Local opposition has been widely recognized as a potentially powerful barrier to the successfuldevelopment of wind power projects. As a result, there has been increasing pressure put on industryproponents to adopt comprehensive strategies aimed at increasing local acceptance. The concept ofbenefit sharing is becoming more widely recognized as an effective method of doing so.A comparative analysis of wind power projects throughout Europe has demonstrated considerablevariability both in terms of the quantities and qualities of benefit sharing mechanisms applied. Despitethis variability, however, there does appear to be a tendency toward establishing community funds tosupport certain initiatives in the host locality. Developers have also offered local ownershipopportunities, electricity price reduction for community members, knowledge sharing and/oreducational initiatives, local employment opportunities, and some have undertaken extensiveenvironmental restoration or enhancement projects. The key factors influencing the development of abenefit sharing strategy are the national context, the organizational competencies of the developer andthe local context. Careful consideration of these factors will inform the creation of an effective benefitsharing scheme.However, the application of a benefit sharing scheme in itself does not guarantee acceptance, but rathermust be integrated with effective public engagement and participation in decision making throughwhich the needs, wishes and demands of the host community are addressed and incorporated into theproject details, where possible. Overall, based on the influences of the national context in combinationwith the specific competencies of the developer, organizations are recommended to adopt formalized,yet flexible policies or strategies for benefit sharing in each country where they operate, which can thenbe adapted to the unique circumstances of each project and community.

Biobanks pose unique challenges to legal and bioethical frameworks, and raise many as yet unanswered questions, including how these collections of biological samples and information should be governed and for whose benefit. While some commentators have suggested that biobanks should be regulated through specific legislation, I focus on exploring alternative models of governance. I examine, in particular, the interrelationship between benefit-sharing and public engagement, arguing that public engagement is a benefit in itself, valuable both in its own right and as an essential component of good governance, and critically examine proposals for more direct 'representative‘ forms of participant involvement and 'power-sharing‘ arrangements in the biobanking context. Central to my arguments is the concept of the "common heritage", which has been invoked by UNESCO and HUGO in relation to the human genome. From its early beginnings in the law of the sea, this concept has been linked to notions of solidarity, reciprocity and equitable access and sharing. Applied in the context of biobanks, the "common heritage" highlights the value of genetic collections and research for the benefit of present and future generations. Viewed as a third generation human right, the "common heritage" also links to notions of citizenship, civic involvement in policy processes and, ultimately, to participatory or deliberative democracy. From this, I suggest that robust biobank governance mechanisms require not only effective benefit-sharing arrangements but that these must necessarily involve provision for effective public engagement. Drawing on democratic and business management theory, I argue for a 'stakeholder' model of governance. This model draws its basic ideology from communitarian philosophy and regards any organisation (whether it be a corporation or a charity) as a 'social entity', accountable to a broad range of stakeholders. It is my contention that a stakeholder model is the most appropriate model of governance for large-scale population biobanks, such as UK Biobank, which are designed for public benefit, to enhance the health of all, including future generations. In sum, it is a model through which the common interest vested in biobank research might materialise.

Les savoir-faire traditionnels ont été pendant longtemps considérés comme ayant peu d'intérêt. Leur reconnaissance internationale s'est faite à la conférence de Rio de 1992 à travers la convention sur la diversité biologique. Cette reconnaissance et la signature de l'accord sur la propriété intellectuelle de 1994 (ADPIC) ont entraîné de la part des pays du Sud (principalement) des questions auxquelles le droit et, plus particulièrement le droit de la propriété intellectuelle (DPI) ont du mal à répondre. La principale étant quel type de protection juridique apporter aux savoir-faire traditionnels et plus particulièrement à ceux liés à la biodiversité. Le DPI a non seulement du mal à cerner quels sont les droits et avantages à accorder aux détenteurs de ces savoirs, mais aussi et surtout, à cerner cette notion de savoir-faire traditionnel. Il a d'autant plus de mal à répondre aux questions soulevées par cette notion, que les débats juridiques sont le plus souvent dirigés par des intérêts économiques et politiques où s'affrontent deux conceptions très différentes de la protection juridique des savoir-faire traditionnels. Celle des Etats du Nord qui ont une conception privative du dpi, dont le but est de maîtriser ''l'utilisation scientifique et commerciale des savoirs traditionnels'' et celle des Etats du Sud qui ont une vision collective, communautaire de la protection de leurs savoirs dans le but de ''protéger l'intégrité des savoirs traditionnels''. La principale réponse apportée jusqu'à présent sur le plan international est le brevet, celui-ci semble, pourtant, peu adapté à ces savoir collectifs et ancestraux. En fait, derrière cette notion de savoir-faire traditionnel, se profile une question essentielle, celle de l'accès aux ressources génétiques et aux savoir-faire traditionnels. Ce travail a pour but d'explorer de nouvelles alternatives à la propriété intellectuelle. / The traditional know-how were considered for a long time as having not much interest. Their international recognition was made at the Rio Conference of 1992, through the Convention on Biological Diversity. This recognition and the signing of the Agreement on the Aspects of Trade-Related Intellectual Property Rights of 1994 (TRIPS) have led the countries of the South mainly, to raise questions to which the law and, more particularly the law of the intellectual property (DPI) are struggling to answer. The main question is to know the nature of the legal protection given to traditional know-how and more particularly to those related to biodiversity. The DIP not only has difficulty in identifying the nature of the rights and benefits to be granted to the holders of this knowledge, but above all, in identifying this notion of traditional know-how. The DIP struggle to address the issues as legal débats are generally lead by political and economical interests where two very different conceptions of the legal protection of traditional know-how confront each other. The one of northern states that have a private and utilitarian conception. That of northern states that have a private and utilitarian conception. The aim is, with DPI, to control the scientific and commercial use of know-how. The one of southern states that have a collective or even community vision of the protection of their knowledge in order to protect the integrity - spiritual, cultural and social - of traditional knowledge. The main international answer today is the certificate. However, this one doesn’t fit well these traditional collective and ancestral know-how. In fact, behind this notion of traditional know-how, there is a key issue, that of access to genetic resources and traditional know-how. The ambition assigned to this thesis (PhD) is to explore new alternatives to intellectual property, in order to find a regime appropriate legal framework for traditional know-how.

