Unité BIOGOV du Centre de Philosophie du Droit
Réponse à l’APPEL D’OFFRE GENERAL AVEC PUBLICITE POUR UNE
« Etude en vue de la mise en œuvre au niveau belge du Protocole de Nagoya sur l’accès et
le partage des avantages à la Convention sur la Diversité biologique »
(CAHIER SPÉCIAL DES CHARGES n° DG5/AMSZ/11008)
Direction :
Tom Dedeurwaerdere
Professor at the Université catholique de Louvain
Research Associate at the National Foundation for Scientific Research (F.R.S.-FNRS)
Director of the BIOGOV Unit of the Centre for Philosophy of Law (CPDR)
Contact :
Tom Dedeurwaerdere
Centre for the Philosophy of Law (CPDR)
Place Montesquieu, 2 - SSH/JURI/PJTD - L2.07.01
B-1348 Louvain-la-Neuve, Belgium
Email tom.dedeurwaerdere@uclouvain.be
http://perso.uclouvain.be/tom.dedeurwaerdere
Unité BIOGOV – Centre de Philosophie du Droit – Université catholique de Louvain
Contents
1. Brief presentation of the research unit and the research partners ........................................................ 3
1.1. Research unit of the principal investigator in charge of the study ................................................................ 3
1.2. Members of the advisory expert group.............................................................................................................. 3
2. Technical presentation of the content of the work ................................................................................ 5
Phase 1: analysis of the regulatory framework ......................................................................................................... 5
Phase 2: options and recommendations for possible measures and instruments (legal and non-legal) for
the implementation of the Nagoya protocol on ABS in Belgium......................................................................... 5
Phase 3: cost-benefit analysis (multi-criteria impact assessment) ......................................................................... 6
Phase 4 : recommendations for instruments and measures (legal and non-legal) ............................................ 10
for the implementation of the Nagoya protocol on ABS in Belgium ................................................................ 10
3. Deliverables Table and Calendar ........................................................................................................... 11
2
Unité BIOGOV – Centre de Philosophie du Droit – Université catholique de Louvain
1. Brief presentation of the research unit and the research partners
1.1. Research unit of the principal investigator in charge of the study
The research unit on Biodiversity governance (BIOGOV) is a research unit of the Centre for
Philosophy of Law (Centre de Philosophie du Droit - CPDR) at the Université catholique de Louvain
(UCL). Its focus is on law, environmental economics and governance of biodiversity.
The research unit on Biodiversity governance (BIOGOV) is a research unit of the Centre for Philosophy
of Law (CPDR) at the Université catholique de Louvain (UCL). The BIOGOV Unit is an
interdisciplinary research unit among one of the top research departments in Europe working on
biodiversity governance. For the last 15 years, it has been awarded a number of major European research
grants, which have been evaluated as top rank projects by external reviewers. With its strong focus on
high quality research and with researchers in the fields of law, political sciences, and economics it offers
a vibrant and stimulating interdisciplinary environment for research into law, environmental economics
and governance of biodiversity.
This research is developed in international (EU-FP7) and national (IUAP VI/06) research networks. In
particular, BIOGOV is partner of the FP7 European projects LowInputBreeds, BIOMOT, and MICRO
B3. Finally, a major research project on the institutional and legal design of genetic resource commons is
accomplished within the ERC starting grant GENCOMMONS that was awarded to prof. T.
Dedeurwaerdere (starting date 1st of October 2011).
The research unit on biodiversity governance (BIOGOV) of the Centre for Philosophy of Law (CPDR)
of the Université catholique de Louvain (UCL) has also been selected for the execution of a set of more
applied legal and institutional studies based on its competence of working with access, use and exchange
issues related to genetic resources over a number of years. The BIOGOV has coordinated a number of
multi-stakeholder expert workshops, both national and international, in the field of access and benefit
sharing for genetic resources. The BIOGOV has in addition organized international conferences
dedicated to the implementation of the Convention on Biological Diversity1. It has also contributed a
Background Study Paper to the Twelfth Regular Session of the Commission on Genetic Resources for
Food and Agriculture, which was extremely well received.
