Introduction
Biological control is frequently defined very broadly to include living organisms and products, such as toxins, derived from those organisms that are used as alternatives to chemical pesticides to reduce populations of target organisms (e.g., Hulot and Hillier 2021). Here, we focus on living organisms and define biological control as the use of living organisms or viruses to generate an effect, such as population density reduction, against target organisms that cause harm to humans or their resources (Hoddle et al. 2008; Heimpel and Mills 2017; Stenberg et al. 2021). Historically, classical (introduction) biological control has been the main strategy implemented for dealing with invasive non-native species. Living natural enemies of the invasive species from the region of origin are deliberately introduced into a novel environment that it has invaded with the intent that self-sustaining populations establish (Hoddle et al. 2021). More recently, augmentative biological, a commercially driven enterprise, has played an increasingly important role in managing outbreaks of pest species in confined environments (van Lenteren et al. 2021). Both classical and augmentative biological control involve the release of living individuals of a natural enemy species. These organisms are not patentable and so there is no associated intellectual property (Cock et al. 2009). Furthermore, in the case of classical biological control once an agent has established in nature there are limited means to control its spread or redistribution (Cock et al. 2009), thus it is conducted as a public good activity. Because vetting of natural enemies requires significant investment, effective classical biological control agents can be freely shared with all countries affected by the same invasive non-native species target. In the case of augmentative biological control, the investing company develops proprietary mass rearing and delivery methods and the agent is sold as a commercial product to anyone needing it.
The sharing of biological control genetic resources is in the best interests of the global community and thus very much a public good activity because agents are exchanged free-of-charge (Cock et al. 2009). A key part of the principle of free use and exchange of classical biological control is reciprocal exchange.
Anzeige
To illustrate, Cock et al. (2009) provide an example (Case Study 15): Coffee berry borer, Hypothenemus hampei Ferrari (Coleoptera: Curculionidae), although widespread in Africa, is not generally an important problem because a suite of natural enemy parasitic wasps (Bethyliidae and Eulophidae) naturally found in Africa keep its population in check. Since early in the twentieth century, these wasps have been introduced from Kenya into other coffee growing countries in Latin America and Asia. In return for this public good generosity, when the papaya mealybug Paracoccus marginatus Williams and Granara de Willink (Hemiptera: Pseudococcidae) invaded Kenya, threatening the production of papaya and other horticultural crops, the parasitic wasp Acerophagus papaya Noyes and Schauff (Hymenoptera: Encyrtidae) was recently introduced and is currently being re-distributed (Mohamed et al. 2022) from Western Africa. However, originally this natural enemy comes from Latin America (Noyes and Schauff 2003).
A second example Cock et al. (2009) provided (Case Study 24): Pink hibiscus mealybug, Maconellicoccus hirsutus (Green) (Hemiptera: Pseudococcidae), native to parts of Asia is a pest in most tropical areas of the world. The introduction of Anagyrus kamali Moursi (Hymenoptera: Encyrtidae) was one of two natural enemies that provided good control in most countries where they were introduced. The Guangdong Entomological Institute in China provided mealybugs parasitized by A. kamali to the UK Centre for Agriculture and Bioscience International (CABI) for culture and release in the Caribbean where M. hirsutus was a major problem. Furthermore, the Caribbean was able to directly reciprocate a few years later, by providing a rust fungus, Puccinia spegazzinii De Toni (Puccinaceae), from Trinidad for weed biological control of Mikania micrantha Kunth (Asteraceae) in China (Ellison et al. 2008).
These examples demonstrate how collaboration and cooperation among biological control scientists globally have allowed free exchange and use of biodiversity for the public good (Brodeur et al. 2018). These traditional arrangements in the biological control sector ensure unrestricted access to agents, on the one hand and benefit sharing based on joint research and capacity building, on the other hand and deserve special consideration with regard to access and benefit sharing (ABS) legal frameworks (Cock et al. 2009). Historically, there has been a general agreement that benefits should be provided to countries that allow use of their biodiversity for biological control. These benefits, generally non-monetary, have been directed to the provider country in the form of joint publications and research proposals, facilitating exchange and capacity building of researchers, graduate and post-graduate students, but also support for international conference attendance and infrastructure (laboratory upgrades, purchase of laboratory equipment and supplies (Cock et al. 2009, 2010; Mason et al. 2023, this volume).
