¹ Heyvaert, V. & Etty, T.F.M., ‘Introducing Transnational Environmental Law’ (2012) 1(1) Transnational Environmental Law, pp. 1–11, at 1–2.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

² Bodansky, D., The Art and Craft of International Environmental Law (Harvard University Press, 2010), at pp. 252–66.Google Scholar

³ Sand, P.H., ‘The Evolution of International Environmental Law’, in Bodansky, D., Brunnée, J. & Hey, E. (eds), The Oxford Handbook of International Environmental Law (Oxford University Press, 2007), pp. 29–43, at 42.Google Scholar

⁴ Heyvaert & Etty, n. 1 above, at p. 3.

⁵ Bodansky, n. 2 above, at pp. 4–8.

⁶ For the need to focus on methodology in environmental law scholarship see Fisher, E., Lange, B., Scotford, E. & Carlarne, C., ‘Maturity and Methodology: Starting a Debate about Environmental Law Scholarship’ (2009) 21(2) Journal of Environmental Law, pp. 213–50, at 226–7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

⁷ Bowman, M., ‘The Nature, Development and Philosophical Foundations of the Biodiversity Concept in International Law’, in Bowman, M. & Redgwell, C. (eds), International Law and the Conservation of Biological Diversity (Kluwer Law International, 1996), pp. 5–31, at 17.Google Scholar

⁸ Rajan, K.S., Biocapital: The Constitution of Postgenomic Life (Duke University Press, 2006), at p. 19.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

⁹ For a classical analysis of this duality of nature see Williams, R., ‘Ideas of Nature’, in Williams, R. (ed), Problems in Materialism and Culture: Selected Essays (Verso, 1980), pp. 67–85, at 69–73.Google Scholar

¹⁰ Bowker, G.C., ‘Time, Money and Biodiversity’, in Ong, A. & Collier, S.J. (eds), Global Assemblages: Technology, Politics and Ethics as Anthropological Problems (Blackwell, 2009), pp. 107–23, at 110.Google Scholar

¹¹ Lautenschlager, R.A., ‘Biodiversity is Dead’ (1997) 25(3) Wildlife Society Bulletin, pp. 679–85.Google Scholar

¹² Ibid., at p. 683.

¹³ Ibid., at p. 679.

¹⁴ For a detailed history see Farnham, T.J., Saving Nature’s Legacy: Origins of the Idea of Biological Diversity (Yale University Press, 2007)Google Scholar. For a critical history see Takacs, D., The Idea of Biodiversity: Philosophies of Paradise (Johns Hopkins University Press, 1996).Google Scholar

¹⁵ Zerner, C., ‘Telling Stories about Biological Diversity’, in Brush, S.R. & Stabinsky, D. (eds), Valuing Local Knowledge: Indigenous People and Intellectual Property Rights (Island Press, 1996), pp. 68–101, at 72.Google Scholar

¹⁶ ten Kate, K. & Laird, S.A., ‘Biodiversity and Business: Coming to Terms with the “Grand Bargain”’ (2000) 76(1) International Affairs, pp. 241–64, at 242.Google Scholar

¹⁷ MacDonald, K.I., ‘The Devil is in the (Bio)diversity: Private Sector “Engagement” and the Restructuring of Biodiversity Conservation’, in Brockington, D. & Duffy, R. (eds), Capitalism and Conservation (Wiley-Blackwell, 2011), pp. 44–81Google Scholar, at 53–64 ; McAfee, K., ‘Selling Nature to Save it? Biodiversity and Green Developmentalism’ (1999) 17(2) Environment and Planning D: Society and Space, pp. 133–54Google Scholar ; Rubino, M.C., ‘Biodiversity Finance’ (2000) 76(2) International Affairs, pp. 223–40; Ten Kate & Laird, n. 16 above.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

¹⁸ The idea is developed fully in ten Kate, K. & Laird, S.A., The Commercial Use of Biodiversity (Earthscan, 1999).Google Scholar

¹⁹ This is only hinted at by the early argument that ‘[s]cience is discovering new uses for biological diversity in ways that can relieve both human suffering and environmental destruction’: see Wilson, E.O. (ed), BioDiversity (National Academy Press, 1988), at p. 3.Google Scholar

²⁰ McAfee, K., ‘Neoliberalism on the Molecular Scale: Economic and Genetic Reductionism in Biotechnology Battles’ (2003) 34(2) Geoforum, pp. 203–19, at 203.Google Scholar