The combination of academic excellence for legal and economic research on genetic resources, its active
participation and leading role in access, use and exchange issues related to genetic resources, and the
Unit’s experience with international instruments and joint projects in an international context, give
BIOGOV a unique position to take the lead on the preparation of the study on the implementation of the
Nagoya protocol and to provide input to the two Multi-Stakeholder Expert Dialogues envisioned under
this call (Appel d’offre, p. 21-22).
1.2. Members of the advisory expert group
The Seminar for Urban Planning and Environmental Law (SERES,, from the Institute for
Interdisciplinary Research in Legal Science (JUR-I) at the Université catholique de Louvain
1
cf. http://biogov.uclouvain.be/proceedings.html
3
Unité BIOGOV – Centre de Philosophie du Droit – Université catholique de Louvain
(UCL). (prof. Francis Haumont (director); prof. Charles-Hubert Born) is a university research group
dedicated to research and consulting in planning, environmental, rural, biodiversity and sustainable
development law. It aims to study all the institutions, principles and rules of international, EC and
Belgian law, tending to direct human activities so as to limit their impact on the human and natural
environment and to plan rural and spatial development from the perspective of sustainable development.
Through its expertise in rural, biodiversity and environmental law, and more specifically in forestry and
agricultural regulations, the SERES will contribute its expertise to the meetings and reports of the
accompanying expert group for this study.
The Centre for Intellectual Property Rights (CIR : prof. Geertrui Van Overwalle) was established
in 1988 following an initiative of the law faculties of the Catholic University of Leuven and the
Catholic University of Brussels. This Centre was founded in response to an increasing need felt by
scientists, lawyers, technologists and companies. The object was, and still is, to gain a profound
knowledge in patent, trade mark, design and copyright law. More particularly, the CIR wishes to gain a
better insight into new and evolving areas of intellectual property law (such as the protection of software,
semi-conductor products and biotechnological inventions, standardisation and technology transfers) and
the general problems of patents, trademarks, designs and copyright. Through its expertise in intellectual
property rights, and related areas of private international law, it will contribute its expertise to the
meetings and reports of the accompanying expert group for this study.
Professor An Cliquet research group.
Professor Dr. An Cliquet has a degree in Law, a degree in Maritime Sciences and is a Doctor in Law
(Ghent University). Her field of expertise is public international law in general and international and
European biodiversity law in specific. She has done research, published and gave lectures on issues such
as marine and coastal protection, integrated coastal zone management, relation between ports and nature,
international and national nature conservation policy, biodiversity legislation and legal aspects of
ecological restoration. She is active as an expert in several commissions and organizations active in the
field of environmental protection. At Ghent University she is teaching several courses on public
international law in general, as well as several courses on international and European biodiversity law.
She also teaches on biodiversity law at Klagenfurt University in the MSc Programme ‘Management of
Protected Areas’.
The Centre for the study of Environmental Law (Centre d’étude du droit de l’environnementCEDRE : dr. Delphine Misonne) is a university research centre of the Facultés Universitaires de St.
Louis dedicated to environmental law. Its main objectives are the scientific study of environmental law
and governance, critical and interdisciplinary reflection on the environmental law and politics and the
participation in the elaboration of environmental laws. Through its expertise in environmental law, and in
particular its in depth knowledge of the distribution of competences in environmental law between the
regions, communities and the federal state, the CEDRE research centre will contribute its expertise to the
meetings and reports of the accompanying expert group for this study.
4
Unité BIOGOV – Centre de Philosophie du Droit – Université catholique de Louvain
2. Technical presentation of the content of the work
This section will present the detailed steps and phases of the work envisioned for the study. It also
presents the rationale and the scientific references for the cost-benefit analysis and the multi-criteria
analysis under phase 3.
Phase 1: analysis of the regulatory framework
The first phase will conduct a legal review of the framework for access and benefit-sharing established
by the Nagoya Protocol both for genetic resources and for traditional knowledge associated with genetic
resources. The legal review will focus on the following components:
(1) describing in more detail the Protocol's economic, temporal and geographic scope; its
relationship to other international instruments; the treatment of pathogens; the role of noncommercial research; and the global multilateral benefit-sharing mechanism.
(2) identifying next steps at national level and at international level – in the Intergovernmental
Committee set up to prepare the entry into force of the Protocol – to ensure that the Nagoya
Protocol becomes a major tool for benefit-sharing as well as for the conservation and sustainable
use of biological diversity.
