Hi Katsuyuki Eguchi ,

The problem is that nobody knows how to follow the rules of Nagoya Protocol. The main problem is that nobody knows what samples/specimens fall under the protocol. All samples/specimens or only comercially useful. It is also no clear which samples ara comercially useful. You never know if the e.g. barcodes will be comercially useful in future or not. Can we still study bidiversity of the Earth (including molecular methods) or not. Do we need permissions for all collections or only those from protected areas. Thare are absent of strict rules in the protocol and such rules also not exist in most of the countries (maybe exept of these which are so called countries of the first world, but even in such countries a clear rules are not present). The next problem is that some large countries not signed the protocol like USA or Canada etc. This means that such countries can still collect materials without any problems and study them. This reduce competitivness of the scientists which are working in the countries which signed protocol. Do we can still study taxonomy and integrative taxonomy and/or diversity?

Maybe you have some better knowledge in this subject, if yes I will be grateful for your help. Any ideas?

Paul J. Bartels Sandra J. McInnes Nigel J Marley

Dear friends

As a source of discussion, we will share a URL that summarizes information related to ABS, and some of my experience-based comments as below.

Glossary of key terms used in the context of "Access and Benefit-sharing”, provided in the formal website of European Commission

https://ec.europa.eu/environment/nature/biodiversity/international/abs/pdf/Glossary%20for%20Europa.pdf

General information on Nagoya Protocol, provided in the formal website of the Convention of Biological Diversity

https://www.cbd.int/abs/

Database of the ABS-related situation and rules in the countries which have already partied to Nagoya Protocol.

https://absch.cbd.int/

The countries, which have “NOT” yet partied to Nagoya Protocol, also have preexisting laws and regulations related to biodiversity conservations and development and sustainable use of biological resources of own counties.

Foreingners (including researchers) must respect all of these, I think.

On the other hand, according to my experiences in Vietnam, procedures under the domestic laws and regulations are usually performed in local languages. In addition, in most countries, regions and communities, ABS-related laws and regulations are still in preparation or trial, and will be changed from time to time. Therefore, it is difficult or impossible for foreigners to do all of these by themselves.

Furthermore, in Southeast Asian countries, it is likely that government sets strict laws and regulations first, and operates these flexibly according to the situation. In other words, if you work with reliable counterpart researcher in the provider country, and carefully explain to the licensing agency (such as the Ministry of Environment or national parks) the importance of your research and a plan of fair benefit sharing, you may be able to obtain research permission without being bound by the principles of the laws and regulations.

Therefore, without fair and friendly cooperation with researchers in provider countries, foreigners can not access and use the genetic resources.

This is reason why this discussion aims to foster mutual understanding, mutual trust, friendship and appropriate partnerships between potential users and providers.

eguchi

Hi Łukasz san

(“san” is used for “Mr.”, and also for calling friends)

Thank you very much for your very important comments and questions. I would like to comment on some points as below (my knowledge and experiences are not enough for answering all of your questions). I would much appreciate it if other persons (especially those who have a lot of experience as providers) give us corrections, supplementary explanations, and/or other comments and views.

“The problem is that nobody knows how to follow the rules of Nagoya Protocol.”

Yes, in addition, in most countries, regions and communities, ABS-related laws and regulations are still in preparation or trial, and will be changed from time to time. Also, researchers in the provider countries often do not fully understand their ABS-related laws. Therefore, we need to communicate with the licensing agency (such as the Ministry of Environment or national parks) with helps from your counterpart researchers in the provider countries.

“All samples/specimens or only comercially useful.”

This is also an unclear issues in most of the potential provider countries/regions/communities. For, example, according to the ABS-related law in Vietnam, foreigners are basically required to contract with all the central government, local governments, and terminal municipalities (commune) for access and use of genetic resources and benefit sharing. However, the law was designed for “commercial” use. By explaining research purposes (non-commercial), the procedure is simplified at a reasonable level. Our counterpart researchers in the provider countries always contribute to such necessary “negotiation”. This may be true in most of the other countries. Also, in the case where your “non-commercial” research products are used for “commercial” purposes secondarily (in many cases by another researchers or companies), the secondary user may be requested to contract with the provider countries/regions/communities depending on the cases.

“This reduce competitiveness of the scientists which are working in the countries which signed protocol.”

Yes, this is a big problem and I feel “unfair”. However, even some countries has not yet participate to Nagoya Protocol (such as USA), every foreigners should respect and follow the laws and regulations in the countries where they visit. And, most of potential provider countries, which have “NOT” yet partied to Nagoya Protocol, (for example, Thailand) also have preexisting laws and regulations related to biodiversity conservations and development and sustainable use of biological resources of own counties. So, if foreign researchers do not comply with laws and regulations in the provider countries, they may be detained or imprisoned. In addition, they will be denounced by local researchers and NGOs. If a university faculty member falls into such a situation, he or she may be subject to disciplinary action.

Furthermore, such cases can lead to laws and regulations in the provider countries being stricter, which adversely affect the proper research activities of unrelated "honest" researchers. Therefore, I think “mutual understanding, mutual trust, friendship and appropriate partnerships between potential users and providers” are necessary.

“Do we need permissions for all collections or only those from protected areas.”

