Assessment of Domestic Policies Guiding the Fair and Equitable Sharing of Benefits From Utilization of Genetic Resources and Traditional Knowledge
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The objective of the Nagoya Protocol guides Parties to regulate illegitimate access and utilization of biological resources or associated traditional knowledge, and also directs Parties to share with fairness, equity and justice the monetary or non-monetary benefits arising out of utilization of genetic resources. In a nod to the United Nations Declaration on Rights of Indigenous People, the Nagoya Protocol binds the Parties to create access and benefit sharing (ABS) laws, policies or administrative measures as envisaged in Articles 5.2 and 5.5 of the Protocol, and obliges the States to allow for benefits to flow to Indigenous peoples and local communities (ILCs). Present paper is based on an opinion survey of academic/research institutions, civil society organizations and concerned individuals apart from competent national authorities of Asian countries. Review of secondary information, especially domestic ABS laws of relevant countries, and participant observation were other means of legal and policy analysis. The findings of this paper illustrate that the accrued benefits from the utilization of genetic resources or traditional knowledge are not adequately realized by Indigenous people or local communities. State sovereignty occupies dominance when justice and equity principles are considered in benefit sharing mechanism. It leads to the infringement of Indigenous rights and conservation objectives. Discrepancies in domestic ABS laws and in the frameworks for their implementation could be addressed by ensuring the participation of ILCs in domestic ABS rulemaking, decision-making processes, and the participatory execution of ABS mechanisms at all levels. The resulting gains in efficiency in the ABS process could then better achieve the goal of conserving and sustainably using biodiversity, while also ensuring respect for the rights of Indigenous people.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.028 | 0.031 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.010 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".