International Initiatives for Regulating Access to Genetic Resources

In light of the various international instruments and international agencies that are actively engaged in resolving the issue of ABS, the present work tries to find an answer to the larger question how far the above agencies have succeeded in regulating access and make sure of benefit sharing. In this process, the work comprehensively analyses the work of different agencies involved in the process. It tries to find out the major obstacles that stand in the way of fulfilment of the benefit sharing objective and proposes the ways and means to tackle them. The study first traces the legal foundations of the concept of property in GRs and associated TK.For this, it starts with analysis of the nature of property and the questions related to ownership in GRs as contained in the CBD as well as in various State legislations. It further examines the notion of property before and after the enactment of the CBD and establishes that the CBD contains strong private property jurisprudence.Based on the theoretical foundation of private property right,Chapter 3 analyses the benefit sharing mechanism of the CBD, i.e. the Nagoya Protocol. It searches for a theoretical convergence of the notion of property as reflected in the two instruments and successfully establishes the same. It makes an appraisal of the Nagoya regime to find out how far it has gone beyond the CBD in ensuring the task of benefit sharing and the impediments in its way.Realizing that the ITPGRFA forms part of the CBD system, Chapter 4 analyses the benefit sharing structure of ITPGRFA as revealed through its multilateral system. This gives the work the benefit of comparing two different benefit sharing models operating on the same philosophy of property. This chapter tries to find out whether there is conceptual coherence in the notion of property when the benefit sharing model changes. It alsocompares the merits and demerits of both the systems and tries to locate the hurdles in achieving benefit sharing. Aware of the legal impediments caused by IPRs in the process of ABS, Chapter 5 tries to explore the linkages between IPRs and GRs and associated TK and assesses why contract-based CBD system fails before the monopoly rights under TRIPS. Chapter 6 analyses the different solutions suggested by the international community at the TRIPS Council as well as the WIPO (World Intellectual property Organisation) and examines their effectiveness. Chapter 7 concludes that considering the inability of the present IP system to understand the grass root realities of the indigenous communities as well as the varying situations of the country of origin, the best possible way to recognise the CBD goals in the TRIPS could be better achieved through linking the two instruments by means of the triple disclosure requirement in Article 29 as suggested by the Disclosure Group during the TRIPS Council deliberations. It also recommends that considering the nature of property in GR, a new section/chapter in the TRIPS dealing with GRs would be another workable solution.

Coastal regulation zone rules in coastal panchayats (villages) of Kerala, India vis-a` -vis socio-economic impacts from the recently introduced peoples’ participatory program for local self-governance and sustainable development

Coastal Regulation Zone (CRZ) notification was issued by the Ministry of Environment and Forest of Government of India in February 1991 as a part of the Environmental Protection Act of 1986 to protect the coast from eroding and to preserve its natural resources. The initial notification did not distinguish the variability and diversity of various coastal states before enforcing it on the various states and Union Territories. Impact assessments were not carried out to assess its impact on socio-economic life of the coastal population. For the very same reason, it was unnoticed or rather ignored till 1994 when the Supreme Court of India made a land mark judgment on the fate of the coastal aquaculture which by then had established as an economically successful industry in many South Indian States. Coastal aquaculture in its modern form was a prohibited activity within CRZ. Lately, only various stakeholders of the coast realized the real impact of the CRZ rules on their property rights andbusiness. To overcome the initial drawbacks several amendments were made in the regulation to suit regional needs. In 1995, another great transformation took place in the State of Kerala as a part of the reorganization of the local self government institutions into a decentralized three tier system called ‘‘Panchayathi Raj System’’. In 1997, the state government also decided to transfer the power with the required budget outlay to the grass root level panchayats (villages) and municipalities to plan and implement the various projects in their localities with the full participation of the local people by constituting Grama Sabhas (Peoples’ Forum). It is called the ‘‘Peoples’ Planning Campaign’’(Peoples’ Participatory Programme—PPP for Local Level Self-Governance). The management of all the resources including the local natural resources was largely decentralized to the level of local communities and villages. Integrated, sustainable coastal zone management has become the concern of the local population. The paper assesses the socio-economic impact of the centrally enforced CRZ and the state sponsored PPP on the coastal community in Kerala and suggests measures to improve the system and living standards of the coastal people within the framework of CRZ.