Impact of the Nagoya Protocol on biological control
The Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) and the Nagoya Protocol (NP) establish the international legal framework for access to genetic resources and the sharing of benefits arising out of their utilization, widely known as access and benefit sharing (ABS). The NP came into force 14 October 2014 and its implementation changed the way biological control organisms had been accessed and exchanged until then (Mason et al. 2021). The International Organization for Biological Control (IOBC) Global Commission on Access and Benefit Sharing conducted a survey of biological control workers in 2021–2022 to gain a perspective on the impacts of ABS measures on the access and use of biological control genetic resources (IOBC-ABS survey) (Mason et al. 2023, this volume). The survey results indicated that there may be a number of barriers as a consequence of the implementation of the NP: procedures are complex and not straightforward, requirements are scattered or redundant (e.g., different agencies must be contacted; different requirements at the local, state/province, and national levels), obtaining Prior Informed Consent (PIC) and Mutually Agreed Terms (MAT) can be complex and lengthy, and logistically challenging (insufficient capacity to process applications, constant turnover of personnel handling applications). There may also be human factors involved such as political interference, people in the source country being unmotivated to assist, and mistrust of the intentions of researchers and practitioners. Additional unintended consequences identified by the survey included delay of the projects and ultimately of biological control agent releases or loss of funding leading to project cancellation (Mason et al. 2023, this volume).
Anzeige
The biological control community considers that the free exchange of biological control genetic resources is in the best interests of global society, and fear that if ABS measures are poorly implemented biological control and the resultant public good will be greatly reduced, slowed down, and in some cases stopped altogether (Cock et al. 2009). There are accumulating examples where this has occurred (e.g. Barratt 2009; Hinz et al. 2018; Silvestri et al. 2019; Mc Kay et al. 2023, this volume).
The IOBC-ABS survey provided insight into the perspective of practitioners on how to ensure that the public good benefits provided by the use and exchange of biological control agents continues. A majority of the survey respondents indicated that a multilateral approach, whereby effective agents used as classical biological control agents would be shared with whoever has a need, would support the ideals of providing benefits to as many countries as possible through the principle of free use and exchange (Mason et al. 2023, this volume). In this context, the multilateral approach means that no new bilateral negotiation takes place between the user and the provider, but that effective classical biological control agents are shared with other Parties participating in a multi-party agreement, the common terms of which have been previously agreed. The multi-party agreement would include a list of agents, updated with new additions when required, that could be shared. Thus, there is a need to develop an international legal regime that countries can agree to, on the use and exchange of classical biological control agents for the benefit of the global community. This contribution attempts to address two of the recommendations put forward by Cock et al. (2009): “(1) Governments should build on the existing multilateral practice of exchange of natural enemies for biological control on a complementary and mutually reinforcing basis, which ensures fair and equitable sharing of the benefits of biological control worldwide”, and “(2) ABS regulations should encourage further development of the biological control sector, by facilitating the multilateral exchange of biological control agents”.
International legal regime on access to genetic resources and benefit sharing
Several different international agreements include provisions for ABS. Their scope varies from all non-human life to one pathogenic species that afflicts humans (Vogel et al. 2021). These agreements include the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) (1992), the NP (2010), the International Treaty on Plant Genetic Resources for Food and Agriculture (2001) and the Pandemic Influenza Preparedness Framework for the Sharing of Influenza Viruses and Access to Vaccines and Other Benefits (2001). These multiparty agreements approach ABS from two different angles, bilateral and multilateral. On the one hand, the CBD and the NP enable a bilateral negotiation between the user of genetic resources and the Party that provides them (i.e., they establish a bilateral modality), whereas a multilateral approach, such as the International Treaty on Plant Genetic Resources for Food and Agriculture, would include negotiation for a broader community (Vogel et al. 2021). These rules are included in the so-called Standard Material Transfer Agreement which is a standard contract that establishes the terms and conditions when transferring plant genetic material that is included in the multilateral system.
