Update on Sharing and Reporting Benefits From Biodiversity Research

In 2022, Molecular Ecology and Molecular Ecology Resources implemented a policy encouraging our authors to report on non-monetary benefit sharing (Box 1) with the countries or communities providing genetic materials or traditional knowledge used in their research. This was partly a response to the widespread adoption of the Nagoya Protocol on Access and Benefit Sharing (ABS), which had made benefit-sharing a legal requirement for some of the research published in our journals. However, we also knew that non-monetary benefit-sharing was already a common practice among scientists conducting biodiversity research, but that there was little awareness about these contributions among the general public, policymakers, and influencers (Marden et al. 2021). Lastly, we felt that our policy would encourage scientists publishing in our journal to consider additional ways that they could improve benefit-sharing practices. Nagoya Protocol Annex The Nagoya Protocol is an international agreement that governs the fair and equitable sharing of benefits arising from the use of genetic resources and associated traditional knowledge (https://www.cbd.int/abs/default.shtml). The Protocol was adopted in 2010 and came into force in 2014. Its main objectives were to: (1) establish rules for how researchers, companies, or institutions can access genetic resources and traditional knowledge from provider countries; (2) ensure that benefits (monetary or non-monetary) from using these resources are shared fairly with the country, institution, or community that provided them; and (3) require countries to take measures so that users of genetic resources respect the laws and agreements of provider countries. This includes prior informed consent from the country or community providing the genetic resources and mutually agreed terms for sharing the benefits from that research. Currently, the Nagoya Protocol has 142 Parties. These are mainly countries, but also include larger blocks such as the European Union. Notable countries that are not Parties to the Nagoya Protocol include Australia, Canada, Colombia, Israel, Russia, and the USA. In this editorial, we explore what we have learned about non-monetary benefit-sharing practices of the molecular ecology community. In particular, we were interested in the fraction of our authors who report compliance with the Nagoya Protocol and/or provide information on benefit-sharing connected with the research they published in Molecular Ecology. Additional issues of interest concern whether reporting on benefit-sharing varies according to whether an author's country is a Party to the Nagoya Protocol, the number of countries co-authors are affiliated with, and the kinds of organisms targeted for study. Lastly, we wished to know what types of non-monetary benefits were most frequently reported. We restrict our analyses to papers published from 2023 to 2025 since benefit-sharing reports from 2022 (there were very few) were summarised by Rieseberg et al. (2023). Our focus is on Molecular Ecology, with a second editorial planned for early 2026, which will focus on Molecular Ecology Resources. We compiled information relevant to non-monetary benefit sharing, including publication title, benefit-sharing statement, study authors, author countries, and taxa studied for all original research articles published in Molecular Ecology in 2023, 2024 and through November 7, 2025 (Table 1; Table S1). For each paper, we asked whether authors came from countries that were or were not Parties to the Nagoya Protocol, or whether both kinds of countries were represented among authors (mixed). Likewise, benefit-sharing statements were grouped into six benefit categories derived from the list of non-monetary benefits in the Nagoya Protocol Annex (Box 1; Table 2). An initial round of keyword extraction was performed in R using keywords matching the description of each category. However, we also read all benefit-sharing statements to further refine the keyword-assigned benefit categories. Lastly, the organisms studied were classified into seven broad taxonomic categories (Table S1): vertebrates, invertebrates, seed plants, fungi, bacteria, ecosystem (cross-taxa) and others (encompassing all other taxa). The proportions of papers with benefit-sharing statements were subsequently summarised and plotted with respect to the number of co-author countries represented, taxon studied, and whether co-author countries were Parties (or not) to the Nagoya Protocol. Among papers that reported benefit-sharing statements, the number of reports of each benefit category was calculated and plotted across all papers, as well as in terms of co-author country status with respect to the Nagoya Protocol. All analyses were conducted in R version 4.4.0 (R Core Team 2024) using packages dplyr (Wickham et al. 2025), tidyverse (Wickham et al. 2019), stringr (H. Wickham 2025), PNWColors (Lawlor 2020), and ggplot2 (H. Wickham 2016). Code for the above analyses is publicly available on GitHub: https://github.com/yueyu27/Benefit_Sharing. Approximately two-thirds of manuscripts submitted to Molecular Ecology report compliance with the Nagoya Protocol, a proportion that has held steady since 2022 (Rieseberg et al. 2023). Authors of the remaining manuscripts declare that the Protocol does not apply to their research. At the present time, we have no way of evaluating these claims. A somewhat lower proportion of papers (~40%) include a benefit-sharing statement (Table 1). The percentage of articles with a benefit-sharing statement has increased from 29% in 2023 (Rieseberg et al. 2023) to 42.7% in 2024, followed by a slight decline in 2025, at least through November 7 (Table 1). The number of co-author countries represented in the same publication ranged from one to 14. The proportion of publications reporting on benefit-sharing increased with the number of countries involved (Figure 1). Mean standard errors also increased with the number of countries, due to the decreasing number of publications per bin (Table S2). Papers with all authors from countries that are Parties to the Nagoya Protocol were least likely to report benefit sharing, whereas papers with authors from a mix of countries, including Parties and non-Parties of the Nagoya Protocol, were most likely to report benefits (Figure 2a; Table S3). Publications focusing on bacteria and seed plants were most likely to report benefit-sharing (> 44%), followed by publications