Abstract: Indigenous communities have worked for centuries to develop systems of knowledge pertaining to their local environments. Much of the knowledge that has been directly acquired or passed down over generations is of marketable use to corporations, especially in the pharmaceutical industry. Upon gaining the necessary information to convert traditional knowledge into a marketable entity, the corporation will place a patent on the product of their research and development and reap the monetary benefits under the protection of intellectual property legislation. Without appropriate benefit sharing, indigenous communities are robbed of their cumulative innovation and development and denied access to the very medicines that they assisted in development. This study will examine the efforts made by indigenous communities to develop benefit-sharing agreements under national ‘sui generis’ legislation and the international legislation of the Agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPS) and the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD).

This thesis analyses the struggle over rights to benefits and ownership of plant genetic resources and the global regime complex on the management of plant genetic resources, and how different regimes concerning these resources cooperate or stand in opposition to each other. Because of changes in US patent law and the establishment of TRIPS, patent claims over plant genetic resources has increased dramatically globally. This, amongst other things, in turn has lead to the acrimonious negotiations of access and benefit sharing arrangements within the framework CBD. The objective of this thesis is to examine the interaction between the international regimes regulating genetic resources and intellectual property and to analyse how these regime interactions, affect the protection of traditional knowledge held by local communities, indigenous peoples and small farmers in developing countries. The thesis concludes that it exists several regime interactions that are disruptive and undermine the possibility of protecting traditional knowledge from misappropriation. It is further concluded that modifications of the existing IPR regimes, on the disclosure of inventions, with a certificate of legal provenance, securing FPIC, MAT and benefit sharing, may serve as one brick in the wall that protect traditional knowledge from misappropriation through wrongly granted patents. But a certificate of legal provenance will not do the work alone. To protect traditional knowledge associated with genetic resources in the long term bio-cultural solutions which sustains the entire community where traditional knowledge is embedded is needed.

The purpose of this research was to understand an indigenous perspective on the development and commercialization of non-timber forest products, such as medicines and foods, in Pikangikum First Nation, Northwestern Ontario, Canada. Framed by a research agreement between Pikangikum First Nation and the University of Manitoba, this collaborative research was based on participant observation, field trips, semi-structured interviews, and community workshops. The appropriate development and commercialization of Anishinaabe mushkeekeeh (medicine) and meecheem (food) requires the guidance of community Elders, Anishinaabe knowledge, and traditional teachings. The community is cautiously interested in developing collaborative, diligent, and culturally respectful partnerships that interface knowledge systems. Benefit sharing means the joint ownership of intellectual property and financial benefits, developing employment and capacity-building opportunities for community members, and planning products for community use. This thesis offers a community perspective on how NTFPs might be researched, developed and commercialized in joint and mutually beneficial partnerships with a First Nation.

The purpose of this research was to understand an indigenous perspective on the development and commercialization of non-timber forest products, such as medicines and foods, in Pikangikum First Nation, Northwestern Ontario, Canada. Framed by a research agreement between Pikangikum First Nation and the University of Manitoba, this collaborative research was based on participant observation, field trips, semi-structured interviews, and community workshops. The appropriate development and commercialization of Anishinaabe mushkeekeeh (medicine) and meecheem (food) requires the guidance of community Elders, Anishinaabe knowledge, and traditional teachings. The community is cautiously interested in developing collaborative, diligent, and culturally respectful partnerships that interface knowledge systems. Benefit sharing means the joint ownership of intellectual property and financial benefits, developing employment and capacity-building opportunities for community members, and planning products for community use. This thesis offers a community perspective on how NTFPs might be researched, developed and commercialized in joint and mutually beneficial partnerships with a First Nation.