²¹ During this period, such bioprospecting programmes were ongoing in the UK, administered by the National History Museum, Kew Gardens and London Zoo. See McConnell, F., The Biodiversity Convention: A Negotiating History (Kluwer Law International, 1996), at p. 39Google Scholar. In the United States (US), the earlier National Cancer Institute programme for drug discovery began in 1986, while the International Cooperative Biodiversity Groups Program, sponsored by the National Institutes of Health and the National Science Foundation, began in 1993: see Asebey, E.J. & Kempenaar, J.D., ‘Biodiversity Prospecting: Fulfilling the Mandate of the Biodiversity Convention’ (1995) 28(4) Vanderbilt Journal of Transnational Law, pp. 703–54Google Scholar, at 719–36; Miller, J.S., ‘Impact of the Convention on Biological Diversity: The Lessons from Ten Years of Experience with Models of Equitable Sharing of Benefits’, in McManis, C.R. (ed), Biodiversity and the Law: Intellectual Property, Biotechnology and Traditional Knowledge (Earthscan, 2007), pp. 58–70, at 68.Google Scholar

²² For this conception of the grand bargain see the past work of environmental economist Timothy Swanson, indicatively: Swanson, T., ‘The Reliance of Northern Economies on Southern Biodiversity: Biodiversity as Information’ (1996) 17(1) Ecological Economics, pp. 1–8Google Scholar; Swanson, T., Global Action for Biodiversity (Earthscan, 1997).Google Scholar

²³ The initial proposal of this feedback loop by one of the originators of the INBio experiment (discussed below in this article) can be found in Eisner, T., ‘Prospecting for Nature’s Chemical Riches’ (1990) 6(1) Issues in Science and Technology, pp. 31–4Google Scholar; Eisner, T., ‘Chemical Prospecting: A Global Imperative’ (1994) 138(3) Proceedings of the American Philosophical Society, pp. 385–93.Google Scholar

²⁴ The theory of an alternative development path can be found in Swanson, T., ‘Conserving Global Biological Diversity by Encouraging Alternative Development Paths: Can Development Co-exist with Diversity?’ (1999) 8(1) Biodiversity and Conservation, pp. 29–44CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Swanson, T., ‘Why is There a Biodiversity Convention? The International Interest in Centralized Development Planning’ (1999) 75(2) International Affairs, pp. 307–31.Google Scholar

²⁵ Swanson (1997), n. 22 above, at p. 43.

²⁶ Quoted in Takacs, n. 14 above, at p. 292.

²⁷ For some discussion of the analogy implicit in the term see Ariansen, P., ‘Bioprospecting: A Hybrid of Commerce, Politics and Science’, in Svarstad, H. & Dhillion, S.S. (eds), Responding to Bioprospecting: From Biodiversity in the South to Medicines in the North (Spartacus, 2000), pp. 155–66, at 155; McAfee, n. 17 above, at pp. 146–8.Google Scholar

²⁸ von Weizsacker, C., ‘Competing Notions of Biodiversity’, in Sachs, W. (ed), Global Ecology: A New Arena of Political Conflict (Zed Books, 1993), pp. 117–31, at 122.Google Scholar

²⁹ McAfee, n. 17 above, at p. 134.

³⁰ For an overview of such critiques see Kloppenburg, J.R. (ed), Seeds and Sovereignty: The Use and Control of Plant Genetic Resources (Duke University Press, 1988)Google Scholar; Shiva, V. et al. ., Biodiversity: Social and Ecological Perspectives (Zed Books, 1991).Google Scholar

³¹ OECD, The Bioeconomy to 2030: Designing a Policy Agenda (OECD International Futures Programme, 2009), at p. 8.

³² Ibid.

³³ Analyses of this economic process can be found in Aglietta, M. & Breton, R., ‘Financial Systems, Corporate Control and Capital Accumulation’ (2001) 30(4) Economy and Society, pp. 433–66Google Scholar; Leyshon, A. & Thrift, N., ‘The Capitalization of Almost Everything: The Future of Finance and Capitalism’ (2007) 24(7–8) Theory, Culture & Society, pp. 97–115.Google Scholar

³⁴ Aglietta & Breton, ibid., at pp. 433–4.

³⁵ Cooper, M., Life as Surplus: Biotechnology and Capitalism in the Neoliberal Era (University of Washington Press, 2008), at p. 23.Google Scholar

³⁶ Ibid., at p. 24.

³⁷ Rajan, n. 8 above, at p. 34.

³⁸ Birch, K. & Tyfield, D., ‘Theorizing the Bioeconomy: Biovalue, Biocapital, Bioeconomics or ... What?’ (2012) 38(3) Science, Technology, & Human Values, pp. 299–327, at 306.Google Scholar

³⁹ Ibid., at pp. 305–6.

