Australia's Biodiversity Conservation Strategy 2010-2020 Submission to the National Biodiversity Strategy Review Taskforce

This submission focuses on “Priority for Change 3: Knowledge for all” and “Priority for Change 5: Involving Indigenous Australians”. Our particular interest lies with ensuring that Indigenous knowledge holders are engaged with in a manner that recognises their prior rights over their own knowledge and intellectual property. As the Preamble of the recently endorsed United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples states, we need to; “Recognis[e] that respect for Indigenous Knowledge, cultures and traditional practises contributes to sustainable and equitable development and proper management of the environment”.

The genographic project: Traditional knowledge and population genetics

This article considers the debate over patent law, informed consent, and benefit-sharing in the context of biomedical research in respect of Indigenous communities. In particular, it focuses upon three key controversies over large-scale biology projects, involving Indigenous populations. These case studies are representative of the tensions between research organisations, Indigenous communities, and funding agencies. Section two considers the aims and origins of the Human Genome Diversity Project, and criticisms levelled against the venture by Indigenous peak bodies and anti-biotechnology groups, such as the Rural Advancement Foundation International. It examines the ways in which the United Nations Educational, Scientific, and Cultural Organization (UNESCO) grappled with questions of patent law, informed consent, and benefit sharing in relation to population genetics. Section three focuses upon the ongoing litigation in Tilousi v. Arizona State University, and the Havasupai Tribe v. Arizona State University. In this matter, the Havasupai tribe from the Grand Canyon in the United States brought legal action against the Arizona State University and its researchers for using genetic data for unauthorised purposes - namely, genetic research into schizophrenia, migration, and inbreeding. The litigation raises questions about informed consent, negligence, and larger matters of human rights. Section four explores the legal and ethical issues raised by the Genographic Project. It considers the aims and objectives of the venture, and the criticisms levelled against it by Indigenous communities, and anti-biotechnology groups. It examines the response of the United Nations Permanent Forum on Indigenous Issues to the Genographic Project. It charts the debate over the protection of traditional knowledge in various international fora. The conclusion recommends a number of measures to better regulate large-scale biology projects involving the participation of Indigenous communities.

The road to Copenhagen: Intellectual property and climate change

In the lead-up to the discussions over IP and climate change in Copenhagen in 2009, the US House of Representatives passed a resolution that it should be the policy of US government officials in discussions over the long-term action under the United Nations Framework on Climate Change to ‘prevent any weakening of, and ensure robust compliance with and enforcement of, existing international legal requirements as of the date of the enactment of this Act for the protection of IP rights related to energy or environmental technology’.

Climate justice for intellectual property at Durban

DURBAN CLIMATE CHANGE CONFERENCE: In a global day of action for climate justice, thousands of protestors complained about the slow progress in international debates on climate change at the United Nations conference in Durban. One of the chants of the campaigners was “Climate justice … not climate apartheid”. Banners dubbed the Durban event a “circus” – a “conference of polluters”.

Rio+ 20: The future we want or greenwash?

The Rio+20 United Nations Conference on Sustainable Development featured a fractious debate over intellectual property and the environment. Not only was there heated debate about patent law, technology transfer, and sustainable development, there was also a debate about sustainable public procurement, eco-labelling, accountable advertising, and greenwashing.

A Submission to the Joint Standing Committee on Treaties on the Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement 2011 (# ACTA)

