A Gender Perspective on Specialized ABS Instruments

Discussions under Article 4(4) of the Nagoya Protocol are often framed as technical debates about legal coherence. Yet the choices Parties make regarding the recognition of specialized international access and benefit-sharing (ABS) instruments carry significant political and social implications.

Article 4(4) was intended to enhance legal clarity and avoid duplication, not to dilute or fragment the core obligations of the Nagoya Protocol. Any approach to recognizing specialized instruments must therefore remain firmly anchored in the objectives of the CBD and the Nagoya Protocol: the fair and equitable sharing of benefits arising from the utilization of genetic resources,respect for customary laws and community governance systems, and the protection of the rights and interests of Indigenous Peoples and local communities.

A gender perspective is essential in this discussion. Women belonging to Indigenous groups and local communities are often the primary holders, users and transmitters of genetic resources and associated traditional knowledge. In many communities, women are responsible for seed selection and conservation, medicinal plant knowledge, food systems management, and the intergenerational transmission of ecological knowledge. Yet their contributions are frequently undervalued, under-documented, or excluded from formal ABS arrangements. When access and benefit-sharing frameworks are weakened, fragmented, or overly technocratic, it is often women who bear the disproportionate consequences, whether through loss of control over resources, exclusion from negotiations, or inequitable distribution of benefits.

The recognition of specialized international ABS instruments must therefore not create parallel regimes that bypass safeguards on equity and participation. The indicative criteria currently under consideration are welcome and should establish clear minimum standards to ensure that any recognized specialized instrument is consistent with the objectives of the CBD and the Nagoya Protocol and does not undermine them. This includes explicit attention to gender-responsive governance and benefit-sharing mechanisms. And gender-responsive benefit-sharing goes beyond counting women’s participation. It requires ensuring that benefits, both monetary and non-monetary, reach women in tangible ways, including through capacity-building, livelihood support, recognition of traditional knowledge systems, and access to decision-making spaces. It also requires safeguards that ensure women’s meaningful participation, particularly where customary governance systems may not automatically guarantee gender equality.

Recognizing specialized instruments should not legitimize arrangements that fall short of equitable standards or weaken community rights. Clear criteria, transparency in recognition processes, and consistency with international human rights obligations are essential to maintaining the integrity of the Nagoya Protocol. Ultimately, the debate on Article 4(4) is not merely about institutional alignment but also about ensuring that global biodiversity governance remains rooted in justice. Legal coherence must reinforce, not erode, the principles of fairness, equity and rights. Integrating a gender-responsive approach into the recognition of specialized ABS instruments is therefore not an optional add-on; it is a necessary condition for fulfilling the promise of the CBD and the Nagoya Protocol.