Paradoxes of Ratification: The Nagoya Protocol and Brazilian State Transformations

• Date: 01 March 2022
• Published date: 01 March 2022
• DOI: 10.1177/10704965211058570
• Author: Thomas R. Eimer,Flavia Donadelli
• Subject Matter: Articles

Article

The Journal of Environment &

Development

2022, Vol. 31(1) 3–27

© The Author(s) 2021

Article reuse guidelines:

sagepub.com/journals-permissions

DOI: 10.1177/10704965211058570

journals.sagepub.com/home/jed

Paradoxes of Ratification:

The Nagoya Protocol and

Brazilian State

Transformations

Thomas R. Eimer

1,a

and Flavia

Donadelli

2



Abstract

This article explores the paradoxical behaviour of Brazil in relation to its national and

international approaches to the regulations of access to genetic resources and benefits

sharing with indigenous and other traditional communities. Brazil was one of the

leaders in the international negotiations that led to the UN Nagoya Protocol but only

ratified it 11 years later, after remarkable transformations of its internal biodiver sity

laws. We suggest that the seemingly contradictory behaviour has been shaped by the

country’s internal political and ideological changes. This transformation goes hand in

hand with substantial changes in state–society relations, particularly with regard to the

balance of coalitions’power between indigenous groups and industrial and agrarian

elites. The article builds on the literature on state transformations and relies on the

Advocacy Coalition Framework to show the importance of considering the impact of

national-level politics on the fate of international agreements.

Keywords

Nagoya Protocol, Brazil, indigenous communities, competition state

1

Radboud University Nijmegen, Nijmegen, the Netherlands

2

School of Government, Victoria University of Wellington, Wellington, New Zealand

a

In Memoriam

Corresponding Author:

Flavia Donadelli, School of Government, Victoria University of Wellington, 33 Bunny Street, Pipitea,

Wellington 6011, New Zealand.

Email: flavia.donadelli@vuw.ac.nz

Introduction

Brazil is the most biodiverse country in the world and has historically been an in-

ternational leader in debates around the need to recognize and remunerate provider

states of genetic resources. While the principles of a mutually beneficial exchange had

already been formulated in the Convention on Biodiversity (CBD) in 1992, their

realization did not take place until nearly two decades later, when industrialized

countries promised in the 2010 Nagoya Protocol (NP), to establish a regulatory

framework for effective benefit-sharing of resources acquired through the use of genetic

resources (Santilli, 2015). The NP has been internationally hailed as a victory for the

provider states and the genuine donors of these resources, namely, indigenous and other

traditional communities (Vermeylen, 2013). But, despite its leadership and central role

in this debate, Brazil took 11 years to ratify the NP (only ratifying it in March 2021).

Even more puzzling,the country that had been internationallyrecognized as a pioneer in

regulating access to genetic resources and benefit-sharing with traditional communities

watered down its internal legislation in 2015, reversing previously strong requirements

for the protection and informed consent of indigenous and traditional communities’

rights, clearly contravening the wording and spirit of the NP (Santilli, 2015).

Our article situates the Brazilian case in analyses that simultaneously observe the

national and international dynamics affecting the fate of international agreements and

negotiations (Gourevitch, 2002;Putnam, 1988). It adopts a transnational neopluralist

account of international relations, according to which states are not monolithic entities

(Cerny, 2010), and investigates the impacts of internal coalition changes to in-

ternational negotiations. Relying on the Advocacy Coalition Framework (ACF) and on

the Narrative Policy Framework (NPF) as our theoretical and analytical frameworks we

show that the seemingly contradictory Brazilian behaviour around the NP can be

explained by internal power and ideological struggles that led to a shift in predominant

beliefs in the Brazilian biodiversity subsystem. This shift is interpreted through the

descriptive categories of the literature on state transformations, according to which the

predominant coalition would have changed from one that adopted a ‘new democratic

developmental’state narrative towards another groups of stakeholders more adept to

the ‘competition state’views, just after the protocol had been signed and started to be

ratified (Cerny, 2010). While these models expect the state to play an active role in

socio-economic relationships, they differ with regard to the implications of its increased

integration into the global market. The new democratic developmental state’s narrative

is socially focused. It attempts to proactively shape globalization and to purposefully

coordinate domestic policies with the aim of both economic and social progress

(Bresser-Pereira, 2009). This also entails the protection of certain segments of society

against competitive pressures (Morais & Saad-Filho, 2011). The competition state, in

contrast, is characterized by a reactive and selectively adaptive stance towards

globalization. According to this theoretical ideal-type, to enhance the efficiency of

domestic economic development, it subjects all spheres of life to the dynamics of global

market forces, which ultimately strengthens the position of economic elites to the

detriment of less privileged actors (Cerny, 2010;Taylor, 2010).

4The Journal of Environment & Development 31(1)