[NHCOLL-L:5416] Re: [PERMIT-L] Re: Sending specimens to China
Dirk Neumann
Dirk.Neumann at zsm.mwn.de
Wed May 11 04:19:53 EDT 2011
Dear Kathryn,
yes, I am aware of § 8 and we were referring to this paragraph when
addressing the nonsense on a workshop in Berlin in March which is likely
to come up with this import restrictions (at least what was outlined by
our national focal point on this meeting). As you pointed out the main
problem probably lies with the "countries [deciding] themselves on how
to implement" regulations for the Access Benfit Sharing. Right know we
have 27 different ways of implementing the new EC-vet legislation,
ranging from basically no import (Italy), via import licences
(Switzerland) to inspection of all shipments (including returned loans &
charging 130,- EUR for each - as in Austria) to OK for import without
inspection if adequate shipping docs which describe exactly the methods
of preservation and (proposed) usage of samples.
As far as I know, the Nagoya protocol does not provide any harmonised
measures or recommendations for free import of natural history specimens
for non-profit scientific research under §8; it will be surely wise to
adapt shipping docs and to refer to this paragraph, but this might not
mean avoiding additional bureaucracy which will surely become necessary
to allow import of our materials because of the arbitrary usage of
"shall" and "may" in this context.
It would be different if there would be a passage saying that for
promotion of non-profit biological/biodiversity research are explicitly
excluded from strict measures of the Access Benefit Sharing in the sense
of §8 of the CBD to promote biodiversity research or to allow quick
identification of agricultural pests, invasive species etc. But this is
not the case.
Of course there is no ban in the CBD or the Nagoya protocol which would
restrict the usage of genetic resources, but it opens a market for
permissions especially in developing countries. This market will be
easily satisfied from the big multinational pharmaceutical /
agricultural cooperations with thick dollar bundles. The question is,
can the non-profit biodiversity research afford these permissions in
future time?
Second, at the moment most developing countries don't have these
authorities, which makes it currently difficult to obtain these permits
- which means no legal import at the moment.
Third, barcoding initiatives like the Barcoding of Life or Marine Cenus
of Life would need to reference the respective permits for all samples
available online on their platforms back to 1992 including future
samples, as the subsequent usage of samples should be restricted for the
benefit of the home country of the samples as outlined in the CBD.
Without going into details here and leaving any direct consequences for
biodiversity research aside, alone the time needed update these entries
in the respective databases (and all collection materials in our
collections) would consume a lot working force. Who should do this ?
Fourth, taxonomists in the developing countries benefit most from direct
international co-operations with scientific institutions abroad. These
in many times close ties have developed in years of mutual cooperation.
Currently, most permits for export of samples in the sense of Access
Benefit Sharing are negotiated directly with and issued from these
colleagues or their institutions, including direct knowledge transfer
and / support of PhD students or other direct support. One can doubt
that this direct capacity building will be promoted in the same way, if
permitting is done (and charged) at a newly build national focal points
in the respective countries as outlined.
Which is better: take much effort to correct erroneous trends by
reporting negative developments in the developing laws and policies of
the respective countries to the (our) national focal point, hoping that
there will be a quick corrective via the ongoing CBD negotiations in due
time, or to have the (mostly) good practices which currently work today
in the non-profit sector implemented to reduce additional bureaucracy?
Think I would vote for the latter ....
All the best
Dirk
Am 10.05.2011 22:42, schrieb Kathryn Davis:
> Dear Dirk and colleagues on Permit-L,
> Just a couple of things to note with respect to the comment about the
> new Nagoya Protocol and non-commercial research -
> First, there's an article (8) that specifically addresses
> non-commercial research:
> "In the development and implementation of its access and
> benefit-sharing legislation or regulatory requirements, each Party shall:
> (a) Create conditions to promote and encourage research which
> contributes to the conservation and sustainable use of biological
> diversity, particularly in developing countries, including through
> simplified measures on access for non-commercial research purposes,
> taking into account the need to address a change of intent for such
> research"
> ...as with most of the provisions of the Convention on Biological
> Diversity, countries will decide themselves on how to implement this
> on the national level, but the obligation is there ("shall").