“If Hollywood could order intellectual property laws for Christmas, what would they look like? This is pretty close.” David Fewer “While European and American IP maximalists have pushed for TRIPS-Plus provisions in FTAs and bilateral agreements, they are now pushing for TRIPS-Plus-Plus protections in these various forums.” Susan Sell “ACTA is a threat to the future of a free and open Internet.” Alexander Furnas “Implementing the agreement could open a Pandora's box of potential human rights violations.” Amnesty International. “I will not take part in this masquerade.” Kader Arif, Rapporteur for the Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement 2011 in the European Parliament Executive Summary As an independent scholar and expert in intellectual property, I am of the view that the Australian Parliament should reject the adoption of the Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement 2011. I would take issue with the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade’s rather partisan account of the negotiations, the consultations, and the outcomes associated with the Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement 2011. In my view, the negotiations were secretive and biased; the local consultations were sometimes farcical because of the lack of information about the draft texts of the agreement; and the final text of the Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement 2011 is not in the best interests of Australia, particularly given that it is a net importer of copyright works and trade mark goods and services. I would also express grave reservations about the quality of the rather pitiful National Interest Analysis – and the lack of any regulatory impact statement – associated with the Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement 2011. The assertion that the Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement 2011 does not require legislative measures is questionable – especially given the United States Trade Representative has called the agreement ‘the highest-standard plurilateral agreement ever achieved concerning the enforcement of intellectual property rights.’ It is worthwhile reiterating that there has been much criticism of the secretive and partisan nature of the negotiations surrounding the Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement 2011. Sean Flynn summarizes these concerns: "The negotiation process for ACTA has been a case study in establishing the conditions for effective industry capture of a lawmaking process. Instead of using the relatively transparent and inclusive multilateral processes, ACTA was launched through a closed and secretive “‘club approach’ in which like-minded jurisdictions define enforcement ‘membership’ rules and then invite other countries to join, presumably via other trade agreements.” The most influential developing countries, including Brazil, India, China and Russia, were excluded. Likewise, a series of manoeuvres ensured that public knowledge about the specifics of the agreement and opportunities for input into the process were severely limited. Negotiations were held with mere hours notice to the public as to when and where they would be convened, often in countries half away around the world from where public interest groups are housed. Once there, all negotiation processes were closed to the public. Draft texts were not released before or after most negotiating rounds, and meetings with stakeholders took place only behind closed doors and off the record. A public release of draft text, in April 2010, was followed by no public or on-the-record meetings with negotiators." Moreover, it is disturbing that the Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement 2011 has been driven by ideology and faith, rather than by any evidence-based policy making Professor Duncan Matthews has raised significant questions about the quality of empirical evidence used to support the proposal of Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement 2011: ‘There are concerns that statements about levels of counterfeiting and piracy are based either on customs seizures, with the actual quantities of infringing goods in free circulation in any particular market largely unknown, or on estimated losses derived from industry surveys.’ It is particularly disturbing that, in spite of past criticism, the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade has supported the Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement 2011, without engaging the Productivity Commission or the Treasury to do a proper economic analysis of the proposed treaty. Kader Arif, Rapporteur for the Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement 2011 in the European Parliament, quit his position, and said of the process: "I want to denounce in the strongest possible manner the entire process that led to the signature of this agreement: no inclusion of civil society organisations, a lack of transparency from the start of the negotiations, repeated postponing of the signature of the text without an explanation being ever given, exclusion of the EU Parliament's demands that were expressed on several occasions in our assembly. As rapporteur of this text, I have faced never-before-seen manoeuvres from the right wing of this Parliament to impose a rushed calendar before public opinion could be alerted, thus depriving the Parliament of its right to expression and of the tools at its disposal to convey citizens' legitimate demands.” Everyone knows the ACTA agreement is problematic, whether it is its impact on civil liberties, the way it makes Internet access providers liable, its consequences on generic drugs manufacturing, or how little protection it gives to our geographical indications. This agreement might have major consequences on citizens' lives, and still, everything is being done to prevent the European Parliament from having its say in this matter. That is why today, as I release this report for which I was in charge, I want to send a strong signal and alert the public opinion about this unacceptable situation. I will not take part in this masquerade." There have been parallel concerns about the process and substance of the Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement 2011 in the context of Australia. I have a number of concerns about the substance of the Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement 2011. First, I am concerned that the Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement 2011 fails to provide appropriate safeguards in respect of human rights, consumer protection, competition, and privacy laws. It is recommended that the new Joint Parliamentary Committee on Human Rights investigate this treaty. Second, I argue that there is a lack of balance to the copyright measures in the Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement 2011 – the definition of piracy is overbroad; the suite of civil remedies, criminal offences, and border measures is excessive; and there is a lack of suitable protection for copyright exceptions, limitations, and remedies. Third, I discuss trade mark law, intermediary liability, and counterfeiting. I express my concerns, in this context, that the Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement 2011 could have an adverse impact upon consumer interests, competition policy, and innovation in the digital economy. I also note, with concern, the lobbying by tobacco industries for the Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement 2011 – and the lack of any recognition in the treaty for the capacity of countries to take measures of tobacco control under the World Health Organization Framework Convention on Tobacco Control. Fourth, I note that the Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement 2011 provides no positive obligations to promote access to essential medicines. It is particularly lamentable that Australia and the United States of America have failed to implement the Doha Declaration on the TRIPS Agreement and Public Health 2001 and the WTO General Council Decision 2003. Fifth, I express concerns about the border measures in the Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement 2011. Such measures lack balance – and unduly favour the interests of intellectual property owners over consumers, importers, and exporters. Moreover, such measures will be costly, as they involve shifting the burden of intellectual property enforcement to customs and border authorities. Interdicting, seizing, and destroying goods may also raise significant trade issues. Finally, I express concern that the Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement 2011 undermines the role of existing international organisations, such as the United Nations, the World Intellectual Property Organization and the World Trade Organization, and subverts international initiatives such as the WIPO Development Agenda 2007. I also question the raison d'être, independence, transparency, and accountability of the proposed new ‘ACTA Committee’. In this context, I am concerned by the shift in the position of the Labor Party in its approach to international treaty-making in relation to intellectual property. The Australian Parliament adopted the Australia-United States Free Trade Agreement 2004, which included a large Chapter on intellectual property. The treaty was a ‘TRIPs-Plus’ agreement, because the obligations were much more extensive and prescriptive than those required under the multilateral framework established by the TRIPS Agreement 1994. During the debate over the Australia-United States Free Trade Agreement 2004, the Labor Party expressed the view that it would seek to mitigate the effects of the TRIPS-Plus Agreement, when at such time it gained power. Far from seeking to ameliorate the effects of the Australia-United States Free Trade Agreement 2004, the Labor Government would seek to lock Australia into a TRIPS-Double Plus Agreement – the Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement 2011. There has not been a clear political explanation for this change in approach to international intellectual property. For both reasons of process and substance, I conclude that the Australian Parliament and the Australian Government should reject the Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement 2011. The Australian Government would do better to endorse the Washington Declaration on Intellectual Property and the Public Interest 2011, and implement its outstanding obligations in respect of access to knowledge, access to essential medicines, and the WIPO Development Agenda 2007. The case study of the Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement 2011 highlights the need for further reforms to the process by which Australia engages in international treaty-making.

