Die amputierte Wiedereinbettung geistiger Eigentumsrechte an genetischen Ressourcen Das Fallbeispiel Brasilien

Main Article Content

Anne Tittor, Eduardo Relly, Leoni Schlender, Maria Backhouse

Abstract

The “Amputated” Re-embedding of Intellectual Property Rights in Genetic Resources. The Case of Brazil
In 2010, after prolonged negotiations, the Nagoya Protocol – and with it, a central mechanism for access and benefit sharing (ABS) – was adopted. The Nagoya Protocol aims to end biopiracy, which refers to the appropriation and patenting of knowledge about plants by pharmaceutical or agricultural companies. It seeks to limit biopiracy by regulating access to genetic resources and ensuring that local knowledge holders receive a share of the profits derived from such appropriations. Drawing on a sociological understandings of property and an interpretation of Karl Polanyi, we argue that the ABS mechanism is the outcome of decades of negotiation between market forces, states from the Global South, and social movements over the social re-embedding or social regulation of intellectual property rights. Against this background, we examine how the social re-embedding or social regulation of intellectual property succeeds and observe an “amputated” re-embedding of private intellectual property. Although Nagoya as an international norm acknowledges the importance of Indigenous and Traditional knowledge for the first time, we find no evidence of a substantial social regulation of intellectual property: the exclusive character of private property and the associated commodification processes remain unchallenged and are instead reinforced by the mechanism. Not even the envisaged monetary redistribution through benefit-sharing has been successful at the local level. Despite this, most actors involved see no viable alternative to this form of regulation. We illustrate our argument with a qualitative study on the social negotiations surrounding the implementation of the ABS mechanism in Brazil. Specifically, we focus on the strategy – propagated by many state, private, and civil society actors – of cataloging traditional and Indigenous knowledge through so-called biocultural protocols. The protocols, while well-intentioned, aim to make such knowledge more visible and protect it from biopiracy.
Keywords: Nagoya protocol, intellectual property, genetic resources, social re-embedding, indigenous knowledge, Brazil, Polanyi


Bibliography: Tittor, Anne/Relly, Eduardo/Schlender, Leoni/Backhouse, Maria: Die amputierte Wiedereinbettung geistiger Eigentumsrechte an genetischen Ressourcen. Das Fallbeispiel Brasilien, PERIPHERIE – Politik • Ökonomie • Kultur, Nr. 177-178 (1-2025), pp. 146-166.

Article Details

Published: August 2025
Open Access from: 2027-08-28
Open Access License: CC BY 4.0

Literature

Almeida, Alfredo Wagner Berno de (2010): Conhecimento tradicional e biodiversidade. Normas vigentes e propostas. Manaus.

Altvater, Elmar, & Birgit Mahnkopf (1996): Grenzen der Globalisierung. Ökonomie, Ökologie und Politik in der Weltgesellschaft. Münster.

Andrade, Jaqueline P. (2022): A proteção da biodiversidade pelos saberes comunitários: um estudo dos protocolos bioculturais na América Latina. Master thesis, Universidade Federal do Paraná. Curitiba, BR-PR.

Angelis, Massimo de (2001): „Marx and Primitive Accumulation: The Continuous Character of Capital’s ‚Enclosures‘“. In: The Commoner, Nr. 2, S. 1-22.

Articulação Pacari (2015): Protocolo comunitário biocultural das raizeiras do Cerrado: direito consuetudinário de praticar a medicina tradicional. https://ecoa.org.br/protocolo-comunitario-biocultural-das-raizeiras-do-cerrado/, letzter Aufruf: 4.7.2025.

Basta, Paulo; Islandia Souza; Aparecida Benites & Ananda Bevacqua (Hg.) (2020): Pohã Ñana; nãnombarete, tekoha, guarani ha kaiowá arandu rehegua = Plantas medicinais: fortalecimento, território e memória guarani e kaiowá. Recife. https://www.cpqam.fi ocruz.br/uploads/Arquivos/a6445e13-e434-4e6e-aaa5-1ed724747545.pdf, letzter Aufruf: 7.7.2025.

Brand, Ulrich, & Christoph Görg (2003): Postfordistische Naturverhältnisse. Konflikte um genetische Ressourcen und die Internationalisierung des Staates. Münster.

Bockmann, Flávio A.; Miguel T. Rodrigues; Tiana Kohsldorf; Lorian C. Straker; Taran Grant; Mário C. de Pinna; Fernando L. Mantelatto; Aléssio Datovo; José P. Pombal; John C. McNamara u.v.a. (2018): „Brazil’s Government Attacks Biodiversity“. In: Science, Bd. 360, Nr. 6391, S. 865 (http://dx.doi.org/10.1126/science.aat7540).

Da Cunha, Manuela C.; Mauro B. de Almeida; Adão J. Cardoso; Agostinho Muru & Alexandre G. Andrade (2002): Enciclopédia da floresta. O Alto Juruá: práticas e conhecimentos das populações. São Paulo, BR-SP.

Dallagnol, André; Marciano Silva & Winnie Overbeek (2016): Lei da Biodiversidade Brasileira: Um avanço ou uma ameaça? https://wrm.org.uy/pt/artigos-do-boletim-do-wrm/secao1/lei-da-biodiversidade-brasileira-um-avanco-ou-uma-ameaco, letzter Aufruf, 2.7.2025.

Dutfield, Graham (2015): „Traditional Knowledge, Intellectual Property and Pharmaceutical Innovation: What’s Left to Discuss?“. In: David, Matthew, & Debora Halbert (Hg.): The Sage Handbook of Intellectual Property. Los Angeles, US-CA u.a., S. 649-664 (https://doi.org/10.4135/9781473910027.n35).

Fraser, Nancy (2013): „A Triple Movement?“. In: New Left Review, II, Nr. 81, S. 119-132.

Görg, Christoph (2004): „Stichwort Inwertsetzung“. In: Historisch Kritisches Wörterbuch des Marxismus: Imperium bis Justiz, S. 1502-1506.

GSS Sustentabilidade e Bioinovação Ltda; Croda International Plc & Natura & Co (2022): Brogotá Project. ABS Around the World: The Brazilian Law Contrasted with International Regulations. São Paulo, BR-SP.

Guetta, Mauricio, & Nurit Bensusan (2018): „Tutela dos conhecimentos tradicionais face à sua diversidade. A emergência dos protocolos comunitários“. In: Ungaretti, Debora; Marilia R. Lessa; Diogo R. Coutinho; Flávio M. Prol; Iage Z. Miola & Tomaso Ferrando (Hg.): Propriedades em transformação. Abordagens multidisciplinares. São Paulo, BR-SP, S. 117-140 (https://doi.org/10.5151/9788580393279-07).

Hein, Wolfgang; Reinhart Kößler & Michael Korbmacher (2006): „Historisch-kritische Überlegungen zum Eigentum. Statt eines Editorials“. In: PERIPHERIE, Nr. 101/102, S. 3-17.

Hume, David (1978 [1739]): A Treatise of Human Nature. Oxford, UK.

Ido, Vitor (Hg.) (2016): Amazonian Traditional Knowledge. A Commons Approach Versus Intellectual Property Rights. https://www.academia.edu/36327595/Amazonian_Traditional_Knowledge_A_Commons_Approach_versus_Intellectual_Property_Rights#loswp-workcontainer, letzter Aufruf: 2.7.2025.

Ido, Vitor H. (2018): „Direitos intelectuais indígenas no Brasil. Instrumentos jurídicos e conflitos ontológicos“. In: Revista de Estudos Empíricos em Direito, Bd. 5, Nr. 3, S. 176-186 (https://doi.org/10.19092/reed.v5i3.374).

Ido, Vitor H., & Luísa Valentini (2018): „Quem tem a propriedade da transformação? Propriedade intelectual e fi gurações equívocas da circulação dos conhecimentos indígenas“. In:

Ungaretti, Debora; Marilia R. Lessa; Diogo R. Coutinho; Flávio M. Prol; Iage Z. Miola & Tomaso Ferrando (Hg.): Propriedades em transformação. Abordagens multidisciplinares. São Paulo; BR-SP, S. 97-116 (https://doi.org/10.5151/9788580393279-06).

