.png)
A Pluriversal Glossary of ABS
Language mediates how we see and make sense of the world, with far-reaching effects on human behaviour. By examining and revising the key categories of ABS, one can therefore change how ABS approaches and governance frameworks conceive of reality, frame problems, and define how humans should behave to mitigate these problems. Our Pluriversal Glossary of ABS leverages this transformative power of language not only at the abstract level of institutional definitions of categories such as "Access", "Benefit-Sharing", "Indigenous Peoples and local communities", or "Digital Sequence Information", but also at the level of the actual meanings vested in these categories by the various stakeholders of ABS in real-life situations.
On the Pluriversal Glossary of ABS
Table of contents
What the Pluriversal Glossary aims to do The Pluriversal Glossary of ABS has three interrelated objectives: * ... * ... * ...
What the Pluriversal Glossary aims to do The Pluriversal Glossary of ABS has three interrelated objectives: * ... * ... * ...
Access
Author: Damien Krichewsky (University of Bonn)
With contributions from: ...
Date: 22/22/22
Summary: ...
Institutional definitions:
Neither the 1992 UN-Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) nor the 2010 Nagoya Protocol provide any formal definition of access. However, both documents define the scope of the entities that, to be accessed by users, should require prior informed consent and a benefit-sharing agreement: CBD: ABS applies to cases of access to genetic resources, i.e. “any material of plant, animal, microbial or other origin containing functional units of heredity” having “actual or potential value” (Art. 2). Depending on national legislation, ABS can also apply to cases of access to “knowledge, innovations and practices of indigenous and local communities embodying traditional lifestyles relevant for the conservation and sustainable use of biological diversity” (Art. 8j). Nagoya Protocol: ABS applies to cases of access to “genetic resources as well as subsequent applications and commercialization” and to “traditional knowledge associated to these genetic resources”. WIPO: The 1996 Decision 391 on Access to Genetic Resources of Andean Community (1996), referred to by the World Intellectual Property Organisation (WIPO), defines access as “the obtaining and use of genetic resources conserved in situ and ex situ, of their by-products and, if applicable, of their intangible components, for purposes of research, biological prospecting, conservation, industrial application and commercial use, among other things.” South Africa: According to the 2004 National Environmental Management: Biodiversity Act (NEM:BA), ABS applies to cases of access to “indigenous biological resources” for bioprospecting and/or export. The definition of bioprospecting provided by the NEMB:BA act includes the search, collection or gathering of these resources for research, development, or applications; the utilisation for these purposes of information on traditional use of these resources by indigenous communities; and research on as well as application, development and modification of such knowledge for commercial or industrial purposes. Namibia: The 2017 Law on ABS defines access as “obtaining, collecting, possessing, acquiring, using, selling, either directly or indirectly, biological or genetic resources found in both in situ or ex situ conditions under the control of the State, or parts thereof, derivatives, products including synthetic products, and where applicable, intangible components or associated traditional knowledge”.
Historical context:
The ‘grand bargain’: The regulation of access to genetic resources (GR) and associated traditional knowledge (aTK) results from a demand expressed by governments of the global South (most of them former colonies) in the late 1980s and early 1990s during the negotiations of the CBD. This demand was that national states control who has access to the GR and aTK located on their territory, and that granting access to ‘their’ GR and aTK would be on mutually agreed terms, including free prior informed consent (FPIC) of the resource and knowledge holders, and including fair and equitable benefit-sharing by the users of GR and aTK. By incorporating this demand, the CBD created the political and legal conditions enabling countries who ratified the CBD to establish a new institutional barrier along their national borders: with ABS legislation, countries could require any human person or legal entity that wants to access and utilize GR and/or aTK on their territory to seek a permit from the competent authorities, based on the fulfilment of ABS requirements. National frames of reference: The institutional barriers established under ABS laws and regulations were meant to protect GR and aTK from free access, extraction, utilization and appropriation by scientific and commercial users who generally belonged to global North countries (most of them being former colonisers). Thanks to benefit-sharing, ABS would ensure that scientific and commercial use of GR and aTK from the global South would also benefit the countries and communities of origin, and hence contribute to closing the development gap between industrialised nations and developing/emerging nations. Over time, however, this postcolonial opposition between “user countries” and “provider countries” partly lost significance. With ABS policy-makers recognising that ABS can apply to users and providers based in the same country, ABS regulations of countries such as South Africa, or Namibia, also apply to national users accessing the country’s GR and aTK.
