生物多样性 ›› 2013, Vol. 21 ›› Issue (1): 127-131.DOI: 10.3724/SP.J.1003.2013.05149

• • 上一篇    下一篇

全球多边惠益分享机制: 遗传资源获取和惠益分享谈判的新焦点

徐靖1,2, 蔡蕾3, 王爱华4, 薛达元1,*(), 杨庆文5, 李俊生2, 银森录2   

  1. 1 中央民族大学生命与环境科学学院, 北京 100081
    2 中国环境科学研究院环境基准与风险评估国家重点实验室, 北京 100012
    3 环境保护部自然生态保护司, 北京 100035
    4 环境保护部环境保护对外合作中心, 北京 100035
    5 中国农业科学研究院作物科学研究所, 北京 100081
  • 收稿日期:2012-07-26 接受日期:2012-09-03 出版日期:2013-01-20 发布日期:2013-02-04
  • 通讯作者: 薛达元
  • 基金资助:
    中央民族大学“985工程”(三期);“111引智创新计划”;环境保护部履行《生物多样性公约》项目

The Global Multilateral Benefit-Sharing Mechanism: a new focus in genetic resources access and benefit-sharing negotiations

Jing Xu1,2, Lei Cai3, Aihua Wang, Dayuan Xue1,*(), Qingwen Yang5, Junsheng Li2, Senlu Yin   

  1. 1 College of Life and Environmental Sciences, Mingzu University of China, Beijing 100081
    2 State Key Laboratory of Environmental Criteria and Risk Assessment, Chinese Academy of Environmental Sciences, Beijing 100012
    3 Department of Nature and Ecology Conservation, Ministry of Environmental Protection, Beijing 100035
    4 Foreign Economic Corporation Centre, Ministry of Environment Protection, Beijing 100035
    5 Institute of Crop Sciences, Chinese Academy of Agricultural Sciences, Beijing 100081
  • Received:2012-07-26 Accepted:2012-09-03 Online:2013-01-20 Published:2013-02-04
  • Contact: Xue Dayuan

摘要:

全球多边惠益分享机制(The Global Multilateral Benefit-Sharing Mechanism, GMBSM)问题是遗传资源的获取和惠益分享谈判进程中的重要问题。《名古屋议定书》通过后, 各方就建立全球多边惠益分享机制的必要性和模式进行了磋商。作者梳理了GMBSM问题的由来和主要内容, 分析了遗传资源提供国和使用国的立场。非洲集团虽支持建立该机制, 但限于能力, 无法有效主导议题;巴西等部分提供国未表支持, 担忧GMBSM不利于国家行使主权; 使用国代表为拖延议题进程,提出许多技术性难题。结果表明, GMBSM议题可能成为《名古屋议定书》缔约方会议焦点, 甚至可能因此产生《生物多样性公约》新的补充议定书, 但其进程将十分艰难。为了更好地参与该议题谈判, 我们认为国内应从外交、法律和技术层面做好以下准备工作: (1)加强与各谈判方的交流和沟通, 特别要注重对非洲集团的工作; (2)开展法律研究, 评估GMBSM与《生物多样性公约》、《联合国海洋法公约》及《南极条约》等国际条约的一致性; (3)尽早开展一系列国内调研, 为参与GMBSM问题的讨论和磋商提供支持。

关键词: 名古屋议定书, 遗传资源提供国, 遗传资源使用国, 立场

Abstract

The Global Multilateral Benefit-Sharing Mechanism (GMBSM) is an important issue in the negotiations of access and benefit-sharing of genetic resources. The consultation in regard with need for and modalities of GMBSM were initiated after the adoption of the Nagoya Protocol. This paper reviews the development and the main content of the GMBSM and analyzes positions both from provider and user countries. African groups were not able to lead negotiations of these issues due to constraints in capacity, although it is in support of the GMBSM. Some provider countries such as Brazil did not provide their support because of the concern that the GMBSM is likely to be an obstacle to these countries’ sovereign rights. Representative for user countries delayed the process by raising many technical questions. These negotiations indicate that the GMBSM may become a focus of the Conference of Parties serving as the Meetings of Nagoya Protocol, or even have the potential to be a new supplementary protocol. Regardless of this result, the process will be difficult. Participation proposals for the GMBSM negotiations at diplomatic, legal and technical aspects are also provided as follows: (1) strengthening position coordination among major partners, in particular African group; (2) conducting legal research and evaluate the consistency between the GMBSM and other international treaties, such as the Convention on Biological Diversity, United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea, and the Antarctic Treaty; (3) carrying out a series of domestic studies to provide support for participation of the GMBSM debate and negotiations.

Key words: the Nagoya Protocol, provider countries of genetic resources, user countries of genetic resources, position