Just, Daniela; Nicole Kornherr; Romana Litzka & Lars Oppermann (2010): „Odyssee des internationalen ABS-Regimes. Eine Analyse struktureller Probleme und asymmetrischer Kräfteverhältnisse“. In: Brand, Ulrich (Hg.): Globale Umweltpolitik und Internationalisierung des Staates. Biodiversitätspolitik aus strategisch-relationaler Perspektive. Münster, S. 27-73.

Karayanidi, Milana (2011): „Bargaining Power in Multilateral Negotiations on Intellectual Property Rules: Paradox of Weakness“. In: The Journal of World Intellectual Property, Bd. 14, Nr. 3-4, S. 265-275 (https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1747-1796.2011.00418.x).

Kopenawa, Davi; Bruce Albert & Alison Dundy (2013): The Falling Sky. Words of a Yanomami Shaman. Cambridge, US-MA [im Original (2010) La chute du ciel: Paroles d’un chaman Yanomami, PLON] (https://doi.org/10.2307/j.ctt6wppk9).

Kloppenburg, Jack R. JR. (2004): First the Seed. The Political Economy of Plant Biotechnology, 1492-2000. Madison, US-WI.

Mayring, Philipp, & Thomas Fenzl (2019): „Qualitative Inhaltsanalyse“. In: Baur, Nina, & Jörg Blasius (Hg.): Handbuch Methoden der empirischen Sozialforschung. Wiesbaden, S. 633-648 (https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-658-21308-4_42).

Meuser, Michael, & Ulrike Nagel (2016): „Experteninterview“. In: Dick, Michael; Winfried Marotzki & Harald A. Mieg (Hg.): Handbuch Professionsentwicklung. Bad Heilbrunn, S. 342-352.

Melo, Paulo T. de, & Maria d. Bezerra (2023): „Desenvolvimento de Marca Coletiva para Comunidade de Mulheres Extrativista de Óleo de Andiroba da Ilha do Combú – Belém – Pará“. In: Cadernos de Prospecção, Bd. 16, Nr. 1, S. 128-143 (https://doi.org/10.9771/cp.v16i1.49031).

Moreira, Eliane; Noemi M. Porro & Lianan A. Da Silva (Hg.) (2017): A „nova“ lei n. 13.123/2015 no velho marco legal da biodiversidade. Entre retrocessos e violações de direitos socioambientais. São Paulo, BR-SP.

Mooney, Pat R. (1983): Seeds of the Earth: A Private or Public Resource? Ottawa, CA-ON. https://books.google.de/books?id=lBbPwAEACAAJ&dq=inauthor:%22Pat+Roy+Mooney%22&hl=pt-BR&sa=X&redir_esc=y, letzter Aufruf: 2.7.2025.

Moore, Jason W. (2003): „The Modern World-System as Environmental History? Ecology and the Rise of Capitalism“. In: Theory and Society, Bd. 32, Nr. 3, S. 307-377 (https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1024404620759).

Muller, Manoel Ruiz (2018): Access to Genetic Resources and Benefi t Sharing 25 Years on: Progress and Challenges. Genf.

Peters, Florian; Rinne, Jonathan, Saalfeld, Robin K,, Schmalz, Stefan; Amelie Stuart & Lydia von der Weth (2024): Eigentumskonfl ikte. Eine Typologie. https://sfb294-eigentum.de/media/filer_public/f9/08/f908691c-7aaa-424c-831b-71e7818ee46b/wp_05_fin.pdf, letzter Aufruf: 2.7.2025.

Polanyi, Karl (1977): The Great Transformation. Politische und ökonomische Ursprünge von Gesellschaften und Wirtschaftssystemen. Wien.

Povo Ashaninka (2016): Protocolo de serviços ambientais dos ashaninka da terra indígena kampa do Rio Amonea. https://www.forest-trends.org/wp-content/uploads/imported/ashaninka-protocolo-de-servios-ambientais-livrocompletoweb-pdf.pdf, letzter Aufruf: 2.7.2025.

Proudhon, Pierre-Joseph (2018 [1840]): Was ist das Eigentum? Münster.

