Bilateral vs. Multilateral? On the economics and politics of a global mechanism for genetic resource use

References

• Bogner, A., & Menz, W. (2009a). Das theoriengenerierende Experteninterview. Erkenntnisinteresse, Wissensformen, Interaktion. In A. Bogner, B. Littig, & W. Menz (Eds.), Experteninterviews. Theorien, Methoden, Anwendungsfelder (3rd ed., Chapter 3, pp. 61–98). Wiesbaden: VS Verlag für Sozialwissenschaften.
   Google Scholar
• Bogner, A., & Menz, W. (2009b). Experteninterviews in der qualitativen Sozialforschung. Zur Einführung in eine sich intensivierende Methodendebatte. In A. Bogner, B. Littig, & W. Menz (Eds.), Experteninterviews. Theorien, Methoden, Anwendungsfelder (3rd ed., Chapter 1, pp. 7–31). Wiesbaden: VS Verlag für Sozialwissenschaften.
   Google Scholar
• Bortz, J., & Döring, N. (2006). Forschungsmethoden und Evaluation für Human- und Sozialwissenschaftler (4th ed.). Heidelberg: Springer.
   Google Scholar
• CGIAR. (2010). Leaving room in the CBD’s ABS Protocol for the future development of specialized access and benefit-sharing arrangements. The example of agricultural microbial genetic resources. Submission to the Executive Secretary of the Convention on Biological Diversity, UNEP/CBD/WG-ABS/9/INF/19.
   Google Scholar
• Cordier, M., Hecq, W., Hawi, R., & Pérez Agúndez, J. A. (2014). How to make environmental targets affordable in estuarine waters: Extending the polluter pays principle? (CEB Working Paper 14/001), 1–18. Brussels: Centre Emile Bernheim, University of Brussels.
   Google Scholar
• Deke, O. (2004). Internalizing global externalities from biodiversity: Protected areas and multilateral mechanisms of transfer. Kieler Arbeitspapiere, 1226, 1–57.
   Google Scholar
• Ferraro, P., & Kiss, A. (2002). Ecology: Direct payments to conserve biodiversity. Science, 298, 1718–1719. doi:10.1126/science.1078104
   Google Scholar
• Flick, U. (2009). An introduction to qualitative research (4th ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
   Google Scholar
• Garrity, G., Thompson, L., Ussery, D., Paskin, N., Baker, D., Desmeth, P., … Ong, P. (2009). Studies on monitoring and tracking genetic resources. Submission to the Executive Secretary of the Convention on Biological Diversity, UNEP/CBD/WG-ABS/7/INF/2.
   Google Scholar
• Greiber, T., Moreno, S. P., Ahŕen, M., Carrasco, J. N., Kamau, E. C., Medaglia, J. C., … Perron-Welch, F. (2012). An explanatory guide to the Nagoya Protocol on access and benefit-sharing (IUCN Environmental Policy and Law Paper No. 83). Gland, Switzerland: IUCN.
   Google Scholar
• Janssen, J. (1999). Property rights on genetic resources: Economic issues. Global Environmental Change, 9, 313–321. doi:10.1016/S0959-3780(99)00025-4
   Google Scholar
• Kamau, E., Fedder, B., & Winter, G. (2010). The Nagoya Protocol on access to genetic resources and benefit sharing: What is new and what are the implications for provider and user countries and the scientific community? Law, Environment and Development Journal, 6(3), 246–262.
   Google Scholar
• Laird, S., & Wynberg, R. (2012). Bioscience at a crossroads: Implementing the Nagoya Protocol on access and benefit sharing in a time of scientific, technological and industry change. Montreal: Secretariat of the Convention on Biological Diversity.
   Google Scholar
• Latacz-Lohmann, U., & Van der Hamsvoort, C. (1997). Auctioning conservation contracts: A theoretical analysis and an application. American Journal of Agricultural Economics, 79, 407–418. doi:10.2307/1244139
   Google Scholar
• Mayring, P. (2010). Qualitative Inhaltsanalyse. Grundlagen und Techniken (11th ed.). Weinheim: Beltz.
   Google Scholar
• Meuser, M., & Nagel, U. (2009). Experteninterview und der Wandel der Wissensproduktion. In A. Bogner, B. Littig, & W. Menz (Eds.), Experteninterviews. Theorien, Methoden, Anwendungsfelder (3rd ed., Chapter 2, pp. 35–60). Wiesbaden: VS Verlag für Sozialwissenschaften.
