The convention on Biological Diversity: Some implications for microbiology and microbial culture collections

1996 ◽  
Vol 17 (5-6) ◽  
pp. 505-511 ◽  
Author(s):  
B E Kirsop
2019 ◽  
Vol 40 (3) ◽  
pp. 117
Author(s):  
David Smith ◽  
Matthew Ryan

There are numerous legislative regulations that impact on microbiology, microbial Biological Resource Centres (mBRCs) and culture collections, with which all microbiologists must comply. These affect access for collection, handling, distribution/shipping and utilisation of microbial resources. Areas where regulations are triggered are international post, quarantine and safety. The legislation and supporting documents are often difficult to find and understand, therefore the World Federation for Culture Collections (WFCC) has a long history in providing advice and guidance to help compliance with such legislation. A visit to the WFCC library (http://www.wfcc.info/wfcc_library/) will provide information on postal requirements shipping dangerous goods and on control measures in place for biosecurity to control access to dangerous pathogens. This paper will update such communications and provide relevant information on: Health and Safety (H&S); Quarantine regulations; and Postal Regulations and Safety. Other papers in this special issue will address elements that impact on distribution and use of microorganisms for example in packaging, legislation on the proliferation, distribution and misuse of dangerous pathogens, export licensing measures, the Convention on Biological Diversity and the Nagoya Protocol, ownership of Intellectual Property Rights (IPR) and the provision of safety information to the recipient of microorganisms. The advice is generic and users are advised to refer to their own National guidance and implementation acts to ensure they are compliant. The work was compiled from authors' efforts in their management of an mBRC and most recently contributions to the EMBRIC project (http://www.embric.eu/) in particular Deliverable 6.1 ‘Microbial pipeline from environment to active compounds' (http://www.embric.eu/deliverables).


2019 ◽  
Vol 40 (3) ◽  
pp. 108 ◽  
Author(s):  
Andrey Yurkov ◽  
Hilke Marie Püschner ◽  
Amber Hartman Scholz

The Convention on Biological Diversity and the Nagoya Protocol have created new challenges for international microbiological research. With the implementation of the Nagoya Protocol in 2014, the European Union created a new voluntary legal mechanism, the Register of Collections, to help users of collections, including culture collections, have an easier path to Nagoya Protocol compliance by using a so-called ‘registered collection'. The Leibniz Institute DSMZ is the first, and so far only, collection to successfully be entered into the Register. The challenges and lessons learned during this process can be informative for culture collections and users of microbial resources beyond the EU and indeed around the world.


Human Ecology ◽  
2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Liz Alden Wily

AbstractI address a contentious element in forest property relations to illustrate the role of ownership in protecting and expanding of forest cover by examining the extent to which rural communities may legally own forests. The premise is that whilst state-owned protected areas have contributed enormously to forest survival, this has been insufficiently successful to justify the mass dispossession of customary land-owning communities this has entailed. Further, I argue that state co-option of community lands is unwarranted. Rural communities on all continents ably demonstrate the will and capacity to conserve forests – provided their customary ownership is legally recognized. I explore the property rights reforms now enabling this. The replication potential of community protected forestlands is great enough to deserve flagship status in global commitments to expand forest including in the upcoming new Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD).


2021 ◽  
Vol 8 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Sarah K. Jones ◽  
Andrea C. Sánchez ◽  
Stella D. Juventia ◽  
Natalia Estrada-Carmona

AbstractWith the Convention on Biological Diversity conference (COP15), United Nations Climate Change Conference (COP26), and United Nations Food Systems Summit, 2021 is a pivotal year for transitioning towards sustainable food systems. Diversified farming systems are key to more sustainable food production. Here we present a global dataset documenting outcomes of diversified farming practices for biodiversity and yields compiled following best standards for systematic review of primary studies and specifically designed for use in meta-analysis. The dataset includes 4076 comparisons of biodiversity outcomes and 1214 of yield in diversified farming systems compared to one of two reference systems. It contains evidence from 48 countries of effects on species from 33 taxonomic orders (spanning insects, plants, birds, mammals, eukaryotes, annelids, fungi, and bacteria) of diversified farming systems producing annual or perennial crops across 12 commodity groups. The dataset presented provides a resource for researchers and practitioners to easily access information on where diversified farming systems effectively contribute to biodiversity and food production outcomes.


2013 ◽  
Vol 47 (4) ◽  
pp. 1403-1433 ◽  
Author(s):  
CHRISTOPH ANTONS

AbstractTraditional knowledge related to biodiversity, agriculture, medicine and artistic expressions has recently attracted much interest amongst policy makers, legal academics and social scientists. Several United Nations organizations, such as the World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO) and the Convention on Biological Diversity under the United Nations Environmental Programme (UNEP), have been working on international models for the protection of such knowledge held by local and indigenous communities. Relevant national, regional or provincial level legislation comes in the form of intellectual property laws and laws related to health, heritage or environmental protection. In practice, however, it has proven difficult to agree on definitions of the subject matter, to delineate local communities and territories holding the knowledge, and to clearly identify the subjects and beneficiaries of the protection. In fact, claims to ‘cultural property’ and heritage have led to conflicts and tensions between communities, regions and nations. This paper will use Southeast Asian examples and case studies to show the importance of concepts such as Zomia, ‘regions of refuge’ and mandala as well as ‘borderlands’ studies to avoid essentialized notions of communities and cultures in order to develop a nuanced understanding of the difficulties for national and international lawmaking in this field. It will also develop a few suggestions on how conflicts and tensions could be avoided or ameliorated.


2012 ◽  
Vol 19 (3) ◽  
pp. 401-422 ◽  
Author(s):  
Krishna Ravi Srinivas

AbstractThe experience of the indigenous communities regarding access and benefit sharing under the national regimes based on provisions of Convention on Biological Diversity and Bonn Guidelines has not been satisfactory. The communities expect that noncommercial values should be respected and misappropriation should be prevented. Some academics and civil society groups have suggested that traditional knowledge commons and biocultural protocols will be useful in ensuring that while noncommercial values are respected, access and benefit sharing takes place on conditions that are acceptable to the communities. This proposal is examined in this context in the larger context of access and benefit sharing under the Convention on Biological Diversity and implementing prior informed consent principles in access and benefit sharing. This article examines knowledge commons, provides examples from constructed commons in different sectors and situates traditional knowledge commons in the context of debates on commons and public domain. The major shortcomings of traditional commons and bicultural protocol are pointed out, and it is suggested that these are significant initiatives that can be combined with the Nagoya Protocol to fulfill the expectations of indigenous communities.


Conservation ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 1 (2) ◽  
pp. 73-81
Author(s):  
André Derek Mader ◽  
Brian Alan Johnson ◽  
Yuki Ohashi ◽  
Isabella Fenstermaker

Biodiversity knowledge is communicated by scientists to policymakers at the biodiversity “science-policy interface” (SPI). Although the biodiversity SPI is the subject of a growing body of literature, gaps in our understanding include the efficacy of mechanisms to bridge the interface, the quality of information exchanged between science and policy, and the inclusivity of stakeholders involved. To improve this understanding, we surveyed an important but under-studied group—biodiversity policymakers and scientific advisors representing their respective countries in negotiations of the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) and the Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services (IPBES). We found that a wide variety of SPI mechanisms were being used. Overall, they were considered to be sufficiently effective, improving over time, and supplied with information of adequate quality. Most respondents, however, agreed that key actors were still missing from the biodiversity SPI.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document