. 2. At the time of writing this chapter, Colombia is the only CAN member State that has not ratified the Protocol.

  44. 44.

    Acts of the Third Meeting of the Ad-Hoc Andean Committee on Intellectual Property of the Andean Community of Nations, 9 September 2016, p. 3.

  45. 45.

    Ibid, p. 7.

  46. 46.

    Ibid, p. 6.

  47. 47.

    Ibid, p. 12.

  48. 48.

    Ibid, p. 16.

  49. 49.

    Ibid, p. 7.

  50. 50.

    Andean Normative framework of Safeguards for Genetic Resources and Traditional Knowledge, adopted by the Andean Parliament in 2017, Art. 6 (5).

  51. 51.

    Ibid, Art. 12 (2).

  52. 52.

    Constitution of Ecuador, Art. 425.

  53. 53.

    Constitutional Court of Ecuador, Decision No. 011-13-DTI-CC, Case No. 0023-11-T1 (25 April 2013).

  54. 54.

    Act 328-A, 18 July 2017, National Assembly Ecuador, p. 25.

  55. 55.

    Act 328-A, 18 July 2017, National Assembly Ecuador, pp. 11 and 28.

  56. 56.

    Constitution of Ecuador, Art. 408.

  57. 57.

    Ibid, Art. 313.

  58. 58.

    Ibid, Art 322.

  59. 59.

    Organic Environmental Code, Art. 73.

  60. 60.

    Ibid.

  61. 61.

    Organic Code on the Social Economy of Knowledge, Art. 4 (16).

  62. 62.

    Constitution of Ecuador, Art. 408.

  63. 63.

    Organic Code of the social economy for knowledge, creativity and innovation, adopted in 2016, Art. 73.

  64. 64.

    These views were expressed by Diego Inclán and Lenin Nunez, Director and Legal Advisor, respectively, of the National Biodiversity Institute in Ecuador in interviews conducted in March 2018.

  65. 65.

    Executive Decree No. 905 of 2011, Art. 6.

  66. 66.

    Organic Code of the Social Economy for Knowledge, Creativity and Innovation of 2016, Art. 47.

  67. 67.

    Ibid, Art. 68.

  68. 68.

    Ibid, Art. 69.

  69. 69.

    Executive Decree No. 245 of 2014.

  70. 70.

    Organic Environmental Code of 2017, Art. 72.

  71. 71.

    Executive Decree No. 905, Art. 6.

  72. 72.

    Executive Decree No. 905 of 2011, Arts. 16 to 24.

  73. 73.

    Organic Administrative Code, Art. 209.

  74. 74.

    Executive Decree No. 905, Art. 11.

  75. 75.

    Implementing regulation of the Organic Code of the Social Economy for Knowledge, Creativity and Innovation of 2017, Art. 25.

  76. 76.

    Executive Decree 905, Art. 30.

  77. 77.

    Executive Decree No. 905, Art. 29.

  78. 78.

    See https://www.ec.undp.org/content/ecuador/es/home/presscenter/articles/2019/con-204-depositos-voluntarios%2D%2Decuador-consolida-la-proteccion-d.html.

  79. 79.

    Ministerial Agreement No. 34 of 2015, Art. 2.

  80. 80.

    Ibid, Art. 3.

  81. 81.

    Ibid, Art. 4.

  82. 82.

    Ibid, Art. 14.

  83. 83.

    Ibid, Art. 4.

  84. 84.

    Ibid.

  85. 85.

    Ibid, Art. 16.

  86. 86.

    Ibid.

  87. 87.

    Cabrera Medaglia (2018), p. 16.

  88. 88.

    See Frame agreement signed on 19 July 2016 between the National Institute of Biodiversity and the Ministry of the Environment for the program “Genetic Biodiversity in Ecuador”. A copy of the agreement was provided by the National Institute of Biodiversity upon formal request made by the author.

  89. 89.

    See Report of the Committee of International Relations on the draft resolution No. 3092/2013-PE that proposed the ratification of the Nagoya Protocol, Congress of Peru, 12 May 2014, especially p. 36.

  90. 90.

    Ministerial Agreement 205-2019-MINAM.

  91. 91.

    WIPO/GRTKF/IC/11-13 (2007), p. 3.

  92. 92.

    National Commission Against Biopiracy (31 January 2019).

  93. 93.

    General Environmental Act, Art. 97 (d).

  94. 94.

    Ibid, Art. 3.

  95. 95.

    Ibid.

  96. 96.

    Ibid.

  97. 97.

    Ibid, Art. 13.

  98. 98.

    Ibid, Art. 14.

  99. 99.