(3) Conducting a “state of the art” analysis of the existing legal and institutional framework in
Belgium at national and regional level (federal state, regions and communities) :
a. Institutional framework (study of power attribution between federal state, regions and
communities linked to ABS; structure of competent agencies in all relevant power
levels; )
b. Legal state of the art in Belgium at national and regional level (federal state, regions and
communities);
c. Analysis of existing legal and non-legal instruments and measures that are applicable to
the access and use of GENETIC RESOURCES and to compliance and monitoring;
d. Gap analysis : conformity / gaps of the existing instruments and measures in regards to
the legal obligations of the Nagoya protocol
Phase 2: options and recommendations for possible measures and instruments
(legal and non-legal) for the implementation of the Nagoya protocol on ABS in
Belgium
The second phase will establish a list of possible measures and instruments for the implementation of the
Nagoya protocol on ABS in Belgium. This phase will include the following components :
(1) Review of existing literature (both academic and grey literature, both published and draft policy
documents of other EU countries) on possible measures and instruments;
(2) Selection of exhaustive list of possible measures and instruments that are most relevant for the
Belgium context, also in regards to the existing legal and non-legal instruments analysed in
phase 1;
(3) Benchmarking of the list of possible measures and instruments: comparison with measures and
instruments in other EU countries, with available literature on their effectiveness. Interviews
5
Unité BIOGOV – Centre de Philosophie du Droit – Université catholique de Louvain
with key policy officials in selected EU countries to complete the information available in the
literature for the benchmarking exercise;
(4) Summary on the list of possible measures and instruments, and on the existing arguments
pertaining to the advantages and disadvantages of these instruments
(5) Priority list of possible measures and instruments, which will be the basis of the analysis in
phase 3 and phase 4 of the study. This task will be executed in close discussion with the
Accompanying Committee overseeing the study.
Phase 3: cost-benefit analysis (multi-criteria impact assessment)
Phase 3 will conduct a multi-criteria impact assessment of the selected measures and instruments. This
assessment will focus on
(1) the economic impacts (both direct effects on the activities and the economic transaction costs
(administrative and negotiation costs));
(2) the social impacts (redistributive effects) and
(3) the environmental impacts (contribution to the international objectives of the Convention on
Biological Diversity, including benefit-sharing as well as the conservation and sustainable use of
biological diversity).
These impacts will be assessed from the point of view of the various users and providers of genetic
resources and traditional knowledge associated with genetic resources, such as researchers in the public
and private sector, ex-situ collection managers and industry, and for different types of genetic material
(plant, animal and microbial).
In this 3rd phase it is important to bear in mind that the impact of the various measures will depend on the
evolution of the national legislation on ABS in the various provider and user countries. To conduct a
reliable qualitative and quantitative assessment it is therefore required to specify the impacts according to
the possible scenarios of implementation of the Nagoya protocol in the provider and user countries2. To
this end, to help assess the potential impact that these developments may have on the use and exchange
of genetic resources, three most plausible ABS scenarios are presented and are described in the following
section. They aim to reflect the main features of typical approaches to ABS at national level and serve to
highlight the precise impact of the proposed measures and instruments in regards of the most commonly
used ABS measures. Even though nothing would prevent Contracting Parties from implementing the
ABS provisions of the Nagoya protocol through a multilateral approach, to date most ABS regulatory
frameworks take a bilateral approach (with the prominent exception of the International Treaty on Plant
Genetic Resources for Food and Agriculture). That’s why we will only consider the most common ABS
regimes, where the use and exchange of genetic resources and traditional knowledge associated with
genetic resources is mainly determined by ABS measures at national level.
2
Cf. also for a more detailed discussion of the possible ABS scenarios for conducting ABS impact assessments,
Schloen, M., Louafi, S., Dedeurwaerdere, T. (2011), “Access and Benefit-Sharing for Genetic Resources for Food
and Agriculture – Current Use and Exchange Practices, Commonalities, Differences and User Community Needs Report from a Multi-Stakeholder Expert Dialogue”. Background paper of the Commission on Genetic Resources of
the Food and Agriculture Organisation (CGRFA) No.59.
