A decade after the Nagoya Protocol – German biodiversity researchers’ perspective. Statement of the Permanent Senate Commission on Fundamental Issues of Biological Diversity (SKBV) of the Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft (DFG, German Research Foundation)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
To support the implementation of the Global Biodiversity Framework, we must ensure non-commercial biodiversity research is facilitated by harmonizing access requirements and procedures as well as legal terms.<br>The 10th anniversary of the Nagoya Protocol affords an opportunity to take stock: are we, as a global community, beginning to achieve the Protocol’s stated objectives? Non-commercial biodiversity researchers fully support fair and equitable benefit-sharing and the goal of halting “biopiracy”. However, the implementation of the Nagoya Protocol has become a hindrance to many international conservation-focused research projects, which means that significant opportunities are missed for non-monetary benefit-sharing and implementation of the Kunming-Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework which guides our research. These outcomes contradict the stated objectives of the Nagoya Protocol. Here we summarize our experience to-date and put forth proposals to counteract the current trends.
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.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.004 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 0.009 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.006 | 0.011 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".