ArticlePDF Available

Abstract

Beginning in November 2018, Brazilian legislation regulating access to genetic heritage and associated traditional knowledge will cause a bureaucratic collapse of Biodiversity research in Brazil. Law number 13.123/2015 and Decree 8772/2016 impose severe barriers to basic and applied research, and to international cooperation by introducing mandatory registry of research access to native organisms in Brazil. This legal framework was meant to improve governmental control over systems of biotechnology research using genetic material and associated chemical compounds, which are central points of the Nagoya Protocol (CBD 2011) and the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD 1992, 2012). However, the requirements imposed by the mandatory registry of research in the new National System for Governance of Genetic Heritage and Associated Traditional Knowledge (SisGen), the system of Material Transfer Agreements (MTAs), and the need to record access to organismal data prior to publication of scientific results or exportation of specimens for scientific research are technically impracticable and not part of the Nagoya Protocol or CBD. These systems have already begun to compromise biodiversity studies and training of human resources in biological sciences, which depend on international partnerships. Biological collections and laboratories based in Brazil will cease to function due to the high operational costs and legal impediments affecting access to national biodiversity by foreigners. On the global scenario, Brazilian science will certainly lose competitiveness. In violation to the Nagoya Protocol (CBD 2011), law number 13.123/2015 does not recognize basic scientific research as a special area that should be fostered and stimulated through streamlined processes. The Nagoya Protocol recommends that parties should “[c]reate 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” (CBD 2011, Article 8A). Likewise, article 8C stresses the importance of genetic resources for food and agriculture, and their special importance to food safety. While this last recommendation is followed by Decree 8772/2016 (chapter IV), the recommendation for facilitating non-commercial research is ignored. On the contrary, Kafkian bureaucratic restrictions were created. Between 2006 and 2015, CGen (the Brazilian Genetic Resources Council) Resolution 21/2006 exempted basic research in evolution, identification of organisms, epidemiology, and organization of scientific collections from the requirements of prior licensing and data registration for accessing the so-called genetic heritage. The resolution did not exempt researchers from several other licensing and mandatory data registration systems, such as the scientific specimens collecting system (SisBio), export licenses, CITES registration of endangered species, ethical requirements, sanitary vigilance approvals, and permits for scientific expeditions, but was a much-needed respite from the bureaucratic burden imposed by the Government. Most significant among these systems are the permit procedures for collecting of specimens, which already requires complex reporting in the SisBio database. Despite the redundancy of these multiple control systems, the new law revoked CGen Resolution 21/2006 in 2015. The imposed bureaucracy is also retroactive and demands all biology-related research since November 2015 to be regularized by November 2018, and that noncompliant institutions will be liable to substantial fines. The requirement to register hundreds of thousands, and possibly millions, of accesses to organisms will paralyze the functioning of hundreds of laboratories based in Brazilian universities and research institutes. It is worth noting that most basic science researchers in Brazil lack the technical assistance necessary to comply with the new data recording requirements. Long hours, possibly days or months, which are now dedicated to research, curation of collections, and teaching will be deviated to the filling of electronic forms. To illustrate the burden imposed by the new requirements, based on an estimate of the amount of time necessary to register the DNA sequences of Brazilian organisms with data deposited in GenBank since November 2015 (query: Brasil|Brazil NOT Homo sapiens; release date >11/2015; 683.353 sequences) in the current system, Brazilian scientists would spend a total of 7,116 days filling online forms (using a conservative estimate of 5 minutes per entry, working 8 hours a day in front of a computer). This example deals with a single molecular database. Metagenomic studies imply thousands of accessions per sampling. Systematic and inventory research often involve hundreds to thousands of sampled individuals housed in various collections in Brazil and abroad. Compulsory inclusion of all this data into any database prior to publication is a massive waste of time and resources, considering the very fact that the data will be published. In addition to increased bureaucratic burden, the law imposes many restrictive rules to international collaboration in non-commercial research. In its very first paragraph, law number 13.123/2015 prohibits foreign researchers from accessing the Brazilian genetic heritage and associated traditional knowledge without fulfilling significant legal and bureaucratic commitments. This means that curators may no longer show specimens deposited in scientific collections to foreign visiting scientists without prior registration of legal contracts among research institutions. Such binding documents include the need to formally record the access to Brazilian biodiversity components prior to publication of results. The restrictive legislation in Brazil conflicts with global initiatives to foster Biodiversity Sciences. Governments, through the Convention on Biological Diversity, have acknowledged the existence of a “taxonomic impediment” to the sound management of biodiversity (Global Taxonomy Initiative, GTI 2018). The purpose of the GTI is to remove or reduce this taxonomic impediment - in other words, the knowledge gaps in our taxonomic system (including those associated with genetic systems), the shortage of trained taxonomists and curators, and the impact these deficiencies have on our ability to conserve, use and share the benefits of our biological diversity (Global Taxonomy Initiative 2018). Brazil is a signatory country of the United Nations Convention on Biodiversity (CBD 1992). Article 12 of the CBD emphasizes the need for scientific and technical research, education and training in measures for identification, conservation, and sustainable use of biological diversity. This is a massive task involving thousands of researchers and students. Article 15 of the CBD recognizes the sovereign rights of states over their natural resources and the need to create renditions to facilitate access to genetic resources for environmentally sound uses by other Contracting Parties and not to impose restrictions that run counter to the objectives of the CBD. Recommendations of the eighth meeting of the United Nations Conference of the Parties to the Convention on Biological Diversity COP8 Biodiversity and Systematics workshop and the associated meeting (CBD 2006) included the duplication of support to taxonomy and its infrastructure at the local, national and global levels. The Guiding principles for the drafting of a policy for collections management, research