ABSTRACT: Biotechnology, agriculture, and pharmaceuticals have collectively increased the global need for biological and genetic resources. This underscores the necessity of setting up robust governance systems that ensure fair access and sustainable resource utilisation. This study examines the complex domain of managing biological and genetic resources. It emphasises access, benefit-sharing (ABS), and protective measures within international, regional, and national legislation. This study utilises the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) and the Nagoya Protocol as foundational elements to examine the interconnections among environmental law, intellectual property rights, and indigenous knowledge systems. The study examines the complex challenges associated with the ownership and management of genetic resources, particularly in impoverished nations rich in biodiversity. This examines how contemporary legal systems either uphold or undermine the rights of local and indigenous populations, whose traditional knowledge is often essential for the identification and use of these resources. There is considerable discourse around the perils of biopiracy and the appropriation of genetic material, alongside the necessity for transparent, fair, and legally enforceable Access and Benefit-Sharing agreements. The study evaluates the efficacy of the selected authority and the existing protection mechanism. We analyse the function of intellectual property rights, particularly patent systems, and plant variety protection, and assess their compatibility with biodiversity preservation and fair benefit-sharing. The paper examines the increasing significance of digital sequencing data for genetic resources and its complicating effect on the application of established regulations. This paper advocates for a governance model that is more interconnected, inclusive, and equitable, aiming to integrate domestic policies with international obligations while respecting the rights and contributions of indigenous peoples. It ensures compliance with regulations, safeguards biodiversity, and promotes equitable sharing of benefits derived from genetic resources through the establishment of new laws and policies. In conclusion, the study contributes to the broader dialogue on global equality, environmental justice, and sustainable development by elucidating the legal and ethical frameworks for the use and conservation of biological and genetic resources.
Singh et al. (Tue,) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: