Use and exchange of aquatic genetic resources in aquaculture: information relevant to access and benefit sharing

Access to biodiversity for food production: Reconciling open access digital sequence information with access and benefit sharing

High‐throughput genotyping in estimating genetic resources and detecting pathogens in aquaculture

The worldwide use of Nile tilapia (Oreochromis niloticus Linnaeus, 1758) in aquaculture represents a somewhat unique scenario. The natural distributions and global genetic resources of tilapias are in Africa, yet the main centers of utilization for aquaculture are primarily in Asia. Within a few decades, Nile tilapia graduated from being an ‘orphan commodity’ (i.e. of interest to only resource‐poor fish farmers) to a globally traded commodity. Most aquaculture production of Nile tilapia in Asia and elsewhere has relied on a narrow genetic base. The natural genetic resources have not yet been fully documented and tapped for use in aquaculture, and many natural populations are under severe threat of irreversible change or loss. Although genetic improvement is now well underway, an important question is how the wealth of Nile tilapia wild genetic resources shall be used for the benefit of a wide range of users, at present outside Africa. This review focuses on documenting the status of Nile tilapia genetic resources (including the potential threats), providing a case for their conservation and for the judicious utilization of genetic diversity for the benefit of all stakeholders; and on analysis of the lessons learnt from a major Nile tilapia genetic improvement initiative, the genetic improvement of farmed tilapia (GIFT) project. Information about other genetic improvement efforts by means of hybridization, sex reversal and YY male technology is also presented.

Early domestication in the aquaculture sector is unlikely to benefit from the same extent of free exchange of genetic resources that was enjoyed by the agriculture sector. The recent rise of access and benefit sharing (ABS) and patent restrictions concerning aquatic genetic resources are becoming increasingly complex and fragmented. This chapter navigates the main trade, environmental and social international instruments that affect ABS of genetic resources within three jurisdictional areas – waters within national jurisdictions, beyond national jurisdictions and in Antarctic waters. It concludes that the current fragmented geographical approach to ABS will ultimately hinder product development and research in aquaculture. Instead it offers some practical options for a common approach to implementing the relevant ABS and patent law instruments with the aim of accommodating aquaculture’s special characteristics, namely, its lag in domestication and research, its unique pattern of resource use and exchange and the trans-jurisdictional nature of its biological resources.

Access and benefit sharing (ABS) of genetic resources is a concept that is increasingly important for product development in aquaculture. ABS regulates the way aquatic genetic resources can be accessed from the world's waters and how the benefits that result from their use are shared between the providers and users of genetic resources and their derivatives. This article gives an overview of the multiple approaches to sharing aquaculture genetic resources under ABS regimes across the three jurisdictional areas in which they are found—waters within national jurisdiction, beyond national jurisdictions and in the Antarctic Treaty Area. It highlights the complexity and inconsistencies relating to obligations for technology transfer across the various regimes and the implications this has for sharing genetic resources for use in aquaculture. It offers a practical solution to navigating this complexity by using an evolving patent defence approach consistent with the World Trade Organisation's Agreement on Trade‐Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPS). It concludes that this approach can guide the resolution of legal challenges that ABS regimes across the jurisdictional areas have in common, which concern derivatives and commercial use of genetic resources.

