The two worlds of Nagoya ABS legislation in the EU and provider countries: discrepancies and how to deal with them

The report identifies significant gaps in the EU's implementation of the Nagoya Protocol, which differs from provider countries' laws by triggering obligations at the point of physical access rather than utilization. This creates legal uncertainty and allows for the potential misappropriation of genetic resources and associated traditional knowledge, particularly through an 'import loophole' where products developed outside the EU are sold within it. The authors suggest that provider countries should strengthen their national laws and Mutually Agreed Terms (MAT) to protect their resources and the rights of indigenous peoples and local communities.

• The EU ABS Regulation triggers benefit-sharing obligations based on physical access to genetic resources (GR) or associated traditional knowledge (aTK) occurring after the Nagoya Protocol's ratification by both the EU and the provider country, whereas most provider countries trigger these obligations based on the utilization of the resources.
• The EU regulation narrowly defines associated traditional knowledge (aTK) as only that which is explicitly described in Mutually Agreed Terms (MAT), which the report argues makes it nearly impossible to track illegal access and utilization of aTK.
• An 'import loophole' exists in the EU framework because due diligence is only required from users conducting research and development within the EU; it does not apply to entities that develop products outside the EU and then import them for commercialization within the Union.
• The EU's 'register of collections' may inadvertently facilitate the circumvention of provider country laws by shifting due diligence from the user to the collection, without requiring new PIC or MAT for new commercial uses of resources accessed before the Nagoya Protocol.
• Provider countries such as Brazil, Zambia, and Bhutan have implemented laws that define access more broadly to include utilization or specifically address resources held in ex-situ collections to ensure benefit sharing.
• The report recommends that provider countries and indigenous communities use Mutually Agreed Terms (MAT) to prohibit the transfer of resources to third parties without authorization and require new PIC and MAT for every change in the intent of utilization.

APA

Lassen, B. (2016). The two worlds of Nagoya ABS legislation in the EU and provider countries: discrepancies and how to deal with them. Natural Justice. https://naturaljustice.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/04/Two-worlds-Nagoya.pdf

Chicago

Lassen, Barbara. The two worlds of Nagoya ABS legislation in the EU and provider countries: discrepancies and how to deal with them. Natural Justice, 2016. https://naturaljustice.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/04/Two-worlds-Nagoya.pdf.

Wikipedia

{{cite report |last1=Lassen |first1=Barbara |title=The two worlds of Nagoya ABS legislation in the EU and provider countries: discrepancies and how to deal with them |publisher=Natural Justice |date=December 2016 |url=https://naturaljustice.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/04/Two-worlds-Nagoya.pdf |access-date=17 August 2026 |via=Climate Insights Directory}}

BibTeX

@techreport{lassen2016two, author = {Lassen, Barbara}, title = {{The two worlds of Nagoya ABS legislation in the EU and provider countries: discrepancies and how to deal with them}}, institution = {Natural Justice}, year = {2016}, month = dec, url = {https://naturaljustice.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/04/Two-worlds-Nagoya.pdf}, urldate = {2026-08-17}, note = {Indexed by Climate Insights Directory} }