IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jsusta/v13y2021i22p12372-d675304.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Access and Benefit Sharing and the Sustainable Trade of Biodiversity in Myanmar: The Case of Thanakha

Author

Listed:
  • Alessandra Giuliani

    (School of Agricultural, Forest and Food Sciences BFH/HAFL, Bern University of Applied Sciences, 3052 Zollikofen, Switzerland)

  • José Tomás Undurraga

    (Faculty of Environment and Natural Resources, University of Freiburg, 79085 Freiburg im Breisgau, Germany)

  • Theresa Dunkel

    (AGROSCOPE, Plant-Production Systems, 1964 Conthey, Switzerland)

  • Saw Min Aung

    (HELVETAS Swiss Intercooperation, Yangon 1062, Myanmar)

Abstract

The global demand for biological resources to use as natural ingredients in diverse products is rising rapidly. This creates investment opportunities for nature-based products, creating pressure on and threats to biodiversity and its associated traditional knowledge (TK). Myanmar’s great biodiversity is attractive for scientific investigations searching for natural substances for pharmaceutical, cosmetic, and other uses. Myanmar is amid profound political and economic changes, exposing the country to risks and opportunities. The recent opening to world trade put its rich biodiversity and TK under severe threat. One of the local natural biodiversity products is Thanakha, which is traditionally used for skincare. This study investigates the current and planned regulations and practices managing Access and Benefit Sharing (ABS) in Myanmar, focusing on one of the potential BioTrade products: Thanakha. A qualitative and quantitative survey was conducted through in-depth interviews with 37 key informants and 35 Thanakha farmers. The results show that while the current research and development activities at the Thanakha manufacturing level could trigger ABS obligations, the low awareness about ABS requirements and the lack of traceability raise uncertainties for its potential implementation. The implementation of BioTrade principles and ethical sourcing to promote the sustainable trade of Thanakha, as well as the implementation of ABS, would lead to the protection of biodiversity and TK, and the improvement of local livelihoods.