⁴⁰ Ibid., at pp. 301–2.

⁴¹ An instructive example from the biotechnology industry is the case of Sharman Pharmaceuticals (more recently Napo Pharmaceuticals). Sharman’s often tortuous quest to develop the drug crofelemer – derived from the red substance found on the Croton lechleri tree in the Amazon, to combat HIV-associated diarrhoea – lasted for 23 years, from 1989 until FDA approval under the trade name Fulyzaq was secured in December 2012 (see http://tinyurl.com/b9lv6nu). The Sharman/Napo project attracted $200 million of funding during that period, both from public stock offerings and private investors, despite the fact that the companies had no marketable product or any other source of income during those decades. A celebratory profile of the tenacity of the founder and CEO is available at: http://tinyurl.com/jwcpmm4.

⁴² McCarthy, J. & Prudham, S., ‘Neoliberal Nature and the Nature of Neoliberalism’ (2004) 35 Geoforum, pp. 275–83, at 277–9.Google Scholar

⁴³ On the argument regarding the intrication between the life sciences and neoliberalism see, generally, Cooper, n. 35 above.

⁴⁴ For a detailed overview see Hajer, M. & Versteeg, W., ‘A Decade of Discourse Analysis of Environmental Politics: Achievements, Challenges, Perspectives’ (2005) 7(3) Journal of Environmental Policy & Planning, pp. 175–84.Google Scholar

⁴⁵ Bodansky, n. 2 above, at pp. 8–9.

⁴⁶ Lange, B., ‘Foucauldian-inspired Discourse Analysis: A Contribution to Critical Environmental Law Scholarship?’, in Philippopoulos-Mihalopoulos, A. (ed), Law and Ecology: New Environmental Foundations (Routledge, 2011), pp. 39–64, at 43.Google Scholar

⁴⁷ Foucault, M., Security, Territory, Population: Lectures at the College de France 1977–1978 (Picador, 2007), at p. 119.Google Scholar

⁴⁸ Foucault, M., ‘The Subject and Power’, in Faubion, J.D. (ed), Power: Essential Works of Foucault: Vol. 3 (Penguin, 2000), pp. 326–48, at 327.Google Scholar

⁴⁹ Ibid., at p. 337.

⁵⁰ Ibid., at p. 341.

⁵¹ Barnett, M. & Duvall, R. (eds), Power in Global Governance (Cambridge University Press, 2005), at p. 3.Google Scholar

⁵² Foucault, n. 48 above, at p. 341.

⁵³ Foucault, n. 47 above, at p. 96.

⁵⁴ Ibid., at p. 108.

⁵⁵ Ibid., at p. 193.

⁵⁶ Foucault, n. 48 above, at p. 341.

⁵⁷ Allen, A., ‘Foucault and the Politics of Our Selves’ (2011) 24(4) History of the Human Sciences, pp. 43–9, at 44.Google Scholar

⁵⁸ Dean, M., Governmentality: Power and Rule in Modern Society (Sage, 2010), at pp. 24–8Google Scholar; Larner, W. & Walters, W. (eds), Global Governmentality: Governing Global Spaces (Routledge, 2004), at p. 2.Google Scholar

⁵⁹ Foucault, n. 47 above, at p. 108.

⁶⁰ Sending, O.J. & Neumann, I.B., ‘Governance to Governmentality: Analysing NGOs, States and Power’ (2006) 50(3) International Studies Quarterly, pp. 651–72, at 668.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

⁶¹ Pottage, A., ‘Foucault’s Law’ (2011) 74(1) The Modern Law Review, pp. 159–68, at 164.Google Scholar

⁶² Foucault, n. 47 above, at pp. 119–20.

⁶³ Ibid.

⁶⁴ Foucault, M., ‘The Confession of the Flesh’, in Gordon, C. (ed), Power/Knowledge: Selected Interviews and Other Writings 1972–1977, by Michel Foucault (Pantheon, 1980), pp. 194–228, at 194.Google Scholar

⁶⁵ Ibid.

⁶⁶ Deleuze, G., ‘What is a Dispositif?’, in Armstrong, T.J. (ed), Michel Foucault: Philosopher (Routledge, 1992), pp. 159–68, at 159.Google Scholar

⁶⁷ Foucault, n. 47 above, at p. 195.

⁶⁸ Ibid.

⁶⁹ Ibid., at p. 196.

⁷⁰ Agamben, G., What is an Apparatus and Other Essays (Stanford University Press, 2009), at p. 8.Google Scholar

⁷¹ Ibid., at p. 11.

⁷² Guattari, F., Chaosmosis: an Ethico-Aesthetic Paradigm (Power Publications, 1995), at p. 7.Google Scholar

⁷³ Agamben, n. 70 above, at p. 14.