6
Unité BIOGOV – Centre de Philosophie du Droit – Université catholique de Louvain
The first two ABS scenario’s reflect one of the most common approaches to addressing ABS at the
national level, which is in a purely bilateral and case-by-case manner (“bilateral case-by-case scenario”).
The scenario consists of a national regulatory framework for ABS that provides for ABS conditions to be
established bilaterally between provider and recipient on a case-by-case basis for each individual
transaction with a certain genetic resource or with given traditional knowledge associated to a certain
genetic resource. It requires access seekers to request and obtain consent and approval for access on a
case-by-case basis from the relevant competent national authorities. There may be different competent
national authorities involved, depending on the type of genetic resources sought, their location, the
intended use and other factors. For each transaction with a certain genetic resource or with given
traditional knowledge associated to a certain genetic resource, the terms and conditions for ABS have to
be negotiated and mutually agreed with all concerned parties, including the competent national
authorities, the actual provider of the genetic material and in some cases local or indigenous
communities. The terms and conditions agreed upon with the provider of the genetic resource or
traditional knowledge have to be set down in a MTA (Material Transfer Agreement) governing the actual
transfer of the material. The MTA may also include some obligations vis-à-vis third parties, reflecting
the terms and conditions agreed upon with the competent national authorities and local or indigenous
communities. Otherwise, such terms and conditions may also be set down in a separate contract between
the recipient of the genetic resource or the traditional knowledge, and the national authorities or
concerned communities. Hence, the transfer of a genetic resource or the use of traditional knowledge
associated with genetic resources may be accompanied by one or several bilateral contracts. According
to the mutually agreed terms, monetary and non-monetary benefits arising from the utilization of the
exchanged genetic resource are shared on a bilateral basis with the provider of the genetic material or the
traditional knowledge associated with a genetic resource, and possibly also with the providing country
and concerned communities. Finally, monitoring and reporting requirements for the use of the transferred
material are also agreed upon on a bilateral and case-by-case basis, and have to be implemented both by
the provider and the recipient for each individual genetic resource that has been exchanged.
The impact that such an ABS scenario has on the use and exchange of genetic resources is highly
dependent upon the type of material covered by it, in particular with regard to whether only publicly held
material is covered or whether privately held material is also included. As described elsewhere (Schloen
et al. 2011), a significant amount of genetic resources are held under private ownership and many
agricultural products reach the market place in a form in which they can be used not only as biological
resources (for production and consumption), but also as genetic resources (for reproduction and further
development). The question that arises here is whether ABS measures would also apply to genetic
resources kept, for example, in the form of live animals, commercial seed, brood stock, seedlings,
genetic material in private biobanks, breeding pools of private companies, etc. Depending on the
subsector and the proportion of genetic resources held privately, this would make a big difference to the
number of transactions falling under a given ABS regulatory framework and the extent to which use and
exchange practices would be affected by it.
As many existing national ABS laws do not clearly define whether and to which extent they cover
privately held genetic resources, and as it seems to be an issue of major relevance to the impact that ABS
measures may have on the use and exchange of genetic resources, these considerations were included in
the presented ABS scenarios. Thus the first scenario is split into two sub-scenarios, one applying only to
publicly held material and the other to both publicly and privately held material.
7
Unité BIOGOV – Centre de Philosophie du Droit – Université catholique de Louvain
The first ABS scenario will consider the sub-scenario in which also privately held material is
covered by the national ABS regulatory framework, in addition to the agreement on transfer
conditions between the private provider and the recipient of the genetic material, consent and approval of
the competent national authorities is also required. Such a scenario also means that, depending on the
requirements for access approval, some specific terms and conditions for ABS may be imposed by the
state, in addition to those agreed upon by the provider and the recipient. In other words, while such ABS
measures obviously do not remove private ownership of the exchanged genetic resources, they add an
additional layer of regulation to transactions of private property, by requiring a state permit and setting
certain conditions.
The second ABS scenario will consider the sub-scenario of the bilateral and case-by-case
approach, but covering only publicly held material, transfers of privately held material are not subject
to access approval by the national competent authorities, and the terms and conditions for access, and
eventually benefit-sharing, can directly be agreed upon between the private provider and the recipient of
the material.
