Internal Navigation Links: | Report 1 | Report 2 | Report 3 | Report 4 |Individual Work | Final Exam |

Table of Contents and Authorship

~ Reasons and Capacity for Domestic Compliance             (Megan McDonell & Dorothy Johnson)

~ Pressures for and Against Domestic Compliance            (Dorothy Johnson)

~ State Contributions to Compliance and Effectiveness (Megan McDonell)

~ Endnotes                                                                (Dorothy Johnson & Megan McDonell)

Reasons and Capacity for Domestic Compliance

     In the last decade or so, Australia has made a stronger commitment to biological diversity in general and has made it a goal to participate in international agreements relating to genetic resources. 1 Australia has been working toward a national and international approach to managing biological resources since around the time it joined the Convention on Biological Diversity in 1993. ¹ Also, in 1994 the Commonwealth State Working Group (CSWG) was established to deal with access to biological resources and to develop a national approach to accessing Australia's biological resources. Since then Australia has aimed to strengthen the relationship between the Commonwealth, State and Territories and local levels of government.² It has also made it a priority to increase funding for biological diversity and sustainable development. 

     Before its membership in the CBD, Australia had a poor record in terms of biodiversity. Many species were not named and/or endangered, and there was little in the way of effective management regarding biodiversity. The plans in the past focused more on development than conservation, were non-binding and state involvement became voluntary.³ With the CBD and the CSWG came other programs such as the National Strategy for the Conservation of Australia's Biological Diversity. This strategy laid out the reasons for making biological diversity a priority in Australia. The reasons included: the rising cost of the degradation of ecological systems, the importance of harvesting resources, the aesthetic benefits of maintaining biological diversity, and respecting the Earth. Australia felt conservation of biological diversity would benefit the state culturally, economically, educationally, scientifically, and socially.⁴

     In the more specific terms of the International Treaty on Plant Genetic Resources for Food and Agriculture, Australia has accepted the majority of the text. Australia agrees with the treaty in the sharing of species under an international treaty because it will gain access to developing countries' resources, which are often times more replete than more developed nations. In a discussion paper prepared by the Commonwealth State Working Group, some of the benefits to a national/international approach listed were: the creation of a single contract to deal with international interests regarding plant genetic resources and having a "one stop shop" for access to plant genetic resources.⁵     

      However, as far as negotiations go, Australia has earned itself the reputation as a rogue state, adamantly opposed to the sections of the treaty text relating to Intellectual Property Rights.⁶  The text states that "recipients shall not claim any intellectual property or other rights that limit access to plant genetic resources for food and agriculture or their genetic counterparts in the form received from the Multilateral System."⁷  States which do not allow free access to their resources are ordered to pay royalties to the financial mechanism under the treaty. ⁸ In Australia's case, the treaty offers negative incentives for compliance. The International Treaty on Plant Genetic Resources for Food and Agriculture is designed, through its equitable benefit-sharing, to help developing countries "...with finite research and gene bank resources."⁹  As a wealthy, developed country with these technologies and IPRs on many resources, Australia does not directly benefit from the treaty. Because Australia wants to keep IPRs on its species and does not want to pay royalties, it has had difficulty accepting the text. Wealthy, developed nations such as Australia, The United States, and Canada depend on their industries for the strength of the economy so IPRs are an important issue to them. By expanding and strengthening private property rights, Australia will maintain "efficient economic growth"¹⁰ Self-interest is definitely involved and Australia will comply if there is a market advantage.¹¹ Australia feels it is not getting enough returns from other states' use of its biological resources and has been especially concerned since 1992, when a Task Force was established by Australia and the New Zealand Environment and Conservation Council (ANZECC). At this time, Australia stated it was not receiving adequate returns from access to its resources. Since then, the state has been concerned with protecting access to its plant genetic resources.¹²