Travelling bones: The repatriation of Indigenous ancestral remains

In the album Journey, Archie Roach -- the Australian Indigenous singer-songwriter hailing from Mooroopna in Victoria - has a melancholy song called ‘Travell’n Bones.' It is about the repatriation of Indigenous ancestral remains to their rightful home. This Chapter considers the legal, ethical, and cultural conflicts over Australian indigenous remains being held in museums, in Australia, the United Kingdom, the European Union, and the United States. James Nason comments: ‘The explosion of legal and extra legal attention on issues of cultural property and heritage was born of the frustration and anger of indigenous peoples whose rights and perspectives about cultural property and heritage issues had been largely absent and essentially unwanted by the museum of community.' Part I focuses upon disputes in Australia involving the repatriation of Indigenous Australian remains. In Bropho v HREOC, there was controversy over a cartoon, mocking the repatriation of the remains of Yagan, an Indigenous warrior, to Western Australia. There was a discussion about the operation of the Racial Discrimination Act 1975 (Cth), and the exemptions available from the operation of the regime. Part II considers the efforts by The Te Papa Tongarewa - the Museum of New Zealand - to repatriate Maori and Moriori ancestral remains to New Zealand, and to iwi communities of origin. The conclusion considers the relevance of the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Persons 2007, and issues raised by ventures such as the Genographic Project.

Rights and wrongs of Australian government asylum seeker policy

Worldwide, no fewer than 50 million people a year are now fleeing dangerous and often life threatening situations in their countries of origin (UNHCR, 2014c). As one part of this movement, thousands risk journeys through dangerous waters hoping to obtain asylum in Australia. However, Australian Government policies adopted since 2013 aim to ensure that no asylum seeker nor any of the 3,500 detainees held in offshore detention centres will ever be settled on the mainland. To this has now been added a declaration that none of the recent refugees or 6200 asylum seekers waiting in Indonesia in centres run by the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) will gain entry (Whyte, 2014a). These immigration policies differ dramatically from those adopted in earlier decades that produced the country’s decidedly multicultural identity. This article reviews these changing perspectives of Australian governments and communities within the context of international obligations and expectations; the experiences of those directly involved in border policing practices and in detention centres; and the attitudes of national media. Relations and conflicts among the interests of the different parties are discussed and the scope for less punitive responses to the plight of asylum seekers is examined. The authors then focus on alternative processes to better address the interests and objectives of legitimately interested parties by processes which successively examine, optimise and reconcile the concerns of each. In so doing, they aim to demonstrate that such methods of sequential problem solving can respond effectively to the multiple concerns of the many significant stakeholders involved in increasingly significant global issues, whereas recourse to such single-goal, top-down programs as are expressed in the government’s current determination to “Stop the boats” at all costs are unlikely to prove sustainable.

