1.
Equity
in
interna,onal
(environmental)
law:
Findings
and
ques,ons
about
fair
and
equitable
benefit-­‐sharing
ELISA
MORGERA
elisa.morgera@ed.ac.uk
ANNALISA
SAVARESI
ELSA
TSIOUMANI
(Edinburgh
Law
School)
LOUISA
PARKS
(University
of
Lincoln)
Web:
www.benelex.ed.ac.uk
TwiMer:
@BENELEXedinburg
Facebook:
BENELEX
Email:
benelex@ed.ac.uk

2.
Equity
in
interna,onal
law
• No
uniform
understanding
…
• General
principle
of
internaSonal
law
• InternaSonal
law
of
the
sea
– Common
heritage
of
mankind
• InternaSonal
investment
law
– Fair
and
equitable
treatment
of
foreign
investors*
• InternaSonal
environmental
law
– Equitable
use
of
shared
natural
resources
– Equity
re
common
concern
of
mankind
(UNFCCC)
– Fair
and
equitable
benefit-­‐sharing*
• not
just
from
geneSc
resources!
*
Equitable
principles
as
a
sub-­‐set
of
a
broader
noSon
of
equity

3.
Prolifera,on
of
benefit-­‐sharing
in
interna,onal
environmental
and
human
rights
legal
instruments
Bio-­‐
diversity
Oceans
Human
Rights
Fresh
water
Develop-­‐
ment
Climate
Change
Land
Rio
Forest
Principles
CBD
(POWPA,
…)
ITPGR
(farmers
rights)
Nagoya
Protocol
Universal
DeclaraSon
ILO
ConvenSon
169
{UNDRIP}
Saramaka
case
Endorois
case
[Peasants]
REDD+
Finance
TK?
UNCCD
VGGT
Right
to
Food
PRAI
CFS
RAI

4.
Evolving
ra,onales
for
benefit-­‐sharing
Fairly
and
equitably
allocaSng
economic,
social,
cultural
and
environmental
advantages
arising
from
environmental
management
to
different
stakeholders
1970s
New
InternaSonal
Economic
Order
(solidarity
without
restructuring
of
internaSonal
economic
order)
Post-­‐neoliberal
aMempt
to
harness
market-­‐based
approaches
to
social
and
environmental
ends
[C
Hayden]
2005
Millennium
Ecosystem
Assessment:
ecosystem
services
Focus
on
human
wellbeing
&
vulnerability
Focus
on
rarely
accounted-­‐for
regulaSng,
supporSng
and
cultural
services
Modernizing
noSon
of
“need”
UN
Charter
linking
ecosystems
to
the
reference
to
“wellbeing”
in
…
IPRs

5.
Main
challenges
for
benefit-­‐sharing
to
opera,onalize
equity
are…
• Conceptual
confusion
• Conflated
terminology
(but
also
circular
logics
at
play)
• Sectoral
understandings
(theoreScal
and
empirical)
• Insufficient
inter-­‐disciplinary
reflecSon
(role
of
law?)

6.
Dimensions
of
benefit-­‐sharing
Inter-­‐State
• Global
commons/
common
“heritage”
• Access
to
geneSc
resources
/exchange
• Climate
change/
common
“concern”
• Intl
rivers
/
shared
natural
resources
Transna,onal
• TransnaSonal
contracts
• GEF
Small
Grants,
ITPGR
Benefit-­‐sharing
Fund
• Corporate
accountability
• Development
cooperaSon
• Community
protocols
Intra-­‐State
• Ecosystem
stewardship
• Access
to
tradi,onal
knowledge
• Human
rights
(ownership,
subsistence,
culture)
Benefits?
 Access
to
resources
 Finance
&
tech
transfer
 Capacity
building
 Revenue-­‐sharing
 InformaSon-­‐sharing
Benefits?
 ConSnued/secure
access
to
resources
 Legal
recogniSon
of
&
support
to
tradiSonal
pracSces
 Capacity
building
 Revenue-­‐sharing,
joint
ventures,
jobs
 InformaSon-­‐sharing
Intra-­‐community
• Endogenous
• Culturally
appropriate
• Gender
equality

