|
|
Post by nomad on Apr 20, 2016 5:03:07 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by nomihoudai on Apr 20, 2016 8:04:30 GMT
The Nagoya protocol should not concern insect collecting at all, if I have understood the legislative texts correctly. There is a huge hysteria going around among collectors, which I would mainly attribute to misreading the texts, and a general ignorance in other legislative texts. One example of this general ignorance would be talking about CITES I and CITES II in Europe. We don't have these lists in Europe. We signed the CITES (Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora, or short Washington convention) but this convention of course is not a legislative text that does have any value within a country/area. In concordance with CITES we have the Council Regulation (EC) No 338/97 with the Annex A (CITES I + others), Annex B (CITES II + others), etc. So we protected even more species. Now for this case, let's take a look at the short version of the text (this text is JUST taken from the website, the official text is in the PROTOCOL). The text is written in a bottom-up fashion, if we find something in the first paragraph, that tells us that insect collecting is not part of it we can stop reading, and be happy, because all the rest will not matter to us. - Take measures providing that genetic resources utilized within their jurisdiction have been accessed in accordance with prior informed consent, and that mutually agreed terms have been established, as required by another contracting party
That's one hell of a complicated sentence, what does it mean? Let's split it up
This means that a law on national level has to be created when a country ratifies the protocol. What will be in the law?
- providing that genetic resources...
Genetic resources? What's a genetic resource? There must be more, let's read on.
- ...utilized within their jurisdiction
Well now we got to look at existing laws. A law always has a specific area where it applies, there is no worldwide law, law is acting on a state level or trade area. I only want to take out the laws applying in Europe as I am too lazy looking up every single law in the world... In Europe we have the European Patent Office (EPO) that regulates the use and patentability (copyright) of animals. Taking this overview from a short report on the EPO jurisdiction (EPC) in use: - Under the EPC, the requirements for patentability are that the invention be novel, involve an inventive step, have an industrial application and not be excluded from patentability. [http://schertenleib-avocats.com/document%20files/Article%20Org.pdf]
Is an insect an invention? Novel? Have an industrial application? Hell no, they don't. So they cannot be patented in Europe, and they cannot be part of the Nagoya Protocol.
DONE.
I could stop explaining things now as we can already see that Nagoya doesn't bother us, unless we take a Chinese beetle larvae, and do selective breeding on it to sell it as the newest hype in food technology, but I will also quickly explain the rest of the above sentence:
- utilized within their jurisdiction have been accessed in accordance with prior informed consent, and that mutually agreed terms have been established, as required by another contracting party.
This simply states that if you do anything that would involve any patented resource you do have to have a permit from the country of origin. Good thing, the protocol also states that the countries of origin have to provide the possibility of obtaining these permits.
So from what I can see it doesn't bother us at all. The only thing is that so many people are unaware of the laws in use, and they have become hysterical, and one rumour tried to top the other. I cannot see how this protocol will affect us in it's current formulation and the current nation wide laws. The Nagoya protocol has been implemented to give biodiversity rich countries and developing countries their piece of the cake in the huge pharma market and domestic animal trade (cows, cattle, sheep, poulty).
If I have stated or understood anything wrongly in the above I would be glad if somebody can point it out. Regardless of the correctness of my text I would be very happy if people could stop promulgating rumours on the internet. If you state something incorrectly in a private conversation, it's not a problem, it only reached a small amount of people and you may tell them at a later point that you made a mistake. On the internet on the other hand it's written there for a long time, and you do not know who has seen this information or not, and in the end we end up with these very imaginative claims of the Nagoya protocol that we currently have.
If anybody faces legal problems in insect collecting through Nagoya I would be glad to hear about it and talk to the people in charge.
|
|
|
|
Post by wollastoni on Apr 20, 2016 9:55:08 GMT
Interesting topic that should be tackle here.
I think the main issue comes from the term "genetic resources".
If "Delias cumanau" for example, endemic from W. Papua, is concerned as a unique genetic resource (which it is) belonging to Indonesian state then no "Delias cumanau" could leave the territory for research without "prior informed consent, and that mutually agreed terms have been established" --> this means the end of private tropical collecting trips.
That is the main fear about this legislation.
I have the feeling you are right Claude about your interpretation, but as there is no international entomological association to discuss these topics with authorities, I am afraid we won't have any clear answers. I wrote few times to ALF President about it and got no answer... I guess he received no answer neither.
Just to add something for our members, the Nagoya legislation do not apply to trade. So tropical specimens that are legally for sale today will remain available in the future.
The only risk I see today is for collecting trips abroad.
|
|
|
|
Post by Paul K on Apr 20, 2016 11:44:30 GMT
Interesting topic that should be tackle here. I think the main issue comes from the term "genetic resources". If "Delias cumanau" for example, endemic from W. Papua, is concerned as a unique genetic resource (which it is) belonging to Indonesian state then no "Delias cumanau" could leave the territory for research without "prior informed consent, and that mutually agreed terms have been established" --> this means the end of private tropical collecting trips. That is the main fear about this legislation. I have the feeling you are right Claude about your interpretation, but as there is no international entomological association to discuss these topics with authorities, I am afraid we won't have any clear answers. I wrote few times to ALF President about it and got no answer... I guess he received no answer neither. Just to add something for our members, the Nagoya legislation do not apply to trade. So tropical specimens that are legally for sale today will remain available in the future. The only risk I see today is for collecting trips abroad. There was always a risk on collecting trip as mainly no one can get private permit . I don't see any changes in that subject. I do belive this protocol is for commercial genetic research only. As we do collect insects for pleasure and beauty we don't do any research or try to explore possibilities to use them for other purpose then that. Besides no one even cares about protocol like that, no customs will ever no about it. It is as Claude said only hysteria around it. Paul |
|
|
|
Post by wollastoni on Apr 20, 2016 11:49:08 GMT
There was always a risk on collecting trip as mainly no one can get private permit . Depends, for many countries you didn't need permits, Thailand being a good example. I hope Nagoya won't complexify the situation. |
|
|
|
Post by jshuey on Apr 20, 2016 13:13:11 GMT
Interesting topic that should be tackle here. I think the main issue comes from the term "genetic resources". Paul
Go to: www.cbd.int/doc/meetings/abs/abswg-09/information/abswg-09-inf-01-en.pdf
"Genetic Resources‟ in the CBD: the Wording, the Past, the Present and the Future
Peter Johan Schei2 and Morten Walløe Tvedt3, Fridtjof Nansen Institute (FNI), Oslo, Norway
On page 24 you will find the discussion of :
6.5 Ex situ Collections - How has the term „genetic resources‟ been understood in relation to ex situ collections?
This is all much to do about nothing... Unless you have the ability to store fresh dead material at -70C for decades...
John
|
|
|
|
Post by nomad on Apr 20, 2016 17:03:10 GMT
Some interesting views. I thought that it was time that we find out exactly what the Nagoya Protocol means for all of us.
|
|
|
|
Post by timmsyrj on Apr 20, 2016 17:15:57 GMT
I took it more towards genetically modified products as I doubt insects are actually classed as a resource, they should be as the are the most renewable resource anywhere on earth, and if more people realised this then they would encourage breeding for collectors and saving the habitat and environment.
Rich
|
|
