Vol.: (0123456789) 1 3 BioControl (2023) 68:311–327 https://doi.org/10.1007/s10526-023-10197-3 Best practices in the use and exchange of microorganism biological control genetic resources Peter G. Mason · Martin Hill · David Smith · Luciana C. Silvestri · Philip Weyl · Jacques Brodeur · Marcello Diniz Vitorino Received: 31 October 2022 / Accepted: 16 March 2023 / Published online: 4 April 2023 © Crown 2023 Abstract The Nagoya Protocol actions the third objective of the Convention on Biological Diversity and provides a framework to effectively implement the fair and equitable sharing of benefits arising out of the use of genetic resources. This includes microor- ganisms used as biological control agents. Thus bio- logical control practitioners must comply with access and benefit-sharing regulations that are implemented by countries providing microbial biological control agents. A review of best practices and guidance for the use and exchange of microorganisms used for bio- logical control has been prepared by the IOBC Global Commission on Biological Control and Access and Benefit-Sharing to demonstrate commitment to com- ply with access and benefit-sharing requirements, and to reassure the international community that biologi- cal control is a very successful and environmentally safe pest management strategy that uses biological resources responsibly and sustainably. We propose that best practices include the following elements: collaboration to facilitate information exchange about Handling Editor: Barbara Barratt. Supplementary Information The online version contains supplementary material available at https:// doi. org/ 10. 1007/ s10526- 023- 10197-3. P. G. Mason (*)  Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada, Ottawa Research and Development Centre, 960 Carling Avenue, Ottawa, ON K1A 0C6, Canada e-mail: peter.mason@agr.gc.ca M. Hill  Centre for Biological Control, Rhodes University, PO Box 94, Grahamstown/Makhanda 140, South Africa e-mail: m.hill@ru.ac.za D. Smith  CABI, Bakeham Lane, Egham TW20 9TY, Surrey, UK e-mail: d.smith@cabi.org L. C. Silvestri  Consejo Nacional de Investigaciones Científicas y Técnicas, Av. Ruiz Leal S/N, Parque General, San Martín, Ciudad de Mendoza, 5500 Mendoza, CP, Argentina e-mail: lsilvestri@mendoza-conicet.gob.ar P. Weyl  CABI, 1 rue des Grillons, CH 2800 Delémont, Jura, Switzerland e-mail: p.weyl@cabi.org J. Brodeur  Département de Sciences Biologiques, Institut de Recherche en Biologie Végétale, Université de Montréal, 4101 Sherbrooke Est, Montreal, QC H1X 2B2, Canada e-mail: jacques.brodeur@umontreal.ca M. Diniz Vitorino  Departamento de Engenharia Florestal, Universidade Regional de Blumenau, Rua São Paulo, 3250, Blumenau, Santa Catarina, 89030-000, Brazil e-mail: dinizvitorino@gmail.com http://crossmark.crossref.org/dialog/?doi=10.1007/s10526-023-10197-3&domain=pdf https://doi.org/10.1007/s10526-023-10197-3 https://doi.org/10.1007/s10526-023-10197-3 312 P. G. Mason et al. 1 3 Vol:. (1234567890) the availability of microbial biological control agents and where they may be sourced; freely sharing avail- able knowledge in databases about successes and fail- ures; collaborative research with provider countries to develop capacity; and production technology transfer to provide economic opportunities. We recommend the use of model concept agreements for accessing microorganisms for scientific research and non-com- mercial release into nature where access and benefit- sharing regulations exist and where regulations are not restrictive or do not exist. We also recommend a model agreement for deposition of microbial biologi- cal control agents into culture collections. Keywords Biological control · Access and benefit- sharing · Model concept agreements · Information exchange · Microbial biological control agent Introduction The Nagoya Protocol (NP), the instrument that fur- ther develops the third objective of the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD), provides guidelines to enable the fair and equitable sharing of the bene- fits arising out of the utilization of genetic resources including microorganisms (CBD 2011). The NP entered into force on 12 October 2014, and now has 138 Parties (plus the European Union), one ratified non-Party and 60 non-Parties (CBD 2023a). The NP provides guidance for its contracting Parties to implement measures for access to genetic resources, benefit-sharing and the requirements for compli- ance. Provided they decide to regulate access to their genetic resources (some Parties may choose not to regulate access), the Parties are required to introduce domestic measures to give legal certainty, clarity and transparency to implement the protocol nationally. As of 7 March 2023, 98 of the Parties have reported on implementation of national laws whilst 133 countries have established access and benefit-sharing (ABS) National Focal Points (CBD 2023b). The objective of the NP is to provide clear rules for prior informed consent (PIC), laying down mutually agreed terms (MAT) and promoting and encouraging research contributing to biodiversity conservation and its sus- tainable use. Although often overlooked, it is essen- tial for Parties to consider the importance of genetic resources for food and agriculture for food security. However, no guiding principles were provided by the NP to assist in the development of legislation or procedures to access and utilise genetic resources. As Silvestri et al. (2020) determined, implementation of ABS measures has led to repercussions on access to, exchange and utilization of biological control agents. Thus, the biological control community needs to develop appropriate best practices that will guide this community to meet the challenges of ABS and to demonstrate leadership to those developing measures for accessing and utilizing their biodiversity. The International Organization for Biological Con- trol (IOBC) Global Commission on biological control and ABS endorses and recommends using best prac- tices for biological control genetic resources. Mason et al. (2018) provided guidance on best practices for invertebrate biological control genetic resources. A similar approach applies to microbial biological con- trol agents, but with some differences (e.g., impor- tance of ex situ culture collections to identify poten- tial agents, high probability to develop commercial products, type of benefit-sharing). Here we review best practices in the use and exchange of microor- ganisms and provide guidance to comply with ABS measures for those microorganisms used in biological control. The main challenges Not all access to genetic resources triggers domes- tic measures implementing the Nagoya Protocol. In most cases the genetic resource has to be ‘utilised’, meaning to conduct research and development on the genetic and/or biochemical composition of genetic resources, including through the application of bio- technology as defined in Article 2 of the CBD. Taxon- omy, including identification, is normally out of scope and some regulations allow deposit of specimens into culture collections and culture maintenance. Many countries chose not to control access to their genetic resources, for example European Union member states where EU ABS Regulation (EU 2022) leaves access control to the member states. The majority have not implemented access controls but have made compliance commitments when genetic resources of other countries are used. Compliance obliga- tions include taking measures to ensure that genetic resources from another contracting Party have been 313Best practices in the use and exchange of microorganism biological control genetic resources 1 3 Vol.: (0123456789) accessed in compliance with their measures, coop- eration in cases of alleged violation of another con- tracting party’s requirements (Article 15) and meas- ures to monitor the use of genetic resources after they leave a country including by designating effective checkpoints at any stage of the value-chain: research, development, innovation, pre-commercialization or commercialization (Article 17). Sharing is subject to mutually agreed terms and benefits may be monetary or non-monetary such as royalties and the sharing of research results (Article 5.4). There are examples of monetary benefit-sharing but in the majority of cases benefits shared are non-monetary, for example joint research and publications, capacity building, shar- ing knowledge, and technologies (Smith et al. 2021; Mason et  al. 2023). The regulations accompanying NP adoption have unfortunately resulted in delayed access to genetic resources through time taken to negotiate access and diversion of funding for innova- tive research to access costs, with little indication of monetary benefits getting back to the conservation and sustainable use of biodiversity. Thirty years after enactment of the CBD and almost 12 years since the Nagoya Protocol the debate on how to implement access and benefit-sharing con- tinues. Negotiations on a new set of global goals and targets for biodiversity were reported in the sum- mary report of the 4th Meeting of the Open-ended Working Group on the post-2020 global biodiversity framework, 21–26 June 2022 (CBD 2022a). Parties and stakeholders have submitted position statements and comments to support the review of the proposed goals and targets of the post-2020 global biodiversity framework and digital sequence information (DSI) (CBD 2022b). The Kunming-Montreal Global Bio- diversity Framework was adopted in December 2022 which includes a new target to reduce the impact of invasive alien species (Target 6) as well as to pro- vide for the fair and equitable benefit-sharing derived from the use of biodiversity (Target 9) (CBD 