on vertebrates and fungi (~40%). However, studies of invertebrates (34%), ecosystems (~23%) and other taxa (8.2%) were less likely to report benefits (Figure 2b; Table S3). Among publications with a benefit-sharing statement, collaboration and co-authorship (benefit category A) and data sharing with the providing country (benefit category B) were consistently reported as the top two non-monetary benefit types from 2023 to 2025 (Table 2; Table S4; Figure 3a). Research towards priority, conservation and urgent needs (category E) was also frequently reported. On the other hand, relatively fewer articles reported contributions to capacity building in the providing country (benefit category C) or demonstrated consent via ABS permits (benefit category F). Lastly, contributions to the local economy, such as hiring local guides or workers (benefit category D), were only rarely reported. Within each benefit category, reporting was fairly similar regardless of whether the authors were associated with a Party to the Nagoya Protocol (Figure 3b). Since the publication of our editorial in January 2023, the molecular ecology community has published 377 articles with benefit-sharing statements (Table S5). Most of these papers (89.7%; Table S4) include co-authors from the provider country (benefit category A), as well as the sharing of data and results (62.3%; benefit category B). The latter is unsurprising, given that data archiving in public databases is mandated by the journal. Conversely, contributions to the local economy (3.2%), such as hiring local guides or workers (benefit category D; Figure 3a), were the least reported. This is probably because most samples were obtained by co-authors, museums, herbaria, or Genebanks, bypassing the need for field collection and thus reducing opportunities for local economic contributions. Only a small proportion of articles (5.8%) reported consent via ABS or other permits (benefit category F). This is partly because some Parties to the Nagoya Protocol do not yet issue ABS permits. Also, much of the research published in Molecular Ecology focuses on organisms from countries that are non-Parties to the Nagoya Protocol, such as Canada, the United States, and Australia. Another factor may be a lack of awareness that permits from the provider country are considered a part of benefit sharing. As a consequence, permits may be reported elsewhere in Molecular Ecology papers and missed by our survey. Lastly, there may be bureaucratic hurdles in obtaining permits, worries about “slowing down” research, or a lack of knowledge among researchers of this requirement. Regardless of the reason(s), we strongly encourage researchers to obtain ABS permits for projects when relevant. We were not surprised to see papers including authors from a mix of countries that are or are not Parties to the Nagoya Protocol report benefits as frequently as those from papers in which all author countries are Parties to the Protocol (Figure 2b). This also explains why, as authors from more countries contribute to a publication, the likelihood that at least one author from a participating country abides by the Protocol and reports some form of benefits is higher (Figure 1). However, it was surprising to us that papers in which all authors are from countries that are not Parties to the Nagoya Protocol report benefits at a similar level (or higher) than the other two categories (Figures 2b and 3b). This suggests that researchers report benefits not necessarily because their country is a Party to the Nagoya Protocol, but possibly because the organisms they study are from a country that is a Party to the Nagoya Protocol. Also, it might be that authors from these countries have a greater awareness of the Nagoya Protocol or benefit-sharing principles. Raising such awareness is therefore a fundamental step in both compliance with the Nagoya Protocol and reporting on benefit-sharing, and we hope our editorial will reach a broad audience. Among the focal organisms that were most commonly studied, papers involving seed plants (44%) were highly likely to report benefit-sharing, possibly reflecting greater awareness of Nagoya Protocol requirements or established frameworks for germplasm sharing, such as community or national genebanks. More broadly, our survey indicates that studies with ABS permits represent a “tip of the iceberg” with respect to non-monetary benefit-sharing from biodiversity research. Thus, estimates of benefit-sharing drawn solely from ABS-associated studies are likely to greatly underestimate the non-monetary benefit-sharing that is at the heart of most biodiversity-related research programs. In conclusion, we strongly encourage researchers reading this article to consider the non-monetary benefits discussed here and to further incorporate them into current and/or future projects. The most straightforward, and arguably most important, forms of benefit-sharing include co-authorship with authors from provider countries, maintaining collaborations with them, and sharing research results with the providing communities in accessible, lay language (including translations to local dialects) to reduce communication barriers. Additionally, we recommend seeking opportunities for capacity-building, such as student training, workshops, or exchange visits, and for ways to aid the local economy, such as the hiring of guides, collectors, or liaisons with indigenous communities. Lastly, greater attention to ABS permitting, especially prior informed consent and mutually agreed terms for benefit-sharing, should become a standard component of all research programs studying organisms from countries that are Parties to the Nagoya Protocol. Advancing science, especially in the field of ecology and evolution, will require the community to work together respectfully and provide equal opportunities for all. We forged a research collaboration between scientists from the countries where samples were obtained, and all collaborators are included as co-authors. Benefits from this research include the sharing of all sequence data in public databases, filing reports with relevant wildlife permitting agencies, and presentation of results in research seminars in Mexico and Costa Rica. Our groups are committed to international scientific partnerships and providing training opportunities for early career scientists from countries where the damselflies occur. (Patterson et al. 2025; Benefit categories ABCEF) These long-term sample collections have been made possible by