Today something about policy. Often boring and uninteresting (seemingly), but sometimes politicians take decisions which are affecting the work of taxonomists. Therefore the recent paper by Prathapan et al. which appeared in the journal Science is worth mentioning.
The Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) commits its 196 nation parties to conserve biological diversity, use its components sustainably, and share fairly and equitably the benefits from the utilization of genetic resources. This last objective was further codified in the Nagoya Protocol (NP).
The authors state that the NP mechanism seem to work out counter-productive, leading to all sorts of national legislature in biodiverse countries which hamper the study of its biodiversity by biologists. Conservation approaches are very strict and deny that effective conservation also demands the scientific understanding of species. In practice, legislative processes have been tightened in many countries to such extent that biological research has been hampered by permits. Permitting processes are sometimes becoming vulnerable to fraud and corruption, the responsible persons using their for their own benefit and blocking permits to foreign colleagues who are not their favourites. While some South American countries are playing these games and EU-based museum curators adhere strictly to the official rules, it leads to a total stand-still of taxonomic research which needs e.g. live collected animals for molecular study.
The authors, supported by 172 co-signatories from 35 countries, make a strong plea to the CBD to “do more to raise the legal curtain that has fallen between biodiversity scientists and the biodiversity that they strive to discover, document, and conserve”.
Prathapan, K.D. et al., 2018. When the cure kills–CBD limits biodiversity research. – Science, 360 (6396): 1405-1406.