This depends on the countries/regions/communities. However, I guess that “Yes” in most countries. By the way, Japan, which has already partied to Nagoya Protocol, has set the guideline to be followed when using foreign genetic resources. On the other hand, at least for the present, Japan has suspended the provider’s measures of biodiversity in Japan’s territory and waters. Therefore, foreigners are, in principle, free to study the biodiversity of Japan's territory and waters. However, in protected areas, of course, permission from the Ministry of the Environment and local governments is required (Japanese researchers also need to have such permissions). And, in private land, you must have permissions from the land owners. Also, please follow the preexisting law in Japan. For example, don't park your car in a no-parking area!

“Can we still study biodiversity of the Earth?”

I believe “Yes”. The Nagoya Protocol has certainly made it harder for us to study biodiversity. However, I think the long-standing distrust toward users in the provider countries/regions/communities has created this situation (although historical issues should not be treated here). Therefore, it is now necessary to promote and encourage joint researches within this somewhat “cramped” framework, and users need to gain the trust from the potential provider countries/regions/communities. We hope that such “positive” and “friendly” efforts will lead to the “better” revision of the Nagoya Protocol, which will meet with the original purposes of Convention on Biological Diversity.

Hi Katsuyuki Eguchi and other friends,

Łukasz well says that there are many doubts about how to apply the Nagoya protocol. Mexico signed it in 2011 and currently very little is heard about it. There were modifications to several federal laws, some courses were held for different government institutions in Mexico that aimed to:

- Support the analysis and development of regulatory instruments on access to genetic resources and associated traditional knowledge so that the benefits resulting from their use are distributed in a fair and equitable manner.

- Build and strengthen capacities in federal government institutions to implement best practices based on the most recent information.

- Develop biocultural protocols that serve local communities and indigenous peoples, as owners of natural resources and knowledge, to enhance their leadership and decision regarding their own development.

But many of the people who were trained no longer work within these institutions (a problem of continuity of programs, goals and personnel that happens in Mexico with every change of president).

At least in the field of research in which I work, there is little knowledge of how to act. Although, it is mandatory to have a permit for the collection of organisms and their parts (applicable throughout the country and not only in protected natural areas and this permission can also be granted to foreign researchers), the part of the use of genetic resources remains ambiguous, although it is relevant at the time to discuss the use of transgenic organisms (another important controversial issue in Mexico).

I believe that as researchers we have to comply with the laws and requirements that the country in which we carry out our research demands and participate (if our knowledge and experience allow us) to improve the protocol and its use.

Regards

Two of the main sources of species discovery and taxonomical research in the past were a) bycatch and b) opportunistic collecting. You share bycatch with your colleagues (not everybody can collect everywhere), and when you happen do be somewhere and see some interesting specimen, you collect it. These were fruitful principles in times when we already lamented the taxonomic impediment and that we will never record and describe the major portion of earth's biodiversity before it disappears.

Now opportunistic collecting and free exchange of specimens is no longer possible under Rio, Nagoya and the nationally implemented laws. You have to establish a local project and collaborate (as we have long and successfully done in ecological projects), and then go out in a planned and regulated manner and find new species of your group.

This is *not* how taxonomy works.

If we do a revision of a genus of a continent, we cannot establish proper projects in every country of this continent. We will have to work with pre-Nagoya (probably even pre-Rio) material. You can do local projects, but continent-wide or global projects are becoming increasingly impossible. Taxonomy will suffer, and with it all other branches of biology that need identification of their organisms.

I hope the pendulum swings back at some point, but I am not too hopeful. By the way, we in the U.S. have the Lacey Act that requires us to follow all national law on wildlife "trade" of all countries in the world. If Nagoya is nationally implemented in another country, we have to follow their laws. Don't worry, there is not much of a competitive advantage for U.S. scientists.

The main issue with the current agreements and legislation is that they are installed for commercial research, rightfully so, but also apply to non-commercial research.

The provisions of "Nagoya Protocol" relevant for scientific collecting are simply harmful, unacceptable, and should be abandoned. This is evidently not within our (scientists) possibilities, but anyway discussing about how to implement them makes no much sense: we should rather discuss on possible ways to evade them (Posłuszeństwo względem złych przepisów to najlepszy sposób ich utrwalenia" [obedience to bad regulations is the best way to strengthen them] - Polish philosopher T. Kotarbiński)!

Hi, Antonio san and other friends

Yes, I think this situation is true in most of potential provider countries/regions/communities, and I have been often frustrated.

I am a core member of the project “Support for the Access and Use of Genetic Resources in Biodiversity Science, based on the Study of ABS-related Cases in Asia (hereafter referred to as "ABS Support Project” leaded by National Institute of Genetics, Japan and funded by AMED-NBRP (Japan Agency for Medical Research and Development ― National BioResource Project). The ABS Support Project has frequently held meetings (recently online meetings) by inviting representatives (officers and researchers) from the licensing agencies of potential provider countries. We have always discussed this problem, and the invited representatives always understood the necessity to solve this. Now, "ABS Support Project” and Indonesian agencies are jointly planning to hold a workshop for training “young” researchers and academic support officers.

I think that potential users need to cooperate friendly and actively with potential provider countries/regions/communities which are now preparing "reasonable" ABS framework. It takes time, but we have to tackle this problem persistently.

Hi Frank-Thorsten san and others

"Two of the main sources of species discovery and taxonomical research in the past were a) bycatch and b) opportunistic collecting."