     Australia has played a key role in the negotiations since the International Undertaking began to be revised in 1994. One of the five vice chairmen in the negotiations is Kristine Hermann, from the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry of Australia. She attends all the meetings under the treaty, normally accompanied by three to five  other representatives, depending on the size of the meeting. For example, at the Eighth regular session, Ms. Hermann, two representatives, two advisors and two alternates all attended.¹³ Until the Sixth Session of the Contact Group in Spoletto, Australia was in agreement over the terms of the treaty. Since then it has become the "least diplomatic delegation" according to the article, "Seeds Saved in Spoletto."¹⁴ At the October 30-November 1 meeting of the Open-Ended Working Group in Rome, Australia wanted to resolve or delete article 12.3(d) on IPR issues.¹⁵ Although they have differed in the degree to which they have disagreed over the text, other developed countries are also protesting article 12.3. These countries, including Australia, are known as JUSCANZ: Japan, the United States, Canada, Australia and New Zealand. They have earned a reputation for non-compliance. One frustrated representative even wrote "JUSCANZ get no satisfaction" on a message board, referring to the non-compliant nations.¹⁶ Australia has been side by side with the United States and Canada on this issue and usually New Zealand. Australia has been called "the Woody Allen of partnership"¹⁷ and some analysts predict Australia "will develop a reputation for non-compliance and will eventually be barred from access." ¹⁸ According to Greenpeace, Australia is trying to derail the treaty and is presenting a global genebank fund as an alternative to the agreement.¹⁹

     The United States, Canada, New Zealand and Australia all claim that their companies are uncomfortable with the text on IPRs.²⁰ The federal agency that grants rights in patents, trademarks and designs is called IP Australia. On the website for the agency, it is stated that Intellectual Property protection is integral to business planning, market strategy, planning and production, and service development in Australia.²¹ IP Australia is a division of the dept of industry, tourism and resources so it is concerned with the economy and how the treaty will effect Australia's industries. This is the major reason Australia is protesting the treaty text. Australia's non-compliance has been frustrating to many nations and organizations. They feel that Australia's desire to hold IPRs over basic food crops undermines the original intention of the treaty. The treaty aims to increase access to genetic resources and patents but multinational corporations restrict this access.²² They call this "gene pool" limitation "biropiracy." These critics believe this limitation would be detrimental because it "would jeopardize the livelihoods of millions of small farmers in the developing world, undermine sustainable agriculture, and endanger global food security."²³ IPRs are a form of private property rights and private corporations have been able to monopolize the financial and technical benefits from the use of genetic resources. They are "exclusive rights" to genetic resources and Australia wants to keep it that way.²⁴ 

     The two most involved government agencies  with the treaty, dealing with the issues of plant genetic resources and biodiversity and intellectual property rights (IPR) are the Department of the Environment and Heritage and IPAustralia, respectively. The Department of Environment and Heritage has several sub-departments, focusing more specifically on the matters of biodiversity and plant genetic resources. Environment Australia is one of the these divisions. Their four guiding principles hope to improve awareness and spread information.²⁵ These principles are ecosystem processes, ethics (stating no one group or nation has exclusive rights to biological resources) aesthetics and culture (of Aboriginal tribes), and economics, or extracting the full benefits of a biologically diverse resources. While these topics are broad, they have goals which all lead towards improving knowledge and guiding Australian legislation.²⁶

     Two more specific activities deal with the realm of plant genetic resources within this department. The first is the National Environmental Protection Council (NEPC), founded in 1992. This group drafts environmental measures and also assesses the effectiveness of already implemented measures with the intention of spreading benefits of genetic resources for all persons as well as guiding economic and business decisions to adhere to federal environmental standards.²⁷    

     The second major activity concerning plant genetic resource access was the development of a  national strategy for coordinating biodiversity programs.²⁸ Stimulated by the 1993 Convention on Biological Diversity, the Commonwealth-State Working Group, a committee of federal, territorial, and state officials, drafted an program on how to manage the diverse interests and biodiversity problems facing Australia, including intellectual property rights and benefit sharing.²⁹
The nationally consistent approach aims at improving conservation, preservation, and to establish Australia as a leading edge nation in access to plant genetic resources.³⁰

