Nagoya Protocol and Africa’s willingness to share biological control agents, are we deterred by barriers instead of using opportunities to work together?

The Nagoya Protocol is a supplementary agreement to the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD). The protocol provides a framework for the effective implementation of the fair access and equitable sharing of benefits (Access and Benefit Sharing (ABS)) arising out of the use of genetic resources, including biological control agents. Classical biological control, broadly defined as the use of natural enemies (arthropods and pathogens) to reduce populations of crop pests and invasive alien weeds, is becoming an increasingly important management option as agriculture reduces its reliance on conventional pesticides (Kenis et al. 2017). However, Cock et al. (2010) stated that the recent application of the principles of ABS might make it difficult or impossible to collect and export natural enemies for classical biological control research in many countries.

One of the main concerns regarding the Nagoya Protocol is the lack of systems and capacity to implement it efficiently in resource-poor countries. Of the 54 countries and island states that form Africa, 48 are parties to the Nagoya Protocol (CBD 2022a). Both Party and non-Party states have established national focal points for ABS. Silvestri et al. (2020) assessed the potential consequences of the implementation of Nagoya Protocol for classical weed biological control globally although this study only considered South Africa within the African continent. The study found that whilst South Africa had a process and policies in place, they were cumbersome and confusing. They do conclude, however, that the export of potential agents of classical biological control of weeds from South Africa was “relatively easy”. The delayed or possible prevention of access to likely biological control agents from Africa is potentially problematic for management of invasive alien plants and agricultural pests on other continents. Randall (2017) (Fig. 1) indicates that after East Asia, Africa is the second largest “donor” of weeds to the rest of the world, with just under 5500 plant species from Africa recorded as present and posing a menace to landscapes where these plants have been introduced. Similarly, The Global Naturalized Alien Flora database records Africa as the third largest “donor” of plant species that have become naturalized elsewhere in the world (van Kleunen et al. 2015). Africa has benefitted significantly from classical weed biological control (Neuenschwander et al. 2003), but as the continent is also the source of so many globally invasive weeds, is it likely to be the source of suitable natural enemies to reduce the impact of these species. It is thus vital that there are the policies, processes and capacity in place in Africa to ensure equitable benefit sharing of and access to potential biological control agents for weed biological control. In this study, we conducted a preliminary assessment of the policies and processes within African countries to deal with the Nagoya Protocol.

The focal points for each country in Africa were accessed (CBD 2022b). Survey Monkey (https://​www.​surveymonkey.​com/​mp/​audience) was used to develop an online questionnaire in English (see Supplementary Information) and French, which was e-mailed to all of the focal points in Africa. The questionnaire broadly dealt with the focal points’ understanding of invasive alien species and classical weed biological control. Specifically, questions asked how each country was hoping to comply with the Nagoya Protocol, whilst still being available as a donor and recipient of natural enemies for the purposes of classical biological control. The data were analyzed using descriptive statistics (percentage and means).

A 34% response rate may not be sufficiently comprehensive to draw very accurate conclusions about the readiness of African countries to share biodiversity resources, but it does give some indication of the effort required to better prepare countries for research into potential biological control agents. While several countries have policies to facilitate ABS, it is not yet clear how practical these are and whether they will help researchers to access natural enemies of targeted plants. The existing policies require further examination and comparison to each other and policies of other countries elsewhere in the world. However, it is very clear that the focal points who responded to this questionnaire are keen and willing to improve both policies and practices relating to ABS in their countries.

It is clear that the majority of African countries are keen to learn more about appropriate policies and practices to facilitate access and benefit sharing. Countries are also willing to share their experiences and policies with other African states and this needs coordination. The biological control research community could be responsible for assisting African countries to get access to appropriate policies and develop practices that support work on potential biological control agents. Any training or support must address the questions raised by respondents, particularly those around monetary benefit, capacity building and information on control of invasive alien species. Funding is required to develop and deliver suitable training programmes that will assist focal points to address the issue of access to biological control agents from Africa.

A clearer understanding is required of what plants from Africa are introduced, naturalized and invasive elsewhere in the world. Working on specific case studies may make this theoretical treatment of ABS both more practical and better understood by focal points across Africa. There are a number of Africa plant species, in particular grasses, that are under consideration for biological control elsewhere in the world (Sutton 2019) and thus there is an urgency to ensure that the systems are in place and working efficiently. The biological control programme on the indigenous African tulip tree, Spathodea campanulata P. Beauv. (Bignoniaceae), for which researchers and environmental managers have introduced agents into the Pacific Islands (Paterson et al. 2017), could be an instructive example. While the questions relating to examples of biological control in Africa may have been poorly framed, resulting in answers that suggest restricted knowledge, it is apparent that increased awareness and understanding of the science of biological control is required amongst not only the focal points for ABS but for all environment managers across Africa.

We believe that Cock et al. (2010) concluded prematurely that the proposed ABS regulations would restrict access to natural enemies for biological control. Current hindrances to researchers’ access to natural enemies from Africa include:

Researchers should further develop the approach of Smith et al. (2018) with African partners and deliver these in a way that the benefits of sharing natural enemies for biological control of invasive plants and agricultural pests are overt but not onerous on the researchers and unrealistic. Smith et al. (2018) highlights common factors that have led to success in accessing genetic resources:

This approach would involve working with countries to establish and endorse best practices. We as researchers and practitioners of biological control have begun the process of working with ABS focal points. We plan to continue this work to review the existing policies and practices that countries have developed, to share these with focal points across Africa and work with countries to develop clearly understood and easy to implement policies and practices that support benefits from and access to genetic resources for biological control. The onus is on research organisations to work with focal points to support their roles in implementing the Nagoya Protocol.

The survey demonstrates that several African states are in the process of developing or testing appropriate policies and practices for ABS. The biological control community needs to foster and nurture these efforts. A suggested approach would be to use actual biological control projects as case studies from which all countries across the continent can learn.

We recommend that the International Organisation for Biological Control work with African countries to share information, develop policies and practices, and demonstrate best approaches through several case studies undertaken in Africa. This survey has demonstrated the interest of African countries to develop and implement appropriate policies that support ABS. Researchers must now work together with the focal points to support this interest.