Yes, this is a big issues, especially for taxonomists. For the moment, I do not know good practices. I would much appreciate it if we can have some comments from researchers in potential provider countries/regions/communities.

"Don't worry, there is not much of a competitive advantage for U.S. scientists."

Thank you very much for you pointing out this. Such an indication will eliminate distrust and misunderstanding among us.

Some researchers will leave the framework of the Nagoya protocol. I have no intention of forcing them to stay. On the other hand, I respected the CBD philosophy and decided to stay within the framework of the Nagoya Protocol. Therefore, in this discussion, I would like to exchange opinions, ideas, and practical examples in order to improve the situation surrounding our research as much as possible, within the framework of the Nagoya Protocol.

Katsuyuki Eguchi my friend 'san' :) and other colleagues

Many problems were raised by different people in this short discussion. Maybe, it is a time to think about some kind of web page with the guide for taxonomists how to work with ABS in particular countries?

Hi Tapani san

“I feel it is good to be aware of the rules”

Yes, in order to protect yourself in foreign countries.

“continental (or at least a large continuous forest area) near the equator.”

So, based on my experiences and knowledge, I would suggest several forests of Malaysia, Indonesia and Brunei. I guess that you have already considered some of them. Generally speaking, the first step should be to find counterpart researcher(s) in your target country, and conclude the inter-institutional MoU with your counterpart institution. It takes several months or more. Then, with proper guidance and helps from the counterpart institution, you (or your counterpart researcher) can apply for research permissions from licensing agencies. It also takes several months or more.

The detailed information will be sent directly to your email address (it is too long for posting here). If you need, I can email to you a standard format of MoU and addendum which are prepared based on our experiences in Vietnam, China, Taiwan, Laos, Thailand, Indonesia and Myanmar.

Hi Lukasz san

Yes, I also think that we need such website. The formal website of ABS Clearing House (ABSCH) should take such function. However, the ABSCH website is still inconvenient and not fully functional. The ABSCH website seems to have "Forums", but I haven't used it. I will continuously consider this issue.

Hi,

Yes, on offical website it is hard to find something useful.

Dear Katsuyuki Eguchi ,

First of all, thank you very much for initiating a rather topical discussion.

One of the key issues regarding the implementation of the Nagoya Protocol, and perhaps the most important one, is that the implementation does not result in attaining the objective of the Nagoya Protocol and the overarching aim of the Convention on Biological Diversity, which is biodiversity conservation.

When the states' sovereign rights over their genetic resources are exercised in accordance with the system established under the Nagoya Protocol (i.e. through implementing national ABS systems), we are often faced with an expensive system with heavy bureaucracy. Most benefits received via this system are often non-monetary and the monetary benefits barely make up for the costs of running the permitting system in a given country (see for example https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/a-major-center-of-biodiversity-research-crumbles/ ).

What has been initially expected of this system is generating multi-million USD worth of benefits for the Global South, which was then meant to be used for conserving the biodiversity in these countries. However, the system follows an economic model deriving from the early 90s which has not worked as it was intended to. We, therefore, need to assess the entirety of the system based on the effectiveness of each and every regulatory mechanism. This does not necessarily mean that the system has to be overthrown completely or that the sovereign rights of states would be undermined. Nonetheless, we need to look at each and every regulatory mechanism typically implemented under the provider countries' ABS laws and see whether such a mechanism could effectively reach the objectives of the Convention and the Nagoya Protocol.

I have started with such research and analysed over 20 ABS laws implemented by provider countries all over the world with the aim of finding the regulatory mechanisms that work for the majority: https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fpls.2019.01175/full

Dear Ays san

Thank you very much for your valuable input.

“the implementation does not result in attaining the objective of the Nagoya Protocol and the overarching aim of the Convention on Biological Diversity”

Yes, I completely agree with this. As Taipan san said, ABS-related rules exist and need to be taken into account. On the other hand, we need to continuously seek an appropriate balance between the international issue of biodiversity conservation and the rights of potential provider countries, regions and communities, and improve the existing international and domestic frameworks of ABS.

“Most benefits received via this system are often non-monetary and the monetary benefits barely make up for the costs of running the permitting system in a given country”

Yes. Since 1999, I have been conducting taxonomic and phylogeographic studies on soil animals in Vietnam, so I understand the framework of ABS in Vietnam to some extent. The ABS-related law (July 1, 2017; Decree No.59 / 2017 / ND-CP on the management of access to genetic resources and the sharing of benefits arising from their utilization) is prepared for the utilization of genetic resources for commercial purposes. On the other hand, the licensing agency (Ministry of Natural Resources and Environment; Ministry of Agriculture and Rural Development) just request us simplified procedures if our research is non-commercial and is conducted under the proper MoA concluded between user's and provider's institutions. Therefore, most of the researches in biological sciences conducted in Vietnam since July 1, 2017 seems to be for non-commercial purposes. Therefore, as you pointed out, such researches have not generated little money (which should be a source of biodiversity conservation). On the other hand, it may be because I mainly interact with researchers, but I have rarely been asked for money or expensive equipment from the Vietnamese side (maybe because I look a poor guy!?). The “benefit sharing" requested by them is usually cooperation in fostering young researchers in Vietnam, and fair distribution of specimens and academic materials obtained through joint research.