     Beyond environmental issues, economic benefits for Australia and its citizens as well as the protection of IPR are stressed as underlying factors in creating the national consistent approach.³¹
This leads to the second main department of the Australian government dealing with the plant genetic resources treaty. The IPAustralia is a federal agency that grants patents, trademarks, and designs, with the intention of benefiting Australian citizens fully through complete and accurate information about intellectual property law.³² They stress state sovereignty of patent rights and individual ownership of intellectual property, which according to the Plant Breeders Rights Act of 1994, includes plant genetic resources. The act states in section four, only plant varieties that are unique, exhibiting no similar characteristics to other varieties, may be patented.³³ Additionally, in section sixteen, farm-saved seeds which are primarily used by rural farmers may be used and does not infringe on intellectual property rights, which concurs with the International Treaty on Plant Genetic Resources for Food and Agriculture (ITPGRFA) in supporting rights of farmers. An important part of the act which hopes to deter intellectual property infringement is section fifty-three, stating it is illegal for a person to claim a variety unique when it shares characteristics of another variety, threatening imprisonment and other penalties.³⁴

     Because the treaty has yet to be ratified, there are not specific laws dealing with the enforcement of rules created by the International Undertaking. However, the area of plant genetic resources is addressed in the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act (EPB) of 1999.³⁵ This was an extension of the Agreement on Establishment of an International Plant Resources Institution in 1998, which extended the Consultive Group on International Research (CGIAR) institution to Australia. The EPB lacks specific direction on the use of plant genetic resources, but generally promotes biodiversity for both plants and animals as well as full adherence to and cooperation with international treaties, especially those related to the Convention on Biological Diversity and the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations. Perhaps the most important part of this legislation is article 142A, describing civil penalties and punishment of non-compliance.³⁶ However, its importance lies in the fact the punishments are not readily enforced.     

     As a fore mentioned the treaty has yet to be ratified by Australia and the representatives have no plans to do so unless changes are made to sections related to IPR.³⁷ Australia contributes approximately $250 million dollars of their estimated $103 billion dollars of expenditures³⁸  to projects and agencies promoting biodiversity, but the majority of this goes to wildlife preservation and not plant genetic resources.³⁹ But according to various sources, Australia's current patent law regarding intellectual property rights is in direct violation of the treaty.⁴⁰ Domestic laws threaten punishment for these violations but apparently, little is done.

Pressures for and Against Domestic Compliance

     Australia's position with the International Treaty on Plant Genetic Resources for Food and Agriculture (ITPGRFA) is an active one, as mentioned, but not necessarily positive.⁴¹ The benefits of non-compliance often outweigh other incentives for the Australian government to ratify this treaty. 

     In the November 2001 federal elections, the topic of plant genetic resources was not on the agenda for national parties, even The Greens, a major environmental party in Australia.⁴² The Greens currently hold three seats in parliament, but are focused currently on stopping the use genetically modified foods and preventing further deforestation in unprotected lands.⁴³ These two topics were main parts of their campaign. The ITPGRFA was adopted the same month as the elections, so the topic most likely had yet to surface with the public and political debates

     So while the general public doesn't have a great deal of input on the topic, there are interest groups who are very aware of the potential pitfalls poor management of plant genetic resources can create. The Community Based Network (CBN) is a collaboration of numerous national interest groups, such as the Australian Network for Plant Conservation1, and others focused on promoting the value and benefits of biodiversity.⁴⁴ The hope to facilitate information and education about the positive conservation activity and create general community awareness. The CBN regularly reports on the status of present biodiversity levels and bring attention to areas under threat.⁴⁵ They also report on the progress current legislation is making to improve these areas. Additionally, they engage actively with community groups, local government agencies and industry to increase the level of attention given to biodiversity issues. Occasionally the CBN makes reports to the Convention on Biological Diversity on Australia's condition.

