粮食和农业遗传资源的特性及有特色的解决方式的需求与这些资源被广泛认可有关。
《名古屋议定书》承认生物遗传资源对食品安全及农业生物多样性的重要性。它要求为了粮食和农业生物遗传资源的重要性及其对食品安全特殊角色（议定书第8条C款）各缔约方考虑创设和实施其获取和惠益分享法律或规则要求。植物和动物育种另一特质即为上述部门利用生物遗传资源的最终产品同样为生物遗传资源。
粮食和农业遗传资源应由不同于给定提供国可适用的常规获取和惠益分享规则来调整。可适用的特定获取和惠益分享立法或规则可在获取和惠益分享信息交换所查询。同时，《名古屋议定书》所规定的提供国国家联络点也能够提供协助。
1.植物遗传资源不同获取情形
粮食和农业植物遗传资源在不同情形下可以获取和利用，这取决于生物遗传资源获取所在国是否为《名古屋议定书》和／或《粮食和农业植物遗传资源国际公约》（ITPGRFA）[23]，这也与使用类型有关。下列概述描述了不同情形以及欧盟ABS规则对每种情形如何适用的规定。
不属于欧盟ABS规则适用范围
·ITPGRFA公约附件一所涉粮食和农业植物遗传资源。[24]包括来自ITPGRFA缔约方获得以及多边系统的粮食和农业植物遗传资源。上述材料是由一项特殊的获取和惠益分享，且与CBD公约和《名古屋议定书》保持一致且不相背离的国际法律机制调整（规则第2条第2款以及第五部分）。
·任何依据标准材料转让协议接收的从国际农业研究中心如国际农业研究磋商工作组或其他依据ITPGRFA公约第15条签署协议的国际机构获取粮食和农业植物遗传资源。[25]
上述材料也是由一项特殊的获取和惠益分享，且与CBD公约和《名古屋议定书》保持一致且不相背离的国际法律机制调整（规则第2条第2款以及第五部分）。
属于欧盟ABS规则适用对象但需要遵守合理注意声明义务
·不管是否来自缔约国或非缔约国，依据标准材料转让协议获得的非附件一的粮食和农业植物遗传资源。如果《名古屋议定书》缔约国决定管理、控制或处于公共领域但并不属于附件一的生物遗传资源仍然受到ITPGRFA公约标准材料转让协议的规定和条件限制，上述材料的使用者也被认为应履行合理注意义务（规则第4条第4款）。相应地，这类材料并不需要合理注意义务。
属于欧盟ABS规则——合理注意需要表明
·来自《名古屋议定书》并非ITPGRFA公约缔约国，属于后者附件一的粮食和农业遗传资源，且获取机制适用于粮食和农业植物遗传资源；
·来自《名古屋议定书》缔约方非附件一的粮食和农业植物遗传资源，不管它是否属于ITPGRFA公约缔约方，当国内获取制度适用该类遗传资源，以ITPGRFA公约设置目的为限它们并不适用于标准材料转让协议；
·除了设置于ITPGRFA公约目的以外的使用任何粮食和农业植物遗传资源（包括附件一材料）的来自于拥有可适用国内获取立法的《名古屋议定书》缔约方行为。
2.植物育种者权
《植物新品种国际公约》[26]以及欧盟议会集体植物品种权规则（第2100／94号）[27]提供了获得植物新品种权利的可能性。这是一种关于植物育种相关的特别知识产权。植物育种者权法律实效有某些边界，即它们不得用于：（a）私人和非商业目的的行为，以及（b）实验目的的行为和（c）育种、或发现和开发其他育种为目的的行为（第2100／94号欧盟规则第15条，与《植物新品种国际公约》第15条第1款相一致）。前述c情形属于“育种者的例外情形。”
《植物新品种国际公约》并未构建一套议定书第4条第4款所要求的特别获取和惠益分享法律机制。但是，《名古屋议定书》明确规定——也经欧盟ABS规则确定——应以一种与其他国际协议相互支持，即应支持而非与CBD公约和《名古屋议定书》目标相背离的方式履行。而且，议定书第4条第1款也提到不应影响现存国际协议的权利和义务（如果它们没有对生物多样性造成严重损害或威胁的话）。
欧盟ABS规则尊重《植物新品种国际公约》设定的义务：来自规则职责的遵守并不与前述实现“育种者的例外”而履行的公约义务相冲突。换句话说，合理注意义务的履行并不与现有的《植物新品种国际公约》规定的植物育种权制度和缔约国所保护的材料使用制度相冲突。
附件一：欧盟ABS规则使用条件一览
〔1〕To be within the scope，all conditions must be fulfilled.