Yesterday, our project invited a person in charge of the Ministry of Science and Technology, which is an ABS-compatible organization in Laos, to an online seminar to talk about the framework of ABS in Laos and example cases of researches. She also explained that only very simplified procedure will be requested for non-commercial research (of course case-by-case) and active contribution in fostering young researchers are very welcomed.

Research capacity building in countries and regions where biodiversity is concentrated is also essential for achieving the objectives of the Convention on Biological Diversity (Global Taxonomy Initiative: https://www.cbd.int/gti/).

“I have started with such research and analysed over 20 ABS laws implemented by provider countries all over the world”

Thank you very much for providing us your article. I will learn this issue from it.

Dear Katsuyuki Eguchi ,

Thank you very much for sharing your experience and expertise on the regulatory mechanisms related to non-commercial research in Vietnam. This indeed, to me, demonstrates a rather working system as the system aims at promoting non-commercial research related to biodiversity surveillance, monitoring and conservation which then contributes to attaining the overarching objective of the CBD and the Nagoya Protocol, which is biodiversity conservation.

As a matter of fact, together with colleagues at Kew Gardens, we have just published a report on comparing the regulatory mechanisms of provider country legislation for non-commercial research, which Vietnam is also a part of.

Would very much appreciate hearing what you think: https://nph.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/ppp3.10139

Some countries, however, do not allow for simplified measures for non-commercial research on biodiversity, which then results in research projects lagging behind or even PhD researchers having to wait for years to obtain their samples.

In addition, commercial research projects often also get stuck in the negotiation process.

This is due to the fact that many provider country legislation pays much more attention to stringently regulating access rather than enabling the system to generate as many benefits as possible.

I would like to share the following article.

Article Funding, training, permits—the three big challenges of taxonomy

Yes, we can if it has the full authenticity of the sharing data. Katsuyuki Eguchi

Katsuyuki Eguchi

From what I studied (I had my master thesis on Nagoya Protocol) and discussed so far with both developing and developed countries scientist, especially to the taxonomist, ecologist, non-commercial researcher. To some narrower extent I also studied and had talked to the government officials. I believe that everybody have missed the true intention of Nagoya Protocol.

As you can see in the objectives of Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD), there are 3 true objectives: (https://www.cbd.int/convention/articles/?a=cbd-01)

1. The conservation of biological diversity,

2. The sustainable use of its components and

3. The fair and equitable sharing of the benefits arising out of the utilization of genetic resources.

Nagoya protocol (NP) also served this 3 objectives (https://www.cbd.int/abs/text/articles/?sec=abs-01). It is created as derivative rule from CBD to emphasized and give guidance to "the fair and equitable sharing benefits arising out of the utilization of genetic resources" but it is not stop there, it continues "thereby contributing to the conservation of biological diversity and the sustainable use of its components.". Therefore, Nagoya Protocol aim to guide the access benefit sharing of genetic resources and so it can contribute to the conservation and sustainability of biodiversity. This, should keep in mind when we talk about NP and CBD.

Furthermore, when we talk about NP there are two kinds of research: the commercial and non-commercial research. In particular for non-commercial research there are one special article for it, the Article 8 Special Consideration.

You can read it on Article 8(A) (https://www.cbd.int/abs/text/articles/?sec=abs-08):

In the development and implementation of its access and benefit-sharing legislation or regulatory requirements, each Party shall:

(a) Create conditions to promote and encourage research which contributes to the conservation and sustainable use of biological diversity, particularly in developing countries, including through simplified measures on access for non-commercial research purposes, taking into account the need to address a change of intent for such research;

Therefore, in the light of NP article 8(A), each party (countries that ratified NP) shall encourage and grant simplified measures for non-commercial research that contribute to the conservation and sustainable use of biodiversity.

Sound familiar? Yes, it is the objectives of CBD and NP! So, the non-commercial researcher should celebrate NP because the protocol mandated to ease us to do collaboration in non-commercial research that have positive impact to the biodiversity. I believe researcher in taxonomy, ecology, conservation, molecular biology and other basic science in biology that not related their research directly to commercial purpose should encourage this article.

So why there is a horror about NP? What it is actually happened:

1) The government does not understand anything about NP, as they think they should impose the rules to the all researchers. So ideally NP should give stricter regulation for commercial research, and ease non-commercial research that contribute to the biodiversity. But it is not happened, the government still thinking that there are only one law to rule them all.

2) The weakest position in this regard is the non-commercial researcher itself, as they also do not understand this issue. The non-commercial researcher tend to judge and complain that NP hamper the progress of science, a threat and so on so forth. BUT if we keep to advocate and sound a voice for the article 8(A) to the government of all ratifying countries, report it to the IPBES, SBSTTA, or to the COP of CBD, therefore it can change the course.

Dear Raden san

Thank you very much for the very easy-to-understand explanation of the philosophy of CBD and Nagoya Protocol. I also agree that the governments of countries and regions where biodiversity is concentrated do not always fully understand the philosophy or have not properly legislated it.

We need to understand the idea and stance (and the historical backgrounds) of those countries/regions/communities, and we need to respect their current ABS framework.

On top of that, through amicable and respectful means of communications, it is necessary to provide various proposals to the governments of those countries/regions/communities in order to bring the ABS framework closer to the philosophy of the CBD and the Nagoya Protocol.