     However, despite domestic law and the work of environmental activists, Australia has done little in ways following the principles of the ITPGRFA. They are clearly under no legal obligation to do so, considering they have not ratified the treaty. And this perhaps is why sanctions for illegal domestic activity are not given. As previously stated, the main area of discord Australia's government has with the ITPGRFA are provisions made with intellectual property rights.⁴⁶ The Plant Breeders Right Act, based on its outline of what types of plant genetic resources can and cannot be patented, follows the ITPGRFA to an extent. In fact, one of IPAustralia's key factors for approving a patent requires that the plant variety was not previously accessible for public use.⁴⁷ But according to the ETCGroup (formerly RAFI), several of Australia's largest seed production corporations have broken the domestic IPR law with the full knowledge of the Australian government.⁴⁸

      Supposedly, dozens of different farmer-bred plant varieties from numerous different countries have been patented by Australian corporations, claiming they were varieties of their own creation. Two of these companies, Agriculture Western Australia and the Centre for Legumes of Mediterranean Agriculture tried to patent varieties of chick-peas from Iran, that were taken from an internationally-funded resource center in India.⁴⁹ Only after charges of misconduct were made did the Australian patent office stop their consideration of the application. The Victorian State Institute for Dryland Agriculture has already been granted three separate patents by IPAustralia for lentils that are identical to Middle Eastern varieties. ⁵⁰
      The International Centre for Agricultural Research in Dry Areas, of Syria, admits they allowed Australia to claim patent rights on plants reserved for the international community use by the United Nations FAO in 1995.⁵¹ These actions have positive implications for Australia because it corners the economic benefits from owning the plant variety. As the corporations monopolize the market, the value of plant genetic resources increases greatly, creating an even bigger profit for the private groups.⁵² Australia is not alone in their disapproval of IPR in the treaty. The United States and Canada also take similar positions, as these countries can also benefit from private corporations holding patents on plant genetic resources.⁵³

State Contribution to Compliance and Effectiveness

     Australia's contribution to the success of the treaty has been great in its participation but not in securing the passage of the treaty. It has not complied nor has it encouraged compliance by other states. As for effectiveness, because the treaty has not yet been ratified, its effectiveness cannot yet be judged. Some states do not contribute to treaty compliance and effectiveness out of self-interest or because they lack the resources. ⁵⁴ In this case, Australia has not complied out of self- interest. The specific text of the treaty is not beneficial to the state and, thus, dispute has ensued.

    Australia has a great interest in biodiversity and has implemented many plans in the last ten  years to increase funding for biodiversity programs on a larger scale. It has aimed to combine the levels of government in creating biodiversity management programs and has a commitment to the Convention on Biological Diversity which is highly involved in the International Treaty on Plant Genetic Resources for Food and Agriculture. Australia is improving its biodiversity programs and is making it an increasingly important priority. As a wealthy, developed state, Australia will play a role in the law and policy regarding biodiversity because it aims to continue to develop as well as protect its resources. 

    Much important legislation has been passed in the last decade relating to biological diversity. Australia has been in close contact with the CBD by way of the Clearing House Information manager which promotes the exchange of information on the CBD and the National Strategy for the Conservation of Biological Diversity. ⁵⁵ The Commonwealth has been given enhanced federal power to deal with biological diversity. Since then, a number of programs and reports have been made regarding biological diversity. Some programs created in the 1990s include: the National Strategy for Ecologically Sustainable Development, Environment Australia's Report and The National Strategy for the Conservation of Australia's Biological Diversity.14 The last strategy has been particularly important because it laid out the framework for Australia's position in international agreements. Australia's goal has become "the conservation of its own biological diversity while contributing to the conservation and ecologically sustainable use of biological diversity on a global scale." Its three objectives are to: support the development of Australia's participations in international agreements for the conservation of biodiversity, seek to ensure the activities of Australian's outside Australia are consistent with the conservation of biological diversity, and to ensure continued and effective international cooperation, directly between governments or through relevant IGOs and NGOs. ⁵⁶ 