Global standard for the composition of infant formula: Recommendations of an ESPGHAN coordinated international expert group

The Codex Alimentarius Commission of the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO) and the World Health Organization (WHO) develops food standards, guidelines and related texts for protecting consumer health and ensuring fair trade practices globally. The major part of the world's population lives in more than 160 countries that are members of the Codex Alimentarius. The Codex Standard on Infant Formula was adopted in 1981 based on scientific knowledge available in the 1970s and is currently being revised. As part of this process, the Codex Committee on Nutrition and Foods for Special Dietary Uses asked the ESPGHAN Committee on Nutrition to initiate a consultation process with the international scientific community to provide a proposal on nutrient levels in infant formulae, based on scientific analysis and taking into account existing scientific reports on the subject. ESPGHAN accepted the request and, in collaboration with its sister societies in the Federation of International Societies on Pediatric Gastroenterology, Hepatology and Nutrition, invited highly qualified experts in the area of infant nutrition to form an International Expert Group (IEG) to review the issues raised. The group arrived at recommendations on the compositional requirements for a global infant formula standard which are reported here.

Submission to the draft Migration Assurance Policy - Improving the transition to the fixed-line national broadband network review

The rights of individuals to self-determination and participation in social, political and economic life are recognised and supported by Articles 1, 3 and 25 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights 1966.4 Article 1 of the United Nations’ Human Rights Council’s Resolution on the Promotion and Protection of Human Rights on the Internet of July 2012 confirms individuals have the same rights online as offline. Access to the internet is essential and as such the UN: Calls upon all States to promote and facilitate access to the Internet and international cooperation aimed at the development of media and information and communications facilities in all countries (Article 3) Accordingly, access to the internet per se is a fundamental human right, which requires direct State recognition and support.5 The obligations of the State to ensure its citizens are able, and are enabled, to access the internet, are not matters that should be delegated to commercial parties. Quite simply – access to the internet, and high-speed broadband, by whatever means are “essential services” and therefore “should be treated as any other utility service”...

The ultimate edge: The case for planning media for sustaining space communities

Governments and intergovernmental organisations have long recognised that space communities – the ultimate ‘settlements at the edge’ – will exist one day and have based their first plans for these on another region ‘at the edge’, the Antarctic. United States President Eisenhower proposed to the United Nations in 1960 that the principles of the Antarctic Treaty be applied to outer space and celestial bodies (State Department, n.d.). Three years later the UN adopted the Declaration of Legal Principles Governing the Activities of States in the Exploration and Use of Outer Space and in 1967 that became the Outer Space Treaty. According to the UN Office for Outer Space Affairs, ‘the Treaty was opened for signature by the three depository Governments (the Russian Federation, the United Kingdom and the United States of America) in January 1967, and it entered into force in October 1967’ (Office for Outer Space Affairs, n.d). The status of the treaty (at time of writing) was 89 signatories and 102 parties (Office for Disarmament Affairs, n.d.). Other related instruments include the Rescue Agreement, the Liability Convention, the Registration Convention and the Moon Agreement (Office for Outer Space Affairs, n.d.-a). Jumping to the present, a newsagency reported in July 2014 (Reuters, 2014) that the British Government had shortlisted eight aerodromes in its search for a potential base for the UK’s first spaceplane flights which Ministers want to happen by 2018 (UK Space Agency, 2014). The United States already has a spaceport, in New Mexico (Cokley, Rankin, Heinrich, & McAuliffe, 2013)...

Materials and technologies for energy conversion, saving and storage: A global network enabling capacity-building for sustainable energy in developing countries

Access to energy is a fundamental component of poverty abatement. People who live in homes without electricity are often dependent on dirty, time-consuming and disproportionately expensive solid fuel sources for heating and cooking. [1] In developing countries, the Human Development Index (HDI), which comprises measures of standard of living, longevity and educational attainment, increases rapidly with per capita electricity use. [2] For these reasons the United Nations has been making a concerted effort to promote global access to energy, first by naming 2012 the Year of Sustainable Energy for All, [3] and now by declaring 2014-2024 the Decade of Sustainable Energy for All. [4]

A 3-hour quantitative comparison of glucose-based versus rice-based oral rehydration solution intake by children with diarrhoea in Port Moresby General Hospital