Raden: All these is a mixture of nice declarative ideas and [to say it very mildly...] much less nice concrete regulations. E.g. "the fair and equitable sharing benefits arising out of the utilization of genetic resources" ... "thereby contributing to the conservation of biological diversity and the sustainable use of its components." is - as Hungarians use to say - fából vaskarika [wooden ironring]: as long as national governments have right to regulate who is and who is not allowed to perform scientific study, as long as costly "scientific visas" or other "permits" are required, &c. as long these slogans resemble what we experience as regards scientific publications, where the ""fair and equitable sharing benefits" means that scientist's share is the work and and publisher's the benefit - the only difference being the substitution of publishers with national businessmen and politicians who "fairly and equitably share" among themselves the "benefits arising out of the" other's work!

I want to share with you a serious consequence of breaking the ABS-related law in Sabah, Malaysia.

https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/pdf/10.1080/00222933.2019.1709669?needAccess=true

I thought a similar situation can happen to myself. I reaffirmed the importance of fostering relationships of trust with researchers and officials in the provider countries and regions.

As a Commissioner of the ICZN, I can tell you that there is no provision in the Code to retract validly published names. Once published in a Code-compliant way, names remain available forever. Retractions do not work in zoological nomenclature. Somebody could apply for suppression of these names, but I would be doubtful that this would succeed. - I try to find out more about this current case, but in general, I find it disturbing that legislation and permitting does not encourage but restrict species discovery. In times of a biodiversity crisis, this should not be so.

Hi Dr. Krell

I am glad that the ICZN Commissioner is aware of this issue. Please let us know if you have any additional information.

I think the spider case (as you may know) has greatly exacerbated the situation in Malaysia, especially in Sabah and Sarawak.

https://www.sciencemag.org/news/2019/02/amazing-blue-tarantula-new-spider-species-did-researchers-break-law-when-they-studied

The present case may be just one of the expected consequences. A malicious or careless incident has often caused the operation of existing laws very strict.

If similar cases occur frequently, the stability of the scientific name will also be adversely affected.

Best regards,

eguchi

My colleague suggested me to read the author's opinion. Yes, this is "a very disappointing story" as the author said. Nobody benefits, just feels sad...

https://retractionwatch.com/2020/12/15/unmeet-the-beetles-a-very-disappointing-story-as-authors-yank-paper-on-new-insect-species/

My colleague told me another case of of ABS violation. Authors as well as journal editors and reviewers need to consider something based on this case...

Article Illicit centipede raises thorny question: Should journals ha...

Nagoya seems another protocol to slow the scintific exchange. The POV on genetic differs very much following countries and the aim to make any DNA molecule a reason to make business is surely not a good idea to share knowledge and make a benefit for the society. Patenting a discovery is one thing, but patenting what nature has invented is nonsense.

Thierry

Hi Dave san (Dr. David E. M. General)

Thank you very much for your explanation of the outline of the procedure, and I fully agree with the final 3 lines and suggest all of the participants of this discussion keep this in your mind.

eguchi

Swift reporting is not easy to impossible in entomology where compiling species lists can takes years or even decades if no expert for some groups is around. So either you focus on a rather well-known and neglect groups that need research most, or you deliver a very superficial report with an approximate number of specimens per family of so. Would that be permitted in the Philippines? Well, even getting the numbers somewhat accurate takes a lot of time if you do any sort of trapping and end up with tens of thousands of specimens (or a hundred vials full of springtails).

Dear Frank-Thorsten san

Thank you very much for your comments. This is also an important issue. I just started a metabarcoding project for soil macrofauna in the Ryukyus as a parallel of my ongoing project in Vietnam, because I can’t come back to Vietnam due to the COVID19 situation. I am doing this project with my Vietnamese, Taiwanese and Italian friends. What should I do when I want to do the same thing in Southeast Asia? If there is a trust and friendship between both parties, I believe that we can find reasonable solutions. It will not be easy, but not impossible.

By the way, I have a question which may be related to my first question. I think both GTI (Global Taxonomy Initiative) and GBIF were born from the CBD’s founding philosophy, just like ABS. If DSI (digital sequence information of genetic resources) is subject to ABS in the near future, how can we take a balance between GTI/GBIF and ABS? I want to find reasonable solutions (tentative solutions or rather permanent solutions).

As far as I know, researchers of some countries and regions in Southeast Asia have already become users of the genetic resources of neighboring countries and regions. It is quite normal because, if we want to understand and conserve biodiversity in our own country and region, we need to know and use biodiversity information in the other countries and regions. A permanent "provider country" and permanent "user country" do not exist. Every researchers have potential to become both a "user" and a "provider" of genetic resources under the concept of ABS.

The public DNA sequence or related information server (e.g., Genbank and GBIF) bring great benefits to researchers especially in countries and regions with poor research infrastructure. If DSI were to be tightly controlled under ABS, it would be a disadvantage for those researchers.

I think the basic issue is how scientists in countries and regions (with different academic circumstance, infrastructure and history) can understand, respect, and collaborate with each other.

eguchi

Yea. Surely.

I allow myself to come back to general considerations. I believe that it is very important and even a priority to establish relationships of trust with our interlocutors in the countries where we go for our research. They have too often been faced with one-sided relationships without receiving in return, which has made them suspicious. We must approach our relationships with a win-win logic in the long term. That's what I learned from experience, and it's very rewarding. Of course, it's time consuming.

