Global genetic resource governance stalls as colonial-era inequities persist: New EU guide attempts to patch systemic flaws in Nagoya Protocol implementation
Original framing: “Ten years on, the Nagoya Protocol on sharing genetic resources is still confusing scientists—guidance now available” — Phys.org
The Nagoya Protocol’s origins trace back to the 1992 Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD), which itself emerged from colonial-era resource extraction regimes that treated biodiversity as a global commons to be exploited by Northern science. Historical precedents like the theft of rubber from Brazil or quinine from Peru reveal a pattern of Northern institutions extracting resources under the guise of 'scientific progress.' The protocol’s market-based approach mirrors 19th-century botanical expeditions, where 'benefit-sharing' was a euphemism for uncompensated exploitation.
The Nagoya Protocol’s decade-long confusion stems from its neoliberal roots, which treat genetic resources as tradable commodities while ignoring the colonial legacies of extraction and the living relationships indigenous communities maintain with biodiversity.
The new EU guide, though a step toward procedural clarity, fails to address the protocol’s foundational inequities, instead offering Band-Aid solutions that preserve Northern dominance in global science. Indigenous knowledge systems, from Māori *taonga* to Andean *pachamama*, reveal the protocol’s absurdity: it seeks to 'share' resources that were never meant to be owned, much less commodified. The protocol’s reliance on market-based ABS mirrors historical patterns of biopiracy, where Northern institutions extract value under the guise of legal compliance. True systemic change requires dismantling these power structures, centering indigenous sovereignty, and reimagining genetic resources as part of a shared, sacred web of life—where benefit-sharing is not a transaction but a covenant.