2022c). There is continuing debate on whether DSI should be included in benefit-sharing requirements of the CBD and/or the Nagoya Protocol (CBD 2022d; Silvestri and Mason 2023). Given that sequencing of DNA and RNA and indeed the proteins and metabolites of microorganisms is now how we identify and charac- terise them, the outcomes of these discussions are important. They could have huge impact on how the biological control community carries out their science and, in particular, how they identify and assess bio- logical control agents. It is important that the bio- logical control community have a voice in these dis- cussions to ensure that access to biological control agents are not impeded and that they are recognised as being for the public good and help to deliver the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) (UN 2022). Consensus has not been reached and there seems to be irreconcilable extremes of the argument (Silvestri and Mason 2023). Some believe DSI is strictly infor- mation and should be excluded from the CBD and the Nagoya Protocol. Others believe that using DSI enables utilization and avoiding access to the genetic resource, therefore it should be included. Currently, a multilateral benefit-sharing mechanism drawing 1% of the retail price of all commercial income result- ing from the use of genetic resources and DSI is being considered (CBD 2022e). Because food secu- rity is an important objective of the United Nations the question that arises is: should biological control be excluded from monetary benefits and the benefi- cial output of reduced losses to pest and diseases and the shared knowledge and use of biological control agents considered to be sufficient? Further challenges for access and use of microbial biological control agents are presented when there are multiple source countries with different approaches to ABS. For example, biological control of the 24 invasive weeds in the UK involved accessing micro- organisms from more than 20 countries of origin with a range of ABS requirements. In this case, Australia, Canada, Chile, Iran, New Zealand, Paraguay, Russia and the USA are non-parties to the NP; Argentina and China are parties; Brazil, India, Japan, Malay- sia, Mexico, South Africa, Ukraine, and Uruguay are parties with law; and Poland is a non-party with law. This demonstrates the complexity that ABS measures introduce to biological control projects. To summarize, the main challenges to access and use microorganisms for biological control include a clear understanding of: (1) whether or not a source country has ABS measures in place, (2) what is con- sidered a genetic resource (the physical microorgan- ism, information associated with the microorganism), (3) what conditions for use are in place, (4) how to ensure compliance with measures required by the source country when conducting research and devel- opment, and (5) the types of benefits to be shared (monetary, non-monetary). Navigating multiple 314 P. G. Mason et al. 1 3 Vol:. (1234567890) requirements is time consuming and slows progress of biological control projects (Mason et al. 2023). Microorganism use in biological control Microorganisms contribute as agents in natural, con- servation, classical (importation), augmentative and commercial biological control. Their role in natural and conservation biological control is not as well understood as it is in classical and augmentative bio- logical control. Furthermore, microorganisms play a significant role in commercial biological control through development of biopesticides. Natural biological control Natural biological control is an ecosystem service (Buitenhuis et  al. 2023) and microorganisms play a key role by providing an existing level of mortality. For example, seven species of pathogenic fungi were found to be associated with soybean aphid, Aphis gly- cines L. (Hemiptera: Aphididae), of which Pandora neoaphidis (Remaudière and Hennebert) Humber (Entomophthoraceae) was the primary species infect- ing the host in the epizootic that caused the crash of a field population in northeastern USA (Neilson and Hajek 2005). Conservation biological control Manipulation of the soil habitat can encourage micro- bial biological control agents in the soil that reduce attack by plant pathogens, or perhaps conservation of adjacent vegetation can encourage the right individ- ual microorganisms or microbiomes (Collinge et  al. 2022). These authors cite two examples: lowering the local soil pH by applying elemental sulphur discour- ages Streptomyces scabies Lambert and Loria (Strep- tomycetaceae), which causes scab on potato (Vlitos and Hooker 1951), and irrigating potato plants during tuber formation, stimulates colonization of new len- ticels by antagonistic bacteria (Cook and Papendick 1972). Steinkraus (2007) developed a surveillance strategy to conserve