Philippe: "relationships of trust with our interlocutors in the countries where we go for our research. They have too often been faced with one-sided relationships without receiving in return" - in return for what???

In return for research permits, access to protected areas, export permits, help in the field, etc...

Too often "researchers" obtain permits, collect samples, go back home, without even giving an activity report or without transmitting the publications resulting from these collections, which should be usefull for the students of the country where samples were collected. Is it so difficult ?

Philippe: "In return for research permits, access to protected areas, export permits" - in short, in return to "only" disturbing, multiplying the obstacles against the work, but "so kindly" not making it totally impossible? Indeed, phantastic contribution, how those dastardly scientists can be so ungrateful! I am profoundly indignant and shocked!

I wrote "general considerations".

Indeed, you may have bad and frustrating experiences! It's always better to be a diplomat, even in the face of bad faith. Anger and resentment are counter producttive. I have nothing to add.

Philippe: I also wrote general considerations: the problem is not that some officials give the permits easier and some others do not, but that anybody (any authority, any country) can consider the flora and fauna its "property", make my (yours, or anybody's) scientific work dependent upon permits, "scientific visas" &c., putting a scientist in a humiliating position of a suppliant and forcing her/him to spent great amount of time and money to pay for the "favour" (and at the end expecting the scientist to give "back" the results of so dearly paid work to those whose only "contribution" was multiplication of obstacles!). This is nothing else than mafia-type "business": "we 'magnanimously' offer you (of course, not for free...) our 'help'; you may refuse it, but then we will make continuation of your work and life impossible"!

So far of the honesty. But this attitude is terribly dangerous for the progress in science: if the freedom of scientific research have been so interpreted at the time of Cuvier, Linnaeus or Darwin, we would still learn from handbooks of unicorns, sea-bishops and fire-belching dragons, knowing next to nothing about the real fauna or flora!

As far as I understand, declaring fauna and flora the property or nation states was considered a trick or mechanism to make nation states value fauna and flora as part of their possessions. The idea was that states may protect what is theirs. I think this was the ingenious thought behind Rio: biodiversity as property of nation states rather than common heritage of humankind. If it had worked, and nation states had stopped biodiversity loss after Rio, then this would have been an ingenious thought. But it hasn't. The decline of biodiversity has not stopped and has probably not even slowed down after Rio. However, the red tape for non-commercial biodiversity research has increased enormously. And there seems to be a lot of energy out there to increase it even further. Science has been and is loosing. I am not sure that anybody is winning (apart from bureaucracy and a tiny bit of money going to biodiversity rich countries in the form of permit fees).

I personally see biodiversity as common heritage of humankind and science as an international endeavor of humankind that thrives on free exchange of ideas, data, and material (specimens). I hope that the pendulum will swing back at some point (in my lifetime) and more science-friendly policies will be rising again.

ABS Support Team for Academia, National Institute of Genetics Japan will hold the following workshops on July 27th, 2021. Please join us. The workshop will be hold in two languages, Japanese and English, with a translator.

2021 International Workshop on Biological and Genetic Resources "Correspondence to ABS in Taxonomy - Case studies in Natural History Museum in London, and in Japan"

URL for the workshop website (in Japanese)

http://nig-chizai.sakura.ne.jp/abs_tft/2021/06/25/international_bioresource_workshop2021/

URL for registration (no entry free)

https://zoom.us/webinar/register/WN_BdP2HpDvRkW0I5ZwIbhLIA

Dr. Christopher H. C. Lyal (Natural History Museum in London)

Title: ABS and Taxonomy: Challenges, solutions and the developing issue of DSI

Abstract：Chris Lyal will discuss issues arising for taxonomic collections and research from Access and Benefit Sharing (ABS) and the implementation of the Nagoya Protocol and proposed solutions for these. Lack of compliance with ABS regulations can lead to reputational damage for taxonomic institutions and even criminal charges for taxonomists; recently, several published papers have been retracted because specimens used were not collected legally. Tools to make ABS compliance easier are being developed, and Chris will describe the Code of Conduct and Best Practices developed by the Consortium of the European Taxonomic Facilities (CETAF) and how this is being implemented in the Natural History Museum. He will also discuss the current international debate on ‘Digital Sequence Information’ (DSI) and its possible inclusion within ABS requirements.

"Lack of compliance with ABS regulations can lead to reputational damage for taxonomic institutions and even criminal charges for taxonomists; recently, several published papers have been retracted because specimens used were not collected legally" - to become a scientist (and especially biologist) is nowadays by no means a promising option for those who take science seriously...

Related issue.

Preprint Ethics, law, and politics in palaeontological research: The ...

Katsuyuki: "recently, several published papers have been retracted because specimens used were not collected legally" - paranoic regulations & actions multiply nowadays... "Retraction" of published results of scientific study is a shameful wrong-doing directed not so much against its author as against science! Veracity of scientific discovery is not dependent upon whether the specimens were collected "legally" or "illegally"; now the results of the "retracted" studies have been annihilated, impoverishing our knowledge, or will be "legally" plagiarized (probably by the initiator of "retraction"...) promoting dishonest behaviour among "scientists"!