     Another program that became effective as of July 16, 2000 is the Biodiversity Conservation Act which has been called "landmark environmental legislation for Australia" because it calls for the Commonwealth to join with the States and Territories to create a national scheme of biodiversity. The integration of the levels of government has been a major issue since the early 1990s. The different levels have different jurisdictions and Australia has found it difficult for the levels to interact on a national issue. Perhaps the 2000 legislation will achieve success in this arena. Australia has outlined its plans for biological diversity in the next couple of years. According to the National Strategy for Biological Diversity, by 2005, Australia will have:

     Australia has implemented a tremendous amount of legislation relating to biological diversity and has shown its commitment to the CBD and to biological diversity in general. Some critics contend Australia has taken on too many programs and that the programs should be reconsidered to make sure they are logical and consistent with other initiatives, that the money is budgeted, the employment, industrial equity and fairness uses have been worked out. American Law Professor, Robert Blomquist contends that Australia's biological diversity policy will be more effective in the future if it moves beyond conservation solely through reserves, includes incentives for conservation, and most importantly, if it amends policies dealing with the indigenous people. ⁵⁸ He contends Australia's major impediment to receiving information from indigenous people is the "prioritization of the rights of national governments over the rights to sovereign peoples." He claims this has hindered the CBD from becoming completely effective in Australia. Overall, he believes that Australia's implementation of the CBD "through the numerous laws, policies, programs, institutions and plants it has promulgated since 1992 is impressive and...exemplary." He also explains that Australia seems to be in full compliance of the Convention, but "on substantive treaty matters..this is less clear." He is certainly correct in that respect. ⁵⁹

     In terms of the International Treaty on Plant Genetic Resources for Food and Agriculture, Australia will not ratify unless the text is changed regarding Intellectual Property Rights, specifically article 12.3. The Interim Commission is scheduled to address this issue at the first meeting and it is possible the differences will be worked out. Until then, Australia will not budge, and maintains strong support from other developed countries on the issue. Australia is beyond compromise at this point. As explained in International Law and Policy, states comply because of a number of reasons including: efficiency, interests, norms, and interdependent self-interest.⁶⁰ In the case of Australia, the benefits of non-compliance outweigh the costs. There is domestic pressure from industries to not comply. Compliance would not serve Australia's interests in terms of Intellectual Property Rights. Plus, Australia is receiving support and, most likely, pressure from the United States and others disputing the text. Australia is in good company in its decision of non-compliance.⁶¹

Endnotes

1. Biodiversity: Access to Genetic Resources, Managing Access to Australia's Biological Resources:
Developing a Nationally Consistent Approach. A discussion paper prepared by the Commonwealth-State Working Group on Access to Australia's Biological Resources, (1996), available at: <http://www.ea.gov.au/biodiversity/science/access/cswg/executive.html>.

2. Id.

3. Id.

4. Steve Campbell, Governance, responsibility and the market: neo-liberalism and
aspects of the Environment Protection And Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999
(Cth).(Australia), Environmental and Planning Law Journal v16, n4 (August,
1999): 290.

5. Biodiversity: Access to Genetic Resources, Managing Access to Australia's Biological Resources:
Developing a Nationally Consistent Approach.
A discussion paper prepared by the Commonwealth-State Working Group on Access to Australia's Biological Resources, 1996), available at: <http://www.ea.gov.au/biodiversity/science/access/cswg/executive.html>.

6.  Id.

7. Rafi Communique, Frequently Unasked Questions About the International Undertaking on Plant Genetic Resources, March/April 2001, <http://www.rafi.org/documents/com_frequentlyunasked.pdf>.

8. Id.

9. Uk Food Group, International Undertaking on Plant Genetic Resources for Food and Agriculture (IU) A note on the results of the 6th meeting of the IU Contact Group in Spoleto, Italy 23 – 28 April 2001, 2002, available at: <http://www.ukabc.org/iu4.htm#3>.

10. Rafi Communique, Frequently Unasked Questions About the International Undertaking on Plant Genetic Resources, March/April 2001,< http://www.rafi.org/documents/com_frequentlyunasked.pdf>.

11. Steve Campbell, Governance, responsibility and the market: neo-liberalism and
aspects of the Environment Protection And Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999
(Cth).(Australia), Environmental and Planning Law Journal v16, n4 (August,
1999): 290.