7.
Benefit-­‐sharing
as
a
legal
concept
Equity
• Systemic
integra,on
• EvoluSonary
• Contextual
balance
of
interests
• JusSce?
• recogni,on
• distribu,ve
(basic
needs
saSsfacSon)
• of
exchange
(reward
for
global
public
goods)
• correc,ve?
• procedural
Sharing
• concerted
• dialogic
• empowerm
ent
• partnership
• Consensus-­‐
building
Benefits
• Access,
control
and
ownership
of
resources
• Economic
vs
non-­‐
economic?
• Improveme
nt
in
human
well-­‐being
and
livelihoods
‘arising
from’
• conservaSo
n
• sustainable
use
• envt’l
regulaSon
• Not
resource
alloca,on
per
se
BUT
posi,ve
implica,ons
of
human
interac,ons
with
nature
Beneficiaries
• Indigenous
peoples
• local
community?
• Farmers
• Tenure
right
holders?
• Ecosystem
stewards
• TK
holders
• vulnerable/
poor?
• Public
at
large?
[Aarhus
–
social
jusSce?]
…faced
with
actual
POWER
imbalances
!!!
Social
acceptance?
Rubber-­‐stamping?
Excluding?
Elite
capture?
Inherently
exploitaSve?

8.
…so
the
ques,ons
are:
• Is
the
internaSonal
concept
of
benefit-­‐sharing
…
– Ill-­‐conceived
(by
sewng
aside
quesSon
of
sharing
costs
and
risks)?
– Unworkable?
• Why
is
it
not
working?
– Guarantees
to
be
added?
– Need
to
effecSvely
rely
on
full
panoply
of
opportuniSes
across
the
board
of
internaSonal
law?

9.
Substan,ve
vs
procedural
dimensions?
Substan,ve
Procedural
[ProtecSon
of
human
rights]
socio-­‐cultural
EIA
[ConservaSon
&
sustainable
use]
FPIC/
consultaSon
LegiSmate
expectaSons?
Fair
procedure?
Non-­‐discriminaSon?
Transparency?
ProporSonality?
Int’l
Biodiv
&
Human
Rights
Law
Int’l
Investment
Law
[Klager]
BUT
inherent
tension:
fair/procedural/legiSmacy
tends
towards
stability
within
the
legal
system
while
equitable/substanSve/redistribuSve
tends
towards
change
…SO
need
to
proceed
by
way
of
“fairness
discourse”
to
balance
these
tensions
premised
on
non-­‐trumping
&
minimum
condi,ons
[Franck]

10.
Framings
&
func,ons
of
benefit-­‐sharing
• Objec,ve
• Principle
(criteria
for
balancing
interests)
• Obliga,on
• a
Right
or
a
Safeguard?
• Mechanism
– InternaSonal
(eg
ITPGR
MulSlateral
System)
– NaSonal
(law,
eg
naSonal
fund;
nat’l
plans)
– MAT
(private-­‐law
contracts)
Which
func,ons
of
equity
(as
understood
in
interna,onal
law)?
“Within
the
law”:
influencing
interpretaSon
of
rules
“Beyond
the
law”:
gap-­‐filling
funcSon?
“Against
the
law”:
derogaSng
from
exisSng
rules
under
separate
regimes
???
NOT
“outside
the
law”:
non-­‐legal
noSons
of
jusSce

11.
BENELEX
project
(2013-­‐2018):
www.benelex.ed.ac.uk
ComparaSve
internaSonal
law
study
• Parallel
legal
analyses:
-­‐
Biodiversity
-­‐
Climate
change
-­‐
Land
and
agriculture
-­‐
Oceans
-­‐
Water
• Equitable
transi,on
to
the
green
economy?
Inter-­‐
disciplinary
empirical
enquiry
•
Selected
case-­‐studies
(law
and
poli,cal
sociology):
-­‐
ArgenSna
(mining)
• -­‐
Greece
(pastoralism)
-­‐
Malaysia
(land
claim)
-­‐
Namibia
(wildlife
mngt)
-­‐
South
Africa
(medicinal
plants)
Outputs:
• Online
working
papers
• Open-­‐access
arScles
&
books
• Blog
posts
• Side-­‐events
• Policy
briefs
• Online
community
training
module