There is a lot to discuss about the Myanmar amber topic. I want to restrict myself to the accusation that research on Myanmar amber is extreme parachute science: "What we observed here is an extreme form of parachute science where instead of fieldwork, amber specimens are obtained through commercial routes". Palaeoentomological taxonomy cannot be based on fieldwork. You cannot go out and mine for amber to get specimens of a particular family you are an expert in, because you won't find what you are looking for as a single digger or a small group digging within a reasonable time frame. This is not how it works. Ideally there would be research collection in Myanmar with tens of thousands of specimens that can be visited or borrowed by taxonomic experts from all over the world. But this is not the case. Instead, we have an open market (incl. Ebay etc.), where experts can find specimens of their group. I would very much prefer the first alternative.

The other issue is that a poor country like Myanmar cannot afford a large number of taxonomists doing basic research. Not even rich countries seem to be able or willing to afford even an insufficiently low number of taxonomists. Amber entomology needs expertise, and taxonomic expertise is in decline in the western world. China invests a lot in taxonomy, but it will take a while until China can replace European/American expertise. The Chinese produce more papers and building expertise and getting better, still not all their amber papers are good science. It takes a while, even for China.

I would be happy to collaborate with insect palaeontologists from Myanmar, but I have yet to find them. This is not a joke, I did search the web for a while, because I have a project on Mesozoic amber. Where are they? I guess Myanmar cannot afford nurturing and employing world-class palaeoentomologists. This is a shame, but reality in most poor countries. Given that most taxonomic projects in rich countries are unfunded or self-funded by self-driven taxonomists, what would be the solution if we want to avoid "parachute science"? Stopping all taxonomic work on amber insects? Letting all the specimens disappear into the jewellery market?

Myanmar amber has been used intensively in recent years. On the other hand, I think that at least some researchers in Myanmar and other countries/regions feel that foreign researchers who have got academic benefits from Myanmar are not doing much to enhance Myanmar's research capacity, especially development of young researchers. In this sense, it seems to be similar to the problems related to ABS.

The political situation in Myanmar makes foreign collaboration not easy though.

Yes, not easy. I'm exploring the possibility of joint research collaboration, though. In Japan, several research institutes (including another faculty of my university) are working on joint research projects, but I think they are stopped now due to the political situation and the COVID pandemic.

Article The moral and legal imperative to return illegally exported fossils

The article describing a new species based on illegally acquired fossil specimens has been retracted. However, as I was told by a commissioner of the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature before, the scientific name itself can remain valid because the International Code of Zoological Nomenclature does not have a provision regarding when articles with taxonomic treatments are retracted.

Katsuyuki: Sorry, I do not understand: so, the name is considered valid (i.e. validly published), but there exists (at least formally) no publication in which it had been proposed? Chaos and confusion brought to perfection - only to satisfy somebody's ownership attempts...

I also recognize that the retraction caused a "strange situation", as Dr. Hołyński noted. Please see the answer from Dr. Krell on January 19, 2021. Cisneros et al (2021) noted that Ubirajara jubatus is no longer a valid scientific name due to this retraction. But, unfortunately, it may be incorrect.

Article Multilateral benefit-sharing from digital sequence informati...

Dear friends

I would ask you to sign the Open Letter aiming to establish and operate balanced ABS rules (URL for signature: https://www.dsiscientificnetwork.org/open-letter/#indiv-signatories).

The following is my own understanding and opinion. Please excuse my poor English writing.

Based on requests from not a few countries, discussions are underway at the COP to establish a mechanism to track the use of DNA sequence information in public databases as a subject of CBD-ABS (Nagoya Protocol) and to seek ways of sharing benefits derived from the use. Simply said, some countries have claimed to establish a mechanism to get the money from the persons who use DNA sequence information in public databases. However, this could be a significant burden in the conduct of research not only for researchers in developed countries, which are usually categorized as user countries, but also for researchers in developing countries. We can find many examples around us. Without exception, everyone with whom Eguchi is collaborating, as well as the international students whom Eguchi accepts and from research institutions in Asia, download from public databases (such as GenBank) DNA sequence information of the wildlife originated from countries other than their own and use it in their research. Any mechanism that charges a usage fee for such activities is probably a minor burden for researchers in developed countries like Eguchi, but it is a significant burden for researchers in Southeast Asia, especially young researchers who have a little research budget. The reason behind the emergence of such an idea is that ABS has become an economic and political issue, and politicians and bureaucrats in developing countries do not properly understand how researchers in their countries conduct research, and how research using data from neighboring countries can contribute to the conservation of biodiversity and sustainable use of biological resources in their countries. I hope that my friends in Asia who received this e-mail will consider this issue and work to ensure that the international rules of the ABS are operated for the conservation of biodiversity, which is the original purpose of the ABS (I believe that ABS is not only for the pursuit of their own economic interests). If you agree with Eguchi's idea, please sign the Open Letter.

With my best regards

eguchi

Dear Katsuyuki Eguchi, I signed the letter with my pleasure, but without much hope...

I'm afraid that "Against stupidity the gods themselves contend in vain".

In your letter initiated this discussion, you proposed to “refrain from political, historical and ideological appeal”. But what can we talk about the Nagoya Protocol when it has nothing to do with either nature conservation or, especially, with science. In fact, this is just another war for property, in which both science and nature conservation are simply ignored and, thus, will be destroyed.