Biological control is one of the most environmentally safe and economically profitable pest management methods. Beneficial organisms used in biocontrol can be of native or exotic origin. As invasive species are being accidentally introduced at an ever-increasing rate, deliberate introductions of non-native biocontrol agents are often needed for the area-wide management of these invasive pests. However, recent regulations have delayed or prevented prospecting for new, non-native natural enemies. A first phase of regulation started in the 1980s and concerned the development of risk analyses for non-native species. At this time, as commercial biocontrol became popular and the number of species of biocontrol agents on the market quickly increased, many thought that risk analyses were needed to prevent non-experts importing and commercializing insufficiently studied organisms. However, implementation of (environmental) risk assessments for biocontrol agents has resulted in a slowdown in the use of new non-native natural enemies, and in higher project costs caused by the need to prepare elaborate application dossiers. These regulations were mainly aimed at preventing potential negative effects of releasing non-native biocontrol agents and, thus, in increasing confidence in this pest management method. The second phase of regulations started more recently and deals with the question “Who owns biological control agents?” At the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) in Rio de Janeiro (Brazil) in 1993, one of the three objectives formulated was “the fair and equitable sharing of the benefits arising out of the utilization of genetic resources”. Biocontrol agents are such genetic resources. The Nagoya Protocol, a supplementary agreement to the CBD, provides a framework for the effective implementation of the fair and equitable sharing of benefits (i.e. the Access and Benefit Sharing (ABS) regulations) arising out of the utilization of genetic resources. Signatories of the Protocol are required to develop a legal framework to ensure access to genetic resources, benefit-sharing and compliance. Recent applications of CBD principles have already created barriers to collection and export of natural enemies for biocontrol research in several countries. If the Nagoya Protocol is widely applied, it may seriously interfere with searching for and application of biocontrol agents against invasive pests. Therefore, the International Organization for Biological Control (IOBC) first of all made an appeal to those involved in developing the legal framework for ABS, to design regulations that support the biocontrol sector by facilitating the exchange of biocontrol agents, including clear guidelines. Secondly, the IOBC also strongly recommended that biocontrol agents should be considered as a special case under the CBD, by creating a non-financial ABS regime, mainly because classical biocontrol is a non-for-profit activity, and both developing and developed countries benefit from the use of the same biocontrol agents. Thirdly, as prospecting for new non-native natural enemies has currently been suspended if not terminated 656in many countries due to CBD and ABS procedures, the IOBC prepared a best practices guide to assist the biocontrol community to demonstrate due diligence in complying with ABS requirements. The best practices guide includes a draft ABS Agreement for collection and study of biocontrol agents that can be used for scientific research and non-commercial release into nature by countries having signed the Nagoya Protocol. If many countries decide to implement the IOBC proposal for an agreement for collection and study of natural enemies, biocontrol might face a bright future.

Societal Impact StatementReading and writing DNA is now possible with an unprecedented speed and ease. To catch up with digitization of genetic resources, scientists need to join with all relevant stakeholders and design new global governance mechanisms for digital sequence information. We propose the establishment of a Multi‐stakeholder Committee on the Governance of Digital Sequence Information (DSI). This multi‐disciplinary body will be dedicated to mitigate governance issues associated with the digitization of genetic resources. Solving the DSI conundrum is sorely needed given the forthcoming multilateral meetings of the Access and Benefit Sharing (ABS) framework (the next CBD COP is scheduled in 2021) that are central to tackle the global loss of biodiversity, global warming, pandemic risk and food insecurity.SummaryContemporary research is increasingly data‐centric and the rise of genomics revolutionized our approach and use of genetic resources. However, genomics developed relatively independently from the international instruments on the conservation of biological diversity, in particular the Access and Benefit Sharing (ABS) framework. The legal and political status of Digital Sequence Information (DSI) derived from genetic resources emerged recently as a contentious point in the various ABS instruments dealing with genetic resources. In view of the multiple parallel and uncoordinated debates that occurred in various forums dealing with plants, animals, terrestrial, microbial, marine and agricultural biodiversity, we propose here to take a step back in the discussion. We argue that DSI should be considered as an overarching issue to be addressed through a coordinated and inclusive Multi‐stakeholder Committee that would assess its position and role within the existing ABS regime complex. This Multi‐stakeholder Committee on the Governance of Digital Sequence Information, that may run under the auspices of the United Nations, will be dedicated to mitigate global governance issues associated with the digitization of genetic resources. In this paper, we sketch this body as a transversal and inclusive tool to facilitate long‐term coherence in all ABS policy forums.

