ICC POLICY STATEMENT

The need for and modalities of a global multilateral benefit-sharing mechanism

ICC notes that the efforts necessary to consider adding another layer of complexity, such as a GMBSM, to the international ABS framework, are likely to disperse the energy and resources available for the implementation of the Nagoya Protocol at the national level. Considerable efforts are currently being made by Parties and stakeholders to implement the Protocol…

Members of the International Chamber of Commerce (ICC) appreciate the opportunity to submit comments and views on the need for and modalities of a global multilateral benefit-sharing mechanism (GMBSM).

ICC has previously prepared a submission on the GMBSM (Doc. No. 450/1069, 18 November 2011), and we supplement the comments in that publication with additional views based on the requests contained in the present notification.

In addition to the comments below, we would like to note that the efforts necessary to consider adding another layer of complexity, such as a GMBSM, to the international ABS framework, are likely to disperse the energy and resources available for the implementation of the Nagoya Protocol at the national level. Considerable efforts are currently being made by Parties and stakeholders to implement the Protocol and we suggest that national implementation be prioritized, rather than considering additional mechanisms.

The need for and modalities of a global multilateral benefit-sharing mechanism

(i) Situations which may support the need for a global multilateral benefit-sharing mechanism that are not covered under the bilateral approach

(ii) Possible modalities for a global multilateral benefit-sharing mechanism as well as information regarding the implications of different scenarios on these modalities

(iii) The areas requiring further consideration, as identified in paragraph 23 of the report of the Expert Meeting on Article 10 of the Nagoya Protocol.

  • Whether or not there is a need for a GMBSM
  • Whether there is sufficient experience with implementation of the Protocol to determine whether such a need exists
  • Whether the utilization of genetic resources without PIC would entail benefit-sharing obligations that could be met through a GMBSM
  • Whether a Party‚Äôs decision not to require PIC (e.g. under Art. 6(1)) or to waive PIC (e.g. under Art. 8) can constitute situations for which it is not possible to grant or obtain PIC in the context of Article 10
  • Whether benefit-sharing requirements are waived when a Party has decided not to require PIC or has waived PIC
  • Whether there is no requirement for benefit-sharing when mutually agreed terms are not required or have not been established
  • Whether the absence of ABS legislation or regulatory requirements in a Party due to lack of capacity or lack of governance means that PIC for access to genetic resources is not required and there is no obligation to share benefits. In the context of Article 10, whether such instances would constitute situations for which it is not possible to grant or obtain PIC
  • Whether the absence of measures in a Party to implement Article 7 means that PIC for access to traditional knowledge associated with genetic resources is not required and there is no obligation to share benefits. In the context of Article 10, whether such instances would constitute situations for which it is not possible to grant or obtain PIC
  • Whether a genetic resource that is found in more than one Party constitutes a transboundary situation in the language of Article 10 (even if it is possible to identify the source of the genetic resource) or whether the bilateral approach should be applied if a genetic resource is found in more than one Party and it is possible to identify the source of the genetic resource. In the latter case, whether the bilateral approach or a GMBSM could be fair and equitable
  • Whether traditional knowledge associated with a genetic resource that is found in more than one Party constitutes a transboundary situation in the language of Article 10 (even if it is possible to identify the source of the genetic resource) or whether the bilateral approach should be applied if traditional knowledge associated with a genetic resource is found in more than one Party and it is possible to identify the source of the genetic resource. In the latter case, whether the bilateral approach or a GMBSM could be fair and equitable
  • Whether Article 11 is sufficient to respond to transboundary situations