> Secondly, there's nothing anywhere, no matter how you read the CBD and
> the Nagoya Protocol, about banning use of genetic resources collected
> after 1992. We need to make sure we get the right permits (!) and that
> we keep track of their terms, and that we don't commercialise material
> acquired for non-commercial purposes without going back for new
> permission.
> Collections managers and research scientists should all keep an eye on
> the developments on access and benefit-sharing - it's very early days
> for the new Protocol, and we should keep in touch with our national
> focal points to let them know how countries' developing laws and
> policies may affect us. Determined efforts by people in the
> non-commercial research sector got that bit quoted above into the
> Nagoya Protocol.
> Best wishes,
> Kate Davis
> ABS Advisor, Botanic Gardens Conservation International
> www.bgci.org/resources/cbdmanual <http://www.bgci.org/resources/cbdmanual>
>
> On Mon, May 9, 2011 at 4:41 AM, Dirk Neumann <Dirk.Neumann at zsm.mwn.de
> <mailto:Dirk.Neumann at zsm.mwn.de>> wrote:
>
> Hi all,
>
> regarding the new EC-veterinary laws we (GfBS, CETAF, SPNHC, DNFS,
> VBio) are doing our best and are awaiting detailed answers from
> the SANCO in Brussels (authority in charge for the new
> amendments). Their last meeting was last Friday.
>
> Since enforcement of EC implementation regulation EC No. 142/2011,
> we have 27 different national interpretations of the same new
> European Verterinary Guidelines (EC No. 1069/2009). This makes
> import to Europe so tiresome at the moment, but we are strongly
> pushing for exemption from this nonsense for preserved specimens.
>
> As posted already before, I will post new information from a
> workshop held last Thursday & Friday in Bonn soon. FedEx & UPS
> joined the workshop, and there is a bundle of things which we
> could improve with little effort on our side to avoid import
> issues (I need to summarise the relevant points)
>
> Further restrictions on the use of genetic resources are currently
> discussed for the Access Benefit Sharing of the Rio-Convention
> (CBD) opening a profitable permits market for the pharmaceutical
> industry.
> The Nagoya-Protocol does not include any exemptions for non-profit
> biological research and likely bans the subsequent usage of
> "genetic resources" collected after 1992. Enforcement for border
> inspection controls is currently discussed which would allow only
> import of samples which have an agreement of transfer of
> possession ... Lobbying from our side against this stupidity
> should be coordinated for mutual support of petitions.
>
> All the best
> Dirk
>
>
> Am 07.05.2011 00:44, schrieb Doug Yanega:
>> Ellen Paul wrote:
>>
>>> So let's start with this simple premise:
>>> The people to whom you are sending these items should be working
>>> as hard at their end to avert problems as you are at your end.
>>> They are responsible for knowing what the permit and biosafety
>>> requirements are for their countries and for conveying that
>>> information to you. You should always ask them to provide this
>>> information before you ship.
>>
>> One would hope so, but when the regulatory agencies themselves
>> cannot agree on simple questions like "Do these rules apply to
>> dried insect specimens?" then the situation devolves into a
>> matter of the personal interpretation of each individual
>> inspector who comes across a scientific shipment; some will
>> understand that pinned insect specimens are not a biosafety
>> hazard, others will not. Some will believe that insects are not
>> *covered* by the regulations, others will think they *are*. There
>> are plenty of regulations *on the books* that are not or cannot
>> be treated as enforceable (or applicable in certain contexts),
>> including a few I dare not mention in public because zealous
>> enforcement could have serious repercussions. It's a serious
>> question: if there is a one-in-a-thousand chance that a shipment
>> you are expecting could be stopped and held up, even if the
>> shipment is technically in the clear (based on interpretation of
>> the regs), are we nonetheless expected to tell people NOT to ship
>> us any specimens unless they fulfill all of the requirements,
>> even if those requirements are inapplicable?
>>
>>> I strongly suggest you NOT boycott all countries that apply
>>> biosafety regulations to scientific specimens because guess what?
>>
>> I was not suggesting we should, either.
