IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/spr/ieaple/v13y2013i2p177-196.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Domestic biodiplomacy: navigating between provider and user categories for genetic resources in Brazil and French Guiana

Author

Listed:
  • Geoffroy Filoche

Abstract

Is the rationale of the convention on biological diversity (CBD)—the distinction between provider and user of genetic resources—outdated? While the response is in the negative at the global level, as demonstrated by the adoption in 2010 of the Nagoya Protocol, the provider–user distinction, if portrayed exclusively as a North–South relation, is no longer adequate to fully apprehend the political and legal dynamics at work in access and benefit sharing (ABS) regimes. Evolving configurations of this distinction can be found in a country that formerly saw itself solely as a provider (Brazil) and in a country that initially considered itself as both a user and a provider (France). In both cases, non-State actors (even if from the public sector) are reinterpreting the categories of the CBD for their own ends and are seeking to gain prerogatives related to the governance of genetic resources. That said, the trajectories of Brazil and French Guiana are quite different. While Brazil appears to be leaving behind an indiscriminate fight against biopiracy and entering a process of valorization of resources (led by the national scientific community), Guiana is shifting toward a locally governed regime that seeks to control as much as possible but which is difficult to put in place, even if arrangements have commenced on the fringes of official negotiations. Finally, the article shows that the content of ABS regimes is specified by the outcomes of local dynamics of biodiplomacy as much as by the stereotypical hypotheses discussed at a global level. Copyright Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2013

Suggested Citation

  • Geoffroy Filoche, 2013. "Domestic biodiplomacy: navigating between provider and user categories for genetic resources in Brazil and French Guiana," International Environmental Agreements: Politics, Law and Economics, Springer, vol. 13(2), pages 177-196, May.
  • Handle: RePEc:spr:ieaple:v:13:y:2013:i:2:p:177-196
    DOI: 10.1007/s10784-012-9184-z
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://hdl.handle.net/10.1007/s10784-012-9184-z
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1007/s10784-012-9184-z?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Ryan, Michael P., 2010. "Patent Incentives, Technology Markets, and Public-Private Bio-Medical Innovation Networks in Brazil," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 38(8), pages 1082-1093, August.
    2. Amandine Bled, 2009. "Business to the rescue: private sector actors and global environmental regimes’ legitimacy," International Environmental Agreements: Politics, Law and Economics, Springer, vol. 9(2), pages 153-171, May.
    3. Valerie Boisvert & Franck-Dominique Vivien, 2005. "The Convention on biological diversity," Post-Print hal-02874455, HAL.
    4. Christoph Görg & Ulrich Brand, 2006. "Contested Regimes in the International Political Economy: Global Regulation of Genetic Resources and the Internationalization of the State," Global Environmental Politics, MIT Press, vol. 6(4), pages 101-123, November.
    5. Raustiala, Kal & Victor, David G., 2004. "The Regime Complex for Plant Genetic Resources," International Organization, Cambridge University Press, vol. 58(2), pages 277-309, April.
    6. Boisvert, Valerie & Vivien, Franck-Dominique, 2005. "The convention on biological diversity: A conventionalist approach," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 53(4), pages 461-472, June.
    7. Artuso, Anthony, 2002. "Bioprospecting, Benefit Sharing, and Biotechnological Capacity Building," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 30(8), pages 1355-1368, August.
    8. Gurdial Nijar, 2011. "Food security and access and benefit sharing laws relating to genetic resources: promoting synergies in national and international governance," International Environmental Agreements: Politics, Law and Economics, Springer, vol. 11(2), pages 99-116, May.
    9. Kathleen McAfee, 2012. "The Contradictory Logic of Global Ecosystem Services Markets," Development and Change, International Institute of Social Studies, vol. 43(1), pages 105-131, January.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Matilda Petersson & Peter Stoett, 2022. "Lessons learnt in global biodiversity governance," International Environmental Agreements: Politics, Law and Economics, Springer, vol. 22(2), pages 333-352, June.