⁷⁴ Gamez, R. et al. ., ‘Costa Rica’s Conservation Program and National Biodiversity Institute (INBio)’, in Reid, W.V. et al. . (eds), Biodiversity Prospecting: Using Genetic Resources for Sustainable Development (World Resources Institute, 1993), pp. 53–68, at 57–8.Google Scholar

⁷⁵ Ibid., at p. 56.

⁷⁶ Takacs, n. 14 above, at p. 289.

⁷⁷ Gamez et al., n. 74 above, at p. 58.

⁷⁸ Ibid.

⁷⁹ D.H. Janzen et al., ‘The Role of Parataxonomists, Inventory Managers and Taxonomists in Costa Rica’s National Biodiversity Inventory’, in Reid et al., n. 74 above, pp. 223–54, at 224 and 227.

⁸⁰ Ibid., at p. 226.

⁸¹ Ibid.

⁸² Ibid.

⁸³ Takacs, n. 14 above, at p. 299.

⁸⁴ As expressed in Janzen, D.H., ‘Tropical Ecological and Biocultural Restoration’ (1988) 239(4837) Science, pp. 243–4.Google Scholar

⁸⁵ Ibid., at p. 244.

⁸⁶ Takacs, n. 14 above, at p. 296.

⁸⁷ Rio de Janeiro (Brazil), 5 Jun. 1992, in force 29 Dec. 1993, available at: http://www.cbd.int/doc/legal/cbd-en.pdf.

⁸⁸ Referring to the CBD, ibid. See Coughlin, M.D.J., ‘Using the Merck-INBio Agreement to Clarify the Convention on Biological Diversity’ (1993) 31(2) Columbia Journal of Transnational Law, pp. 337–75, at 356.Google Scholar

⁸⁹ See Reid et al., n. 74 above, at p. 1.

⁹⁰ Coughlin, n. 88 above, at p. 357.

⁹¹ Ibid.

⁹² ten Kate, K., ‘Science and the Convention on Biological Diversity’ (2002) 295(5564) Science, pp. 2371–2, at 2371.Google Scholar

⁹³ For example, Art. 15(2) CBD: ‘Each Contracting Party shall endeavour to create conditions to facilitate access to genetic resources ... and not to impose restrictions that run counter to the objectives of the Convention’.

⁹⁴ On the contents of these arrangements see Gamez, R., ‘The Link Between Biodiversity and Sustainable Development: Lessons from INBio’s Bioprospecting Programme in Costa Rica’, in McManis, C.R. (ed), Biodiversity and the Law: Intellectual Property, Biotechnology & Traditional Knowledge (Earthscan, 2007), pp. 77–90Google Scholar, at 82; a table of current INBio research partners may be found at p. 85.

⁹⁵ For example, in relation to medical biotechnology see Nightingale, P. & Martin, P., ‘The Myth of the Biotech Revolution’ (2004) 22(11) TRENDS in Biotechnology, pp. 564–69.Google Scholar

⁹⁶ Bowker, n. 10 above, at pp. 107–8.

⁹⁷ The group of ‘megadiverse’ states initially consisted of Brazil, China, Colombia, Costa Rica, India, Indonesia, Kenya, the Philippines, Mexico, Peru, South Africa, and Venezuela, before expanding to include more Southern states. It has been inactive since 2005.

⁹⁸ Cancún Declaration of Like-Minded Megadiversity Countries, Cancún (Mexico), 18 Feb. 2002, Preamble, available at: http://pe.biosafetyclearinghouse.net/actividades/2009/grouplmmc.pdf.

⁹⁹ Ibid., Art.1(c).

¹⁰⁰ Ibid., Preamble.

¹⁰¹ Ibid.

¹⁰² Cancún Declaration, n. 98 above.

¹⁰³ Reid et al., n. 74 above, at p. 2.

¹⁰⁴ Takacs, n. 14 above, at p. 292.

¹⁰⁵ Nagoya Protocol on Access to Genetic Resources and the Fair and Equitable Sharing of Benefits Arising from their Utilization to the Convention on Biological Diversity, Nagoya (Japan), 29 Oct. 2010, not yet in force, available at: http://www.cbd.int/abs/doc/protocol/nagoya-protocol-en.pdf.

¹⁰⁶ For an outline of the Protocol’s provisions see Harrop, S.R., ‘“Living in Harmony With Nature?” Outcomes of the 2010 Nagoya Conference of the Convention on Biological Diversity’ (2011) 23(1) Journal of Environmental Law, pp. 118–27.Google Scholar