The third ABS scenario departs from the purely bilateral and case-by-base approach of the first
scenario in the sense that ABS operations are aggregated and standardized at national level. The scenario
consists of a national regulatory framework for ABS that foresees a centralized national authority (CNA)
responsible for managing ABS-related procedures and mechanisms and for setting the terms and
conditions for ABS for all publicly held genetic resources and traditional knowledge associated with
genetic resources. The CNA acts as the single interlocutor for ABS-related issues and is responsible for
examining and responding to requests for access approval according to a standardized approval
procedure. The CNA also provides a set of standard terms and conditions for ABS for the exchange of all
publicly held genetic resources or traditional knowledge in the form of standard clauses that are to be
included in any MTA concluded by the actual provider and recipient of the material. Including the
standard clauses means that there is no need to negotiate ABS terms and conditions with any other
concerned parties, such as national authorities or local or indigenous communities, as the rights and
interests of such parties would already be served through the standard clauses. There is, nevertheless, still
some scope for the actual provider and recipient of the material to agree upon specific terms and
conditions governing the transfer of the material. The sharing of benefits is organized centrally by the
CNA, and not on an individual basis between the recipient and each of the concerned parties (i.e.
provider, state, local or indigenous communities). Both monetary and non-monetary benefits are to be
provided by the recipient to the CNA, which will then be in charge of channelling them to the relevant
parties (in the case of monetary benefits) or of managing their sharing on a collective basis (in the case of
non-monetary benefits). Hence, non-monetary benefits are made available at a collective level, and not
related to the individual genetic resource that generated them and the individual provider of the resource.
This could, for example, be achieved by compiling the information derived from the use of genetic
resources and making it publicly available through a centralized information system. Finally, the CNA
also organizes monitoring of the use of genetic resources at an aggregated level. To this end, it manages
a centralized monitoring system to which recipients are to provide periodic status reports on the use of all
genetic resources they have received from the country.
The costs and requirements may vary between different ABS systems depending on their design and
the distribution of tasks between the state and other stakeholders. For example, the CNA in the second
8
Unité BIOGOV – Centre de Philosophie du Droit – Université catholique de Louvain
scenario might require more resources than a competent national authority in the first scenario, because it
takes over certain tasks that would otherwise need to be fulfilled by individual providers and users of
genetic material. On the other hand, the standardized approach taken in the second scenario could reduce
costs for the CNA in the long term, because it would allow economies of scale in redundant exchange
events, and would not require the CNA to negotiate terms and conditions of ABS for every transaction.
Based on these three scenario’s, the potential impact of ABS measures on the economic, social
and environmental outcomes (as described above) of use and exchange of genetic resources will be
described according to a set of parameters :
(1) A first set of parameters reflect the direct impact that ABS measures may have on access to
genetic resources or traditional know and the sharing of benefits. These parameters include
transaction costs, time requirements and capacities needed to cope with certain procedures, and
the level of legal clarity and certainty provided by a given ABS system.
(2) A second set of parameters are used to assess the indirect impact that ABS measures may have
on the use and exchange of GENETIC RESOURCES or traditional knowledge, mainly due to
changes in the incentive structures for exchanging GENETIC RESOURCES and for investing in
their utilization. These parameters, for example, reflect potential effects on the number and
frequency of exchanges of GENETIC RESOURCES, the volume of benefits shared, and the
amount and type of activities carried out that involve the use of GENETIC RESOURCES.
This multi-criteria (economic, social and environmental) impact assessment will take into account
the implications that ABS measures may have for the different holder and user groups (such as
researchers in the public and private sector, ex-situ collection managers and industry), and for
different types of genetic material (plant, animal and microbial).
This 3rd phase will be organized based on the following components
(1) Input for the multi-stakeholder expert workshop on the impact assessment and the cost-benefit
analysis
a. A pre-workshop report on the preliminary assessment of the expected effects of the
selected list of possible instruments and measures that came out of the phase 2 of the
study. This pre-workshop report will address the expected economic, social and
environmental effects of the list of instruments and measures, in the three scenario’s and
based on an analysis of the various parameters specified above.
b. Presentation of a list of key experts from the various stakeholder communities
involved in the use and exchange of genetic resources, such as the experts from
researchers in the public and private sector, ex-situ collection managers and industry.