>>
>>> The United States does it. Canada does it. The European Union
>>> does it. Pretty much every country wants to exclude pathogens
>>> that do not already occur in their country. In the U.S. it is
>>> (for birds) - "Exotic" Newcastle (we have three of the four
>>> forms here but not Viscerotropic Velogenic Newcastle Disease)
>>> and HPAI H5N1. The USDA has proposed to include all HPAIs on the
>>> excluded/restricted list; the OC suggested that the science does
>>> not support this.
>>
>> I have never heard of the US or Canada intercepting shipments of
>> dead insects as biosafety violations. Some EU countries have, in
>> fact, done so.
>>
>>> For mammals it is Swine Vesicular Disease, Hoof-and-Mouth
>>> Disease, rinderpest (which has been eradicated but I'm not sure
>>> if they have lifted restrictions yet), Bovine Spongiform
>>> Encephalitis, African Horse Fever, Classical Swine Fever,
>>> Contagious Equine Metritis, and Classical Swine Fever.
>>> The CDC has authority over the pathogens that affect human
>>> health (including African rodents, civets, small turtles, and
>>> non-human primates).
>>
>> If dead insects (or pickled fish, etc.) cannot carry these
>> diseases, then why should such shipments require certification
>> that they are disease-free? That makes more work for everyone,
>> with no benefit.
>>
>>> I think you have misconstrued my comments about the fees. No one
>>> is doing this because it generates revenue. They are doing it
>>> because they need to exclude these pathogens.* That they allow
>>> you to bring this stuff in at all is an exemption to a
>>> prohibition that applies to everyone else. There is an express
>>> provision in the regulations that says you can import it for
>>> scientific study under conditions that they deem will prevent
>>> the introduction of harmful pathogens.* And that whole system
>>> depends on your getting permits, because that is the manner in
>>> which they can assure themselves that the material is handled
>>> appropriately.
>>>
>>> My point about the permit fees is that once they have a system
>>> of permits, they need people to administer that system of
>>> permits and those people are employees who have to be paid, who
>>> work in buildings that have to be purchased or leased, lights
>>> that have to be paid for, phones and computers that have to be
>>> paid for, etc. Appropriations don't begin to cover the costs.
>>> U.S. law requires that agencies charge user fees when they
>>> provide services to recipients that are not provided to the
>>> general public [http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/circulars_a025/].
>>
>> If, say, 90% of all scientific material exchanged between
>> institutions cannot possibly carry diseases, then these agencies
>> could presumably cut down on their labor, paperwork (and maybe
>> even staffing) by as much as 90% if they simply made things like
>> pinned insects and pickled fish exempt from all these biosafety
>> permitting requirements in the first place. It sounds like their
>> costs are so high in part because they are trying to apply their
>> regulations far too broadly.
>>
>>> In the case of APHIS, user fees are also authorized by section
>>> 2509(c)(1) of the Food, Agriculture, Conservation, and Trade Act
>>> of 1990, as amended (21 U.S.C. 136a). APHIS is authorized to
>>> establish and collect fees that will cover the cost of providing
>>> import- and export-related services for animals, animal
>>> products, birds, germ plasm, organisms, and vectors. Since
>>> fiscal year (FY) 1992, APHIS has received no directly
>>> appropriated funds to provide import- and export related
>>> services for animals, animal products, birds, germ plasm,
>>> organisms, and vectors. Their ability to provide these services
>>> depends on user fees.
>>>
>>> So they have to charge fees by law and those fees, by design,
>>> are supposed to defray the cost of providing the service.
>>> However, the cost of providing the service outstrips the
>>> appropriated funds and the revenue from fees. So they are
>>> reluctant to reduce the revenue from fees by combining permits
>>> or issuing blanket permits.
>>
>> Then why not exclude as much as possible from *requiring*
>> permits? If they don't have to issue permits for dead arthropods,
>> or fish, or mollusks, etc., then that reduces the costs of their
>> services, right?