the fungus Neozygites fresenii (Nowakowski) Renaudière and S. Keller (Neozygita- ceae) so growers could take advantage of the annual widespread epizootics that occur every year that kill up to 100% of cotton aphids, Aphis gossypii Glover (Hemiptera: Aphididae), in the southern USA. This conservation biological control program delayed spraying for cotton aphids and conserved not only the fungus but also natural enemies of other pests such as the cotton bollworm, Helicoverpa zea (Boddie) (Lep- idoptera: Noctuidae). Classical biological control Microorganisms are important agents used in clas- sical  (importation) biological control. Some have successfully controlled insect and mite pests where approximately 49 species have been intention- ally released (Hajek et al. 2021) and invasive alien plant species where 36 fungal pathogens have been authorised for introduction across 18 coun- tries (Morin 2020). The goal of classical  (importa- tion) biological control, a non-commercial activity, is to establish populations of a natural enemy that are self-propagating to suppress pest populations in the environment to which they are introduced (Stenberg et  al. 2021). Fungi, viruses and nema- todes have been the most commonly introduced microorganisms, although microsporidia, bacteria and oomycetes have also been introduced as clas- sical biological control agents (Hajek et  al. 2007). Target organisms include insects, mites, nematodes, weeds, plant disease causing fungi or bacteria, and vertebrates (Sundh and Goettel 2013). The rhinoceros beetle, Oryctes rhinoceros (L.) (Coleoptera: Scarabaeidae), is a highly destruc- tive insect pest of coconut and oil palms (Bedford 2013). Native to South and Southeast Asia, O. rhi- noceros was accidently introduced in 1909 into the Pacific, spreading rapidly throughout Pacific Island nations and territories to become a major economic problem (Paudel et  al. 2021). The highly virulent Oryctes rhinoceros nudivirus (OrNV) (Nudiviridae: Alphanudivirus) was discovered in 1963 during sur- veys in Malaysia, the area of origin of O. rhinoc- eros, and initially introduced as a biological control agent into Western Samoa (Huger 2005). OrNV has subsequently been released in nine additional coun- tries where rhinoceros beetle has invaded, signifi- cantly reducing damage by this pest in some (Hajek et al. 2016, 2021). Since the 1970s, plant pathogens have played an important role in weed biological control and 36 fungal pathogen species have been released globally 315Best practices in the use and exchange of microorganism biological control genetic resources 1 3 Vol.: (0123456789) for the classical biological control of weeds (Morin 2020). For example, blackberry, Rubus constrictus Lefevre and P. J. Mull. (Rosaceae) is a serious prob- lem weed in agricultural and forest areas of Argen- tina, Australia, New Zealand, USA, Chile, and some islands of the Azores archipelago (Vargas-Gaete et al. 2019). The rust fungus Phragmidium violaceum (Schultz) G. Winter (Phragmidiaceae) from Germany was released in 1973 in Chile (Winston et al. 2014), where it has established and causes infections that hasten defoliation by several months, with severe attacks reducing seed production by 45% (Morin and Evans 2012). Plants infected over successive years become reduced in height and become considerably less competitive allowing colonisation by other spe- cies (Morin and Evans 2012). Augmentative biological control Bacteria, fungi and nematodes have been used for augmentative biological control. Augmentative biological control aims to periodically introduce into a specific environment mass-produced natural enemies that are not expected to establish to sup- press pest—and pathogen—populations (Stenberg et  al. 2021). Entomopathogens such as Beauveria bassiana (Balsamo-Crivelli) Vuillemen (Cordycipi- taceae) can be seeded into crops using pollinators such as honeybees, Apis mellifera L. (Hymenoptera: Apidae), or bumble bees Bombus spp. (Hymenop- tera: Bombidae) (Lacey et  al. 2015). The preda- tory mites, Typhlodromips (= Amblyseius) swirskii (Athias-Henriot) and Neoseiulus cucumeris (Oude- mans) (Mesostigmata: Phyotseiidae) have also been shown to disseminate B. bassiana conidia onto leaves infested with Frankliniella occidenta- lis (Pergande) (Thysanoptera: Thripidae) (Lin et al. 2017). Fungal inoculants can be incorporated into seed coatings to introduce fungi, such as Tricho- derma spp., into the rhizosphere where they estab- lish and prevent losses to root diseases (Lacey et al. 2015). Furthermore, entomopathogens such as the rhizo-competent M. anisopliae may establish on the developing roots of seedlings, reducing insect dam- age, and the endophytic B. bassiana may colonise the plant providing resistance to plant pathogens (Lacey et al. 2015). Microorganism isolates that are highly effective against