Alternative models to the bilateral arrangement as a solution to ABS challenges

根据联合国大会1962年第1803 XVIII号决议首次确立的国家对其自然资源拥有主权的概念，《生物多样性公约》提出了一项双边交换安排，在遗传资源和与这种资源有关的传统知识及其提供者和使用者之间交流利用这些资源所产生的惠益。该公约第15条规定了一个由提供者根据事先知情同意和相互商定的条件以及用户分享利用所产生的利益的要求进行控制的制度。该系统的运作情况令人沮丧（Prip和Rosendal，2015年），一些作者认为利益共享项目已经失败（Muller等人，2019年12月; Muller 2015年; Winter 2021）。《生物多样性公约》缔约方商定了一项具有约束力的文书，要求供应商执行立法、行政或政策措施，确保法律的确定性、明确性和透明度，并要求用户采取措施，确保遵守供应商规则，便利对价值链的跟踪和监测，人们认为，随着2010年的《名古屋议定书》（NP），这些挑战和随之而来的混乱局面将被消除（Kamau，2014年）。《生物多样性公约》和《自然保护区公约》分别通过29年和10年后，现实情况令人沮丧。即使新的法律试图达到与NP一致，获取和惠益分享（ABS）仍然存在无数的挑战。特别是，对生物多样性的养护和可持续利用至关重要的货币惠益分享没有得到很好的实现。我们的假设是，这些挑战的核心在于双边交换安排。此外，双边主义被认为不适合数字序列信息（DSI）的获取、使用和惠益分享模式（Laird et al.，2020; Scholz等人，2020年），这是（货币）利益的真实的来源的基础，其所有权目前是提供者和用户之间争论的一个主要问题。在分析和解释现行制度的成就和失败的基础上，该研究项目的目的是审查各种替代模式，其中涉及将主权权利与惠益分享挂钩或脱钩的实质性问题。这一主题非常具有现实意义，鉴于目前在若干论坛上对多边惠益分享的讨论以及今后几年将作出的决定，该项目非常及时。事实上，这方面的审议已经在《生物多样性公约》一级开始。

Based on the concept of sovereign rights of States over their natural resources which was first established by the UN General Assembly in 1962 under Resolution 1803 XVIII the CBD introduced a bilateral quid pro quo arrangement of exchange of genetic resources (GR) and traditional knowledge associated to such resources (aTK) and the benefits arising from their utilization between their providers and users. Its article 15 establishes a system of control by the provider based on prior informed consent (PIC) and mutually agreed terms (MAT) as well as the requirement of the user to share benefits from utilization. This system has functioned dismally (Prip and Rosendal 2015) and the benefit-sharing project is judged by some authors as having failed (Muller et al. December 2019; Muller 2015; Winter 2021). With the parties to the CBD agreeing on a binding instrument that required providers to implement legislative, administrative or policy measures which ensure legal certainty, clarity and transparency, and users to put measures in place which ensure compliance with provider rules and facilitated tracking and monitoring of the value chain, it was thought that with the Nagoya Protocol (NP) of 2010 these challenges and the ensuing mess would be eliminated (Kamau 2014). The reality is discouraging 29 and 10 years since the adoption of the CBD and the NP respectively. Even with the new laws attempting to reach conformity with the NP, access and benefit-sharing (ABS) retain a myriad of challenges. In particular monetary benefit-sharing, which is consequential for conservation and sustainable use of biodiversity, has been poorly realized. Our hypothesis is that the core of these challenges lies with the bilateral quid pro quo arrangement. Besides, bilateralism is considered a poor fit to modalities of access and use of and benefit-sharing from digital sequence information (DSI) (Laird et al., 2020; Scholz et al., 2020) which is a basis for the real source of (monetary) benefits, and the ownership of which is currently a major issue of contention between providers and users. Based on an analysis and explanation of the achievements and failures of the present system the research project aims to examine alternative models with the substantial question of linking or delinking sovereign rights and benefit-sharing. The theme is very topical and the project timely given the current discussions of multilateral benefit-sharing in several fora, and the decisions that will be taken over the next few years. Indeed, deliberations in this regard have started at the CBD level.