本文回顾了《生物多样性公约》(CBD)有关遗传资源获取与惠益分享(access and benefit sharing,ABS)问题的谈判背景,介绍了ABS问题特设工作组的工作历程。对《公约》第8次缔约方大会以来有关ABS问题的谈判进展进行了详细的分析,特别是有...本文回顾了《生物多样性公约》(CBD)有关遗传资源获取与惠益分享(access and benefit sharing,ABS)问题的谈判背景,介绍了ABS问题特设工作组的工作历程。对《公约》第8次缔约方大会以来有关ABS问题的谈判进展进行了详细的分析,特别是有关遗传资源来源证书制度的讨论与成果,进而对当前ABS问题面临的挑战进行了分析研究,包括国际层面上WTO体系和世界知识产权组织(WIPO)体系与CBD之间在遗传资源及相关传统知识在知识产权问题上的冲突,国家层面上ABS问题的立法需求与焦点问题,以及在确定遗传资源来源和实施惠益分享方面的技术限制等。展开更多
Many public and private sector projects, such as hydropower dams or mines, trigger forced population displacement but fail to resettle people sustainably and instead cause their impoverishment. Social science research...Many public and private sector projects, such as hydropower dams or mines, trigger forced population displacement but fail to resettle people sustainably and instead cause their impoverishment. Social science research has found that one root cause of such failures and of impoverishment is asset dispossession and the insufficient financing of resettlement. Most governments, however, state that （1） compensation alone is sufficient for restoring the income and livelihood of those displaced, and （2） resources to supplement compensation with additional financing are not available. The author critiques and rejects these positions. He offers a theoretical analysis of the limits and flaws of compensation payments for expropriated assets, and argues that resources are available for supplementing compensation with financial investments for resettlers＇ development. The sources for supplementary financing are the economic rent （windfall profits） generated by natural resource projects such as hydropower or mining and the regular stream of benefits generated by all projects that require resettlement. Further, the author argues that financial investments in resettlers＇ welfare are indispensable and what benefit sharing is feasible. Therefore, both should become basic principles of resettlement legislation and practice. In addition to theoretical analysis, the author documents with empirical evidence that some countries （China, Brazil, Canada, Columbia and Japan） already make investments additional to compensation for post-displacement reconstruction. The author sums up his argument in these key points： （1） Compensation alone cannot prevent the impoverishment of resettlers and cannot in itself restore and improve their livelihoods; （2） Additional financing is needed for direct investments in resettlement with development; （3） Compensation levels must be increased; （4） Financing resources are available in most cases for investing in resettlers＇ development, but allocation of investmen展开更多
文摘本文回顾了《生物多样性公约》(CBD)有关遗传资源获取与惠益分享(access and benefit sharing,ABS)问题的谈判背景,介绍了ABS问题特设工作组的工作历程。对《公约》第8次缔约方大会以来有关ABS问题的谈判进展进行了详细的分析,特别是有关遗传资源来源证书制度的讨论与成果,进而对当前ABS问题面临的挑战进行了分析研究,包括国际层面上WTO体系和世界知识产权组织(WIPO)体系与CBD之间在遗传资源及相关传统知识在知识产权问题上的冲突,国家层面上ABS问题的立法需求与焦点问题,以及在确定遗传资源来源和实施惠益分享方面的技术限制等。
文摘Many public and private sector projects, such as hydropower dams or mines, trigger forced population displacement but fail to resettle people sustainably and instead cause their impoverishment. Social science research has found that one root cause of such failures and of impoverishment is asset dispossession and the insufficient financing of resettlement. Most governments, however, state that （1） compensation alone is sufficient for restoring the income and livelihood of those displaced, and （2） resources to supplement compensation with additional financing are not available. The author critiques and rejects these positions. He offers a theoretical analysis of the limits and flaws of compensation payments for expropriated assets, and argues that resources are available for supplementing compensation with financial investments for resettlers＇ development. The sources for supplementary financing are the economic rent （windfall profits） generated by natural resource projects such as hydropower or mining and the regular stream of benefits generated by all projects that require resettlement. Further, the author argues that financial investments in resettlers＇ welfare are indispensable and what benefit sharing is feasible. Therefore, both should become basic principles of resettlement legislation and practice. In addition to theoretical analysis, the author documents with empirical evidence that some countries （China, Brazil, Canada, Columbia and Japan） already make investments additional to compensation for post-displacement reconstruction. The author sums up his argument in these key points： （1） Compensation alone cannot prevent the impoverishment of resettlers and cannot in itself restore and improve their livelihoods; （2） Additional financing is needed for direct investments in resettlement with development; （3） Compensation levels must be increased; （4） Financing resources are available in most cases for investing in resettlers＇ development, but allocation of investmen