12. Id.

13. Biodiversity Publications, Australia's National Report to the 4th Conference of the Parties to the CBD ,(1998), available at: <http://www.ea.gov.au/biodiversity/publications/national-report/natstrat.html>.

14. Commission on Genetic Resources for Food and Agriculture, Report of the Commission on Genetic Resources for Food and Agriculture, (1999) available at <ftp://ext-ftp.fao.org/waicent/pub/cgrfa8/8rep-E.pdf>.

15. ETC Group, Seeds Saved in Spoleto, (2001), <http:// www.rafi.org/documents/news_seedssaved.pdf>.

16. IISD Linkages, Adoption of the International Treaty on Plant Genetic Resources for Food and Agriculture, (2001), <http://www.iisd.ca/biodiv/iu.html>.

17. ETC Group, Seeds Saved in Spoleto, (2001), <http:// www.rafi.org/documents/news_seedssaved.pdf>.

18. Id.

19. Christopher Then, Who Will Gain Control Over Genetic Resources Vital for Global Food Security?, (April 2001)1, available at: <http://www.google.com/search?q=cache:xA6K8fgqfQEC:www.greenpeace.org/~geneng/reports/pat/ FAOPatentbackgrounder.PDF+international+treaty+on+plant+genetic+resources+for+food+and+agriculture+%2B +australia+%2B+patent+rights&hl=en>.

20. Rafi Communique, Frequently Unasked Questions About the International Undertaking on Plant Genetic Resources, March/April 2001, <http://www.rafi.org/documents/com_frequentlyunasked.pdf>.

21. IPAustralia, What is IP Australia?, (2001), <http://www.ipaustralia.gov.au/about/A_home.htm>.

22. Christopher Then, Who Will Gain Control Over Genetic Resources Vital for Global Food Security?, (April 2001)1, available at: <http://www.google.com/search?q=cache:xA6K8fgqfQEC:www.greenpeace.org/~geneng/reports/pat/FAO Patentbackgrounder.PDF+international+treaty+on+plant+genetic+resources+for+food+and+agriculture+%2B+ australia+%2B+patent+rights&hl=en>.

23. Id.

24. Annie Patricia Kameri-Mbote and Phillipe Cullet, Agro-Biodiversity and International Law - A Conceptual Framework, Journal of Environmental Law, (1999), available at: <http://AGROBIOjel.pdf>.

25. Environment Australia, Biodiversity, (2002), <http://www.ea.gov.au/biodiversity>

26. Id.

27. National Environmental Protection Council, National Environmental Protection Council, (2002) <http://www.newpc.gov/au>.

28. Fed.gov.au, Access to Australian Commonwealth Government Information, (2002), <http://www.fed.gov.au/>

29. Environment Australia, Managing Access to Australia's Biological Resources: Developing a Nationally Consistent Approach, (1996), available at: <http://www.ea.gov.au/biodiversity/science/access/cswg/index.html>

30. Id.

31. Id.

32. IPAustralia, About Us, (2002), <http://www.ipaustralia.gov.au/>.

33. Danielle Knight, Agriculture: Australia Accused of Bio-Piracy, Interpress Service, February 13 1998, <http://www.oneworld.org/ips2/feb98/australia.html>.

34. SCALEPlus, Plant Breeders Right Act of 1994, (2002), availible at: <http://scaleplus.law.gov.au/cgi-bin/download.txt?text&/scale/data/comact/8/4398>.

35. SCALEPlus, Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act of 1999, (2002), available at: <http://scaletext.law.gov.au/html/comact/10/6006/top.htm>.

36. Earth Negotiations Bulletin, Highlights from the Negotiations on the International Undertaking, Thursday, 1 November 2001, (2001) available at: <http://www.google.com/search?q=cache:xPNrDTNDZRkC:www.iisd.ca/linkages/download/pdf/enb09212e.pdf+ Australia%2Bgovernment%2Bplant+genetic+resources&hl=en.>

37. CIA WorldFactbook, Australia, (2001), <http://www.odci/gov/cia/publications/factbook/geos/as.html>.

38. National Environmental Protection Council, National Environmental Protection Council, (2002) <http://www.newpc.gov/au>.