Rabitz, Florian (2015): „Biopiracy after the Nagoya Protocol. Problem Structure, Regime Design and Implementation Challenges“. In: Brazilian Political Science Review, Bd. 9, Nr. 2, S. 30-53, letzter Aufruf: 21.7.2018 (https://doi.org/10.1590/1981-38212014000200010).

RAFI – Rural Advancement Foundation International, & HSCA – Heritage Seed Curators Australia (1998): An Inquiry into the Potential for Plant Piracy Through International Intellectual Property Conventions. Plant Breeders Wrongs. https://www.etcgroup.org/files/publication/400/01/occ_plant.pdf, letzter Aufruf: 7.7.2025.

Rede GTA & Comite Gestor do Protocolo Comunitário do Bailique (2013): Protocolo Comunitário do Bailique. Conhecer para proteger. http://observatorio.direitosocioambiental.org/wpcontent/uploads/2020/10/Protocolo-Comunitario-do-Bailique.pdf, letzter Aufruf: 2.7.2025.

Reserva Extrativista (Resex) do Riozinho do Anfrísio (2013): Protocolo bioultural comunitário da Reserva Extrativista (Resex) do Riozinho do Anfrísio. https://observatorio.direitosocioambiental.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/12/Protocolo-Biocultural-Riozinho.pdf, letzter Aufruf: 2.7.2025.

Robinson, Daniel F. (2010): Confronting Biopiracy. Challenges, Cases and International Debates. London & Washington, DC (https://doi.org/10.4324/9781849774710).

Robinson, Daniel F., & Miranda Forsyth (2016): „People, Plants, Place, and Rules: The Nagoya Protocol in Pacific Island Countries“. In: Geographical Research, Bd. 54, Nr. 3, S. 324-335.

Rousseau, Jean-Jacques (1968 [1762]): The Social Contract. Harmondsworth, UK.

SFB 294 „Strukturwandel des Eigentums“ (2025): Radikalisierung und Dekomposition des Privateigentums. Forschungsergebnisse des SFB 294 „Strukturwandel des Eigentums“. Working Paper Nr. 9, Sonderforschungsbereich/Transregio 294 „Strukturwandel des Eigentums“, https://sfb294-eigentum.de/media/fi ler_public/8f/21/8f21232e-96a5-4c27-9907-aae1678fb3f5/working_paper_forschungsergebnisse_1_forderphase_final_11042025.pdf, letzter Aufruf: 2.7.2025.

Shiva, Vandana (2004): Biopiracy. The Plunder of Nature and Knowledge. Boston, US-MA.

Siegrist, Hannes (2006): „Die Propertisierung von Gesellschaft und Kultur. Konstruktion und Institutionalisierung des Eigentums in der Moderne“. In: Comparativ, Bd. 16, Nr. 5-6, S. 9-52.

Suiseeya, Kimberly R. (2014): „Negotiating the Nagoya Protocol: Indigenous Demands for Justice“. In: Global Environmental Politics, Bd. 14, Nr. 3, S. 102-124 (https://doi.org/10.1162/GLEP_a_00241).

Teixeira, Patricia C., & Lívia M. Da Silva (2021): „Repartição de benefícios à luz da Lei nº13.123/2015. Casos de empresas com acesso ao patrimônio genético e ao conhecimento e ao conhecimento tradicional associado“. In: Revista Fitos, Bd. 15, Nr. 2, S. 204-216 (https://doi.org/10.32712/2446-4775.2021.1050).

United Nations Working Group on Indigenous Populations (1982): Report of the Working Group on Indigenous Populations on its 1st Session. Genf. https://digitallibrary.un.org/record/36801?v=pdf, letzter Aufruf: 2.7.2025.

Wallerstein, Immanuel (1979): The Capitalist World-economy. Essays. Cambridge, UK.

Zusammenschluss zivilgesellschaftlicher Organisationen in Brasilien (2022): Carta aberta de recomendações e posicionamento da sociedade civil brasileira para a 15ª conferência das partes da convenção sobre diversidade biológica e seus protocolos (Cop 15). Brasilia, BR-DF. https://terradedireitos.org.br/uploads/arquivos/Carta-web-COP15-Portugues.pdf, letzter Aufruf: 7.7.2025.

Read More