and dissemination of Brazilian Biodiversity Information (CBD 2006) also included the need for international collaboration, a significant expansion of inventory effort, independent and autonomous production of knowledge within the areas of expertise of the researchers and their institutions, and autonomous control by institutions over their collections and associated specimen-based information, over database development for collections-management purposes and over their specimen and information exchange policies. After becoming a Party to the CBD in 1992, Brazil has invested substantial resources to study its biodiversity, improving the vastly underfunded conditions of institutions with biological reference collections, and elaborating a policy for keeping such collections (Peixoto et al. 2006). In 2006, the national research funding agency CNPq, in partnership with Ministry of Science, Technology and Innovation (MCT) and the Coordination for the Improvement of the Higher Education Personnel (CAPES), created the Taxonomy Training Program (PROTAX), in recognition to the imperious need to know the species composition of Brazil and their phylogenetic relationships to preserve national biodiversity (CNPq 2018). CNPq invested US$ 1,735,988,196.00 into scholarships and research projects involving the biological sciences (CNPq 2018). At the state level, the BIOTA-FAPESP Program, launched in 1999 (http://www.fapesp.br/biota/), became a benchmark of organized effort to know, map and analyze the biodiversity of the State of São Paulo, including its fauna, flora and microorganisms, as well as to evaluate the possibilities of sustainable exploitation and to subsidize the formulation of conservation policies. Consistent with the concern about the need to train new highly-skilled professionals in Biodiversity research, CAPES, in 2011, brought together all graduate courses in botany, ecology, oceanography, zoology, and related fields into a new Biodiversity area (http://capes.gov.br/component/content/article/44-avaliacao/4653-biodiversidade). This effort has resulted in the largest global organization targeting higher education on Biodiversity, currently covering 141 graduate programs. Should the currently used interpretations of the law remain unaltered, the most productive research fields will be the most penalized. The performance of Brazilian Zoology in the global scenario has been substantial, with two universities, USP and UFRJ, leading the rank of the number of published papers worldwide (http://cwur.org/2017/subjects.php#Zoology). Overall, the performance of biodiversity-based research will become unsustainable, undermining all investment made by government agencies. We are currently describing less than half the number of species that become extinct every year. In 2009, the formally described species of the world amounted to about 1.9 million species, with 297,897 plants, 98,998 fungi, 64,788 chordates and 1,359,365 invertebrates and 66,307 microorganisms (Chapman 2009). Arthropods may comprise 80-90% of all species of terrestrial macroorganisms (Stork 2010) and 85-95% of arthropods, invertebrates and microorganisms have yet to be named and described (Hollingsworth 2017). By 2016, the World flora had approximately 374,000 described and accepted plant species, and about 2,000 new species were described annually, with Australia, Brazil, China and New Guinea being the largest contributors (Christenhusz and Byng 2016). These authors noted that the numbers of new plant species being described were declining due to reduction in financial and scientific support for fundamental natural history studies. In Brazil this decline is yet to come and this productive phase is at the brink of collapse due to adverse biodiversity legislation. If we need to know our planet’s species to protect them, we are certainly not doing enough and governmental bureaucracy in Brazil is certainly not helping. The current legal framework has already begun to compromise biodiversity studies, activities of natural history collections, and international cooperation. Minimally, in compliance with Article 8 of the Nagoya Protocol, Brazilian authorities should exempt non-commercial biodiversity research from unnecessary bureaucratic burden through legal mechanisms equivalent to the former CGen Resolution 21/2006.
An Acad Bras Cienc (2018) 90 (2)
Anais da Academia Brasileira de Ciências (2018) 90(2): 1279-1284
(Annals of the Brazilian Academy of Sciences)
Printed version ISSN 0001-3765 / Online version ISSN 1678-2690
http://dx.doi.org/ 10.1590/0001-3765201820180460
www.scielo.br/aabc | www.fb.com/aabcjournal
1279
EDITORIAL NOTE
Brazilian legislation on genetic heritage harms Biodiversity Convention
goals and threatens basic biology research and education
RUY JOSÉ V. ALVES1, MARCELO WEKSLER2, JOÃO A. OLIVEIRA2, PAULO A. BUCKUP2, JOSÉ P.
POMBAL JR.2, HÉLCIO R.G. SANTANA3, ADRIANO LÚCIO PERACCHI4, ALEXANDER W.A. KELLNER5,
ALEXANDRE ALEIXO6, ALFREDO RICARDO L. BONINO7, ALZIRA MARIA P. DE ALMEIDA8, ANA
LUISA ALBERNAZ6, CAMILA C. RIBAS9, CARLA ZILBERBERG10, CARLOS EDUARDO V. GRELLE10,
CARLOS FREDERICO D. DA ROCHA11, CARLOS JOSÉ E. LAMAS12, CÉLIO FERNANDO B. HADDAD13,
CIBELE R. BONVICINO14, CYNTHIA P.A. PRADO15, DANIELA O. DE LIMA16, DENISE C. ROSSA-
FERES17, FABRÍCIO R. DOS SANTOS18, FÁTIMA REGINA G. SALIMENA19, FERNANDO A. PERINI18,
FLÁVIO A. BOCKMANN20, FRANCISCO LUÍS FRANCO21, GISELE M.L. DEL GIUDICE22, GUARINO
R. COLLI23, IMA CÉLIA G. VIEIRA6, JADER MARINHO-FILHO23, JANE M.C.F. WERNECK3, JORGE
A.D. DOS SANTOS22, JORGE LUIZ DO NASCIMENTO24, JORGE LUIZ NESSIMIAN10, JOSÉ LUIS P.
CORDEIRO25, KLEBER DEL CLARO26, LEANDRO O. SALLES2, LILIAN CASATTI17, LUCIA HELENA R.
PY-DANIE19, LUÍS FÁBIO SILVEIRA12, LUÍS FELIPE TOLEDO27, LUIZ F. DE OLIVEIRA2, LUIZ ROBERTO
MALABARBA28, MARCELO D. DA SILVA12, MÁRCIA S. COURI29, MÁRCIO R.C. MARTINS30, MARCOS D.S.
TAVARES12, MARCOS EDUARDO G. SOBRAL31, MARCUS VINÍCIUS VIEIRA10, MARIA DE LOURDES
A. OLIVEIRA3, MÁRIO CÉSAR C. DE PINNA32, MICHAEL J.G. HOPKINS9, MIRCO SOLÉ33, NAÉRCIO
A. MENEZES12, PAULO PASSOS2, PAULO SERGIO D’ANDREA3, PEDRO C.E.A. PINTO7, PEDRO L.
VIANA6, PETER M. TOLEDO34, ROBERTO E. DOS REIS35, ROBERTO VILELA3, ROGÉRIO P. BASTOS36,
ROSANE G. COLLEVATTI36, RUI C. SILVA10, SANTIAGO C. FISHER35 and ULISSES CARAMASCHI2
Beginning in November 2018, Brazilian legislation regulating access to genetic heritage and associated
traditional knowledge will cause a bureaucratic collapse of Biodiversity research in Brazil. Law number
13.123/2015 and Decree 8772/2016 impose severe barriers to basic and applied research, and to international
cooperation by introducing mandatory registry of research access to native organisms in Brazil. This legal
framework was meant to improve governmental control over systems of biotechnology research using
genetic material and associated chemical compounds, which are central points of the Nagoya Protocol (CBD
2011) and the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD 1992, 2012). However, the requirements imposed
by the mandatory registry of research in the new National System for Governance of Genetic Heritage
and Associated Traditional Knowledge (SisGen), the system of Material Transfer Agreements (MTAs),
and the need to record access to organismal data prior to publication of scientic results or exportation of
specimens for scientic research are technically impracticable and not part of the Nagoya Protocol or CBD.