    Supreme Decree No. 003-2009, Art. 15.

  100. 100.

    Supreme Decree No. 003-2009, Art. 23.

  101. 101.

    Ibid, Art. 25. According to information of the Ministry of the Environment, between 2008 and 2015, SERFOR issued 41 permissions for access for non-commercial research, whereas INIA issued 39.

  102. 102.

    Supreme Decree No. 003-2009, Art. 35.

  103. 103.

    Ibid, Art. 49.

  104. 104.

    Act No. 27.811, 2002, Art. 2.

  105. 105.

    Ibid, Art. 6.

  106. 106.

    Ibid, Art. 14.

  107. 107.

    Ibid, Art. 2 (c).

  108. 108.

    Ibid, Art. 17.

  109. 109.

    Ibid, Art. 8. Notably, the Draft Regulation on Access to Genetic Resources and their Derivatives (2019) states that the Ministry of the Environment will prepare a guide for ABS negotiation with indigenous communities in line with Decision 391, the Nagoya Protocol and other relevant norms.

  110. 110.

    Supreme Decree No. 006-2016-MC of 2016.

  111. 111.

    Supreme Decree No. 003-2009, Art. 19.

  112. 112.

    Ibid, Art. 3 (u).

  113. 113.

    Ibid, Art. 61.

  114. 114.

    Broggiato et al. (2015), p. 1.

  115. 115.

    CBD/NP/MOP/DEC/3/1 (30 November 2018), para. 7 (D).

  116. 116.

    Cabrera Medaglia (2018), p. 16.

  117. 117.

    CBD/NP/MOP/DEC/3/1 (30 November 2018), para. 29.

References

Articles

  • Broggiato A, Dedeurwaerdere T, Batur F, Coolsaet B (2015) Access benefit-sharing and the Nagoya Protocol: the confluence of abiding legal doctrines. In: Coolsaet B et al (eds) Implementing the Nagoya Protocol: comparing access and benefit-sharing regimes in Europe. Brill/Nijhoff, Leiden, Boston

    Google Scholar 

  • Cabrera Medaglia J (2018) Implementación del ABS y del Protocolo de Nagoya en LAC: Situación actual y Retos Legislativos y de Política 3 años después de su vigencia, Serie Técnica sobre Acceso y Participación en los Beneficios (ABS) No. 4

    Google Scholar 

  • Caillaux J, Ruiz M, Tobin B (1999) El Régimen Andino de Acceso a los Recursos Genéticos: Lecciones y Experiencias, Sociedad Peruana de Derecho Ambiental

    Google Scholar 

  • Deplazes-Zemp A (2018) Genetic resources: an analysis of a multifaceted concept. Biological Conservation 222

    Google Scholar 

  • Gómez-lee M (2012) La Comunidad Andina frente al Reto del Acceso a los Recursos Genéticos y la Distribución de Beneficios, Oasis No. 17

    Google Scholar 

  • Megiddo T (2018) Beyond fragmentation: on international law integrationist’s forces. Yale J Int Law 44

    Google Scholar 

  • Pavoni R (2010) Mutual supportiveness as a principle of interpretation and law-making: a watershed for the ‘WTO-and-competing-regimes’ debate? Eur J Int Law 21(3)

    Google Scholar 

  • Ribadeneira M (2017) Veinte años del régimen Andino de recursos genéticos. Opera No. 20

    Google Scholar 

  • Ruiz M (2008a) Guía Explicativa de la Decisión 391 y una propuesta alternativa para regular el acceso a los recursos genéticos en la subregión andina. Sociedad Peruana de Derecho Ambiental

    Google Scholar 

  • Ruiz M (2008b) Una lectura crítica de la Decisión 391 de la Comunidad Andina y su puesta en práctica en relación con el Tratado Internacional, Recursos Naturales y Ambiente No. 53

    Google Scholar 

  • Silvestri L (2016) Conservación de la diversidad genética en el Perú: desafíos en la implementación del régimen de acceso a recursos genéticos y distribución de beneficios. Revista Peruana de Biología 23(1)

    Google Scholar 

Legislations, Draft Legislation and Records of Meetings

  • Act No. 27.811, 2002 establishing the regime for the protection of collective knowledge of indigenous peoples associated to biological resources (Peru)

    Google Scholar 

  • Act of the Third Meeting of the Ad-Hoc Andean Committee on Intellectual Property of the Andean Community of Nations, 9 September 2016

    Google Scholar 

  • Andean Parliament, Normative Framework to Safeguard Genetic Resources and Associated Traditional Knowledge, adopted in 2017. Agreement for the Integration of the Andean Sub-region (Cartagena Agreement) of 1969