plant pathogens can be mass-produced on artificial media and applied during a growing sea- son as augmentative biological control agents (Köhl et  al. 2019). These pathogens may act in several ways: by inducing or priming resistance in plant tissues to infections by a pathogen without direct antagonistic interaction with the pathogen, through competition for nutrients and space, by interacting with the pathogen directly via hyperparasitism or by antibiosis (Köhl et al. 2019). Commercial biological control Biopesticides are formulations of microorganisms used in augmentative biological control that are reg- istered, similar to chemical pesticides, and sold com- mercially. Inundative application of entomopathogens is most commonly used for control of pest arthropods with more than 50 viruses, bacteria, fungi, and nema- todes produced as commercial biopesticides (Lacey et al. 2015). Bioherbicide use on invasive alien weeds has relied completely on plant pathogens already existing in the region of introduction of the target weeds and thus constitute new associations. Seven- teen bioherbicides have been produced for the control of invasive alien weeds, of which seven bioherbicides are still registered, and only two are commercially available (Bailey 2014; Morin 2020). Stumbling blocks to commercialisation is the size of the pro- spective market. There are approximately 31 biopesti- cide products derived from at least 37 microorganism species in use for augmentative biological control of plant pathogens (Collinge et al. 2022). Overall, there are more than 200 registered products derived from 94 microorganism species (van Lenteren et al. 2018). The best known of the biopesticides are products that have been derived from Bacillus thuringiensis (Bt) Berliner sub-species (Bacilliaceae). Approxi- mately 90% of the microbial biopesticides on the market are represented by Bt products (Kumar et al. 2021). The success of Bt products can be attributed to the facts that they are fast acting, easily produced at low cost, readily formulated, the shelf life is long and can be applied with conventional equipment (Lacey et al. 2015). Exploration for microbial biological control agents Traditionally, discovery of new microorganisms for use in classical/introduction biological control was 316 P. G. Mason et al. 1 3 Vol:. (1234567890) made through exploration in the area of origin of the invasive alien plant, pathogen or pest, to develop a list of potentially specific and effective species (Sheppard et  al. 2020). As described by Huger (2005) for dis- covery of Oryctes virus, surveys are carried out in the native range of the target pest species with the aim to find natural populations that show signs of disease. Once discovered, in situ observations are made to understand the disease process and samples are ana- lysed to identify the microorganism involved. In order to conduct such surveys, countries where explora- tion is to be conducted must be contacted regarding the requirements to obtain collecting permits and this may be challenging because some countries include natural enemies as part of their genetic resources (Hajek and Eilenberg 2018). Novel microbial biological control agents may also be isolated from the habitat invaded by the non- native species (i.e., where the agent would be used) and then screened directly for activity on the target species (Collinge et al. 2022). They may also be dis- covered during surveys for dead or dying insects or plants in heavily infested habitats. Enterobacter cloa- cae (Jordan) Hormaeche and Edwards (= Coccoba- cillus acridiorum d’Herrelle) (Enterobacteriaceae) was discovered from diseased Schistocerca pallens (Thunberg) (Orthoptera: Acrididae) in Yucatan Mex- ico (Sweetman 1936). Bacillus thuringiensis serotype israelensis Barjac (Bacillaceae) was discovered dur- ing a survey for biological control agents of mosqui- toes in the Negev desert in Israel (Margalit and Dean 1985). The rust Maravalia cryptostegiae (Cummins) Ono (Raveneliaceae) was discovered during surveys in Madagascar for biological control agents of rub- ber vine, Cryptostegia grandiflora Roxb. ex R. Br. (Asclepiadaceae) (Evans 1993; Palmer and Vogler 2012). For plant pathogens, discovery can involve sampling healthy plants in areas with high disease pressure and identifying beneficial microorganisms in their associated microbiome (Collinge et al. 2019). Pathogen agents targeted for the classical biological control of weeds undergo comprehensive host-speci- ficity testing, usually in the region of introduction, to assess pathogenicity and any risks they pose. Prom- ising pathogens are usually deposited in collections where they can be accessed for further research. Microbial culture collections are a major resource for discovering biological control agents. They were established to preserve and study ex situ the biodiversity in ecosystems, and to distribute prom- ising microbial strains for production of goods and services (Díaz-Rodríguez et al. 2021), including new biological control agents. They serve as reposito- ries for strains that are used for patent requirements, provide safe and confidential storage for key micro- organisms for research and industry, and are sources of organisms cited in scientific papers for verification of research results (Smith 2003). There are numerous microbial culture collections around the globe with holdings of 1000’s of species and strains (see below). Historically as best practice, microorganisms, like invertebrates, have been freely shared among parties. Even though the target country might be in compe- tition with the provider country the latter may have already benefited, or anticipates to benefit in turn, when access to a biological control agent is needed (Cock et  al. 2009, 2010). An important difference is that microorganisms are usually deposited as live cultures in collections and upon request samples are freely provided for research, unless there are biosecu- rity concerns (WFCC 1999; Stackebrandt et al. 2014). More recently the use of Material Transfer Agree- ments (MTAs) has become a mean to set out terms and conditions whereby the recipient of the culture collection sample has a responsibility to ensure the microbial resources are properly used. Free sharing of live specimens and effective networking of biological control practitioners globally are the principles that deserve special consideration with regards to ABS (Mason et al. 2018). A standard MTA could be used for microorganisms with potential for use as biologi- cal control agents deposited into culture collections to provide the necessary documentation to enable free use and exchange. The ‘deposition’ MTA would acknowledge the source of the microorganism and indicate any associated conditions (i.e., development of a commercial product requires negotiation with the source or that release into the environment is freely allowed). In response to concerns about the possible impacts of the NP on biological control practice, the IOBC formed a Global Commission on Biological Con- trol and ABS in October 2008. The first task of the Commission was to write a contribution requested by the Food and Agriculture Organization Commis- sion on Genetic Resources for Food and Agriculture (FAO-CGRFA) summarising the practices used for exchange of biological control genetic resources. The 317Best practices in the use and exchange of microorganism biological control genetic resources 1 3 Vol.: (0123456789) result was a background study paper focusing on how biological control agents are accessed and utilised (Cock et  al. 2009). Among the recommendations provided was to develop best practices for ABS in relation to biological control. A first contribution on this topic was Mason et al. (2018). Since then, there have been requests to develop a similar document for microbial biological control agents. Article 20 in the Nagoya Protocol encourages the development, update and use of voluntary codes of conduct, guidelines and best practices and/or stand- ards. The Access and Benefit-Sharing Clearing House (ABSCH) holds 408 records of best practices with 36 concerning microorganisms although these are general and do not address biological control agents specifically. The IOBC Global Commission on bio- logical control and ABS recognizes the importance of the MTA approach for sharing microorganisms and recommends the following best practices for microor- ganisms used in biological control. Best practices for exchange of microorganism biological control genetic resources Best practices ensure that access to microorganisms used as biological control agents comply with the ABS requirements implemented by the country pro- viding the genetic resource. These practices consider the best approaches and tools that provide for the fair and equitable sharing of the benefits yet allow for effi- cient access to microorganisms used for biological control. Collaboration to facilitate information exchange on microbial biological control agents Networks Informal cooperative networks involve scientists associated with government agencies, international agricultural research centres, universities, inter-gov- ernmental organisations, industries, and others from around the world (Cock et al. 2009). These networks have enabled exchange of invertebrate biological con- trol agents (Mason et  al. 2018), particularly when redistributing known agents from where they have been introduced to another country that has been newly invaded by the target (Cock et al. 2009). These networks are best able to assist practitioners to freely exchange microbial biological control agents. How- ever, since microorganisms are normally housed in living culture