Provider and User of Genetic Resources
The chapter aims to define the status of a provider and a user of genetic resources under EU rules ensuring legal access to genetic resources and the fair and equitable sharing of the benefits arising from their utilization. Both a provider and a user are identified by international treaties, particularly the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD), the Nagoya Protocol and the International Treaty on Plant Genetic Resources for Food and Agriculture. To define a provider, we have to borrow the definition found in international law. Otherwise, for the whole of the European Union, the EU Regulations (EU) No 511/2014 and 2015/1866 apply, and Regulation (EU) No 511/2014 expressly defines what is meant by ‘user’.
Under the multilevel system mentioned above, a ‘provider’ is someone who ‘has the authority to grant access to genetic resources or traditional knowledge associated with genetic resources and who should be involved in the negotiation of mutually agreed terms with potential users’, because states have ‘sovereign rights to genetic resources’ (Art. 15 CBD). On the other hand, ‘users’ are natural/legal persons who utilize genetic resources or the traditional knowledge associated with genetic resources. The EU legal system creates a complex system of rights and obligations for both providers and users that complies with the Nagoya Protocol and with the constitutional principle of solidarity that underpins the entire EU legal system.
- Cippitani, R. (2011). La solidarietà giuridica tra pubblico e privato. Rome: Iseg srl.Google Scholar
- Colcelli, V. (2017). Research activity and the principle of solidarity in the EU legal framework for biodiversity. Rights and Science, 43–54.Google Scholar
- Colcelli, V. (2018). Information on access and benefit sharing regarding the utilisation of genetic resources under the European Union legal regulation. In R. Arnold, R. Cippitani, & V. Colcelli (Eds.), Genetic information and individual rights. Law & Science - Book (1) (pp. 80–96). Regensburg: Universität Regensburg.Google Scholar
- Godt, G. (2015). The multi-level implementation of the Nagoya Protocol in the European Union. In B. Coolsaet, F. Batur, A. Broggiato, J. Pitseys, & T. Dedeurwaerdere (Eds.), Implementing the Nagoya Protocol. Comparing access and benefit-sharing regimes in Europe. Leiden: Brill.Google Scholar
- Perron, F., & Phillips, F.-K. (2013). The interface between the Nagoya Protocol on ABS and the ITPGRFA at the international level. Potential issues for consideration in supporting mutually supportive implementation at the national level. FNI Report 1/2011. Lysaker: Fridtjof Nansen Institute.Google Scholar
- Posey, D. A. (1993). Intellectual property rights and just compensation for indigenous knowledge, Amazonia and Siberia: Legal aspects of the preservation of the environment and development in the last open spaces. Anthropology Today, 6(4), 287.Google Scholar
- Vezzani, S. (2007). Il Primo Protocollo alla Convezione europea dei diritti umani e la tutela della proprietà intellettuale di popoli indigeni e comunità locali. Diritti Umani e Diritto Internazionale, 1, 305–342.Google Scholar
- Von Kries, C., & Winter, G. (2015). Defining commercial and non-commercial research and development under the Nagoya Protocol and in other context. In E. Chege Kamau, G. Winter, & P. T. Stoll (Eds.), Research and development on genetic resources. Public domain approaches in implementing the Nagoya Protocol (pp. 125–147). London: Routledge.Google Scholar