This task will be executed in close discussion with the Accompanying Committee
overseeing the study.
c. Dissemination of the pre-workshop report to the list of multi-stakeholder experts and
presentation of the report at the multi-stakeholder expert workshop.
(2) In depth analysis and general multi-criteria assessment of the measures and instruments selected
at phase 2, taking into account the discussions and comments from the multi-stakeholder
workshop. This in depth analysis will be based on the European Commission Guidelines on
9
Unité BIOGOV – Centre de Philosophie du Droit – Université catholique de Louvain
Impact Assessment (2009, table 1 to 3, chapter 8)3, as specified in the call, and on the current
methodologies for multi-criteria analysis used in multi-criteria ecological economics
assessments4.
(3) In depth qualitative multi-criteria assessment of the measures and instruments selected at phase
2. This in depth assessment will be based on the parameters specified in the call (p. 22 of the
“cahier des charges”) and on the current methodologies for multi-criteria analysis used in multicriteria ecological economics assessments5. Establishment of the impact matrix.
(4) In depth quantitative multi-criteria assessment of cost and benefits of the most relevant and
significant impacts analysed under (3)
(5) Preparation of the report of the multi-criteria and cost-benefit impact assessment and
presentation of the report at the second multi-stakeholder expert workshop.
Phase 4 : recommendations for instruments and measures (legal and non-legal)
for the implementation of the Nagoya protocol on ABS in Belgium
The 4th phase will produce a set of recommendations for instruments and measures for implementing the
Nagoya protocol in Belgium, based on the cost-benefit and multi-criteria impact assessment realized in
phase 4 and the discussions and comments of the second multi-stakeholder expert workshop.
A final report will be written that synthesizes the various activities and results under this study and the
content of the intermediary reports. In this report the main conclusions of the study will also be
presented.
3
http ://ec.europa.eu/governance/impact/key_docs/key_docs_en.htm
See for example TEEB, (2010), “The Economics of Ecosystems and Biodiversity”. In TEEB for Local and
Regional Policy Makers Report, Chapter 3: Tools for Valuation and Appraisal of Ecosystem Services in Policy
Making ; GAMPER, C.D. and TURCANU, C. (2007), “On the governmental use of multi-criteria analysis”.
Ecological Economics 62: 298-307 ; REED, M.S., FRASE, E.D.G. and DOUGILL, A.J. (2006), “An adaptive
learning process for developing and applying sustainability indicators with local communities”. Ecological
Economics 59: 406-418.
4
5
Cf. references cited above to TEEB, (2010); GAMPER, C.D. and TURCANU, C. (2007); REED, M.S., FRASE,
E.D.G. and DOUGILL, A.J. (2006).
10
Unité BIOGOV – Centre de Philosophie du Droit – Université catholique de Louvain
3. Deliverables Table and Calendar
Phase
Deliverables
Dates butoir
Preparation
-
« Scoping paper »
-
« Kick-off meeting »
Month 1 (Dec.
2011)
Month 1 (Dec.
2011)
Phase 1 –
Analysis of the
regulatory
framework
Phase 2 –
Options
and
recommendation
s for possible
measures
and
instruments
D1. Report of phase 1, (“Intermediary report”) including :
(1) Detailed description of the Protocol's economic, temporal and geographic
scope; its relationship to other international instruments; the treatment of
pathogens; the role of non-commercial research; and the global multilateral
benefit-sharing mechanism.
(2) Identification of next steps at national level and at international level.
(3) Conducting a “state of the art” analysis of the existing legal and institutional
framework in Belgium at national and regional level (federal state, regions
and communities) :
a. Legal state of the art in Belgium at national and regional level (federal
state, regions and communities);
b. Analysis of existing legal and non-legal instruments and measures that are
applicable to the access and use of genetic resources;
c. Gap analysis : conformity / gaps of the existing instruments and measures
in regards to the legal obligations of the Nagoya protocol
(4) Discussion with the Accompanying committee overseeing the study
(concertation)
D2. Report of phase 2 (“Intermediary report”), including :
Month 4
(1) Review of existing literature (both academic and grey literature, both
published and draft policy documents of other EU countries) on possible
measures and instruments;
(2) Selection of exhaustive list of possible measures and instruments that are
most relevant for the Belgium context, also in regards to the existing legal
and non-legal instruments analysed in phase 1;
(3) Benchmarking of the list of possible measures and instruments: comparison
with measures and instruments in other EU countries, with available
literature on their effectiveness. Interviews with key policy officials in
selected EU countries to complete the information available in the literature
for the benchmarking exercise;
(4) Summary on the list of possible measures and instruments, and on the
existing arguments pertaining to the advantages and disadvantages of these
instruments
(5) Priority list of possible measures and instruments, which will be the basis of
the analysis in phase 3 and phase 4 of the study. This task will be executed
in close discussion with the Accompanying Committee overseeing the
study.