〔2〕GR＝genetic resource；to be read as also including“tradtional knowledge associated with genetic resource”，where appropriate.
[1]Guidance document on the scope of application and core obligation of Regulation（EU）No 511／2014 of the European Parliament and of the Council on the compliance measures for uses from the Nagoya Protocol on Access to Genetic Resources and the Fair and Equitable Sharing of Benefits Arising from the Utilization in the Union.
[2]OJ L 150，20.5.2014，p.59.
[3]OJ L 275，20.10.2015，P.4.
[4]http：／／ec.europe.eu／transparency／regexpert／index.cfm？do＝groupDetail＆groupID＝3123＆New Search＝1＆NewSearch＝1.(www.xing528.com)
[5]http：／／ec.europe.eu／transparency／regexpert／index.cfm？do＝groupDetail＆groupID＝3396＆New Search＝1＆NewSearch＝1.
[6]http：／／www.cbd.int／convention／text.
[7]http：／／www.cbd.int／abs／text／default.shtml.The protocol was adopted in Nagoya，Japan，in October 2010 during the tenth conference of the Parties to the CBD.It entered into force on 12 October 2014，having reached the necessary number of ratifications..
[8]It is possible that PIC and MAT may be issued jointly or in one document.
[9]Such as for example internal market rules etc.
[10]http：／／www.ats.aq.
[11]“Access measures”includes measures established by a country following ratification of，or accession to，the Nagoya Protocol，as well as measures which have existed in the country before the Protocol's ratification.
[12]Consult section 3.4 with regard to genetic resources obtained from registered collection.
[13]For an updated list of parties，see http：／／www.cbd.int／abs／nagoya－protocol／signatories／default.shtml or http：／／www.absch.cbd.int.
[14]With regard to genetic resource from the country of origin of those genetic resource obtained through a collection，consult section 1.3.
[15]http：／／planttreaty.org／.
[16]http：／／www.who.int／influenza／pip／en.
[17]As noted at the beginning of Section 2，the condition for applicability of the regulation are cumulative.The statement‘the Regulation applies’therefore implies that，in addition to the specific condition in question，all other conditions for applicability of the Regulation are also fulfilled－i.e.the genetic resource were accessed in a Party to the Protocol which has in place relevant access measures，they are accessed after October 2014，and the genetic resource are not covered by specialized international ABS regime（which in the circumstance described above is the case due to the fact that the provider country is not a party to such specialized agreement）；furthermore they are not human genetic resource.
[18]See http：／／www.cbd.int／decision／cop／default.shtml？id＝7084 and http：／／www.cbd.int／decision／cop／default.stml？id＝12267，respectively.
[19]These obligations should best be clarified，for example by means of a contract between the user and the person commercializing the product.
[20]In European public policy，“due diligence”is employed also in relation to issues such as international trade in timber（http：／／ec.europe.eu／environment／forests／timber＿regulation.htm）and“conflict minerals”［Proprosal for a Regualtion of the European Parliament and of the Council setting up a Union system for supply chain due diligence self－certification of responsible importers of tin，tantalum and tungsten，their ores，and gold originating in conflict－affected and high－risk areas，COM（2014）111，5 March 2014］.
[21]An IRCC may either be issues for a specific user or have more general application，depending on the law and administrative practice of the provider and the terms agreed.
[22]According to Article 5（5）of the Implementing Regulation，funding for research－in the context of submitting due diligence declarations at the first checkpoint－is to be understood as‘any financial contribution by means of a grant to carry out research，whether from commercial or non－commercial sources.It does not cover internal budgetary resources of private or public entities.
[23]http：／／www.planttreat.org／.
[24]Annex 1 contains a list of corp species which are covered by the multilateral system of access and benefit－shairing established by that Treaty.
[25]http：／／www.planttreaty.org／content／agreement－concluded－under－article－15.
[26]http：／／upov.int／.As of October 2015，the EU and 24 of its Member States are UPOV Members.
[27]OJL 227，1.9.1994，p.1.
免责声明：以上内容源自网络，版权归原作者所有，如有侵犯您的原创版权请告知，我们将尽快删除相关内容。