Suggested Citation

  • Alessandra Giuliani & José Tomás Undurraga & Theresa Dunkel & Saw Min Aung, 2021. "Access and Benefit Sharing and the Sustainable Trade of Biodiversity in Myanmar: The Case of Thanakha," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(22), pages 1-30, November.
    • Handle: RePEc:gam:jsusta:v:13:y:2021:i:22:p:12372-:d:675304
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/13/22/12372/pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/13/22/12372/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. M. Lenzen & D. Moran & K. Kanemoto & B. Foran & L. Lobefaro & A. Geschke, 2012. "International trade drives biodiversity threats in developing nations," Nature, Nature, vol. 486(7401), pages 109-112, June.
    2. Zaw Naing Tun & Paul Dargusch & DJ McMoran & Clive McAlpine & Genia Hill, 2021. "Patterns and Drivers of Deforestation and Forest Degradation in Myanmar," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(14), pages 1-27, July.
    3. Berdegué, J. & Ospina, P. & Favareto, A. & Aguirre, F. & Chiriboga, M. & Escobal, J. & Fernández, I. & Gomez, I. & Modrego, F. & Ramírez, E. & Ravnborg, H.M. & Schejtman, A. & Trivelli, C., 2011. "Determinantes de las Dinámicas de Desarrollo Territorial Rural en América Latina," Working papers 101, Rimisp Latin American Center for Rural Development.
    4. Gerzaín Avilés-Polanco & David J. Jefferson & Marco Antonio Almendarez-Hernández & Luis Felipe Beltrán-Morales, 2019. "Factors That Explain the Utilization of the Nagoya Protocol Framework for Access and Benefit Sharing," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(20), pages 1-18, October.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Thomas Wiedmann, 2017. "An input–output virtual laboratory in practice – survey of uptake, usage and applications of the first operational IELab," Economic Systems Research, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 29(2), pages 296-312, April.
    2. Benedikt Heid & Frank Stähler, 2024. "Disentangling Frictions Across the World: Markups Versus Trade Costs," CESifo Working Paper Series 11420, CESifo.
    3. Lilian Cervo Cabrera & Carlos Eduardo Caldarelli & Marcia Regina Gabardo Camara, 2020. "Mapping collaboration in international coffee certification research," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 124(3), pages 2597-2618, September.
    4. Muhammet Enis Bulak & Murat Kucukvar, 2022. "How ecoefficient is European food consumption? A frontier‐based multiregional input–output analysis," Sustainable Development, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 30(5), pages 817-832, October.
    5. Stoeckli, Sabrina & Merian, Sybilla & Wanner, Silvan & Stucki, Matthias & Chaudhary, Abhishek, 2024. "Advancing Biodiversity Footprinting for Food-Related Behavior Change," OSF Preprints zpvq4, Center for Open Science.
    6. Eivind Lekve Bjelle & Johannes Többen & Konstantin Stadler & Thomas Kastner & Michaela C. Theurl & Karl-Heinz Erb & Kjartan-Steen Olsen & Kirsten S. Wiebe & Richard Wood, 2020. "Adding country resolution to EXIOBASE: impacts on land use embodied in trade," Journal of Economic Structures, Springer;Pan-Pacific Association of Input-Output Studies (PAPAIOS), vol. 9(1), pages 1-25, December.
    7. Mi, Zhifu & Zhang, Yunkun & Guan, Dabo & Shan, Yuli & Liu, Zhu & Cong, Ronggang & Yuan, Xiao-Chen & Wei, Yi-Ming, 2016. "Consumption-based emission accounting for Chinese cities," Applied Energy, Elsevier, vol. 184(C), pages 1073-1081.
    8. Meghan Beck-O’Brien & Stefan Bringezu, 2021. "Biodiversity Monitoring in Long-Distance Food Supply Chains: Tools, Gaps and Needs to Meet Business Requirements and Sustainability Goals," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(15), pages 1-23, July.
    9. Xiaowei Yao & Zhanqi Wang & Hongwei Zhang, 2016. "Dynamic Changes of the Ecological Footprint and Its Component Analysis Response to Land Use in Wuhan, China," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 8(4), pages 1-14, April.
    10. Carvalho Ribeiro, Sónia & Soares Filho, Britaldo & Cesalpino, Tiago & Araújo, Alessandra & Teixeira, Marina & Cardoso, Jussara & Figueiras, Danilo & Nunes, Felipe & Rajão, Raoni, 2024. "Bioeconomic markets based on the use of native species (NS) in Brazil," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 218(C).
    11. Jonas Bunsen & Matthias Finkbeiner, 2022. "An Introductory Review of Input-Output Analysis in Sustainability Sciences Including Potential Implications of Aggregation," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 15(1), pages 1-24, December.
    12. Zhao, Hongyan & Zhang, Qiang & Huo, Hong & Lin, Jintai & Liu, Zhu & Wang, Haikun & Guan, Dabo & He, Kebin, 2016. "Environment-economy tradeoff for Beijing–Tianjin–Hebei’s exports," Applied Energy, Elsevier, vol. 184(C), pages 926-935.
    13. Bonilla-Moheno, Martha & Aide, T. Mitchell, 2020. "Beyond deforestation: Land cover transitions in Mexico," Agricultural Systems, Elsevier, vol. 178(C).
    14. Zhou, Xin & Yano, Takashi & Kojima, Satoshi, 2013. "Proposal for a national inventory adjustment for trade in the presence of border carbon adjustment: Assessing carbon tax policy in Japan," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 63(C), pages 1098-1110.
    15. Anna Herzberger & Min Gon Chung & Kelly Kapsar & Kenneth A. Frank & Jianguo Liu, 2019. "Telecoupled Food Trade Affects Pericoupled Trade and Intracoupled Production," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(10), pages 1-15, May.
    16. Liu, Xinru & Wang, Ke, 2024. "The inequality of household carbon footprint in China: A city-level analysis," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 188(C).
    17. Johannes Többen & Tobias Heinrich Kronenberg, 2015. "Construction Of Multi-Regional Input--Output Tables Using The Charm Method," Economic Systems Research, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 27(4), pages 487-507, December.
    18. Simona Ioana Ghita & Andreea Simona Saseanu & Rodica-Manuela Gogonea & Catalin-Emilian Huidumac-Petrescu, 2018. "Perspectives of Ecological Footprint in European Context under the Impact of Information Society and Sustainable Development," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 10(9), pages 1-25, September.
    19. Chris Bachmann & Matthew J. Roorda & Chris Kennedy, 2015. "Developing A Multi-Scale Multi-Region Input-Output Model," Economic Systems Research, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 27(2), pages 172-193, June.
    20. Guillaume Lafortune & Grayson Fuller & Guido Schmidt-Traub & Christian Kroll, 2020. "How Is Progress towards the Sustainable Development Goals Measured? Comparing Four Approaches for the EU," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(18), pages 1-24, September.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:gam:jsusta:v:13:y:2021:i:22:p:12372-:d:675304. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: MDPI Indexing Manager (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.mdpi.com .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.