Difference between revisions of "Permits and Contracts and Terms for Biological Specimens"

Revision as of 14:47, 19 December 2022

(Technical note: work in progress to import neccessary documents and tables for this handbook --A.Plank (talk) 11:13, 19 December 2022 (CET))

Introduction

This page informs about the contents of this file, possible ways of implementing it in institutions, and the timeline

The basis for the work in this folder (creating a typology of legal/contractual stipulations for biodiversity) are the existing GGBN Permit Types (in the table “Permit Types (GGBN)”) which we will improve.

We are creating a two tiered system for grouping permits (based on permits we personally know), at the lower level it comprises different “document types” , which are further grouped into “document categories”.

This helps getting an overview of documents relevant for holding biological specimens in collections, it may also help with filing these documents orderly in a filing cabinet or electronically.

Because documents from different countries, belonging to the same document type (sometimes even having identical document titles), may have different content with respect to permissions, duties, restrictions and prohibitions, we additionally created a “typology of contents” by compiling and listing relevant contents of permit and loan documents we know.

The “typology of contents” intends to list relevant individual actions that commonly may be permitted, required, restricted or prohibited, as well as necessary quality requirements.

The “typology of contents” also indicates the corresponding legal background. Elements of this “typology of contents” may help to flag possible uses of different collection specimens.

The following tables are active working documents, or finalised results of our work:

• Document category (final)
• Document Types without Intellecutal Property Rights (IPR) (final)
• Typology of contents (draft)

The following tables show elements of our work which we do not pursue any more:

• MTA examples
• US specific permits: a very incomplete list of US permits that may apply to different actions
• EU specific permits: a very imcomplete list of supranational EU-regulated permits (does not contain permits applicable only in single member states of EU)
• (AU specific permits): without participants from Australia this topic can not be pursued within the limits of T3.3
• Document Category (for discussion): old version
• Intellectual Property Document Types (draft): we decided that intellectual property is such a wide field, we also have no legal counsel in our group, additionally considering the limited time of task 3.3, therfore we will not pursue this topic any more

Flexibility for natural history collections

• For some institutions the document types may be too detailed, these institutions are free to use only document categories;
• others may implement only certain document types, skipping the ones they currently do not need;
• from the standardised permission/loan conditions (Typology of Contents) only a selection may be applicable to a specific institution, the institution certainly is free to abstain from implementing the others.
• The typology of Contents provides the possibility (not an obligation!) to add “legal background” information for each standardised permission condition allocated to a collection item, e.g. that the permission for utilising a specific genetic resource (in the meaning of the Nagoya Protocol) is based on an individual permit document, or on written law, or on the fact that such utilisation is not legally regulated.
• Every institution is free to select the extent of implementing the “legal background” elements of the Typology of Content according to their needs and resources, they may be implemented only for selected permission conditions, only for selected collection items (e.g. newly collected), only for internal use (to avoid liability disputes), or for any mixture of these options. In general, providing “legal background” information enables estimating the legal certainty of the indicated permission condition and possible ways of verifying it. For example, a permission based on written law always includes some interpretation of the law - less certainty than an individual permit -, but at the same time the law usually is publicly accessible for verification.
• it is inevitable (because resources were scarce in the task group developing this system) that new document types, document categories, permit/loan conditions must be defined and added in the future
• Science is highly integrated on an international level, modifying single definitions for these standardised document categories, document types and permission/loan conditions should only be done after consulting as many partners from other countries as possible, to maintain consistent understanding.

Timeline

https://wiki.ggbn.org/ggbn/GGBN_Data_Standard_v1#GGBN_Permit_Vocabulary