These systems have already begun to compromise biodiversity studies and training of human resources in
biological sciences, which depend on international partnerships. Biological collections and laboratories
based in Brazil will cease to function due to the high operational costs and legal impediments aecting
Correspondence to: Ruy José Valka Alves
E-mail: ruyvalka@mn.ufrj.br
An Acad Bras Cienc (2018) 90 (2)
1280
access to national biodiversity by foreigners. On the global scenario, Brazilian science will certainly lose
competitiveness.
In violation to the Nagoya Protocol (CBD 2011), law number 13.123/2015 does not recognize basic
scientic research as a special area that should be fostered and stimulated through streamlined processes.
The Nagoya Protocol recommends that parties should “[c]reate conditions to promote and encourage
research which contributes to the conservation and sustainable use of biological diversity, particularly
in developing countries, including through simplied measures on access for non-commercial research
purposes, taking into account the need to address a change of intent for such research” (CBD 2011, Article
8A). Likewise, article 8C stresses the importance of genetic resources for food and agriculture, and their
special importance to food safety. While this last recommendation is followed by Decree 8772/2016
(chapter IV), the recommendation for facilitating non-commercial research is ignored. On the contrary,
Kafkian bureaucratic restrictions were created.
Between 2006 and 2015, CGen (the Brazilian Genetic Resources Council) Resolution 21/2006 exempted
basic research in evolution, identication of organisms, epidemiology, and organization of scientic
collections from the requirements of prior licensing and data registration for accessing the so-called
genetic heritage. The resolution did not exempt researchers from several other licensing and mandatory
data registration systems, such as the scientic specimens collecting system (SisBio), export licenses,
CITES registration of endangered species, ethical requirements, sanitary vigilance approvals, and permits
for scientic expeditions, but was a much-needed respite from the bureaucratic burden imposed by the
Government. Most signicant among these systems are the permit procedures for collecting of specimens,
which already requires complex reporting in the SisBio database. Despite the redundancy of these multiple
control systems, the new law revoked CGen Resolution 21/2006 in 2015.
The imposed bureaucracy is also retroactive and demands all biology-related research since November 2015
to be regularized by November 2018, and that noncompliant institutions will be liable to substantial nes.
The requirement to register hundreds of thousands, and possibly millions, of accesses to organisms will
paralyze the functioning of hundreds of laboratories based in Brazilian universities and research institutes.
It is worth noting that most basic science researchers in Brazil lack the technical assistance necessary to
comply with the new data recording requirements. Long hours, possibly days or months, which are now
dedicated to research, curation of collections, and teaching will be deviated to the lling of electronic forms.
To illustrate the burden imposed by the new requirements, based on an estimate of the amount of time
necessary to register the DNA sequences of Brazilian organisms with data deposited in GenBank since
November 2015 (query: Brasil|Brazil NOT Homo sapiens; release date >11/2015; 683.353 sequences)
in the current system, Brazilian scientists would spend a total of 7,116 days lling online forms (using a
conservative estimate of 5 minutes per entry, working 8 hours a day in front of a computer). This example
deals with a single molecular database. Metagenomic studies imply thousands of accessions per sampling.
Systematic and inventory research often involve hundreds to thousands of sampled individuals housed
in various collections in Brazil and abroad. Compulsory inclusion of all this data into any database prior
to publication is a massive waste of time and resources, considering the very fact that the data will be
published.
An Acad Bras Cienc (2018) 90 (2)
1281
In addition to increased bureaucratic burden, the law imposes many restrictive rules to international
collaboration in non-commercial research. In its very rst paragraph, law number 13.123/2015 prohibits
foreign researchers from accessing the Brazilian genetic heritage and associated traditional knowledge
without fullling signicant legal and bureaucratic commitments. This means that curators may no longer
show specimens deposited in scientic collections to foreign visiting scientists without prior registration of
legal contracts among research institutions. Such binding documents include the need to formally record
the access to Brazilian biodiversity components prior to publication of results.
The restrictive legislation in Brazil conflicts with global initiatives to foster Biodiversity Sciences.
Governments, through the Convention on Biological Diversity, have acknowledged the existence of a
“taxonomic impediment” to the sound management of biodiversity (Global Taxonomy Initiative, GTI
2018). The purpose of the GTI is to remove or reduce this taxonomic impediment - in other words, the
knowledge gaps in our taxonomic system (including those associated with genetic systems), the shortage of
trained taxonomists and curators, and the impact these deciencies have on our ability to conserve, use and
share the benets of our biological diversity (Global Taxonomy Initiative 2018).
Brazil is a signatory country of the United Nations Convention on Biodiversity (CBD 1992). Article 12 of
the CBD emphasizes the need for scientic and technical research, education and training in measures for
identication, conservation, and sustainable use of biological diversity. This is a massive task involving
thousands of researchers and students. Article 15 of the CBD recognizes the sovereign rights of states
over their natural resources and the need to create renditions to facilitate access to genetic resources for
environmentally sound uses by other Contracting Parties and not to impose restrictions that run counter to
the objectives of the CBD.
Recommendations of the eighth meeting of the United Nations Conference of the Parties to the Convention
on Biological Diversity COP8 Biodiversity and Systematics workshop and the associated meeting (CBD
2006) included the duplication of support to taxonomy and its infrastructure at the local, national and
global levels. The Guiding principles for the drafting of a policy for collections management, research and
dissemination of Brazilian Biodiversity Information (CBD 2006) also included the need for international
collaboration, a signicant expansion of inventory eort, independent and autonomous production of
knowledge within the areas of expertise of the researchers and their institutions, and autonomous control by
institutions over their collections and associated specimen-based information, over database development
for collections-management purposes and over their specimen and information exchange policies.
After becoming a Party to the CBD in 1992, Brazil has invested substantial resources to study its biodiversity,
improving the vastly underfunded conditions of institutions with biological reference collections, and
elaborating a policy for keeping such collections (Peixoto et al. 2006). In 2006, the national research
funding agency CNPq, in partnership with Ministry of Science, Technology and Innovation (MCT) and
the Coordination for the Improvement of the Higher Education Personnel (CAPES), created the Taxonomy
Training Program (PROTAX), in recognition to the imperious need to know the species composition of
Brazil and their phylogenetic relationships to preserve national biodiversity (CNPq 2018). CNPq invested
US$ 1,735,988,196.00 into scholarships and research projects involving the biological sciences (CNPq
2018). At the state level, the BIOTA-FAPESP Program, launched in 1999 (http://www.fapesp.br/biota/),
became a benchmark of organized eort to know, map and analyze the biodiversity of the State of São
An Acad Bras Cienc (2018) 90 (2)
1282
Paulo, including its fauna, ora and microorganisms, as well as to evaluate the possibilities of sustainable
exploitation and to subsidize the formulation of conservation policies.