>>
>> I do, honestly, understand the motivation and need for
>> regulations like these, and would not dispute the *intent* of the
>> law. But, at the same time, if the rules are written without
>> careful attention to when and where they should and should not be
>> applied, then there can be a severe disconnect between the
>> *intent* of the law, and the *letter* of the law. Maybe, as an
>> entomologist, I am overly sensitive to this sort of thing; after
>> all, I've literally stood in the presence of a BLM ranger
>> harrassing a colleague for collecting 5 insect specimens along a
>> roadside, and noticing that the grill on his jeep had over 30
>> dead insects visible on it (and every car driving past us, as
>> well). In some cases, the rules are ambiguous, and it's like
>> playing roulette as to whether you run afoul of someone who
>> interprets them too strictly - in some cases, the rules are not
>> ambiguous (and in your favor), but the agents responsible for
>> their enforcement are actually unaware of those rules (as in the
>> case of the BLM ranger above, who earned a reprimand when we
>> contacted his superiors) - and the biggest problems are rules
>> that are unambiguous and inappropriately broad. The work Andy
>> Bentley has done regarding hazardous materials shipping regs has
>> been exemplary in this regard, getting exemptions written into
>> the laws that facilitate our scientific endeavors (a single vial
>> containing 3 ml of 95% ethanol and a dead wasp is NOT hazardous);
>> one would hope that these biosafety regulators would be open to
>> similar changes to their rules, for the same reasons.
>>
>> Sincerely,
>> --
>>
>>
>> Doug Yanega Dept. of Entomology Entomology
>> Research Museum
>> Univ. of California, Riverside, CA 92521-0314 skype: dyanega
>> phone: (951) 827-4315 <tel:%28951%29%20827-4315> (standard
>> disclaimer: opinions are mine, not UCR's)
>> http://cache.ucr.edu/~heraty/yanega.html
>> <http://cache.ucr.edu/%7Eheraty/yanega.html>
>> "There are some enterprises in which a careful disorderliness
>> is the true method" - Herman Melville, Moby Dick, Chap. 82
>
>
> --
> Dirk Neumann
>
> Tel: 089 / 8107-111
> Fax: 089 / 8107-300
> email: Dirk.Neumann(a)zsm.mwn.de <http://zsm.mwn.de/>
>
> Postanschrift:
>
> Staatliche Naturwissenschaftliche Sammlungen Bayerns
> Zoologische Staatssammlung München
> Dirk Neumann, Sektion Ichthyologie / DNA-Labor
> Münchhausenstr. 21
> 81247 München
>
> Besuchen Sie unsere Sammlung:
> http://www.zsm.mwn.de/ich/
>
> ---------
>
> Dirk Neumann
>
> Tel:+49-89-8107-111 <tel:%2B49-89-8107-111>
> Fax:+49-89-8107-300 <tel:%2B49-89-8107-300>
> email: Dirk.Neumann(a)zsm.mwn.de <http://zsm.mwn.de/>
>
> postal address:
>
> Bavarian Natural History Collections
> The Bavarian State Collection of Zoology
> Dirk Neumann, Section Ichthyology / DNA-Lab
> Muenchhausenstr. 21
> 81247 Munich (Germany)
>
> Visit our section at:
> http://www.zsm.mwn.de/ich/
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> PERMIT-L mailing list
> PERMIT-L at gold.sdsmt.edu <mailto:PERMIT-L at gold.sdsmt.edu>
> http://gold.sdsmt.edu/mailman/listinfo/permit-l
>
>
--
Dirk Neumann
Tel: 089 / 8107-111
Fax: 089 / 8107-300
email: Dirk.Neumann(a)zsm.mwn.de
Postanschrift:
Staatliche Naturwissenschaftliche Sammlungen Bayerns
Zoologische Staatssammlung München
Dirk Neumann, Sektion Ichthyologie / DNA-Labor
Münchhausenstr. 21
81247 München
Besuchen Sie unsere Sammlung:
http://www.zsm.mwn.de/ich/
---------
Dirk Neumann
Tel: +49-89-8107-111
Fax: +49-89-8107-300
email: Dirk.Neumann(a)zsm.mwn.de
postal address:
Bavarian Natural History Collections
The Bavarian State Collection of Zoology
Dirk Neumann, Section Ichthyology / DNA-Lab
Muenchhausenstr. 21
81247 Munich (Germany)
Visit our section at:
http://www.zsm.mwn.de/ich/
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://mailman.yale.edu/mailman/private/nhcoll-l/attachments/20110511/58c20c7b/attachment.html
More information about the Nhcoll-l
mailing list