Rethinking the law on access and benefit sharing in Australia

Since the conclusion of the Convention on Biological Diversity in 1992, many countries, including Australia, have implemented a framework known as access and benefit sharing. Access and benefit sharing laws were designed on the assumption that they could rely on a system of bilateral relations between a singular ‘provider’ and a corresponding ‘user’ of genetic resources and traditional knowledge. Drawing on the case study of the Kakadu plum (Terminalia ferdinandiana), this article examines how the flawed bilateral approach was embedded into access and benefit sharing laws in three ways that undermine the objectives of these laws. It discusses how Queensland moved beyond this assumption and outlines lessons for the development and reform of access and benefit sharing legislation in other jurisdictions.