   Google Scholar
• Oldham, P. (2004). Global status and trends in intellectual property claims: Genomics, proteomics and biotechnology. Submission to the Executive Secretary of the Convention on Biological Diversity, UNEP/CBD/WG-ABS/3/INF/4.
   Google Scholar
• Repetto, R. (1992). Accounting for environmental assets. Scientific American, 266, 94–100.
   Google Scholar
• Ruiz, M., Vogel, J. H., & Zamudio, T. (2010). Logic should prevail: A new theoretical and operational framework for the international regime on access to genetic resources and the fair and equitable sharing of benefits. Peruvian Society for Environmental Law (SPDA), 5(13), 1–11.
   Google Scholar
• Sampath, P. G. (2005). Regulating bioprospecting: Institutions for drug research, access and benefit-sharing. Tokyo: United Nations University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Schei, P. J., & Tvedt, M. W. (2010). “Genetic Resources” in the CBD: The wording, the past, the present and the future. Submission to the Executive Secretary of the Convention on Biological Diversity, UNEP/CBD/WG-ABS/9/INF/1.
   Google Scholar
• Singer, G. A. C. (2009). Proceedings of the Seminar “Barcoding of Life: Society and Technology Dynamics - Global and National Perspectives” held at the Third International Barcode of Life Conference in Mexico City, Mexico, November 9th, 2009. Submission by the International Development Research Centre of Canada to the Executive Secretary of the Convention on Biological Diversity, UNEP/CBD/WG-ABS/9/INF/15.
   Google Scholar
• Stone, C. D. (1994). What to do about biodiversity: Property rights, public goods, and the earth’s riches. Southern California Law Review, 68, 577–620.
   Google Scholar
• Swanson, T. (1996). The reliance of northern economies on southern biodiversity: Biodiversity as information. Ecological Economics, 17, 1–8. doi:10.1016/0921-8009(95)00101-8
   Google Scholar
• Swanson, T., & Göschl, T. (2000). Property rights issues involving plant genetic resources: Implications of ownership for economic efficiency. Ecological Economics, 32, 75–92. doi:10.1016/S0921-8009(99)00072-5
   Google Scholar
• Varian, H. R. (2006). Intermediate microeconomics (7th ed.). New York, NY: Norton & Company.
   Google Scholar
• Vogel, J. H. (1995). A market alternative to the valuation of biodiversity: The example of Ecuador. ASC Newsletter, 23(5). 66, 67, 70.
   Google Scholar
• Vogel, J. H. (1997). The successful use of economic instruments to foster sustainable use of biodiversity: Six case studies from Latin America and the Caribbean. Biopolicy Journal, 2, 1–44.
   Google Scholar
• Vogel, J. H. (2007). Reflecting financial and other incentives of the TMOIFGR: The biodiversity cartel. In M. Ruiz Muller & I. Lapeña (Eds.), A moving target: Genetic resources and options for tracking and monitoring their international flows (pp. 74–74), IUCN Environmental Policy and Law Paper No. 67/3. Gland, Switzerland: IUCN.
   Google Scholar
• Vogel, J. H. (2013). The tragedy of unpersuasive power: The convention on biological diversity as exemplary. International Journal of Biology, 5(4), 44–54. doi:10.5539/ijb.v5n4p44
   Google Scholar
• Vogel, J. H., Álvarez-Berríos, N. A., Quiñones-Vilches, N., Medina-Muñiz, J. L., Pérez-Montes, D., Arocho-Montes, A. I., … Santiago-Ríos, J. (2011). The economics of information studiously ignored in the Nagoya Protocol on access to genetic resources and benefit sharing. Law Environment and Development Journal, 7(1), 52–65.
   Google Scholar
• Williamson, O. E. (1985). The economic institutions of capitalism: Firms, markets, relational contracting. New York, NY: Free press.
   Google Scholar
• Winands, S., & Holm-Müller, K. (2014). Eco-regional cartels on the genetic resource market and the case of the Andean Community’s legislation. ILR Food and Resource Economics Discussion Paper, 2014(2), 1–32.
   Google Scholar
• Wunder, S. (2007). The efficiency of payments for environmental services in tropical conservation. Conservation Biology, 21(1), 48–58. doi:10.1111/cbi.2007.21.issue-1
   Google Scholar