Actually, the “fair benefit sharing” declared in the protocol means only that biological diversity becomes the property of local bureaucracies. It is not necessary to say that we are talking about the "property of peoples". I myself have lived for a long time in a country that declared "all-people" property. Guess three times - who controlled this "all-people" property, and who, thus, was the real owner.

Thanks to the protocol, the local bureaucracies smelled the smell of money, and now, naturally, they will try to extract this money by any means. Meanwhile, nature conservation requires knowledge about what, in fact, should be preserved. And no country in the world, with the exception of the richest few, is able to study biodiversity for all groups of organisms. It seems reasonable that any country should be interested in knowing its own biodiversity and if someone from abroad invests efforts in such work, it should be welcomed. But such thinking can hardly be expected from the bureaucracy...

Mark

Dear Mark Kalashian

Thank you very much for your thoughtful comment. From an objective point of view, you may be right. On the other hand, under the National Bio-Resource Project (MEXT, Japan) I am in charge of a role to help researchers to conduct research smoothly and without trouble with governments and researchers in genetic resource countries in the post-ABS era. Therefore, I am required to make effort for finding a drop-off point within the existing framework and taking any action to ensure that the existing framework does not become any more inconvenient for researchers in both "provider" and "user" counties (as defined by ABS).

eguchi

I would recommend you to read the following publication which has the same roots with ABS issues.

Article Ethics, law, and politics in palaeontological research: The ...

There are several points in the argument of this paper I disagree with. The main is the killer argument of parachute science. The authors claim that research on Myanmar amber is "an extreme form of parachute science where instead of fieldwork, amber specimens are obtained through commercial routes and are apparently not regulated accordingly by national laws relating to fossils or gemstones". No researcher parachutes into Myanmar and takes amber out. Amber is exported as gemstone (legally), not as fossils (which would be illegal). Amber deposits are not suitable for scientific fieldwork because of the scarcity of inclusions. Most amber is mined for the gem trade. A scientist mining for amber would spend years to find a single specimen of his or her group of interest. So commercial amber mining is the only way to get material available for scientific research (same with Baltic and Dominican amber, e.g.). Then there is the complaint that there are no Myanmar scientist involved. Most paleoentomological research as most of taxonomy is done without funding. I am not aware of the existence of paleoentomologists in Myanmar (but would love to learn otherwise - the mentioned Myanmar Amber Museum is the private initiative of an American expatriate amateur). An unfunded taxonomic project cannot engage in local capacity building, because it cannot even pay for open access fees of the resulting papers. Taxonomy is rarely funded. I am not sure about the situation in China, but here in the West, taxonomy is mainly done on the side. I would argue that most taxonomic research is and has always been "centred around the principles of ‘parachute science’ and scientific colonialism" if you want to call it that because in most (invertebrate) groups, you have only few experts, often old, retired, most of them without sufficient budgets. In taxonomy, we don't have the luxury to consider in which country an expert is located. We are happy if an experts still exists somewhere. On the other hand, taxonomy is not in any way defined by national boundaries. Distribution patterns and phylogeny do not care about national boundaries. As a result, most taxonomy is done by taxonomists located in countries different from the countries of origin of their study material. Is this bad? If so, then we either need to stop describing the world's extant and fossil biodiversity, or get taxonomic work better funded - good luck with that.

Even the (itself highly unlikely...) much better funding would not eliminate the need for "parachute science" simply because it is impossible to have specialists in all groups of organisms in every country! The time of "biological Leonardo da Vinci"-s able to effectively work on any group of animals or plants as did Linnaeus, or even on all insects like Fabricius, has gone long ago, now even the "working knowledge" of an entire single family like Buprestidae (which is only one of ca. 200 groups of simiar rank in Coleoptera, which is only one of several tens of orders of Insecta, which is but one of several classes in Arthropoda, which is but one of many types of Animalia, which is no more than one of 4-5 kingdoms of organisms...) has passed away with Obenberger and Théry more than half a century ago: e.g. I am known as a specialist in Buprestidae but can hardly perform any serious (more than occasional fragmentary "contributions") study in any of its subgroups beyond my real speciality, the Chrysochroina (again: one of the 17 subtribes of Buprestini, which is only one of 4 or 5 tribes of Buprestinae, which is but one of 4 subfamilies of the Buprestidae!) - and even in the systematics (taxonomy, phylogeny, biogeography) of so restricted group I am the only specialist in the world (and am 86 years old...). Similarly, there is only one specialist in the large tribe Chrysobothrini, only two (themselves - by necessity! - restricting their active interests to different geographic areas: Eurasia vs. southern continents) experts in the enormous (>4000 known species!) genus Agrilus, none working (on more than local scope) on very speciose subtribe Trachyina, &c. And serious work on the systematics of any wider distributed group is not possible based on material from single country: almost always at least continents, usually the fauna of the entire world must be taken into consideration! So, abandoning of "scientific colonialism" in favour of nationalist greed is a simply the proverbial stupid "gardener's dog attitude" ("of no use for me, but I prevent access to anybody else") and leads only to the situation when no serious biodiversity studies are possible! For some fanatic technocrats this may seem desirable, but...

Article Serial: New Horizons of Biodiversity Research in the Age of ...

A new article on ABS was published from our project.

Article Find your way out of the ABS maze: three cases of successful...

The second article on ABS was published from our project.