Comments on the proposed Implementing Act on Regulation (EU) No 511/2014

The Berne Declaration and Natural Justice argue that the proposed Implementing Act contains significant gaps in monitoring user compliance, particularly when users and commercializers are different entities or operate outside the EU. They criticize the draft's allowance for subjective confidentiality claims and call for greater transparency in the register of collections and recognized best practices, alongside clear remedial steps for providers when compliance fails.

• The draft Implementing Act fails to effectively monitor compliance when the user of genetic resources (GR) or associated traditional knowledge (ATK) is not the entity commercializing the product. While event (d) addresses transfers to commercializers within the Union, it is described as 'nearly impossible to monitor' because such transfers are not regulatory requirements or publicly visible.
• There is a monitoring gap regarding products based on GR and ATK that enter the Union market via internet sales, which may circumvent compliance efforts and create 'perverse incentives' for those who do follow the Regulation.
• The authors argue that the draft Implementing Act's templates allow for 'blanket confidentiality' based on subjective justifications, which contradicts Article 7.5 of the Regulation. They assert that confidentiality should only be permitted when Union or national law protects a 'legitimate economic interest'.
• Regarding the register of collections, the authors suggest that documents demonstrating a collection's capacity to comply with Article 5.3 should be public to enable transparency and allow users and providers to choose collections based on 'standards of excellence'.
• The authors criticize the 'once every three years' verification frequency for registered collections as 'infrequent' and request that additional verifications triggered by substantiated concerns be performed immediately, ideally within a specific timeframe such as 2 months.
• The document identifies a lack of clarity regarding remedial steps for providers and users in cases where a registered collection or a recognized 'best practice' is later found to be non-compliant.

APA

Natural Justice (2015). Comments on the proposed Implementing Act on Regulation (EU) No 511/2014. https://naturaljustice.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/01/EU-Draft-Nagoya-Protocol.pdf

Chicago

Natural Justice. Comments on the proposed Implementing Act on Regulation (EU) No 511/2014. 2015. https://naturaljustice.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/01/EU-Draft-Nagoya-Protocol.pdf.

Wikipedia

{{cite press release |author=Natural Justice |title=Comments on the proposed Implementing Act on Regulation (EU) No 511/2014 |date=15 January 2015 |url=https://naturaljustice.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/01/EU-Draft-Nagoya-Protocol.pdf |access-date=17 August 2026 |via=Climate Insights Directory}}

BibTeX

@misc{naturaljustice2015comments, author = {{Natural Justice}}, title = {{Comments on the proposed Implementing Act on Regulation (EU) No 511/2014}}, publisher = {Natural Justice}, year = {2015}, month = jan, url = {https://naturaljustice.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/01/EU-Draft-Nagoya-Protocol.pdf}, urldate = {2026-08-17}, note = {Indexed by Climate Insights Directory} }