Under the bilateral approach, the user of genetic resources and the providing Party negotiate and establish a singular/particular MAT. It is a case-by-case negotiation. Bioprospecting agreements, material transfer agreements and collaborative research agreements, amongst others, can all be considered MAT under the CBD and the NP provided they include the terms for the sharing of benefits arising out of the utilization of genetic resources (Meyer et al. 2014). Historically, material transfer agreements have been most frequently used under a bilateral approach for simple exchange of materials. These are legally binding contracts that document the terms of transfer and use of genetic resources (Kamau 2015). Material transfer agreements have been used by microbial culture collections as standard practice for transfer of materials to researchers (Dedeurwaerdere et al. 2009). Material transfer agreements generally carry restrictions on transfers to third parties, including for non-commercial research, to address quality management and biosecurity concerns (Schloen et al. 2011). As noted above, when terms for benefit-sharing are included, a material transfer agreement can be considered as MAT. If benefit-sharing terms are agreed to at a later date, a supplementary document or ‘ABS contract’ may also be in place.
The multilateral system of ABS established under the International Treaty on Plant Genetic Resources for Food and Agriculture requires that contracting parties provide access to plant genetic resources under their management and control, and, in the public domain, for the purpose of utilization and conservation for research, breeding and training for food and agriculture, with the condition that such purpose does not include chemical, pharmaceutical and/or other non-food/feed industrial uses (Humphries 2021). Thus, the multilateral system sets out the unchangeable conditions in which plant genetic resources are accessed and benefits shared through the standard material transfer agreements, which bind the initial provider and recipient, as well as subsequent users.
The intergovernmental organization CABI (https://www.cabi.org) has taken an institutional approach by pro-actively developing an ABS Policy and Best Practices with the intention to guide its staff and to build trust with its member countries and other provider countries of genetic resources. These best practices have been adapted in different countries where CABI has research centres to ensure compliance on a country level. Among others, the Swiss CABI centre has a country-specific best practice recognized by the respective national authority (Federal Office of Environment) and in Ghana a memorandum of understanding has been negotiated that formally sets out the principles of how CABI will comply with national ABS requirements for the use of genetic resources specifically in response to the CBD and the NP (Mason et al. 2021). Parties receiving biological control genetic resources from CABI (e.g., Canada) are required to sign a MTA to ensure that they comply with the requirements that have been negotiated with the source country.
Bilateral agreements have been made between a provider and user of biological control genetic resources. The USA has bilateral cooperative agreements with partner organizations in Argentina, Australia, China and Greece that facilitate access to natural enemies in the native range of many plants and insects that are invasive in the USA (USDA 2022). Both Australia (https://www.csiro.au/en/research/animals/pests/csiro-el) and the USA (https://www.ars-ebcl.org/pages/aboutebcl.html) have established biological control laboratories in southern France.
Finally, framework agreements have been proposed as a way to reduce the bureaucratic burden to access biological control genetic resources by gaining the trust of provider countries. Such agreements set out the arrangements between one or more parties (providers and recipients) that provide the terms governing contracts to be established for a certain period of time. The trusted recipient has the responsibility to ensure that the genetic resources are used for the purposes (e.g., research) stated in the framework agreement and that details of the genetic resources accessed are reported to the relevant authorities so that the genetic resources can be traced (Mason et al. 2021). Framework PIC agreements between provider states and trusted institutions are one way to achieve this (Kamau and Winter 2015) and would allow access to biological control genetic resources with predetermined conditions that would allow the trusted institution to clear the ABS approval process efficiently (Mason et al. 2021).
To serve the interests of the global biological control community, we propose that an international agreement on the use and exchange of genetic resources for classical biological control be made available so that participating countries can be afforded rapid and effective biological control solutions when they experience devastating impacts of non-native problem species. Participating countries would both provide biological control agents to those in need of them, and have access themselves to agents listed in the agreement annex when needed.