Working with genetic resources and associated data requires greater attention since the Nagoya Protocol on Access and Benefit Sharing (ABS) came into force in October 2014. Biologists must ensure that they have legal clarity in how they can and cannot use the genetic resources on which they carry out research. Not only must they work within the spirit in the Convention on Biological Diversity (https://www.cbd.int/convention/articles/default.shtml?a=cbd-02) but also they may have regulatory requirements to meet. Although the Nagoya Protocol was negotiated and agreed globally, it is the responsibility of each country that ratifies it to introduce their individual implementing procedures and practices. Many countries in Europe, such as the UK, have chosen not to put access controls in place at this time, but others already have laws enacted providing ABS measures under the Convention on Biological Diversity or specifically to implement the Nagoya Protocol. Access legislation is in place in many countries and information on this can be found at the ABS Clearing House (https://absch.cbd.int/). For example, Brazil, although not a Party to the Nagoya Protocol at the time of writing, has Law 13.123 which entered into force on 17 November 2015, regulated by Decree 8.772 which was published on 11 May 2016. In this case, export of Brazilian genetic resources is not allowed unless the collector is registered in the National System for Genetic Heritage and Associated Traditional Knowledge Management (SisGen). The process entails that a foreign scientist must first of all be registered working with someone in Brazil and have authorization to collect. The enactment of European Union Regulation po. 511/2014 implements Nagoya Protocol elements that govern compliance measures for users and offers the opportunity to demonstrate due diligence in sourcing their organisms by selecting from holdings of 'registered collections'. The UK has introduced a Statutory Instrument that puts in place enforcement measures within the UK to implement this European Union Regulation; this is regulated by Regulatory Delivery, Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategies. Scientific communities, including the private sector, individual institutions and organizations, have begun to design policy and best practices for compliance. Microbiologists and culture collections alike need to be aware of the legislation of the source country of the materials they use and put in place best practices for compliance; such best practice has been drafted by the Microbial Resource Research Infrastructure, and other research communities such as the Consortium of European Taxonomic Facilities, the Global Genome Biodiversity Network and the International Organisation for Biological Control have published best practice and/or codes of conduct to ensure legitimate exchange and use of genetic resources.

Under the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) countries have sovereign rights over their genetic resources. Agreements governing the access to these resources and the sharing of the benefits arising from their use need to be established between involved parties [i.e. Access and Benefit Sharing (ABS)]. This also applies to species collected for potential use in biological control. Recent applications of CBD principles have already made it difficult or impossible to collect and export natural enemies for biological control research in several countries. If such an approach is widely applied it would impede this very successful and environmentally safe pest management method based on the use of biological diversity. The CBD is required to agree a comprehensive Access and Benefit Sharing process in 2010, in preparation for which the IOBC (International Organization for Biological Control of Noxious Animals and Plants) Global Commission on Biological Control and Access and Benefit Sharing has prepared this position paper. Here, we first describe the practice of biological control in relation to the principles of ABS, illustrated extensively by case studies and successes obtained with biological control. Next, we emphasise the very limited monetary benefits generated in biological control when compared to other fields of ABS such as the collection of germplasm for development of human drugs, chemical pesticides or crop cultivars. Subsequently, we inform the biological control community of good ABS practice and challenges, and we hope to make clear to the community involved in ABS under the CBD the special situation with regard to biological control. Finally, based on the non-commercial academic research model, we make recommendations which would facilitate the practice of collection and exchange of biological control agents, propose a workable framework to assist policy makers and biological control practitioners, and urge biological control leaders in each country to get involved in the discussions with their national ABS contact point to take their needs into consideration.

Oberthür, Sebastian, and G. Kristin Rosendal, eds. 2014. Global Governance of Genetic Resources: Access and Benefit Sharing after the Nagoya Protocol. New York and London: Routledge.

Access and benefit sharing (ABS) is a framework which refers to a relatively recent type of legal requirements for access to and use of “genetic resources”. They are based on diverse national and regional laws and regulations, which mostly result from the implementation of the United Nations’ Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) and its supplementary agreement, the Nagoya Protocol. Their ambition is to achieve fair and equitable sharing of benefits arising out of the use of genetic resources as an incentive to conserve and sustainably use them. This paper describes the experiences, practical constraints and complexities encountered by users of genetic resources when dealing with ABS legislation, with a focus on users from the private sector. We provide insights on how ABS laws have fundamentally changed the way of working with genetic resources, in the hope that it inspires re-thinking of the ABS framework, to better support the overall objectives of the CBD.