numerous collaborations including participation from a number of regional organizations. Specifically, we draw attention to those individuals and organizations acknowledged in Payne (1986), and Schaeff et al. (1997) for their contributions to southern right whale sample collection and recognize the number of organizations that contribute information from their region to the North Atlantic Right Whale Consortium (https://www.narwc.org). All samples were collected with the required local permits and imported/exported with CITES permits as required. The hope is that these data improve our understanding of the biology of these species, and will be used to improve conservation actions in both locations. Just as our study species disperse across international borders, we strive to make all aspects of our project available to all stakeholders. All code, scripts and data used in this study have been made publicly available. We particularly hope that our colleagues currently studying southern right whales in Argentina (and elsewhere in the southern hemisphere) benefit from these data and can incorporate them into their ongoing analyses. (Crossman et al. 2024; Benefit categories ABCEF) Benefits from this research include (1) training of Panamanian and Ngäbe-Buglé personnel in field research techniques; (2) employment of these personnel for several months annually over a 5-year period; (3) payment of land access fees; (4) other monetary contributions to the local economy for lodging, food and transportation; (5) consultation with local businesses and indigenous communities on ecotourism development; (6) strengthening capacity for technology transfer with equipment and training; (7) educational seminars for the local community on our research; (8) collaboration with local NGO Adopta on biodiversity monitoring; (9) annual reports to the Panamanian government (MiAmbiente) on our research results; and (10) sharing of our data and results on public databases as described above. (Vernasco et al. 2024; Benefit categories ABCDE) We hired members of Emei Breeding Center of Crested Ibis for helping the sample collection and their contributions are described in ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS. Benefits are also generated by sharing our sequencing data and R script from this research on public databases as describe above. (Zhu et al. 2024; Benefit categories ABD) We consulted with the indigenous and non-indigenous local fishing community and hired local community members, several of whom are included as co-authors, to help with sampling and develop sampling methodologies. Benefits from this research accrue from new knowledge promoting food and livelihood security and the sharing of our data and results on public databases as described above. (Mobley et al. 2024; Benefit categories ABD) Research collaborations were developed and strengthened with scientists from Madagascar, the country of origin of the genetic samples. One Malagasy student (AER) was trained during this work. All academic collaborators are included as co-authors. Three guides from the LM protected area guides and cook association were trained to botanical work, as well as several additional guides in remote communities. The research results have been and will be repeatedly shared with the concerned communities, the managers of the protected area and the broader scientific community. For all sampled forests, at least one specimen voucher was prepared and deposited at the herbarium of the Parc Botanique et Zoologique de Tsimbazaza, Antananarivo, Madagascar. The research also addresses a priority concern, in this case the conservation of the focal organism, N. spinifolia, and by extension its habitats, the Loky-Manambato region and Northern Madagascar. More broadly, our group is committed to international scientific partnerships, as well as institutional capacity building. (Salmona et al. 2023; Benefit categories ABCDE) A research collaboration was developed with local scientists and NGOs to conduct research on a priority concern related to the connectivity of endangered great apes' populations, with all collaborators being acknowledged as co-authors. The contributions of all individuals to the research, including local field assistants, are described in the acknowledgments, and a research report has been provided to the district government and the Tanzania Wildlife Research Institute to support conservation planning. All genetic data have been shared with the broader public via appropriate biological databases. Our group places great importance on engaging in international scientific collaborations and contributing to institutional capacity building efforts. (Bonnin et al. 2023; Benefit category ABCDE) The sample collection was carried out in Tiritiri Matangi, New Zealand. In order to carry out data collection, access and data rights were agreed with Ngati Manuhiri Settlement Trust as Mana Whenua and Kaitiaki of Tiritiri Matangi and its taonga, including hihi. This and associated research will be disseminated to Ngati Manuhiri in the form of monthly research updates and an annual report from the Hihi Recovery Group. A research collaboration exists with the Hihi Recovery Group, which is funded by the Hihi Conservation Charitable Trust, a New Zealand charitable trust with the purpose of conserving the species. Dr John Ewen is chair of the Hihi Recovery Group and Trustee of the Hihi Conservation Charitable Trust and is included as a co-author. The funding associated with this work has contributed towards funding the salary of a conservation officer working for the Hihi Recovery Group and solely funded a local research assistant for two field seasons. (Morland et al. 2023; Benefit categories ABDEF) Y.Y. performed analyses and contributed to the writing and editing of the paper. W.W.C.C. gathered and organized data. B.S. gathered data and has helped implement the reporting on benefit sharing in Molecular Ecology. L.H.R. contributed to the writing and editing of the paper. The authors have no funding to report. The authors declare no conflicts of interest. The data that supports the findings of this study are available in the Data S1 of this article. Data S1: mec70227-sup-0001-Data S1.zip. Please note: The publisher is not responsible for the content or functionality of any supporting information supplied by the authors. Any queries (other than missing content) should be directed to the corresponding author for the article.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.