Multilateral system for biological control
A multilateral system that simplifies the access and utilization of biological control agents would support multiple United Nations sustainable development goals (SDGs) (Cock et al. 2009; Dangles and Casas 2018; Wyckhuys et al. 2020; Mason et al. 2021). Biological control can contribute to the SDGs through: reducing input costs for farmers; increasing yield and profits (SDG 1. No poverty); lowering crop losses to increase food security (SDG 2. Zero hunger); reducing the need to handle and apply pesticides, increasing time for other activities (SDG 3. Good health and well-being); (SDG 4. Quality education); providing job opportunities for women (SDG 5. Gender equality); elimination of pesticide contamination in water ways (SDG 6. Clean water and sanitation); reducing the demand for carbon intensive pesticide inputs (SDG 7. Affordable and clean energy); creating job opportunities for rearing and releasing biological control agents (SDG 8. Decent work and economic growth); providing the opportunity to improve delivery and monitoring of biological control agents (SDG 9. Industry, innovation and infrastructure); improving the economic status of low-income farmers (SDG 10. Reduced inequality); providing healthy food (SDG 11. Sustainable cities and communities); using biodiversity rather than artificial inputs (pesticides) to reduce crop losses (SDG 12. Responsible consumption and production); reducing climate harmful processes such as production and application of pesticides (SDG 13. Climate action); reducing harmful agricultural contaminant runoff (SDG 14. Life below water); reducing harmful agricultural chemical residues in soil (SDG 15. Life on land); creating stable and healthy societies with food security (SDG 16. Peace justice and strong institutions); and developing partnerships to find solutions for a common problem (SDG 17. Partnerships for the goals).
Two examples illustrate how classical biological control as a multiparty public good has supported SDGs:
1)
After introduction into West Africa, the cassava mealybug Phenacoccus manihoti Matile-Ferrero (Hemiptera: Pseudococcidae) rapidly invaded much of the African cassava belt, in some cases reducing yields up to 80% (Zeddies et al. 2001), putting severe pressure on the socioeconomy of the region. The introduction of the parasitic wasp Aponagyrus lopezi (De Santis) (Hymenoptera: Encyrtidae) led to suppression of cassava mealybug, demonstrating how biological control contributed to poverty alleviation (SDG 1), food security including zero hunger (SDG 2), good health and well-being (SDG 3), quality education (SDG 4), clean water and sanitation (SDG 6), decent work and economic growth (SDG 8), industry innovation and infrastructure (SDG 9), sustainable cities and communities (SDG 11), life on land (SDG 15), peace justice and strong institutions (SDG 16), and partnership for the goals (SDG 17) (Dangles and Casas 2018; Wyckhuys et al. 2018; Witt et al. 2021).
2)
Water hyacinth is considered one of the most problematic aquatic weeds worldwide. It negatively affects water quality, fishing, transportation, hydropower facilities and tourism, increases evapotranspiration rates, and facilitates the spread of diseases (Villamagna and Murphy 2010). The introduction of the weevils Neochetina eichhorniae Warner and N. bruchi Hustache (Coleoptera: Curculionidae) led to suppression of water hyacinth and contributed to poverty alleviation (SDG 1), food security including zero hunger (SDG 2), good health and well-being (SDG 3), clean water and sanitation (SDG 6), and decent work and economic growth (SDG 8) (De Groot et al. 2003; Hill and Julien 2004; Hill and Coetzee 2017).
In the first example, A. lopezi was shared among 31 countries in Africa through a consortium led by the International Institute of Tropical Agriculture (CABI 2022). In the second example, the USA enabled the sharing of N. eichhorniae and N. bruchi among 40 countries in Africa, Asia, North and Central America (Cock et al. 2009; Winston et al. 2014). Both examples were implemented before the NP came into force but illustrate how a multilateral agreement on free access to biological control agents would simplify the process for the use and exchange of biological control agents. Upon request an agent listed in the agreement annex could be provided by any of the participating parties where the agent is present (i.e., original source country and countries where the agent has established) without further negotiation of conditions for access and use.
Proposed international agreement on use and exchange of biological control genetic resources
An international agreement on use and exchange of biological control genetic resources would include:
A Preamble that would set out the reasons why an international agreement is needed and who is proposing such an agreement. The distinctive features of genetic resources for food and agriculture and in particular of biological control genetic resources should be included. That benefits to donor parties arising from the use of their biocontrol genetic resources by receiving parties are non-monetary (free exchange of biological control agents) or monetary in the form of support for capacity building (infrastructure, training of personnel) should be recognized.
The preamble would be followed by an Introduction that states what the objectives of the proposed agreement are, how terms are defined and the scope of the document. These would include the free use and exchange of biological control genetic resources, the preservation of natural environments, and the fair and equitable sharing of the benefits arising out of their use. It should be stated that these objectives are in harmony with those of the CBD, for sustainable agriculture, food security and nature and that the objectives will be achieved by linking the agreement to the missions of the IOBC, Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations and the CBD. Standard definitions of terms used (e.g., in situ, ex situ, genetic material, centre of origin) will ensure clarity where they are used in the document. The scope will precisely indicate that the agreement is specific to biological control activities.
A General provisions section would cover the obligations of the participating parties in terms of activities related to conservation, exploration, collection, etc. of biological control genetic resources, and their sustainable use, national commitments and international cooperation, and technical assistance expected to support these activities. An initial statement is made committing each party to ensure that its obligations as outlined in the agreement comply with existing laws regulations and procedures. It then sets out details of what those obligations are under a series of topics: (1) promoting an integrated approach to exploration, documentation, conservation and eliminating threats to biological control genetic resources; (2) measures for sustainable use of biological control genetic resources; (3) activities related to cooperation with international partners to achieve obligations (1) and (2); and (4) promoting the provision of technical assistance where needed, in particular to developing countries or those with economies in transition.
A section on Indigenous peoples and local community rights would include a statement that the user commits to fulfill any other regulation in place that may apply/relate to the access of biological control genetic resources. Importantly, it would include existing regulations pertaining to the protection of traditional knowledge associated with biological control genetic resources that is held by indigenous peoples and local communities.
A key component of the agreement would be to define and describe a Multilateral system of ABS including how to facilitate access and how benefits may be shared. The sovereign rights of countries and their right to grant access to biological control genetic resources would be recognized. Within the limitations of any national legislation agreement there is a need to establish a multilateral system whereby biological control genetic resources are freely accessed and exchanged, and benefits arising from these practices are shared fairly and equitably. Statements would be made about what specific biological control genetic resources are to be freely accessed and shared and these taxa would be listed in an annex, which is updated when new agents are discovered. All holders of the named taxa would be invited to participate in the multilateral system and freely share those holdings. How biological control genetic resources are accessed would be outlined, including the conditions under which access is granted, how access and transfer to a third party can be facilitated (e.g., through a standard MTA) and how any disputes can be settled. A statement on facilitated access to biological control genetic resources in the event of emergency disaster situations would also be included. The mechanisms for benefit sharing would be outlined and, for example, include the exchange of information, access to and transfer of technology and capacity building with a focus on supporting developing countries. Where commercialisation of a biological control genetic resource may occur a statement on what benefits (potentially monetary) are to be shared (with the provider country), using a standard MTA.
A section Supporting components would describe global actions, physical assets, international networks, and information systems that facilitate implementation of the agreement. Statements would include that participating parties recognize the importance of ex situ collections of biological control agents held by international organizations and encourages them to make agreements with IOBC that biological control agents listed in annex 1 be made available, existing MTAs for provision of these species will be honoured and that countries where the agents were collected in situ will be provided with samples without conditions. Statements encouraging existing international networks to cooperate to provide coverage of as many biological control agents as possible will be included. Parties will be encouraged to develop and strengthen a global information system, including taxonomic name updates, to facilitate the use and exchange, and safeguarding of biological control agents.