Objectives: Bio resources are sources for major economies in the world and provide livelihood opportunities for local tribes. Bio resources form part of raw material for herbal products/medicine manufacturing industry. One of the objectives of the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) is access and benefit sharing (ABS) arising out of utilization of bio resources. ABS calculation is most debated issue among end user – herbal products / medicine manufacturing industry. Methods and Results: Mechanisms for ABS computation are still evolving in many nations. In order to remove disparity in ABS calculation and bring in transparency, in this article we have presented three models. In the process, we have developed bio resource sustainability grid to map bio resources based on the i) ease of access, ii) regenerability of resources and iii) sustainability. First model describes calculation of ABS according to cost of bio resources, the second model links to proportion of bio resource with proportion of final formulation and the third model provides a formula which is analogous to Drug Price Control Order. Conclusion: With increase in use of botanical dietary supplements, nutraceuticals and emerging research in phytopharmaceuticals as drugs the quantum of usage of bio resources will proportionally increase. In addition to usage, conservation of critical bioresources is responsibility of stakeholders. The ABS computation approaches we have presented here can provide transparent ABS computation. The models can be adopted by other nations BDAs either directly or after minor modifications. The purpose of transparency in ABS calculation is served as both the end user and regulator can calculate the ABS payments without debate. Further, it would supplement the cause of sustainable utilization of bioresources while promoting conservation.

Biological taxonomy involves ordering organisms into groupings and has a number of purposes – identifying an unfamiliar organism, a convenient and practical way to know what is being discussed, an orderly system for storing and retrieving information, showing kinship relationships between organisms, constructing classes about which inductive generalisations might be made, and so on.1 The organism once ordered into a particular grouping, however, then needs a classification identifier (a name) so that individuals in a particular grouping can be distinguished from individuals in other groupings: ‘[t]he botanist is distinguished from the layman in that [s/]he can give a name which fits one particular plant and not another, and which can be understood by anyone the world over’.2 A name is, therefore, fundamental to being able to communicate about organisms3 (especially in commerce)4 and as an anchor for mobilising, serving, integrating and exchanging information5 – ‘names are mere cyphers which are easier to use than lengthy descriptions’.6 This also means that along with the development of taxonomy goes the important\ndevelopment of naming or nomenclature, being the technique of naming:7

ABSTRACTBiological control agents must be collected and utilised in compliance with the Nagoya Protocol on Access and Benefit Sharing (ABS) which is being implemented independently by each country that is signatory to the Protocol. By March 2018, 50 countries had legislation in place with an additional 54 designing their Legislative, Administrative or Policy Measures having become Party to the Protocol. Apart from the problem of dealing with the many different mechanisms countries are putting in place, it is often difficult to find relevant information on the ABS Clearing House and to access and receive appropriate responses from the National Focal Points or Competent National Authorities. We feel that a lot of time is lost on both sides (National authorities and scientists seeking information), and the process would benefit from streamlining. Also, open questions remain, such as how to deal with the generation digital sequence information and what specific activities are considered utilisation, especially for biological control. CABI has pro-actively developed an ABS policy and best practices for its staff to try and comply with the Nagoya Protocol. In addition, CABI has started negotiations with several provider countries, beginning with its member countries, to have its ABS policy and best practices recognised, considering the non-monetary benefits typically associated with biological control. The Nagoya Protocol was born out of the necessity to guarantee the fair and equitable sharing of benefits arising from the utilisation of genetic resources. However, it should not hinder the development of best practice solutions to protect exactly these genetic resources from threats like invasive species. It is important that research and development that addresses global societal challenges are not impeded and that science and its output are recognised as a way to preserve and use genetic resources in an equitable way.

International conventions play an important role in regulating access to plant genetic resources. These regulations must balance the goal of ensuring wide access to plant genetic resources with doing this in a fair way. This is a central dilemma in achieving just transitions: how to move towards more sustainable societies in ways that are equitable and fair way. In regulations for plant genetic resources, this balance is struck with the concept of Access and Benefit Sharing (ABS). Under the bilateral system of the Nagoya Protocol, ABS requires anyone seeking access to a genetic resource to agree with the provider of that resource on what benefits will be shared. However, the lack of clarity as to what constitutes a 'benefit' has been a major stumbling block in the establishment of ABS agreements and therefore the exchange of genetic material. This article fills this gap by identifying and characterizing what types of benefits have been included in the ABS agreements established successfully under the Nagoya Protocol. We found that ABS agreements can include an incredible variety of types of monetary and non-monetary benefits, that can contribute to a wide range of different objectives, and which are not necessarily related to the benefits obtained from using the genetic resource. By providing more clarity over what benefits can be shared, this overview and characterization of benefits shared in successful ABS agreements supports the development of successful future ABS agreements. We argue that the experiences of developing Access and Benefit Sharing into a workable concept may offer valuable insights for how regulations can play a role in just transitions.