Voices from the field:
Public authorities: Officials in charge of ABS often see their role as guardians of the country’s valuable genetic resources, which should be protected from extraction and appropriation by foreign entities. This role of guardian also includes using the power of the state to help the country’s Indigenous Peoples and local communities protect their traditional knowledge from extraction and appropriation by external users. A major motivation at play in this role is the development of the country’s bioeconomy in a context of international competition. From the perspective of public authorities, once valuable GR and aTK of the country have been accessed and transferred abroad without FPIC, and without a benefit-sharing agreement in place, it is a loss for the country’s bioeconomic potential, and a potential gain for another country’s bioeconomic development. Since many users have a priori an interest in accessing GR and aTK for free, either to develop commercial applications themselves, or to trade these resources to subsequent users for a profit, regulators tend to look at users with suspicion. As a result, public authorities of countries having a high biocultural diversity are keen on extensive monitoring and control. To know who is accessing which GR and aTK in the country, and to ensure that every instance of access is performed in compliance with the country’s ABS regulations, they rely on access permit systems that, from their viewpoint, should have a wide coverage and as few loopholes as possible.
Benefits & Benefit-Sharing
Authors:
Date: 22/22/22
Summary: ...
Institutional definitions:
The method of pluriversal action research developed by TEGA builds on a stream of social science literature that points to the plurality of worlds beyond the 'one-world world' of modern development. Because of its hegemony, the modern world tends to take its reality as being universally valid. It evaluates knowledge in the light of the dominant epistemological, theoretical and methodological canons of modern science, and overlooks or disregards elements of indigenous knowledge that do not fit within these canons. It associates politics with the international system of nation-states, and marginalises alternative ways of organising life in more-than-human collectives that are living places and territories. The modern world also conceives of the economy as a monetised system of transactions that coordinates production and exchange between individual agents seeking to maximise their utility. In doing so, it dismisses more communal and convivial ways of coordinating activities of production and exchange that involve not only human actors, but also non-human actors such as animals and plants. Similarly, the modern world tends to consider spiritual practices of knowing and relating to the world as either exotic indigenous heritage or esoteric superstition that is irrational and irrelevant to the secular organisation of public life. Theories of the pluriverse, drawing on anthropological research and critical theories of development, challenge these premises of modernity and highlight the relevance of alternatives in addressing contemporary challenges, including postcolonial injustice and ecological destruction. In a context where the science and politics of biodiversity governance increasingly recognise the limitations of mainstream responses to these challenges, and call for a transformation of society's relationship with biodiversity, action research offers a timely method for bringing these pluriversal theories to fruition in socio-ecological transformation. Given the thematic scope and political goals of ABS, pluriversal approaches are particularly relevant to this area of biodivesity governance. Guided by this insight, TEGA's action research mobilises pluriversal perspectives to broaden the range of epistemic, political and economic possibilities in ABS, with a particular attention to the inclusion of indigenous worldviews, values and biocultural practices that have been historically marginalised.
The method of pluriversal action research developed by TEGA builds on a stream of social science literature that points to the plurality of worlds beyond the 'one-world world' of modern development. Because of its hegemony, the modern world tends to take its reality as being universally valid. It evaluates knowledge in the light of the dominant epistemological, theoretical and methodological canons of modern science, and overlooks or disregards elements of indigenous knowledge that do not fit within these canons. It associates politics with the international system of nation-states, and marginalises alternative ways of organising life in more-than-human collectives that are living places and territories. The modern world also conceives of the economy as a monetised system of transactions that coordinates production and exchange between individual agents seeking to maximise their utility. In doing so, it dismisses more communal and convivial ways of coordinating activities of production and exchange that involve not only human actors, but also non-human actors such as animals and plants. Similarly, the modern world tends to consider spiritual practices of knowing and relating to the world as either exotic indigenous heritage or esoteric superstition that is irrational and irrelevant to the secular organisation of public life. Theories of the pluriverse, drawing on anthropological research and critical theories of development, challenge these premises of modernity and highlight the relevance of alternatives in addressing contemporary challenges, including postcolonial injustice and ecological destruction. In a context where the science and politics of biodiversity governance increasingly recognise the limitations of mainstream responses to these challenges, and call for a transformation of society's relationship with biodiversity, action research offers a timely method for bringing these pluriversal theories to fruition in socio-ecological transformation. Given the thematic scope and political goals of ABS, pluriversal approaches are particularly relevant to this area of biodivesity governance. Guided by this insight, TEGA's action research mobilises pluriversal perspectives to broaden the range of epistemic, political and economic possibilities in ABS, with a particular attention to the inclusion of indigenous worldviews, values and biocultural practices that have been historically marginalised.
Historical Context:
Transformative Perspectives:
Implementation/ Simplification/Transformation
Authors:
Date: 22/22/22
Summary: ...