    Google Scholar 

  • Constitution of Ecuador, adopted in 2008

    Google Scholar 

  • Constitution of Peru, adopted in 1993

    Google Scholar 

  • Decision 391 is: Decision 391 - Common Regime on Access to Genetic Resources, adopted by the Commission of the Cartagena Agreement in 1996

    Google Scholar 

  • Executive Decree No. 905 (Ecuador) National Regulation on the Common Regime concerning Access to Genetic Resources in application of Decision 391 of the Andean Community of Nations, adopted in 2011

    Google Scholar 

  • Executive Decree No. 245 of 2014

    Google Scholar 

  • General Environmental Act adopted in 2005

    Google Scholar 

  • Implementing Regulation to the Organic Code on the Social Economy of Knowledge, adopted in 2017

    Google Scholar 

  • Ministerial Agreement 205-2019-MINAM (Peru) containing the Draft Regulation on Access to Genetic Resources and their Derivatives

    Google Scholar 

  • Ministerial Agreement No. 34 (Ecuador), adopted in 2015

    Google Scholar 

  • Organic Administrative Code (Ecuador), adopted in 2017

    Google Scholar 

  • Organic Code on the Social Economy of Knowledge (Ecuador), adopted in 2016

    Google Scholar 

  • Organic Criminal Code (Ecuador), adopted in 2014

    Google Scholar 

  • Organic Environmental Code (Ecuador), adopted in 2017

    Google Scholar 

  • Supreme Decree 018-2015-MINAGRI (Peru), adopted in 2015

    Google Scholar 

  • Supreme Decree No. 003-2009 (Peru), adopted in 2009

    Google Scholar 

  • Supreme Decree No. 006-2016-MC, adopted in 2016

    Google Scholar 

  • Treaty creating the Tribunal of the Andean Community, 1996

    Google Scholar 

Judicial Decisions

  • Constitutional Court of Ecuador, Decision No. 011-13-DTI-CC, Case No. 0023-11-T1, adopted on 25 April 2013

    Google Scholar 

Studies/Reports/Reviews

  • CBD/SBI/2/INF/17, Study into criteria to identify a specialized international access and benefit-sharing instrument, and as possible process for its recognition’, prepared by Prof. E. Morgera, Dr. S. Switzer and Dr. E. Tsioumani, 2018

    Google Scholar 

  • CBD Country profiles at: https://www.cbd.int/countries/ (accessed on 25 November 2020) Report of the Committee of International Relations on the draft resolution No. 3092/2013-PE that proposed ratification of the NP, Congress of Peru, 12 May 2014

  • CBD/NP/MOP/DEC/3/1, Assessment and review of the effectiveness of the Protocol, 30 November 2018

    Google Scholar 

  • A/CN.4/L.682 13 April 2006, Fragmentation of international law: Difficulties arising from the diversification and expansion of international law, Report of the study group of the international law commission finalized by Martti Koskenniemi, 2006

    Google Scholar 

  • CBD/DSI/AHTEG/2020/1/5 29, Fact-finding study on how domestic measures address benefit-sharing arising from commercial and non-commercial use of Digital Sequence Information on genetic resources and address the use of Digital Sequence Information on genetic resources for research and development, 29 January 2020

    Google Scholar 

  • WIPO/GRTKF/IC/11-13, Combating biopiracy: The Peruvian experience, 2007

    Google Scholar 

Power Point Presentations

Website Links

Download references

Acknowledgements

The author wants to specially thank María Consuelo Velasco and Dayahina Vera for their support in the collection of legal sources, and to Deyanira Camacho and Lily Rodríguez for their advice in the preparation of this chapter. The views expressed in this chapter are the author's own and do not reflect the position of the ILO or its constituents.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Universidad Espíritu Santo-Ecuador, International Labour Organization, Samborondón, Ecuador

    Maria Victoria Cabrera Ormaza

Authors
  1. Maria Victoria Cabrera Ormaza
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Maria Victoria Cabrera Ormaza .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Faculty of Law, University of Bremen, Bremen, Germany

    Evanson Chege Kamau

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2022 The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG

About this chapter

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this chapter

Ormaza, M.V.C. (2022). Towards Mutual Supportiveness Between the Nagoya Protocol and the Andean ABS Regime: The Cases of Ecuador and Peru. In: Chege Kamau, E. (eds) Global Transformations in the Use of Biodiversity for Research and Development. Ius Gentium: Comparative Perspectives on Law and Justice, vol 95. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-88711-7_4

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-88711-7_4

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Cham

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-030-88710-0

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-030-88711-7

  • eBook Packages: Law and CriminologyLaw and Criminology (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation