What are your experiences of using the Nagoya Protocol?
I am a field botanist working on a widespread crop and its wild relatives in multiple countries across SE Asia, as opportunities permit.
My research has always been (and will always be) not-for-profit, public research carried out with local counterparts, and usually with formal MoU agreements.
Recently it has become necessary to build references to the Nagoya Porotocol into our agreements and the procedures for moving samples between countries. Because no-one is very familiar with what is requried, a lot more negotiation has been needed, leading to long delays in the process. In the future, generally accepted templates may make the design of these agreements easier (I hope!).
Ultimately, however, the need for bilateral agreements for every project (regardless of size or duration), seems redundant, as there is already international agreement, within the relevant treaties, that not-for-profit, public research is needed for globally distributed crop taxa and their wild relatives.
My impression is that while the aims of the Nagoya Protocol are all good, much-needed public research will slow down generally because redundant bilateral agreements have to be prepared by all individuals and their counterparts when working across national boundaries.
The resulting impediments will be greatest for research students and researchers in the least wealthy countries, as the negotiation of bilateral MoUs is itself a costly process.
The current manner of implementing the Protocol is likely to work against the aims of the Protocol itself.
I would be very grateful for comments or suggestions from other biologists, in any country, about any of the points above. What are your own experiences of trying to implement the Nagoya Protocol?
With thanks in advance, Peter