39. Danielle Knight, Agriculture: Australia Accused of Bio-Piracy, Interpress Service, February 13 1998, <http://www.oneworld.org/ips2/feb98/australia.html>.

40. Earth Negotiations Bulletin, Highlights from the Negotiations on the International Undertaking, Thursday, 1 November 2001, (2001) available at: <http://www.google.com/search?q=cache:xPNrDTNDZRkC:www.iisd.ca/linkages/download/pdf/enb09212e.pdf+ Australia%2Bgovernment%2Bplant+genetic+resources&hl=en.>

41. Public Record, Elections 2001, (2001), <http://www.abc.net.au/public/indexes/features/greenhouse.htm>.

42. The Greens, Election 2001, (2001), <http://www.greens.org.au/>.

43. Community Based Network, About CBN, (2002), <http://nccnsw.org.au/member/cbn/about/>.

44. Id.

45. Earth Negotiations Bulletin, Highlights from the Negotiations on the International Undertaking, Thursday, 1 November 2001, (2001) available at: <http://www.google.com/search?q=cache:xPNrDTNDZRkC:www.iisd.ca/linkages/download/pdf/enb09212e.pdf+Australia%2Bgovernment%2Bplant+genetic+resources&hl=en>.

46. IPAustralia, About Us, (2002), <http://www.ipaustralia.gov.au/>.

47. Danielle Knight, Agriculture: Australia Accused of Bio-Piracy, Interpress Service, February 13 1998, <http://www.oneworld.org/ips2/feb98/australia.html>.

48. Id.

49. Id.

50. Id.

51. Annie Patricia Kameri-Mbote and Phillipe Cullet, Agro-Biodiversity and International Law - A Conceptual Framework, Journal of Environmental Law, (1999), <http://AGROBIOjel.pdf>.

52. Earth Negotiations Bulletin, Highlights from the Negotiations on the International Undertaking, Thursday, 1 November 2001, (2001) available at: <http://www.google.com/search?q=cache:xPNrDTNDZRkC:www.iisd.ca/linkages/download/pdf/enb09212e.pdf+ Australia%2Bgovernment%2Bplant+genetic+resources&hl=en.>

53. David Hunter, James Salzman and Dunward Zaelke, International Environmental Law and Policy, 2nd Ed. (2002). 

54. Environment Australia, Australia's Biodiversity Clearing House Mechanism ,(2002), <http://chm.ea.gov.au/index.html>.

55. Robert F. Blomquist. Protecting Nature Down Under: An American Law Professor's View of Australia's implementation of the Convention on Biologocal Diversity-Laws Policies, Programs,Institutions and plans, 1992-2000. ( 2000). Dickinson Journal of Environmental Law and Policy, available at: <http://web.lexis-nexis.com/universe/document?_m=81319545f5b1ee2459d4e796f0e64d53&_docnum=52&wchp= dGLSzS-lSlzV&_md5=e6f68faad8948227ee1b66a29df35ef3>.

56. Id.

57. Id.

58. David Hunter, James Salzman and Dunward Zaelke, International Environmental Law and Policy, 2nd Ed. (2002). 

59. Robert F. Blomquist. Protecting Nature Down Under: An American Law Professor's View of Australia's implementation of the Convention on Biologocal Diversity-Laws Policies, Programs,Institutions and plans, 1992-2000. ( 2000). Dickinson Journal of Environmental Law and Policy, available at: <http://web.lexis-nexis.com/universe/document?_m=81319545f5b1ee2459d4e796f0e64d53&_docnum=52&wchp= dGLSzS-lSlzV&_md5=e6f68faad8948227ee1b66a29df35ef3>.

60. David Hunter, James Salzman and Dunward Zaelke, International Environmental Law and Policy, 2nd Ed. (2002). 

61. Id.