Consistent with the concern about the need to train new highly-skilled professionals in Biodiversity
research, CAPES, in 2011, brought together all graduate courses in botany, ecology, oceanography,
zoology, and related elds into a new Biodiversity area (http://capes.gov.br/component/content/article/44-
avaliacao/4653-biodiversidade). This eort has resulted in the largest global organization targeting higher
education on Biodiversity, currently covering 141 graduate programs.
Should the currently used interpretations of the law remain unaltered, the most productive research elds
will be the most penalized. The performance of Brazilian Zoology in the global scenario has been substantial,
with two universities, USP and UFRJ, leading the rank of the number of published papers worldwide
(http://cwur.org/2017/subjects.php#Zoology). Overall, the performance of biodiversity-based research will
become unsustainable, undermining all investment made by government agencies.
We are currently describing less than half the number of species that become extinct every year. In 2009,
the formally described species of the world amounted to about 1.9 million species, with 297,897 plants,
98,998 fungi, 64,788 chordates and 1,359,365 invertebrates and 66,307 microorganisms (Chapman 2009).
Arthropods may comprise 80-90% of all species of terrestrial macroorganisms (Stork 2010) and 85-95% of
arthropods, invertebrates and microorganisms have yet to be named and described (Hollingsworth 2017).
By 2016, the World ora had approximately 374,000 described and accepted plant species, and about 2,000
new species were described annually, with Australia, Brazil, China and New Guinea being the largest
contributors (Christenhusz and Byng 2016). These authors noted that the numbers of new plant species
being described were declining due to reduction in nancial and scientic support for fundamental natural
history studies. In Brazil this decline is yet to come and this productive phase is at the brink of collapse due
to adverse biodiversity legislation.
If we need to know our planet’s species to protect them, we are certainly not doing enough and governmental
bureaucracy in Brazil is certainly not helping. The current legal framework has already begun to compromise
biodiversity studies, activities of natural history collections, and international cooperation. Minimally, in
compliance with Article 8 of the Nagoya Protocol, Brazilian authorities should exempt non-commercial
biodiversity research from unnecessary bureaucratic burden through legal mechanisms equivalent to the
former CGen Resolution 21/2006.
REFERENCES
CBD. 1992. Convention on Biological Diversity. United Nations. https://www.cbd.int/doc/legal/cbd-en.pdf.
CBD. 2006. Conference of the Parties to the Convention on Biological Diversity. Ninth meeting. Curitiba, Brazil. 20-31 March
2006. Agenda item 16. Biodiversity, The Megascience in Focus: outcomes and recommendations of the COP8 Associated
Meeting, and a statement of principles by Brazilian Biodiversity scientists. Organized by Associação Memória Naturalis-
AMNAT. – Rio de Janeiro: Museu Nacional, 2006. ISBN 8574270156.
CBD. 2011. Nagoya Protocol on Access to Genetic Resources and the Fair and Equitable Sharing of Benefits Arising from their
Utilization to the Convention on Biological Diversity: text and annex. Secretariat of the Convention on Biological Diversity,
Montreal.
CBD. 2012. Conference of the Parties to the Convention on Biological Diversity. Eleventh meeting. Hyderabad, India, 8-19
October Agenda item 13.10.
An Acad Bras Cienc (2018) 90 (2)
1283
CGEN RESOLUTION. 2006. Resolução nº 21, de 31 de agosto de 2006. http://www.mma.gov.br/estruturas/sbf_dpg/_arquivos/
res21cons.pdf.
CHAPMAN AD. 2009. Numbers of living species in Australia and the world, 2nd Canberra Australian Government, Department
of Environment, Water, Heritage and Arts. https://www.environment.gov.au/system/files/pages/2ee3f4a1-f130-465b-9c7a-
79373680a067/files/nlsaw-2nd-complete.pdf.
CHRISTENHUSZ MJM AND BYNG JW. 2016. The number of known plants species in the world and its annual increase.
Phytotaxa 261(3): 201-217.
CNPQ. 2018. PROTAX - Programa de Capacitação em Taxonomia. http://memoria.cnpq.br/apresentacao6;jsessionid=18B54F1D
63ABFDC8D2ED5CE36BD17474).
GLOBAL TAXONOMY INITIATIVE. 2018. https://www.cbd.int/gti/default.shtml
HOLLINGSWORTH PM. 2017. Taxonomy: avoid extra bureaucracy. Nature 546: 600.
PEIXOTO AL, BARBOSA MRV, MENEZES M AND MAIA LC. 2006. Diretrizes e estratégias para a modernização de coleções
biológicas brasileiras e a consolidação de sistemas integrados de informação sobre biodiversidade. Brasília, DF: Ministério da
Ciência e Tecnologia. 314 pp. http://www.cria.org.br/cgee/col/.
STORK NE. 2010. Re-assessing current extinction rates. Biodiversity Conservation 19: 357-371.
AUTHORS’ AFFILIATIONS
1Departamento de Botânica, Museu Nacional/ UFRJ, Quinta da Boa Vista, s/n, São Cristóvão, 20940-040 Rio de Janeiro, RJ, Brazil
2Departamento de Vertebrados, Museu Nacional/UFRJ, Quinta da Boa Vista, s/n, São Cristóvão, 20940-040 Rio de Janeiro, RJ, Brazil
3Fundação Oswaldo Cruz, Instituto Oswaldo Cruz, Avenida Brasil, 4365, Manguinhos, 21040-360 Rio de Janeiro, RJ, Brazil
4Universidade Federal Rural do Rio de Janeiro, Instituto de Biologia, Departamento de Biologia Animal, C.P. 74503, 23851-970
Seropédica, RJ, Brazil
5Laboratório de Sistemática e Tafonomia de Vertebrados Fósseis, Departamento de Geologia e Paleontologia, Museu Nacional/
UFRJ, Quinta da Boa Vista, s/n, São Cristóvão, 20940-040 Rio de Janeiro, RJ, Brazil
6Museu Paraense Emílio Goeldi, Coordenação de Zoologia, Av. Magalhães Barata, 376, São Braz, 66040-170 Belém, PA, Brazil
7Universidade Federal da Paraíba, Centro de Ciências Exatas e da Natureza, Campus I, Departamento de Sistemática e Ecologia,
CCEN, UFPB, Cidade Universitária, 58059-900 João Pessoa, PB, Brazil
8Fundação Oswaldo Cruz, Centro de Pesquisas Aggeu Magalhães, Centro de Pesquisa Aggeu Magalhães, Av. Prof. Moraes Rego,
s/n, Cidade Universitária, 50670-420 Recife, PE, Brazil
9Instituto Nacional de Pesquisas da Amazônia, Programa de Coleções e Acervos Cientícos, Av. André Araújo, 2936, Aleixo,
69060-001 Manaus, AM, Brazil
10Universidade Federal do Rio de Janeiro, Departamento de Zoologia, UFRJ, Departamento de Zoologia, CCS, Bloco A, Ilha do
Fundão, 21941-590 Rio de Janeiro, RJ, Brazil
11Departamento de Ecologia, Instituto de Biologia, Universidade do Estado do Rio de Janeiro, Rua São Francisco Xavier, 524,
Maracanã, 20550-019 Rio de Janeiro, RJ, Brazil
12Universidade de São Paulo, Museu de Zoologia da USP, Av. Nazaré, 481, Laboratório de Diptera, Sala 404, Ipiranga, 04263-000
São Paulo, SP, Brazil
13Departamento de Zoologia e Centro de Aquicultura, Universidade Estadual Paulista, Av. 24 A, 1515, 13506-900 Rio Claro, SP, Brazil
14Instituto Nacional de Câncer, Coordenação de Pesquisa, Rua André Cavalcanti, 37, 4º andar, 20231-050, Rio de Janeiro, RJ, Brazil
15Universidade Estadual Paulista, Laboratório de Ecologia e Comportamento de Anuros, Departamento de Morfologia e Fisiologia
Animal, Faculdade de Ciências Agrárias e Veterinárias, Via de Acesso Prof. Paulo Donato Castellane Km 05,14884-900
Jaboticabal, SP, Brazil
16Universidade Federal da Fronteira Sul, Rua Jacob Reinaldo Haupenthal, 1580, Centro, 97900-000 Cerro Largo, RS, Brazil
17 Universidade Estadual Paulista, Departamento de Zoologia e Botânica, Instituto de Biociências, Letras e Ciências Exatas, 15054-
000 São José do Rio Preto, SP, Brazil
18Universidade Federal de Minas Gerais, Instituto de Ciências Biológicas, Departamento de Biologia Geral, Av. Antonio Carlos,
6627, C.P. 486, Sala L3-244, ICB, Pampulha, 31270-010 Belo Horizonte, MG, Brazil
19Universidade Federal de Juiz de Fora, Instituto de Ciências Biológicas, ICB, Departamento de Botânica, Campus Universitário,
Martelos, 36036-900 Juiz de Fora, MG, Brazil
20Universidade de São Paulo, FFCLRP, Departamento de Biologia, Av. Bandeirantes, 3900, Monte Alegre, 14040-901 Ribeirão
Preto SP, Brazil
21Laboratório Especial de Coleções Zoológicas, Instituto Butantan, Av. Dr. Vital Brasil, 1500, 05503-900 São Paulo, SP, Brazil
22Universidade Federal de Viçosa, Centro de Ciências Biológicas e da Saúde, Campus Universitário, s/n, Centro, 36570-000
Viçosa, MG, Brazil
An Acad Bras Cienc (2018) 90 (2)
1284
23 Universidade de Brasília, Departamento de Zoologia, Instituto de Ciências Biológicas, 70910-900 Brasília, DF, Brazil
24Instituto Chico Mendes de Conservação da Biodiversidade/ICMBio, Reserva Biológica Guaribas, PB 071, Km 01 (Estrada
para Jacaraú), Pau D’Arco, Zona Rural, 58280-000 Mamanguape, PB, Brazil
25Fundação Oswaldo Cruz, Estrada Rodrigues Caldas, 3400, Taquara, 22713-375 Rio de Janeiro, RJ, Brazil
26Diretor de Pesquisa, Universidade Federal de Uberlândia, Rua Ceará, s/n,Umuarama, 38400-902 Uberlândia, MG, Brazil
27 Universidade Estadual de Campinas, Multiusuário de Bioacústica, Laboratório de História Natural de Anfíbios Brasileiros,
Departamento de Biologia Animal, Instituto de Biologia, 13083-970 Campinas, SP, Brazil
28Presidente da Sociedade Brasileira de Ictiologia, Universidade Federal do Rio Grande do Sul, Instituto de Biociências,
Departamento de Zoologia, Av. Bento Gonçalves, 9500, Agronomia, 91501-970 Porto Alegre, RS, Brazil
29Departamento de Entomologia, Museu Nacional, Universidade Federal do Rio de Janeiro, Quinta da Boa Vista, s/n 20940-
040 Rio de Janeiro, RJ, Brazil
30Presidente da Sociedade Brasileira Herpetologia, Departamento de Ecologia, Instituto de Biociências, Universidade de São
Paulo, Rua do Matão, Trav. 14, 05508-090 São Paulo, Brazil
31Universidade Federal de São João Del-Rei, Departamento de Ciências Naturais, Praça Dom Helvécio, 74, Dom Bosco,
36301-160 São João Del Rei, MG, Brazil
32Diretor, Universidade de São Paulo, Museu de Zoologia da USP, Departamento de Vertebrados, Av. Nazaré, 481, Caixa
Postal 42494, Ipiranga, 05422-970 São Paulo, SP, Brazil
33Departamento de Ciências Biológicas, Universidade Estadual de Santa Cruz, Rod. Jorge Amado, Km 16, 45662-900
Salobrinho, Ilhéus, BA, Brazil
34Instituto Nacional de Pesquisas Espaciais, Coordenação Ciência do Sistema Terrestre, Avenida dos Astronautas, 1758, Jardim
da Granja, 12227-010 São Jose dos Campos, SP, Brazil
35Escola de Ciências, Pontifícia Universidade Católica do Rio Grande do Sul, Av. Ipiranga 6681, Prédio 40, sala 110, 90619-
900 Porto Alegre, RS, Brazil
36 Universidade Federal de Goiás, Laboratório de Ecologia e Comportamento Animal, Departamento de Ecologia, Instituto de
Ciências Biológicas, 74000-970 Goiânia, GO, Brazil
... The significant impact of the data collected during our targeted surveys on the North West Province biodiversity database demonstrates the benefit of conducting targeted surveys for filling geographic gaps in species distribution data. Unfortunately, the recent trend of increasing levels of red tape relating to bureaucratic hurdles associated with the collection of biological data can severely impede progress (Alves et al. 2018;Friso et al. 2020;Alexander et al. 2021). We, thus, implore national and provincial authorities to cut bureaucracy and to facilitate the provision of essential permits. ...
Article
Full-text available
The North West Province, South Africa, is centrally situated in southern Africa and is characterised by savannah with a mesic, temperate climate in the east and a hot, arid climate in the west. While the eastern region is fairly well-documented for herpetofauna, the arid central and western regions are poorly surveyed. Given that the Province has been targeted by the national government for development of infrastructure, the overall deficiency of biodiversity data could result in impact assessments that are not well-informed. We, therefore, carried out herpetofaunal surveys over two years (2019–2020) in the North West Province to improve knowledge on the distributions of reptiles and amphibians. Our surveys added a total of 578 new records to an earlier baseline of 1340 records. In addition, over 300 records were added to a citizen-science platform in connection with our surveys. As compared to the previous 100 years, our surveys increased the herpetofaunal dataset by 68% in just two years, increased geographic coverage by 20% and brought the total number of species with accurate records for the Province to 102 reptiles and 23 amphibians. We also recorded range extensions for five reptile species and confirmed the presence of Dendroaspis polylepis (Black Mamba) in the west where it had been last recorded in 1996. Our surveys resulted in a significant increase in biodiversity data for the Province and provided a better foundation for spatial planning that accounts for biodiversity and the maintenance of ecological function.
