Search

International governance of the conservation and use of plant genetic resources is determined by a complex of four international institutions. The Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) and the International Treaty on Plant Genetic Resources for Food and Agriculture (ITPGR) focus on supply-related concerns, including the suppliers' right to benefit sharing. The WTO Agreement on Trade-related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPS) and the International Union on the Protection of New Varieties of Plants (UPOV) on the other hand focus on use-related concerns, predominantly on the protection of intellectual property rights to biotechnological innovations. The relationships between supply-related and use-related institutions is marked by a strong potential for disruption and conflict over issues relating to the distribution of benefits arising out of the use of genetic resources. These tensions increasingly lead to disputes over the misappropriation of genetic resources and uncertainty about the interaction of supplier and user rights. Such cases are, however, much more prevalent between the agreements with broader scope (CBD and TRIPS) than between those applying only to plant genetic resources for food and agriculture (ITPGR and UPOV). In the latter case, the conflict may have been completely resolved through the recent adoption of a standard material transfer agreement, which gives detailed definitions of user and supplier rights and obligations. This paper explores the determinants for the successful consolidation on the one hand and the continued stalemate in efforts to solve the conflict on the other. Section two introduces the phenomenon of institutional interplay and outlines analytical concepts. Section three introduces the agreements that are part of the institutional complex on PGR. Section four provides a detailed analysis of the institutional relationships between these institutions. Section five analyzes the evolution of the relationships between CBD-TRIPS and ITPGR-UPOV from the perspective of an epistemic communities approach. This analysis reveals that consolidation between ITPGR and UPOV was furthered by the activities of an epistemic community which engaged in persuading actors on both sides to adopt and integrated solution to the conservation and use of PGRFA. Such a development cannot be observed in the CBD-TRIPS relationship. Quite on the contrary, actors under CBD and TRIPS maintain views and perceptions that prevent the development of an integrated approach to the management of genetic resources. ..PAT.-Unpublished Manuscript [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This paper outlines a framework for analysis of aggregate effects of international regimes – and demonstrates its relevance in the case of management of plant genetic resources for food and agriculture (PGRFA) in developing countries. Whereas many regime studies have focused on the effectiveness of international regimes – where effects are measured against the norms and rules of the regimes themselves – aggregate effects of international regimes are here measured against a set of criteria developed independently of the regimes. This approach is considered relevant when two or more regimes interact with regard to an issue area, and none of them cover the totality of measures assumed necessary to solve the problems. It is also relevant when there is scope for regime conflict. The management of PGRFA comprises many issues, and in demonstrating the method, one central issue has been selected: access to PGRFA, which is crucial for food security. The paper identifies the international norms and rules pertaining to access to PGRFA in the period 1992–2004, overlaps in their functional scopes, and the interaction among them. From these regime constellations, assumptions on the aggregate effects for developing countries are derived. These assumptions are in turn tested in case studies from the Philippines, where the aggregate regime effects on access to PGRFA are analysed in terms of policy decisions and goal achievements. Finally, the general relevance of the findings for other developing countries is discussed. A key conclusion is that the aggregate effects of the international regimes in question were largely detrimental to access to PGRFA in developing countries throughout the period studied – despite other intentions behind the individual agreements. The result of these developments is an emerging anti-commons tragedy: a situation where multiple actors have the possibilities to exclude each other from access to these vital resources. ..PAT.-Unpublished Manuscript [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]