The Ambiguous March to Equity

This commentary analyzes the limitations of the draft European Union (EU) Regulation on Access and Benefit Sharing (ABS), arguing that its narrow scope, administrative 'light touch' approach, and specific loopholes undermine the spirit of the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) and the Nagoya Protocol.

• The draft EU Regulation restricts its temporal scope to genetic resources (GR) and associated traditional knowledge (ATK) accessed after the Nagoya Protocol enters into force for the EU. This excludes benefit-sharing obligations for GR and ATK accessed prior to that date, even if they are utilized for research and development after the Protocol's entry into force, which the authors describe as 'egregious' and contrary to the CBD.
• The authors identify a 'regressive' interpretation of the EU Regulation's scope where the term 'sovereign rights' is used to suggest that provider countries lose rights over GR and ATK once they are accessed prior to the EU's ratification of the Nagoya Protocol. This could allow EU users to ignore the ABS laws of provider countries for new uses of previously acquired resources.
• The EU Regulation employs a 'light touch' administrative approach that the authors argue fails to meet Nagoya Protocol standards. It relies heavily on user declarations at only two checkpoints—receiving research funding and final product development—and encourages self-monitoring through industry bodies and 'registered collections' to reduce the burden on member states.
• A significant 'import loophole' exists where entities can conduct research and development on GR and ATK outside the EU to avoid due diligence obligations and then import the resulting commercial products into the EU for sale without any requirement to comply with provider country requirements.
• The Regulation is criticized for its handling of plant genetic resources for food and agriculture (PGRFA). By using the term 'management and control' rather than 'sovereign rights' for non-Annex 1 PGRFA, the EU potentially allows users to bypass the ABS requirements of the countries of origin by accessing resources from collections in other countries.
• The definition of associated traditional knowledge (ATK) in the EU Regulation is limited to how it is described in 'mutually agreed terms.' The authors argue this is problematic because it is impossible to anticipate all potential uses of ATK during initial negotiations, leaving the rights of indigenous and local communities (ILCs) open to abuse through 'hair splitting' or 'crafty drafting.'

APA

Natural Justice (2014). The Ambiguous March to Equity. https://naturaljustice.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/03/Ambiguous-March-to-Equity.pdf

Chicago

Natural Justice. The Ambiguous March to Equity. 2014. https://naturaljustice.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/03/Ambiguous-March-to-Equity.pdf.

Wikipedia

{{cite report |author=Natural Justice |title=The Ambiguous March to Equity |date=February 2014 |url=https://naturaljustice.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/03/Ambiguous-March-to-Equity.pdf |access-date=17 August 2026 |via=Climate Insights Directory}}

BibTeX

@techreport{naturaljustice2014ambiguous, author = {{Natural Justice}}, title = {{The Ambiguous March to Equity}}, institution = {Natural Justice}, year = {2014}, month = feb, url = {https://naturaljustice.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/03/Ambiguous-March-to-Equity.pdf}, urldate = {2026-08-17}, note = {Indexed by Climate Insights Directory} }