... It is also worth mentioning the partnership of FAPESP with the Brazilian National Council for Scientific and Technological Development (CNPq), within the scope of the PROTAX Call (Program to Support Research Projects for the Training of Human Resources in Biological Taxonomy), to co-finance proposals submitted by the São Paulo State researchers. This Program has supported research projects seeking to train specialized human resources in taxonomy, to provide the demand of Brazilian research institutions in times of taxonomic impediment and biodiversity crisis (Alves et al. 2018;Santos & Carbayo 2021). ...
Article
The contribution of the BIOTA/FAPESP Program to the advancement of the knowledge on terrestrial invertebrates. Biota Neotropica 22(spe): e20221398. https://doi. Abstract: The variability of the organisms living in a given area constitute what is referred to as biodiversity, one of nature's fundamental properties, responsible for the balance and stability of ecosystems. The loss of biodiversity has been of great concern to scientists, especially because of the role played by human activities in this regard, able to lead to irreversible circumstances. The São Paulo Research Foundation (Fundação de Amparo à Pesquisa do Estado de São Paulo, FAPESP) plays a major role in supporting research efforts in the most diverse branches of science. In the late 1990´s, FAPESP launched a major program to promote research on biodiversity, named BIOTA/ FAPESP. So far, this program has financed the conduction of 26 projects, involving research activities in most of Brazil, while focusing mainly the State of São Paulo. These projects have generated about 1140 publications in peer-reviewed journals of high standard, providing relevant information, including the original description of 1187 species and 76 genera, the complementary description of 350 species, as well as a number of inventory works, biological studies, etc. The program has also been instrumental in the establishment or adequacy of research facilities and training of new taxonomists. Most extensively studied groups of terrestrial invertebrates include Insecta of the orders Hymenoptera, Lepidoptera and Diptera, and Arachnida of the subclasses Araneae and Acari. Distinct projects have also contributed to the detection of organisms potentially useful as biological control agents and in the determination of maps of major interest for the establishment of public policies. In the future, priority groups for study should include the Annelida and the Nematoda, for the potential both have as beneficial organisms, or for the potential some Nematoda have as organisms harmful to plants and animals. A contribuição do Programa BIOTA/FAPESP para o avanço no conhecimento sobre os invertebrados terrestres Resumo: A variabilidade dos organismos em uma determinada área constitui o que se denomina biodiversidade, uma das propriedades fundamentais da natureza, responsável pelo equilíbrio e estabilidade dos ecossistemas. A perda da biodiversidade tem sido uma grande preocupação para os cientistas, principalmente pelo papel desempenhado pelas atividades humanas, com potencial para desencadear circunstâncias irreversíveis. A Fundação de Amparo à Pesquisa do Estado de São Paulo (FAPESP) desempenha um papel importante no apoio às pesquisas nos mais diversos ramos da ciência. No final da década de 1990, a FAPESP lançou um grande programa de fomento à pesquisa em biodiversidade, denominado BIOTA/FAPESP. Até o momento, este programa financiou a realização de 26 projetos, envolvendo atividades na maior parte do Brasil, embora tenham como foco principal o estado de São Paulo. Esses projetos geraram cerca de 1.140 publicações em periódicos de alto impacto, fornecendo informações relevantes que incluem a descrição original de 1.187 espécies e 76 gêneros e a descrição complementar de 350 espécies, além de diversos trabalhos de inventário, estudos biológicos etc. O programa também tem sido fundamental para o estabelecimento ou adequação de instalações de pesquisa científica e o treinamento de novos taxonomistas. Os grupos de invertebrados terrestres mais estudados incluem os Insecta das ordens Hymenoptera, Lepidoptera e Diptera, e os Arachnida das subclasses Araneae e Acari. Projetos distintos também têm contribuído para a detecção de organismos potencialmente úteis como agentes de controle biológico e na determinação de mapas de áreas preferenciais para o estabelecimento de políticas públicas. No futuro, os grupos prioritários de estudo devem incluir os Annelida e os Nematoda, pelo potencial que ambos têm como organismos benéficos, ou pelo potencial que alguns Nematoda têm como organismos prejudiciais a plantas e animais.
... International transfer of field-collected samples. International agreements governing the movement of genetic resources or endangered organisms add another layer of complexity to the permitting process (77)(78)(79). For instance, the Nagoya Protocol on Access and Benefit Sharing outlines the equitable use of genetic resources for biodiversity conservation and has important implications for how research is conducted, collections are managed, and information is shared among collaborators (80). ...
Article
Full-text available
Field biology is an area of research that involves working directly with living organisms in situ through a practice known as “fieldwork.” Conducting fieldwork often requires complex logistical planning within multiregional or multinational teams, interacting with local communities at field sites, and collaborative research led by one or a few of the core team members. However, existing power imbalances stemming from geopolitical history, discrimination, and professional position, among other factors, perpetuate inequities when conducting these research endeavors. After reflecting on our own research programs, we propose four general principles to guide equitable, inclusive, ethical, and safe practices in field biology: be collaborative, be respectful, be legal, and be safe. Although many biologists already structure their field programs around these principles or similar values, executing equitable research practices can prove challenging and requires careful consideration, especially by those in positions with relatively greater privilege. Based on experiences and input from a diverse group of global collaborators, we provide suggestions for action-oriented approaches to make field biology more equitable, with particular attention to how those with greater privilege can contribute. While we acknowledge that not all suggestions will be applicable to every institution or program, we hope that they will generate discussions and provide a baseline for training in proactive, equitable fieldwork practices.
... International transfer of field-collected samples. International agreements governing the movement of genetic resources or endangered organisms add another layer of complexity to the permitting process (77)(78)(79). For instance, the Nagoya Protocol on Access and Benefit Sharing outlines the equitable use of genetic resources for biodiversity conservation and has important implications for how research is conducted, collections are managed, and information is shared among collaborators (80). ...