Measurements were made of the intake of a WHO/UNICEF glucose-based and a rice cereal-based oral rehydration solution (ORS) by children with diarrhoea. Twenty children who presented to the Children's Outpatient Department at Port Moresby General Hospital with acute diarrhoea and mild dehydration were randomly assigned to an ORS and measurements were taken over the following 3 hours. For data analysis, the patients were paired by weight. Testing the means of the paired samples by t test showed that there was no significant difference between the amount of rice ORS and the amount of glucose ORS taken over 3 hours. The discovery of oral rehydration solution (ORS) for the treatment of diarrheal disease has been heralded as the most important medical discovery of the century. Cereal-based ORS is able to decrease stool output and the duration of diarrheal illness more than the standard glucose-based ORS, through the increased absorption provided by oligosaccharides without the imposition of a greater osmotic penalty. Moreover, the peptides in cereals enhance amino acid and water absorption, while providing nutritional benefits. UNICEF's glucose-based ORS is becoming more widely used in Papua New Guinea (PNG). 20 children aged 6-37 months (mean age, 15 months) who presented to the Children's Outpatient Department at Port Moresby General Hospital during September-October 1993 with acute diarrhea and mild dehydration were randomly assigned to receive either a rice-based ORS or standard glucose ORS, and measurements were taken over the following 3 hours. The patients were paired by weight for analysis. No statistically significant difference was found between the amount of rice ORS and the amount of glucose ORS taken over 3 hours.

Acceptability of a rice-based oral rehydration solution in Port Moresby General Hospital's Children's Outpatient Department

The guardians of children brought to the Port Moresby General Hospital's Children's Outpatient Department with a chief complaint of diarrhoeal disease were questioned regarding their preference of glucose-based vs rice-based oral rehydration solution (ORS) in order to determine the acceptability of a rice-based ORS. Of the 93 guardians interviewed, greater than 60% preferred the glucose-based solution in its mixability, appearance and taste, and 65% initially reported that their children preferred the taste of the glucose solution. However, after a 30-minute trial, only 58% of children still preferred the glucose solution. In a country where diarrhoeal disease is a leading cause of child death and guardians are the primary health care providers, the acceptability of an ORS is critical to the morbidity and mortality of Papua New Guinea's children. Killing an estimated 2.9 million children annually, diarrheal disease is the second leading cause of child mortality worldwide. Diarrheal disease is also the second leading cause of child mortality in Papua New Guinea (PNG), killing an average 193 inpatient children per year over the period 1984-90. However, despite the high level of diarrhea-related mortality and the proven efficacy of oral rehydration therapy (ORT) in managing diarrhea-related dehydration, standardized ORT has been underutilized in PNG. The current glucose-based oral rehydration solution (ORS) does not reduce the frequency or volume of a child's diarrhea, the most immediate concern of caregivers during episodes of illness. Cereal-based ORS, made from cereals which are commonly available as food staples in most countries, better address the short-term concerns of caregivers while offering a superior nutritional profile. A sample of guardians of children brought to the Port Moresby General Hospital's Children's Outpatient Department complaining of child diarrhea were asked about their preferences on glucose-based versus rice-based ORS in order to determine the acceptability of a rice-based ORS. More than 60% of the 93 guardians interviewed preferred the glucose-based solution for its mixability, appearance, and taste. 65% initially reported that their children preferred the taste of the glucose solution. However, after a 30-minute trial, only 58% of children still preferred the glucose solution.

Developing the ASEAN regional road safety strategy

In 2011, more than 75,000 people died in road crashes in the ten member countries of the Association of South East Asian Nations (ASEAN) and many times this number sustained long term injuries. Improving road safety outcomes in ASEAN is not only important for the welfare and economic benefit of these countries, but given that a significant proportion of the world’s population lives in ASEAN, it will strongly influence whether the aims of the United Nations Decade of Action for Road Safety and the Sustainable Development Goals are reached. For this reason, the Asian Development Bank, funded by the Japan Fund for Poverty Reduction, has funded a package of action to improve road safety in ASEAN, including the development of a regional road safety strategy. The diversity of the member nations of ASEAN poses significant challenges for the development of the strategy. For example, the road fatality rates per 100,000 population in Malaysia and Thailand are about 5 times greater than in Singapore. In addition, the importance of particular road safety issues varies across the ASEAN countries and for countries which are undergoing rapid motorization, the order of importance may change over the life of the strategy. The development of the ASEAN Regional Road Safety Strategy has adopted the five pillars of road safety of the UN Decade of Action but focused on those aspects which are most relevant at the regional level and where a regional approach will support and facilitate actions taken by individual countries.