Introduction

1In this first part, entitled Biological Resources: Circulation and Collection, we describe how, throughout Western history, research on biological diversity has been based on the sampling, circulation and creation of collections of samples of domesticated, cultivated or wild biological resources. The constitution of ex situ collections has always accompanied scientific advances, beginning with the creation of cabinets of curiosities, reflecting the earliest desires to explore the world, then the need to form structured sets of objects and bodies of knowledge in order to understand and exploit nature, and through to the biobanks and seed resource centres of today.

2Jean-Louis Pham recounts how power struggles have accompanied the domestication of plant and animal species, and, more recently, access to the diversity of genetic resources via biological resource centres (see Chap. 1). Jacques Cuisin and Anne Nivart examine the history of naturalist museum collections. In line with scientific explorations and technological advances, collections of plants and animals conserved outside their natural environment have attracted new interest due to the DNA revolution and digitisation programmes (see Chap. 2).

3In the interests of exhaustiveness and conservation, these ex situ collections are supposed to be universal for the purpose of enlightening the widest possible audience. However, although inseparable from the development of knowledge, they are linked to colonial expansion and the circulation of raw materials, and are associated with power struggles to achieve economic supremacy and ensure food security. They are now confronted with the economic and geopolitical realities of resource grabbing that the Nagoya Protocol is designed to regulate.

4Like the Nagoya Protocol, the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) does not address the issue of collections, focusing instead on access to in situ genetic resources. The CBD considers countries that possess collections as providers of ex situ genetic resources. Ex situ conservation is an issue covered by Article 9, expressing the desire that it should take place preferably in the country of origin of its components. The Nagoya Protocol does not specifically cover collections, but considers admittance to ex situ conservation facilities of genetic resources and databases to be part of the benefit-sharing arrangements.

5However, European Regulation No 511/2014 on measures to ensure compliance with the Nagoya Protocol by users in the Union, acknowledges that collections – by default, ex situ collections which are necessarily located outside their places and countries of origin – are the most important providers of genetic resources and associated traditional knowledge in Europe. This assertion, at a time when in situ bioprospecting activities are becoming of more secondary importance, recognises the importance of the reference thesauri constituted by samples of materials, animal or plant specimens as a specificity of Europe, and by extension of “industrialised countries”, primarily in the northern hemisphere.

6Therefore, this concentration of resources in collections kept by countries of the Global North is undeniably a benefit that must be shared, since natural resources are not only scientific tools for understanding the world. Their long history of co-evolution with the societies that have selected them, exchanged them, and transformed them into cultural resources, makes them part of the common heritage of humanity. They are also raw materials for biotechnological innovations, which are mainly developed by countries of the Global North, due to their powerful financial and technical resources. Can free access to resources be maintained in light of the rapid development of biotechnologies? Given a choice between universal heritage and resources restricted to a select few, the Convention on Biological Diversity decided to endow States with sovereignty over their genetic resources and associated knowledge from an economic and commercial perspective.

7This raises the question of how the practices of collections and museums can accommodate this national sovereignty. As both providers and users, ex situ collections are required to assume a dual role of conservation and distribution due to the fact that they have been historically supported by research centres. The circulation of samples is central to scientific discoveries and the practices of researchers and museums in order to enable comparison, description, and today, the extraction of genetic compounds, for example. This practice accounts for a considerable volume of shipments, loans, samples and extractions exchanged by researchers, museums, laboratories and amateurs.

8Application of the Nagoya Protocol to ex situ collections places these circulation practices under the spotlight by requiring the attachment of legal documentation to any movements in order to provide proof of due diligence, i.e. that access to the resources was legal. By insisting on diligence, the Protocol makes sample traceability central to its implementation. In the context of the biodiversity crisis, having access to properly located and traceable samples from endangered or vanished biotopes is an added value that the due diligence obligation of the Nagoya Protocol should reinforce. In this way, the Protocol contributes to legal certainty and, in so doing, increases the scientific and regulatory reliability of the samples proposed for research.

9The preambles to the Protocol and the European regulation stipulate that they should be implemented without creating an additional administrative burden, with specially adapted arrangements for academic research. However, after ten years of experimentation in laboratories and museums, this now seems to be a fanciful notion. The circulation of samples – a sine qua non for the viability and vitality of the collections and to ensure their attractiveness for research – could be compromised in the medium term.

10The retroactive regularisation processes concerning the conditions for the acquisition of resources, their circulation and the conditions for their provision, or even their retrocession, are not defined by the Protocol. This generates doubt and heated discussion in equal measure. Collections and museums need to innovate. They can now use new digital tools to help them interact with the wider world and define the terms for resource sharing within renewed partnerships.