Preprint
Full-text available
Field biology is an area of research that involves working directly with living organisms in situ through a practice known as “fieldwork.” Conducting fieldwork often requires complex logistical planning within multiregional or multinational teams, interacting with local communities at field sites, and collaborative research led by one or a few of the core team members. However, existing power imbalances stemming from geopolitical history, discrimination, and professional position, among other factors, perpetuate inequities when conducting these research endeavors. After reflecting on our own research programs, we propose four general principles to guide equitable, inclusive, ethical, and safe practices in field biology: Be Collaborative, Be Respectful, Be Legal, and Be Safe. Although many biologists already structure their field programs around these principles or similar values, executing equitable research practices can prove challenging and requires careful consideration, especially by those in positions with relatively greater privilege. Based on experiences and input from a diverse group of global collaborators, we provide suggestions for action-oriented approaches to make field biology more equitable, with particular attention to how those with greater privilege can contribute. While we acknowledge that not all suggestions will be applicable to every institution or program, we hope that they will generate discussions and provide a baseline for training in proactive, equitable fieldwork practices.
Article
The Nagoya Protocol is a legal framework focused on the Access and Benefit Sharing of genetic resources, including Biological Control Agents. In order to comply with the Nagoya Protocol, countries in Latin America are establishing legal frameworks for access to genetic resources. Scientists face the challenges of the bureaucratic and administrative burden to obtain the access permits to study the biodiversity present in Latin American countries, which include the evaluation of biological control agents that can be used in sustainable production programs. In order to avoid the demotivation of scientists and students to work on biological control by blocking the opportunities to get new bioproducts, it is important to increase the communication between the regulatory authorities and the scientific community, to ensure the establishment of an effective structure and mechanisms to facilitate the process and reduce the time needed to obtain the access permits. On the other hand, the establishment of regional platforms for the exchange of information and harmonization of procedures can contribute to reinforce the collaboration among Latin American countries and facilitate regional studies and biocontrol activities. In this article, the legal framework in place in different countries in Latin America will be discussed and some possible solutions and ways forward to the major challenges observed will be presented.
Article
Full-text available
Scientific collections constitute a valuable source for contributions to scientific research and the training of human resources in systematics, but also other areas of biological knowledge. In this contribution, we intend to discuss these advancements in collections and the role played by FAPESP in sponsoring them, as well as a general overview of the zoological collections in São Paulo state. We also aim to stress the importance of zoological collections and the need for continuous logistic and financial support from institutions and research agencies to maintain and develop these unique repositories of biodiversity. From 1980 to the present, FAPESP supported 118 research projects focused on several areas of zoology that are directly or indirectly associated with collections. There is a constant growth in the number of projects, and the financial support provided by FAPESP through the Biota Program was paramount for the advancement of our knowledge of biodiversity in Brazil. Parallel to the scientific advances, but not less important, this support allowed curators to increase the number of specimens, and to organize, maintain and digitize them in these valuable and irreplaceable collections. Regarding the lack of new taxonomists, it is essential that FAPESP and universities in São Paulo encourage the formation of new academics in zoological groups where specialists are rare. Considering the investment provided by FAPESP, it is quite important that the institutions that benefited from these resources took greater responsibility to safeguard these collections, and they should consider including resources on their budgets to obtain safety certificates, ensuring their permanence for many generations to come. Zoological collections are a heritage of humanity and are essential not only for the improvement of our knowledge of biodiversity but also with direct applications, among other services provided by these biological resources. It is important that research and teaching institutions in São Paulo that house specimens under their care start to value more this important patrimony and this heritage, as these collections represent the most valuable testimony of our impressive biodiversity, records of our past, and windows to our future, essential to our academic, scientific, cultural and social sovereignty. Resumo: As coleções científicas constituem uma fonte valiosa para contribuições à pesquisa científica e para a formação de recursos humanos em sistemática, mas também em outras áreas do conhecimento biológico. Nesta contribuição, pretendemos discutir esses avanços nas coleções e o papel desempenhado pela FAPESP no seu patrocínio, bem como um panorama geral das coleções zoológicas do estado de São Paulo. Também pretendemos enfatizar a importância das coleções zoológicas e a necessidade de apoio logístico e financeiro contínuo de instituições e agências de pesquisa para manter e desenvolver esses repositórios únicos de biodiversidade. Ao longo de 1980 até os dias atuais, a FAPESP apoiou 118 projetos de pesquisa focados em diversas áreas da zoologia, direta ou indiretamente associados a coleções. Há um crescimento constante no número de projetos, e o apoio financeiro da FAPESP por meio do Programa Biota foi fundamental para o avanço do nosso conhecimento sobre a biodiversidade no Brasil. Paralelamente aos avanços científicos, mas não menos importante, este apoio permitiu aos curadores aumentar o número de exemplares, e organizá-los, mantê-los e digitalizá-los nestas valiosas e insubstituíveis coleções. Em relação à falta de novos taxonomistas, é fundamental que a FAPESP e as universidades paulistas estimulem a formação de novos acadêmicos em grupos zoológicos onde os especialistas são raros. Considerando o investimento realizado pela FAPESP, é de suma importância que as instituições beneficiadas com esses recursos tenham maior responsabilidade na salvaguarda desses acervos, devendo considerar a inclusão de recursos em seus orçamentos para obtenção de certificados de segurança, garantindo sua permanência por muitas gerações. As coleções zoológicas são patrimônio da humanidade, e são essenciais não apenas para o aprimoramento do nosso conhecimento sobre a biodiversidade, mas também com aplicações diretas, entre outros serviços prestados por esses recursos biológicos. É importante que as instituições de pesquisa e ensino paulistas que abrigam exemplares sob seus cuidados passem a valorizar mais esse importante patrimônio e essa herança, pois essas coleções representam o testemunho mais valioso de nossa impressionante biodiversidade, registros do nosso passado e janelas para o nosso futuro, essenciais à nossa soberania acadêmica, científica, cultural e social.
