A systematic quantitative literature review of aquaculture genetic resource access and benefit sharing

The Convention on Biological Diversity provides a framework for countries to implement laws regulating the access, use and exchange of genetic resources, including how users and providers share the benefits from their use. While the international community has been preoccupied with resolving the unintended effects of access and benefit sharing (ABS) on domestication in agriculture for the past 25 years, its far-reaching consequences for global aquaculture has only recently dawned on policymakers, aquaculture producers and researchers. Using a systematic quantitative literature review methodology, we analysed the trends, biases and gaps in the ABS literature. Only 5% of the ABS literature related to the use and exchange of aquaculture genetic resources. Most of this literature related to use in developing countries or global use, but its authors were predominantly from developed countries. The literature covered a narrow range of countries (7) and regions (3), a narrow range of taxonomic groups (9) and a narrow range of uses. Given that aquaculture is the fastest growing global food production sector with products primarily from developing countries using over 580 species, there are significant gaps in aquaculture-related ABS literature. We conclude that the sector needs urgent analyses on the consequences of ABS restrictions, obligations and opportunities for its early stages of domestication and product development. We recommend priority areas for attention to ensure that rapidly evolving national ABS laws take into account the special characteristics and needs of the aquaculture sector

Legitimacy in REDD+ governance in Indonesia

This paper addresses the question of legitimacy in REDD+ governance in Indonesia. It develops a legitimacy framework that builds on elements of Scharpf (J Eur Pub Policy 4(1):18–36, 1997) input and output legitimacy concept and the political economy lens described by Brockhaus and Angelsen (Analysing REDD+: Challenges and choices, CIFOR, Bogor, 2012). Using data collected through key informant interviews and focus groups, we identify and explore stakeholder perceptions of legitimacy. The analysis reveals a complex interplay between input and output legitimacy, finding that state, non-state and hybrid actors perceive output legitimacy (i.e. project outcomes) as highly dependent on the level of input legitimacy achieved during the governance process. Non-state actors perceive proxies for input legitimacy, such as participation and inclusion of local people, as goals in themselves. In the main, they perceive inclusion to be integral to the empowerment of local people. They perceive output legitimacy as less important because of the intangibility of REDD+ outcomes at this stage in the process. The findings also highlight the challenges associated with measuring the legitimacy of REDD+ governance in Indonesia

Interaction between EU carbon trading and the international climate regime: synergies and learning

EU climate policy, Emissions trading, ETS, National allocation plans, Kyoto Protocol, Clean Development Mechanism, Interaction,

Sharing aquatic genetic resources across jurisdictions: playing ‘chicken’ in the sea

International regimes regulating access and benefit sharing were originally designed to promote conservation and fairness objectives concerning the use of the world’s biological resources for their genetic material value. These regimes determine from whom permission is required to take the resources and who obtains the benefits of their use. They have evolved separate frameworks in three distinct jurisdictional areas—within national jurisdiction, beyond national jurisdiction and in the Antarctic Treaty Area. This article argues that if these regimes continue to evolve separately, there is a strong temptation for countries to play ‘chicken’ with biological resource governance through forum shopping or opting out of agreements that do not suit their political ends. Using game theory and a transgenic tilapia fish example incorporating genetic material from the three jurisdictional areas, it illustrates the legal and ethical dilemmas that can arise from the territorial (jurisdictional) approach to access and benefit sharing—to the detriment of fairness and conservation in tilapia’s countries of origin. Tilapias are known as the ‘chicken of the sea’ because they dominate global farmed production and developing countries depend on them as their primary source of protein, livelihoods and trade. This means there will be serious consequences if the regimes do not achieve their fairness and conservation objectives for sharing their genetic material. This article concludes that a purpose-driven cooperative governance approach can sidestep the game of chicken and promote fairer and more conservation focused outcomes than the current jurisdictional approach for the developing country providers of migratory aquatic resources