    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. Hu, R. & Deng, H., 2018. "A Crisis of Consumers’ Trust in Scientists and Influence on Consumer Attitude," 2018 Conference, July 28-August 2, 2018, Vancouver, British Columbia 276047, International Association of Agricultural Economists.
    2. Damien Rousselière & Samira Rousselière, 2010. "On the impact of trust on consumer willingness to purchase GM food:Evidence from a European survey," Review of Agricultural and Environmental Studies - Revue d'Etudes en Agriculture et Environnement, INRA Department of Economics, vol. 91(1), pages 5-26.
    3. Hourcade, Jean-Charles & Salles, Jean-Michel & Thery, Daniel, 1992. "Ecological economics and scientific controversies. Lessons from some recent policy making in the EEC," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 6(3), pages 211-233, December.
    4. Samira Chaklatti & Damien Rousselière, 2006. "Confiance, justification et controverse sur les OGM en Europe," Cahiers d'Economie et Sociologie Rurales, INRA Department of Economics, vol. 81, pages 61-93.
    5. Samira Chaklatti & Damien Rousselière, 2006. "Trust, justification and controversy on the GMOs in Europe [Confiance, justification et controverse sur les OGM en Europe]," Post-Print hal-01201137, HAL.
    6. Winands, Sarah & Holm-Müller, Karin, 2014. "Eco-regional Cartels on the Genetic Resource Market and the case of the Andean Community's legislation," Discussion Papers 163046, University of Bonn, Institute for Food and Resource Economics.
    7. Liste, Philip, 2022. "Tax Robbery Incorporated: The transnational legal infrastructures of tax arbitrage," Global Cooperation Research Papers 30, University of Duisburg-Essen, Käte Hamburger Kolleg / Centre for Global Cooperation Research (KHK/GCR21).
    8. Patrick Bottazzi & David Crespo & Harry Soria & Hy Dao & Marcelo Serrudo & Jean Paul Benavides & Stefan Schwarzer & Stephan Rist, 2014. "Carbon Sequestration in Community Forests: Trade-offs, Multiple Outcomes and Institutional Diversity in the Bolivian Amazon," Development and Change, International Institute of Social Studies, vol. 45(1), pages 105-131, January.
    9. Reinsberg,Bernhard Wilfried & Michaelowa,Katharina & Knack,Stephen, 2015. "Which donors, which funds ? the choice of multilateral funds by bilateral donors at the World Bank," Policy Research Working Paper Series 7441, The World Bank.
    10. Van Hecken, Gert & Bastiaensen, Johan & Windey, Catherine, 2015. "The frontiers of the debate on Payments for Ecosystem Services: a proposal for innovative future research," IOB Discussion Papers 2015.05, Universiteit Antwerpen, Institute of Development Policy (IOB).
    11. Jean Christophe Graz & Michel Damian & Mehdi Abbas, 2007. "Towards an evolutionary environmental regulation of capitalism : sustainable development 20 years after," Post-Print halshs-00369962, HAL.
    12. Grasl, Maximilian, 2011. "International Financial Reporting Standards and banking regulation: A comeback of the state?," TranState Working Papers 158, University of Bremen, Collaborative Research Center 597: Transformations of the State.
    13. Brigitte Weiffen & Leslie Wehner & Detlef Nolte, 2013. "Overlapping regional security institutions in South America: The case of OAS and UNASUR," International Area Studies Review, Center for International Area Studies, Hankuk University of Foreign Studies, vol. 16(4), pages 370-389, December.
    14. Ronald Mitchell, 2013. "Oran Young and international institutions," International Environmental Agreements: Politics, Law and Economics, Springer, vol. 13(1), pages 1-14, March.
    15. Nathan, Iben & Chen, Jie & Hansen, Christian Pilegaard & Xu, Bin & Li, Yan, 2018. "Facing the complexities of the global timber trade regime: How do Chinese wood enterprises respond to international legality verification requirements, and what are the implications for regime effecti," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 92(C), pages 169-180.
    16. Moon, Sunung & Jeon, Yongil, 2009. "How valid are long-term government plans? Technological forecasting of the Korean biotechnology industry," Journal of Policy Modeling, Elsevier, vol. 31(6), pages 891-902, November.
    17. Agni Kalfagianni & Oran R. Young, 2022. "The politics of multilateral environmental agreements lessons from 20 years of INEA," International Environmental Agreements: Politics, Law and Economics, Springer, vol. 22(2), pages 245-262, June.
    18. C. Randall Henning, 2019. "Regime Complexity and the Institutions of Crisis and Development Finance," Development and Change, International Institute of Social Studies, vol. 50(1), pages 24-45, January.
    19. Fuß, Julia & Kreuder-Sonnen, Christian & Saravia, Andrés & Zürn, Michael, 2021. "Managing regime complexity: Introducing the interface conflicts 1.0 dataset," Discussion Papers, Research Unit: Global Governance SP IV 2021-101, WZB Berlin Social Science Center.
    20. Zhuoyue Peng & Hao Wu & Maohua Ding & Min Li & Xi Huang & Rui Zheng & Lin Xu, 2021. "Ecological Compensation Standard of a Water-Receiving Area in an Inter-Basin Water Diversion Based on Ecosystem Service Value and Public Willingness: A Case Study of Beijing," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(9), pages 1-15, May.

    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:spr:ieaple:v:13:y:2013:i:2:p:177-196. 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: Sonal Shukla or Springer Nature Abstracting and Indexing (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.springer.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.