Phase 3a –
Month 3
Multi-stakeholder consultation based on the report of phase 2 and phase 1
First report of phase 3 (“Intermediary report”), including :
11
Month 4
Month 4
Unité BIOGOV – Centre de Philosophie du Droit – Université catholique de Louvain
cost-benefit
analysis
(multicriteria
impact
assessment)
–preliminary
work
a. A pre-workshop report on the preliminary assessment of the expected
effects of the selected list of possible instruments and measures that came
out of the phase 2 of the study. This pre-workshop report will address the
expected economic, social and environmental effects of the list of
instruments and measures, in the three scenario’s and based on an analysis
of the various parameters specified above.
b. Presentation of a list of key experts from the various stakeholder
communities involved in the use and exchange of genetic resources, such
as the experts from researchers in the public and private sector, ex-situ
collection managers and industry. This task will be executed in close
discussion with the Accompanying Committee overseeing the study.
Meeting with the Accompanying Committee overseeing the study.
Month 5
Dissemination of the pre-workshop report to the list of multi-stakeholder experts
and presentation of the report at the multi-stakeholder expert workshop.
Month 5 (April
2012)
Improved first report of phase 3, possibly followed by a meeting with the
Accompanying Committee.
Month 5
Phase 3b
Second report of phase 3(“Intermediary report), which will include :
Month 6
–cost-benefit
analysis
(multicriteria
impact
assessment)
(1) In depth analysis and general multi-criteria assessment of the measures and
instruments selected at phase 2, taking into account the discussions and
comments from the multi-stakeholder workshop. This in depth analysis will
be based on the European Commission Guidelines on Impact Assessment
(2009, table 1 to 3, chapter 8), as specified in the call, and on the current
methodologies for multi-criteria analysis used in multi-criteria ecological
economics assessments.
(2) In depth qualitative multi-criteria assessment of the measures and
instruments selected at phase 2. This in depth assessment will be based on
the parameters specified in the call (p. 22 of the “cahier des charges”) and on
the current methodologies for multi-criteria analysis used in multi-criteria
ecological economics assessments. Establishment of the impact matrix.
(3) In depth quantitative multi-criteria assessment of cost and benefits of the
most relevant and significant impacts analysed under (2)
Phase 4 –
Recommendatio
ns for
instruments and
measures
Final step
Meeting of the Accompanying Committee overseeing the study.
Month 6
Multistakeholder expert workshop
Month 7 (June
2012)
Improved second report of phase 3, possibly followed by a meeting with the
Accompanying Committee.
Month 8
Report of phase 4, including a set of recommendations for instruments and
measures for implementing the Nagoya protocol in Belgium, based on the costbenefit and multi-criteria impact assessment realized in phase 4 and the
discussions and comments of the second multi-stakeholder expert workshop.
Month 9
Month 10
Meeting of the Accompanying Committee overseeing the study.
Compilation of the 5 intermediary reports (phase 1,2,3a,3b and 4)
Month 10
(Sept.2012)
Preliminary draft of the final report.
Month 10
12
Unité BIOGOV – Centre de Philosophie du Droit – Université catholique de Louvain
(Sept.2012)
Meeting of the Accompanying Committee overseeing the study.
Powerpoint slides for the presentation of the results of the study to an event to be
organized by the Accompanying Committee
Month 10
(Sept.2012)
Month 11
(Oct.2012)
Month 11
(Oct.2012)
Presentation, but the contractant, of the results of the study to an event to be
organized by the Accompanying Committee.
Month 11
(Oct.2012)
Delivery of the final report
Month 11
(Oct.2012)
End of contract
Month 11
(Oct.2012)
Improved draft of the final report, based on the recommendations of the
Accompanying Committee
13