Chapter
The Access and Benefit Sharing (ABS) related to Biodiversity is a resource-legal framework. Prior to Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) in 1992, access to biodiversity and local knowledge relevant to utilization remained free for all mankind. The benefits went to organizations involved in the trade. Benefit sharing had started previously but remained at government level but never reached to stakeholders or custodians. There were no provisions for the fair and equitable sharing of benefits and with this background CBD was articulated in 1992 and came into effect with the ratification in 1993. The CBD has three main objectives: conservation of biological diversity; sustainable use of its components; and fair and equitable sharing of benefits arising from the use of genetic resources. Conservation of biological diversity is clear in action to protect the biodiversity. The protection of genetic resources is a multipronged affair and it involves protection of water bodies, the genetic component in it, creating environment for production increase and sustainable use and so on. It means that the benefit sharing should not be limited to genetic resources alone but the environment as well as the custodians. Such aspects have been omitted in the present system. Therefore, the present article is an attempt to expand the field of ABS with regard to aquatic systems and bio-resources to custodians of these resources. The areas are: riparian vegetation for bank protection; protecting water and its availability, quality, retention, renovation etc.; conservation of breeding populations of genetic resources; regulated capture of genetic resources and the people who are real custodians of these activities. All these are primary causes for the conservation of aquatic genetic resources. The industries procuring the bio-resources are producing value added products and making huge benefit by adopting precautious marketing strategies. In spite of regulations declared under CBD the fishermen and other people are not benefitted out of this. The local people who are the custodians are totally neglected from this area, though they are also eligible for such benefit sharing. This article makes a revisit to the problem concentrating on various areas, such as, bank protection, water conservation, genetic bio-resource protection, production (capture), aquaculture, ornamental fish culture, marketing, industrial production of value added products, waste management, products developed from waste, ranching programmes etc.KeywordsRevisit ABSAquatic resourcesCustodianRiparianValue added bio-resources
Chapter
During the second half of the 20th-century awareness about environmental losses developed and became a societal issue of concern. That is why, at the Earth Summit in Rio de Janeiro (Brazil) in 1992, the international community took the important decision to preserve biodiversity through a virtuous circle: the sustainable use of biodiversity (genetic resources) and traditional knowledge will generate benefits that will then be used for their preservation. Then the Nagoya Protocol, adopted in 2010, specified the practical implementation of the access and benefit-sharing mechanism, which is the responsibility of each source country. The scope of application was then clarified and extended: research on the genetic but also biochemical content of plants, animals, fungi, and microorganisms. The users of these resources, whether scholar or industrial, must comply with these regulations, which are applied at the national, supranational, and sometimes subnational levels. Practical advice is provided on how to take the necessary steps to ensure legal security in a rapidly evolving legal environment that differs greatly from one source country to another.
Technical Report
Full-text available
"10 Must Knows from Biodiversity Science”, ranging from climate stress for forests to the corona virus that has jumped from animals to humans, are now published for the first time. More than 45 experts from the German Leibniz Research Network Biodiversity and colleagues have compiled this inventory on the preservation of nature as the basis of human life. In the run-up to the UN Biodiversity Conference in Kunming, China, and parallel to the preparatory meetings currently underway in Geneva, Switzerland, this report is intended to invite dialogue. At the same time, the researchers voice clear policy demands.
Technical Report
Full-text available
Uns Autorinnen und Autoren geht es darum Wissen zu vermitteln. Wissen um Wandel, um politisches und gesellschaftliches Handeln für einen gesunden Planeten, den Erhalt und die nachhaltige Nutzung der Biodiversität zu unterstützen. Wissenschaft und Forschung zur Begleitung eines komplexen und systemaren Prozess wird angeboten. For us as contributors, it's all about communicating knowledge. Knowledge of change, to support political and social action for a healthy planet, conservation and a more sustainable use of biodiversity. Science and research to accompany a complex and systemic process is offered.
Article
Full-text available
We have counted the currently known, described and accepted number of plant species as ca 374,000, of which approxi-mately 308,312 are vascular plants, with 295,383 flowering plants (angiosperms; monocots: 74,273; eudicots: 210,008). Global numbers of smaller plant groups are as follows: algae ca 44,000, liverworts ca 9,000, hornworts ca 225, mosses 12,700, lycopods 1,290, ferns 10,560 and gymnosperms 1,079. Phytotaxa is currently contributing more than a quarter of the ca 2000 species that are described every year, showing that it has become a major contributor to the dissemination of new species discovery. However, the rate of discovery is slowing down, due to reduction in financial and scientific support for fundamental natural history studies.
Article
Full-text available
There is a widespread belief that we are experiencing a mass extinction event similar in severity to previous mass extinction events in the last 600 million years where up to 95% of species disappeared. This paper reviews evidence for current extinctions and different methods of assessing extinction rates including species–area relationships and loss of tropical forests, changing threat status of species, co-extinction rates and modelling the impact of climate change. For 30years some have suggested that extinctions through tropical forest loss are occurring at a rate of up to 100 species a day and yet less than 1,200 extinctions have been recorded in the last 400years. Reasons for low number of identified global extinctions are suggested here and include success in protecting many endangered species, poor monitoring of most of the rest of species and their level of threat, extinction debt where forests have been lost but species still survive, that regrowth forests may be important in retaining ‘old growth’ species, fewer co-extinctions of species than expected, and large differences in the vulnerability of different taxa to extinction threats. More recently, others have suggested similar rates of extinction to earlier estimates but with the key cause of extinction being climate change, and in particular rising temperatures, rather than deforestation alone. Here I suggest that climate change, rather than deforestation is likely to bring about such high levels of extinction since the impacts of climate change are local to global and that climate change is acting synergistically with a range of other threats to biodiversity including deforestation.
The Megascience in Focus: outcomes and recommendations of the COP8 Associated Meeting, and a statement of principles by Brazilian Biodiversity scientists
CBD. 2006. Conference of the Parties to the Convention on Biological Diversity. Ninth meeting. Curitiba, Brazil. 20-31 March 2006. Agenda item 16. Biodiversity, The Megascience in Focus: outcomes and recommendations of the COP8 Associated Meeting, and a statement of principles by Brazilian Biodiversity scientists. Organized by Associação Memória NaturalisAMNAT.-Rio de Janeiro: Museu Nacional, 2006. ISBN 8574270156.
Resolução nº 21, de 31 de agosto de
  • Cgen Resolution
CGEN RESOLUTION. 2006. Resolução nº 21, de 31 de agosto de 2006. http://www.mma.gov.br/estruturas/sbf_dpg/_arquivos/ res21cons.pdf.
Numbers of living species in Australia and the world, 2 nd Canberra Australian Government, Department of Environment, Water, Heritage and Arts
  • Chapman Ad
CHAPMAN AD. 2009. Numbers of living species in Australia and the world, 2 nd Canberra Australian Government, Department of Environment, Water, Heritage and Arts. https://www.environment.gov.au/system/files/pages/2ee3f4a1-f130-465b-9c7a79373680a067/files/nlsaw-2nd-complete.pdf.
Taxonomy: avoid extra bureaucracy
  • Global Taxonomy Initiative
GLOBAL TAXONOMY INITIATIVE. 2018. https://www.cbd.int/gti/default.shtml HOLLINGSWORTH PM. 2017. Taxonomy: avoid extra bureaucracy. Nature 546: 600.
Museu Nacional/UFRJ, Quinta da Boa Vista, s/n
  • Vertebrados Departamento De
Departamento de Vertebrados, Museu Nacional/UFRJ, Quinta da Boa Vista, s/n, São Cristóvão, 20940-040 Rio de Janeiro, RJ, Brazil 3
Centro de Pesquisas Aggeu Magalhães, Centro de Pesquisa Aggeu Magalhães, Av. Prof. Moraes Rego, s/n
  • Cruz Fundação Oswaldo
Fundação Oswaldo Cruz, Centro de Pesquisas Aggeu Magalhães, Centro de Pesquisa Aggeu Magalhães, Av. Prof. Moraes Rego, s/n, Cidade Universitária, 50670-420 Recife, PE, Brazil