This research critically analyse the existing international intellectual property regime with regard to protection of Genetic Resources (GRs) and Traditional Knowledge (TK) in respect of developing countries. It further discusses access and benefit-sharing (ABS) law and its agreement and the implications of such agreement for developing countries and the extent of effectiveness of the existing IIP regimes specifically on the protection of GRs and TK. Developing countries, such as Ethiopia, are considered to be rich in GRs and the associated TK. It is to their disadvantage in such cases that the current IIP regime is not able to protect GRs and TK, and to date, the international intellectual property regime has failed, permitting excessively broad patents over genetic biodiversity. The study also seeks to address the bearing of international intellectual property regimes on access and benefit sharing to biodiversity resources and associated knowledge. It then argues that there is an inherent gap in the current international intellectual property (IIP) regime with regard to GRs and TK, and unless IIP regime is revised in a manner that gives protection to GRs and TK, developing countries will remain disadvantaged. / Dissertation (LLM)--University of Pretoria, 2014 / gm2015 / Centre for Human Rights / LLM / Unrestricted

This thesis concerns with water, energy, and food (WEF) security in Nepal in relation to hydropower development. Hydropower is challenging to WEF security in three ways: First, the focus is only on energy generation which overlooks the impacts on land, forest, water and biodiversity. Second, the hydropowerprojects are being built in the tributaries of transboundary rivers where local, national and international interests and priorities intersect because these rivers are sources of the economy; water, energy, food commodities; and other ecosystems services. Third, discourses on renewable energy, sustainable development and climate change portray hydropower as a promising renewable energy source as other renewable energy sources hold very less potential in Nepal. In this context, this thesis evaluates if the benefit-sharing approach can be a solution to overcome problems related to the implementation of hydropower which challenges WEF security. Therefore, the study adoptsWEF Nexus Framework and Benefit-sharing Framework to evaluate the challenges and possibilities for rising WEF security minimizing the hydropower-induced trade-offs. The study finds hydropower development in Nepal is rapid and haphazard which merely conceives trade-offs between energy production and other benefits. But benefit-sharing practice, though it is still in its nascent phase, has positively impacted WEF security primarily at the local level, mainly by providing irrigation and drinking water facilities, rural electrification, and agriculture-related livelihood training and support. However, a well-planned benefit-sharing approach as an integral part of hydropower development is lacking which foils equitable distribution of benefits among stakeholders across all levels and smooth implementation o f hydropower projects to enhance the sustainability of hydropower.

Submitted by Renata Lopes (renatasil82@gmail.com) on 2015-12-14T14:49:07Z No. of bitstreams: 1 marcelodecastrocunhafilho.pdf: 817970 bytes, checksum: 29085ff90e78a162a1e41966d55d33b0 (MD5) / Approved for entry into archive by Adriana Oliveira (adriana.oliveira@ufjf.edu.br) on 2015-12-14T15:53:58Z (GMT) No. of bitstreams: 1 marcelodecastrocunhafilho.pdf: 817970 bytes, checksum: 29085ff90e78a162a1e41966d55d33b0 (MD5) / Made available in DSpace on 2015-12-14T15:53:58Z (GMT). No. of bitstreams: 1 marcelodecastrocunhafilho.pdf: 817970 bytes, checksum: 29085ff90e78a162a1e41966d55d33b0 (MD5) Previous issue date: 2015-03-26 / FAPEMIG - Fundação de Amparo à Pesquisa do Estado de Minas Gerais / O presente trabalho tem o objetivo de analisar o tratamento legislativo dado pelo direito brasileiro aos casos de biopirataria de conhecimento tradicional. Partindo-se das proposições críticas de Axel Honneth acerca da liberdade e do reconhecimento, desenhou-se um quadro analítico de conceitos, o qual, uma vez aplicado sobre o objeto da pesquisa através do procedimento da análise de conteúdo, permitiu a visualização de um conhecimento latente até então não revelado pela linguagem aparente da legislação. Após a classificação dos requisitos relativos ao acesso e à repartição de benefícios segundo as rubricas “monetárias” e “não-monetárias”, chegou-se à conclusão de que aqueles, relativos ao acesso, reproduzem um espaço potencialmente garantidor da liberdade, ao passo que estes, atinentes à repartição de benefícios, incorporam uma dimensão patológica. Este último caso se deve em virtude de sua elaboração ter cedido à proteção de interesses supostamente universalistas, à semelhança do que ocorre com as trocas econômicas/monetárias, que impedem a realização plena da liberdade nesse espaço social. / This study aims to analyze the Brazilian legal Acts on cases of biopiracy of traditional knowledge. Stemming from Axel Honneth´s critical propositions about freedom and recognition, an analytical framework of concepts is created, which, once applied on the object of the research through the analysis content procedure, enabled the visualization of some latent knowledge which is not revealed by the apparent language of the legislation. After the classification of requirements for access and benefit sharing under the headings "monetary" and "non-monetary", the conclusion is that those requirements, relating to access, reproduce a potentially guarantor space of freedom, whereas these, relating to sharing of benefits, incorporate a pathological dimension. The latter case is derived from the fact that its protection has been elaborated based on supposedly universal interests, similar to what occurs with the economic exchanges, which prevents the fulfillment of freedom in this social space.