Implications of the Nagoya Protocol for genome resource banks composed of biomaterials from rare and endangered speciesPierre Comizzoli A C and William V. Holt B
A Smithsonian Conservation Biology Institute, National Zoological Park, 3001 Connecticut Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20008, USA.
B Academic Unit of Reproductive and Developmental Medicine, University of Sheffield, Jessop Wing, Tree Root Walk, Sheffield S10 2SF, UK.
C Corresponding author. Email: firstname.lastname@example.org
Reproduction, Fertility and Development 28(8) 1145-1160 https://doi.org/10.1071/RD15429
Submitted: 21 October 2015 Accepted: 2 February 2016 Published: 24 February 2016
The Nagoya Protocol on Access to Genetic Resources and the Fair and Equitable Sharing of Benefits Arising from their Utilisation is a multilateral legal instrument within the Convention on Biodiversity. It has now come into force, having been signed by 92 countries, 68 of which have ratified it, but notably these do not yet include the US, China, Canada and Russia. The overarching objective of the Nagoya Protocol is to prevent the unfair commercial exploitation of a country’s biodiversity and it also protects traditional knowledge. Although the intentions seem reasonable and equitable, the provisions of the Nagoya Protocol will have major effects on the ability of researchers in both the commercial and non-commercial sectors to access genetic materials (which are widely defined and include almost every conceivable animal product, as well as whole animals) from around the world. It also places a heavy bureaucratic burden on researchers and their institutions, which must comply with an international standard and obtain an International Certificate of Compliance proving that all samples will be collected according to the terms of the Protocol. Herein we review of the unforeseen implications of the Nagoya Protocol in relation to biobanking and animal conservation.
Additional keywords: breeding, conservation biology, genetic materials, museum collections, population management, zoological parks.
ReferencesBielanski, A. (2014). Biosafety in embryos and semen cryopreservation, storage, management and transport. Adv. Exp. Med. Biol. 753, 429–465.
| Biosafety in embryos and semen cryopreservation, storage, management and transport.CrossRef | 1:STN:280:DC%2BC2cbptVChsg%3D%3D&md5=b03b62a03682bb32e13fbb717fc5aba8CAS | 25091919PubMed |
Cock, M. J. W., van Lenteren, J. C., Brodeur, J., Barratt, B. I. P., Bigler, F., Bolckmans, F., Consoli, F. L., Haas, F., Mason, P. G., and Parra, J. R. P. (2010). Do new access and benefit sharing procedures under the Convention on Biological Diversity threaten the future of biological control? BioControl 55, 199–218.
| Do new access and benefit sharing procedures under the Convention on Biological Diversity threaten the future of biological control?CrossRef |
Davis, K., Fontes, E., and Marinoni, L. (2013). Ex situ collections and the Nagoya Protocol: a briefing on the exchange of specimens between European and Brazilian ex situ collections, and the state of the art of relevant ABS practices. In ‘International Workshop on The Role to be Played by Biological Collections Under the Nagoya Protocol’, Brazil. Available at http://sectordialogues.org/sites/default/files/acoes/documentos/background_paper.pdf [Verified 9 February 2016]
Escobar, H. (2015). Natural resources. Brazil cuts red tape stifling biodiversity studies. Science 348, 952–953.
| Natural resources. Brazil cuts red tape stifling biodiversity studies.CrossRef | 1:CAS:528:DC%2BC2MXhtVehtbzO&md5=77ee7f0882f24864795b9d6ca307dac7CAS | 26023111PubMed |
Greiber, T., Moreno, S. P., Ahrén, M., Carrasco, J. N., Kamau, E. C., Medaglia, J. C., Oliva, M. J., Perron-Welch, F. and Williams, N. A. C. (2012). An explanatory guide to the Nagoya protocol on access and benefit-sharing. (International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN): Gland, Switzerland.)
Holt, W. V., Bennett, P. M., Volobouev, V., and Watson, P. F. (1996). Genetic resource banks in wildlife conservation. J. Zool. 238, 531–544.
| Genetic resource banks in wildlife conservation.CrossRef |
Loskutoff, N. M., Holt, W. V., and Bartels, P. (Eds) (2003). ‘Conservation Breeding Specialist Group (SSC/IUCN). Biomaterial Transport and Disease Risk: Workbook Development.’ (Conservation Breeding Specialist Group: Apple Valley, MN.)
Penfold, L. M., Monfort, S. L., Wolfe, B. A., Citino, S. B., and Wildt, D. E. (2005). Reproductive physiology and artificial insemination studies in wild and captive gerenuk (Litocranius walleri walleri). Reprod. Fertil. Dev. 17, 707–714.
| Reproductive physiology and artificial insemination studies in wild and captive gerenuk (Litocranius walleri walleri).CrossRef | 1:CAS:528:DC%2BD2MXhtFKkt7zM&md5=77032b6b176fa8e7e8162be17ffec0e8CAS | 16364224PubMed |
Richerzhagen, C. (2014). The Nagoya Protocol: fragmentation or consolidation? Resources 3, 135–151.
| The Nagoya Protocol: fragmentation or consolidation?CrossRef |
Schindel, D. E. (2010). Biology without borders. Nature 467, 779–781.
| Biology without borders.CrossRef | 1:CAS:528:DC%2BC3cXht1yhsLbL&md5=c9c6d405cdb5a483ee8778830cf30cb0CAS | 20944713PubMed |
Schindel, D. E., Bubela, T., Rosenthal, J., Castle, D., du Plessis, P., and Bye, R. (2015). The new age of the Nagoya Protocol. Nat. Conserv. 12, 43–56.
| The new age of the Nagoya Protocol.CrossRef |
Sontakke, S. D., Patil, M. S., Umapathy, G., Rao, K. R., and Shivaji, S. (2009). Ejaculate characteristics, short-term semen storage and successful artificial insemination following synchronisation of oestrus in the Indian blackbuck antelope (Antilope cervicapra). Reprod. Fertil. Dev. 21, 749–756.
| Ejaculate characteristics, short-term semen storage and successful artificial insemination following synchronisation of oestrus in the Indian blackbuck antelope (Antilope cervicapra).CrossRef | 19567218PubMed |
Watanabe, M. (2015). The Nagoya Protocol on access and benefit sharing international treaty poses challenges for biological collections. Bioscience , .
| The Nagoya Protocol on access and benefit sharing international treaty poses challenges for biological collections.CrossRef |
Wildt, D. E., Rall, W. F., Critser, J. K., Monfort, S. L., and Seal, U. S. (1997). Genome resource banks: ‘living collections’ for biodiversity conservation. Bioscience 47, 689–698.
| Genome resource banks: ‘living collections’ for biodiversity conservation.CrossRef |