The topic is discussed further in other papers of this special issue (Wickneswari et al., 2014 and Thomas et al., 2014). Fair and equitable sharing of the benefits arising out of the utilization of genetic resources is one of the three objectives of the CBD (CBD, 1992). Article 15 of the CBD enshrines the sovereign rights of national governments

over their natural resources and gives them the authority to determine access to genetic resources. The CBD also encourages its Parties to facilitate access to genetic resources, based on mutually agreed terms (MAT) and subject to prior informed consent (PIC), by taking appropriate legislative, administrative and policy measures. To

help the Parties in this process, the CBD adopted the so called Bonn Guidelines in 2002 (CBD, 2002). These voluntary guidelines recommend that each Party should designate a national Alectinib in vitro ABS focal point, which should then make available information on competent national authorities and procedures for acquiring PIC and MAT through the CBD clearing-house mechanism. As of May 2014, only 57 of the 193 find more Parties to the CBD had implemented some ABS measures (CBD, 2014) and only 33 Parties had designated one or more competent national authorities for ABS. The poor implementation record of the earlier CBD commitments on ABS partly explains why under the Nagoya Protocol it is required for Parties to implement appropriate legislative, administrative and policy measures, and to set up operational administrative structures and procedures for providing access to genetic resources. The Nagoya Protocol also goes

further than earlier ABS commitments in two important aspects (Halewood et al., 2013a). First, the Nagoya Protocol requires its member states to obtain PIC from indigenous and local communities prior to accessing genetic resources and associated traditional knowledge. Second, it also obliges the member countries to establish mechanisms for monitoring compliance with foreign ABS laws and agreements, and to facilitate their enforcement. The Nagoya Protocol is based on a bilateral approach in which a provider and a user Phosphatidylinositol diacylglycerol-lyase of genetic resources agree the MAT. However, this approach may produce disappointing results not only in ensuring fair and equitable sharing of benefits, but also in promoting R&D and biodiversity conservation. Winter (2013) argued that the bilateral approach is likely to prejudice both the horizontal (i.e., among states having the same genetic resource or among communities holding the same traditional knowledge) and vertical (i.e., between providers and users) dimensions of equity. In the first case, the most ‘advanced’ provider states or communities can promptly secure their benefits and establish their ‘dominance’ in the market.