A Financial provisions section would clarify monetary requirements. It would state that no fees, other than costs associated with provision of living material, would be levied for use and exchange of biological control agents unless there is subsequent commercial sale of agents.
The Institutional provisions section would outline the administrative process established and should include aspects such as governing body, secretary, amendments of the agreement, annexes, signature, entry into force, reservations, non-parties, withdrawals, and depositary. The Governing Body would consist of the participating parties and statutes would outline the role as being to provide guidance, adopt amendments to the agreement, perform other functions as necessary, note and report on activities related to decisions made by the conference of parties to the CBD, Commission on Genetic Resources for Food and Agriculture and other relevant organizations relating to implementation of this agreement. We propose that the secretary to the Governing Body be designated by the CBD Secretariat who would assist the Governing Body in carrying out its functions and report on its activities to participating parties. The secretary would also cooperate with other organizations such as the Secretariat of the Commission on Genetic Resources for Food and Agriculture to achieve the objectives of this agreement. Procedures to promote compliance with the agreement would include monitoring, and offering advice or assistance, including legal advice or legal assistance, when needed, in particular to developing countries and countries with economies in transition. Where disputes arise, the parties concerned would seek solutions by negotiation or they may seek mediation by a third party. Amendments to the agreement may be proposed by any participating party, would be adopted by consensus of the participating parties, and would come into force after acceptance or approval by two-thirds of the participating parties. It would be stated that the annexes to the agreement would form an integral part of this agreement. It would be stated that the agreement would be open for signature indefinitely and that it would enter into force upon signature by participating parties. Once a party signs the agreement, that party would then agree to abide by all parts of the agreement (i.e., no reservations). Non–parties would be encouraged to accept the agreement. Any party at any time could withdraw from the agreement upon written notice to the governing body. The CBD would be named as the depository of the agreement.
An annex would provide a List of agents covered under the multilateral system with new agents being added as they become available and two thirds of the parties agree to the addition. Information included in the annex would be the scientific name of the biological control agent, the country of origin, the scientific and common names of the target organism, and any relevant observations. To place a biological control agent in the annex several criteria would need to be met. For example: (1) potential threat of the target species to food production, (2) potential threat of the target species to native biodiversity and ecosystem function, and (3) likelihood of successful establishment and potential impact of the agent. The criteria to be included would need to be negotiated.
Conclusions
Biological control genetic resources provide significant benefits to the global community. The use of natural enemies has provided solutions to numerous economically damaging problems caused by non-native plant and animal species. The use of biological control strategies supports the United Nations SDGs directly or indirectly. The free use and exchange of agents has been a mainstay of the public good that biological control contributes to the global community. Countries that provide biological control agents are themselves beneficiaries when other countries provide them with agents targeting problem species. Yet, ABS measures stemming from the NP coming into force in 2014 have created numerous challenges for implementation of biological control projects around the globe. To address impediments to the practice of free use and exchange of classical biological control agents, we have proposed a multilateral system for access and benefit sharing of classical biological control genetic resources. The proposed agreement should be mutually supportive with other international instruments related to access and benefit sharing in order to achieve the objectives of the CBD. However, its implementation in practice will be challenging. To achieve this, communication and awareness raising among potential parties of the proposed agreement will be essential. In this regard, the IOBC and its regional sections could play an important role to guide policy makers and governments by developing linkages/agreements with international partners (CBD, FAO, etc.), presenting conference papers at international ABS forums, and taking a political stance and an advocacy role on behalf of the international biological control community. Participation in this agreement would be voluntary but it would provide assurance that biological control genetic resources are being used for the public good globally.
Acknowledgements
The authors acknowledge support from each of their affiliated organisations for the opportunity to participate in preparing this contribution.
Declarations
Conflicts of interest
The authors declare that there are no conflicts of interest associated with this publication.
Informed consent
There are no requirements for informed consent associated with this publication.
Research involving human and animal rights
This article does not refer to any studies with human participants or animals (vertebrates) performed by any of the authors.
Open AccessThis article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/.