Institutional definitions:
The method of pluriversal action research developed by TEGA builds on a stream of social science literature that points to the plurality of worlds beyond the 'one-world world' of modern development. Because of its hegemony, the modern world tends to take its reality as being universally valid. It evaluates knowledge in the light of the dominant epistemological, theoretical and methodological canons of modern science, and overlooks or disregards elements of indigenous knowledge that do not fit within these canons. It associates politics with the international system of nation-states, and marginalises alternative ways of organising life in more-than-human collectives that are living places and territories. The modern world also conceives of the economy as a monetised system of transactions that coordinates production and exchange between individual agents seeking to maximise their utility. In doing so, it dismisses more communal and convivial ways of coordinating activities of production and exchange that involve not only human actors, but also non-human actors such as animals and plants. Similarly, the modern world tends to consider spiritual practices of knowing and relating to the world as either exotic indigenous heritage or esoteric superstition that is irrational and irrelevant to the secular organisation of public life. Theories of the pluriverse, drawing on anthropological research and critical theories of development, challenge these premises of modernity and highlight the relevance of alternatives in addressing contemporary challenges, including postcolonial injustice and ecological destruction. In a context where the science and politics of biodiversity governance increasingly recognise the limitations of mainstream responses to these challenges, and call for a transformation of society's relationship with biodiversity, action research offers a timely method for bringing these pluriversal theories to fruition in socio-ecological transformation. Given the thematic scope and political goals of ABS, pluriversal approaches are particularly relevant to this area of biodivesity governance. Guided by this insight, TEGA's action research mobilises pluriversal perspectives to broaden the range of epistemic, political and economic possibilities in ABS, with a particular attention to the inclusion of indigenous worldviews, values and biocultural practices that have been historically marginalised.
Indigenous/ Traditional Knowledge
Authors:
Date: 22/22/22
Summary: ...
Institutional definitions:
The method of pluriversal action research developed by TEGA builds on a stream of social science literature that points to the plurality of worlds beyond the 'one-world world' of modern development. Because of its hegemony, the modern world tends to take its reality as being universally valid. It evaluates knowledge in the light of the dominant epistemological, theoretical and methodological canons of modern science, and overlooks or disregards elements of indigenous knowledge that do not fit within these canons. It associates politics with the international system of nation-states, and marginalises alternative ways of organising life in more-than-human collectives that are living places and territories. The modern world also conceives of the economy as a monetised system of transactions that coordinates production and exchange between individual agents seeking to maximise their utility. In doing so, it dismisses more communal and convivial ways of coordinating activities of production and exchange that involve not only human actors, but also non-human actors such as animals and plants. Similarly, the modern world tends to consider spiritual practices of knowing and relating to the world as either exotic indigenous heritage or esoteric superstition that is irrational and irrelevant to the secular organisation of public life. Theories of the pluriverse, drawing on anthropological research and critical theories of development, challenge these premises of modernity and highlight the relevance of alternatives in addressing contemporary challenges, including postcolonial injustice and ecological destruction. In a context where the science and politics of biodiversity governance increasingly recognise the limitations of mainstream responses to these challenges, and call for a transformation of society's relationship with biodiversity, action research offers a timely method for bringing these pluriversal theories to fruition in socio-ecological transformation. Given the thematic scope and political goals of ABS, pluriversal approaches are particularly relevant to this area of biodivesity governance. Guided by this insight, TEGA's action research mobilises pluriversal perspectives to broaden the range of epistemic, political and economic possibilities in ABS, with a particular attention to the inclusion of indigenous worldviews, values and biocultural practices that have been historically marginalised.
Nature/ Mother Earth
Authors:
Date: 22/22/22
Summary: ...
Institutional definitions:
The method of pluriversal action research developed by TEGA builds on a stream of social science literature that points to the plurality of worlds beyond the 'one-world world' of modern development. Because of its hegemony, the modern world tends to take its reality as being universally valid. It evaluates knowledge in the light of the dominant epistemological, theoretical and methodological canons of modern science, and overlooks or disregards elements of indigenous knowledge that do not fit within these canons. It associates politics with the international system of nation-states, and marginalises alternative ways of organising life in more-than-human collectives that are living places and territories. The modern world also conceives of the economy as a monetised system of transactions that coordinates production and exchange between individual agents seeking to maximise their utility. In doing so, it dismisses more communal and convivial ways of coordinating activities of production and exchange that involve not only human actors, but also non-human actors such as animals and plants. Similarly, the modern world tends to consider spiritual practices of knowing and relating to the world as either exotic indigenous heritage or esoteric superstition that is irrational and irrelevant to the secular organisation of public life. Theories of the pluriverse, drawing on anthropological research and critical theories of development, challenge these premises of modernity and highlight the relevance of alternatives in addressing contemporary challenges, including postcolonial injustice and ecological destruction. In a context where the science and politics of biodiversity governance increasingly recognise the limitations of mainstream responses to these challenges, and call for a transformation of society's relationship with biodiversity, action research offers a timely method for bringing these pluriversal theories to fruition in socio-ecological transformation. Given the thematic scope and political goals of ABS, pluriversal approaches are particularly relevant to this area of biodivesity governance. Guided by this insight, TEGA's action research mobilises pluriversal perspectives to broaden the range of epistemic, political and economic possibilities in ABS, with a particular attention to the inclusion of indigenous worldviews, values and biocultural practices that have been historically marginalised.