IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/ags/iaae06/25377.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Bioprospection Beyond Intellectual Property Rights: The Kani Model of Access and Benefit Sharing

Author

Listed:
  • Pascual, Unai
  • Dedeurwaerdere, Tom
  • Krishna, Vijesh V.

Abstract

This paper addresses the value of bioprospection for genetic resources (GR) and traditional knowledge (TK) from the South for industrial/research input. The focus is on a dynamic approach to contracting and property rights building upon insights from evolutionary institutional economics. Drawing on a unique 'access and benefit sharing' (ABS) bioprospecting contract from the Western Ghats, India, we show how the monetary value of plant genetic information from the traditional knowledge holders' perspective can be assessed using a contingent valuation modelling approach. While the study allows the identification of such values from one of the main stakeholder's (i.e, the Kani community) perspective, it also allows to point out some of the key gaps in the valuation of GR/TK associated to ABS cases from an evolutionary institutional perspective. Two important conclusions come out of this analysis. First, it highlights the necessity to go beyond standard market approaches to economic valuation of GR/TK in order to address the issues of future possibilities of use and innovation and the integration of the different stages in the process of value creation from GR/TK. Second, it shows the necessity of developing alternatives to the current intellectual property rights regime, including systems for appropriate protection of TK of local communities.

Suggested Citation

  • Pascual, Unai & Dedeurwaerdere, Tom & Krishna, Vijesh V., 2006. "Bioprospection Beyond Intellectual Property Rights: The Kani Model of Access and Benefit Sharing," 2006 Annual Meeting, August 12-18, 2006, Queensland, Australia 25377, International Association of Agricultural Economists.
  • Handle: RePEc:ags:iaae06:25377
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://purl.umn.edu/25377
    Download Restriction: no

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Shogren, Jason F. & Seung Y. Shin & Dermot J. Hayes & James B. Kliebenstein, 1994. "Resolving Differences in Willingness to Pay and Willingness to Accept," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 84(1), pages 255-270, March.
    2. Gordon C. Rausser & Arthur A. Small, 2000. "Valuing Research Leads: Bioprospecting and the Conservation of Genetic Resources," Journal of Political Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 108(1), pages 173-206, February.
    3. Haab, Timothy C. & McConnell, Kenneth E., 1997. "Referendum Models and Negative Willingness to Pay: Alternative Solutions," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 32(2), pages 251-270, February.
    4. Lars H. Gulbrandsen, 2004. "Overlapping Public and Private Governance: Can Forest Certification Fill the Gaps in the Global Forest Regime?," Global Environmental Politics, MIT Press, vol. 4(2), pages 75-99, May.
    5. Barrett, Christopher B. & Lybbert, Travis J., 2000. "Is bioprospecting a viable strategy for conserving tropical ecosystems?," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 34(3), pages 293-300, September.
    6. Richard T. Carson & W. Michael Hanemann & Raymond J. Kopp & Jon A. Krosnick & Robert Cameron Mitchell & Stanley Presser, 1998. "Referendum Design and Contingent Valuation: The NOAA Panel's No-Vote Recommendation," The Review of Economics and Statistics, MIT Press, pages 335-338.
    7. Wiktor L. Adamowicz & Vinay Bhardwaj & Bruce Macnab, 1993. "Experiments on the Difference between Willingness to Pay and Willingness to Accept," Land Economics, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 69(4), pages 416-427.
    8. Dosi, Giovanni, 1988. "Sources, Procedures, and Microeconomic Effects of Innovation," Journal of Economic Literature, American Economic Association, vol. 26(3), pages 1120-1171, September.
    9. Dedeurwaerdere, Tom, 2005. "From bioprospecting to reflexive governance," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 53(4), pages 473-491, June.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:ags:iaae06:25377. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: (AgEcon Search). General contact details of provider: http://edirc.repec.org/data/iaaeeea.html .

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service hosted by the Research Division of the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis . RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.