collections, institutional networks con- tinue to play a major role in the exchange of micro- organisms with potential as biological control agents. The IOBC is an international network of biologi- cal practitioners that provides the opportunity to par- ticipate in biological control activities and to contrib- ute to the promotion of biological control worldwide (IOBC 2022). The IOBC is well-positioned to play a role in facilitating best practices, including the use and exchange of biological control agents. Institutional/organisation practices Of the best practices and codes of conduct concern- ing microorganisms on the ABSCH website (https:// absch. cbd. int/ en/ about/ infoT ypes) several were pro- duced by or for culture collection organisations, with several of their members holding and distributing bio- logical control organisms. Some  example are is the Microbial Resource Research Infrastructure (MIRRI) Best Practice Manual on Access and Benefit-Sharing produced as guidance for the microbial domain Bio- logical Resource Centers (mBRCs).  It was primarily designed for the management of collections of living microorganisms (MIRRI 2016). MOSAICC (Micro- Organisms Sustainable use and Access regulation International Code of Conduct) was produced for the World Federation for Culture Collections at the initia- tive of the Belgian Coordinated Collection of Micro- organisms  (BCCM) through the EU project ‘Elabo- ration and diffusion of a ‘code of conduct’ for the access to and sustainable use of microbial resources within the framework of the convention on biologi- cal diversity’  number BIO4972206 (https:// cordis. europa. eu/ proje ct/ id/ BIO49 72206/ de). The code of conduct is available at: (https:// bccm. belspo. be/ proje cts/ mosai cc/). TRUST (TRansparent User-friendly System of Transfer), is a modular system having the Global Catalogue of Microorganisms (https:// gcm. wdcm. org/) as its backbone. It uses the expertise gained by MOSAICC, Micro-Organisms Sustainable use and Access management Integrated Conveyance System (MOSAICS) and other initiatives to incorpo- rate the legal obligations and the ethical standards of the CBD and NP into the activities of microbiologists. https://absch.cbd.int/en/about/infoTypes https://absch.cbd.int/en/about/infoTypes https://cordis.europa.eu/project/id/BIO4972206/de https://cordis.europa.eu/project/id/BIO4972206/de https://bccm.belspo.be/projects/mosaicc/ https://bccm.belspo.be/projects/mosaicc/ https://gcm.wdcm.org/ https://gcm.wdcm.org/ 318 P. G. Mason et al. 1 3 Vol:. (1234567890) The document is available at: https:// bccm. belspo. be/ docum ents/ files/ proje cts/ trust/ trust- march- 2016. pdf. Another best practice is provided by the European Culture Collections’ Organisation (ECCO). ECCO produced model documents that comply with the Nagoya Protocol for Material Deposit and Transfer Agreements (Verkley et al. 2020). Each organization has provided these guidance documents for their members to adopt best practices in ABS. Some practices have been officially recog- nised as best practice by the European Commission to comply with the EU ABS Regulation or by other National Authorities. One such recognised best prac- tice is that of the Consortium of European Taxonomic Facilities (CETAF). These were developed to fully support the operations of taxonomic collections and non-commercial biological research institutions to comply with the Nagoya Protocol. Other research communities (e.g., Global Genome Biodiversity Net- work and the IOBC) have published best practices to encourage exchange and use of genetic resources legitimately. CAB International (CABI) (https:// www. cabi. org/ about- cabi/) houses one of the UK National Culture Collections and is both a user and a provider of genetic resources. CABI has published its ABS policy (https:// www. cabi. org/ wp- conte nt/ uploa ds/ PDFs/ About CABI/ Cabi- Abs- Policy- Draft- For- Websi te- May20 18. pdf) where it states that it will put in place best practices to comply with national legis- lation and will perform due diligence regarding ABS in all its activities involving those resources. CABI’s goal is to engender trust that will facilitate science and ensure that benefits are shared. CABI has had to generate a separate set of best practices built on the same principles for each of its Research Centres which are based in 11 countries each with different requirements (Smith et  al. 2018). CABI has aligned its best practices as a user of genetic resources with host country requirements. It is also negotiating access agreements with all provider countries to ensure compliance with the NP not only locally but globally. CABI Best Practice for the Centre in Swit- zerland is recognised by the Swiss national authority Bundesamt für Umwelt (BAFU) and CABI country- specific best practices have been drafted for Bra- zil, China (where an interim agreement is in place until national regulation is enacted), Ghana (where an MoU is in place with the competent national authority), India, Kenya, Malaysia, Pakistan, Trinidad and Tobago, the UK and Zambia. Sharing knowledge on availability of microbial biological control agents There are not many publicly accessible catalogues or databases specifically providing information about agents, targets and outcomes for biological control agents. However, several studies in the scientific liter- ature provide this type of information (e.g., van Len- teren et al. 2018; Hajek et al. 2021; Buitenhuis et al. 2023). Culture collections, particularly those from the agricultural sector, have been supplying microbial biological control agents for many years and present their holdings online as individual resources or have contributed their catalogues to the Global Catalogue of Microorganisms (Wu et al. 2013). A search of the latter for the application ‘biocontrol’ gave 188 species from a total of 56,258 species held by 146 collections in 51 countries. These species are held by 12 collec- tions (Supplementary table  S1). However, these fig- ures miss many of the agriculture sector collections. For example CABI, Agriculture and Agri-Food Can- ada (AAFC), Agricultural Research Council, Plant Health Protection (ARC-PHP) in South Africa and the United States Department of Agriculture, Agri- culture Research Service Culture Collection (NRRL) are missing from the list and all hold biological con- trol agents (Supplementary table S2). Contacting individual curators for access to micro- organisms of interest is the current practice and should be encouraged as a best practice. In future, the IOBC could play a role as a central clearing house providing information on microbial biological control agents. Gaining access to microbial biological control agents through collaboration Discovery of new microorganisms requires that field collections be made, the species studied, cultured (usually) and transported to the receiving country/ countries following protocols set out by the World Fungal Collections Consortium (WFCC) (e.g., Smith and Ryan 2019). National regulations outline what permits are required for field surveys and export of microorganisms and partnering with local collabora- tors has been key to achieving these activities. Where https://bccm.belspo.be/documents/files/projects/trust/trust-march-2016.pdf https://bccm.belspo.be/documents/files/projects/trust/trust-march-2016.pdf https://www.cabi.org/about-cabi/ https://www.cabi.org/about-cabi/ https://www.cabi.org/wp-content/uploads/PDFs/AboutCABI/Cabi-Abs-Policy-Draft-For-Website-May2018.pdf https://www.cabi.org/wp-content/uploads/PDFs/AboutCABI/Cabi-Abs-Policy-Draft-For-Website-May2018.pdf https://www.cabi.org/wp-content/uploads/PDFs/AboutCABI/Cabi-Abs-Policy-Draft-For-Website-May2018.pdf 319Best practices in the use and exchange of microorganism biological control genetic resources 1 3 Vol.: (0123456789) ABS requirements are in place PIC and MAT may also need to be negotiated to gain access. As Mason et al. (2018) noted, governments tend to focus on pro- tecting and enhancing the value of their biodiversity and put in place legislation based on that interest, although emphasising economic aspects in their ABS regulations may impede the use of their biodiversity. These authors proposed a concept benefit-sharing agreement for accessing invertebrate biological con- trol agents that would safeguard a provider country’s biodiversity protection and enhancement of its value but also maximise research and development (Mason et  al. 2018). This concept benefit-sharing agreement would certainly be useful for accessing microbial bio- logical control agents. Where there are no ABS requirements, permits to collect and export may still be required but restric- tions on use do not exist. However, to keep track of activities some sort of documentation to ensure that the microorganism was obtained legally should be obtained/kept/stored. Since microorganisms are deposited in culture collections such documentation is of high value to ensure that when a request is made to a collection manager there is certainty about where the culture originated and sets out the conditions under which a  microbial biological control agent can be provided or should not be provided. The use of a Material Deposit Agreement (MDA) would then protect the culture collection that provides the micro- organism from later actions by parties to claim own- ership. A model MDA is provided by Verkley et  al. (2020). It includes core elements usually included in a ‘deposit form’ that provide information neces- sary for assessment of the status of the material under ABS legislation as well as a set of example clauses for inclusion in ‘terms and conditions of use’ for managing the culture collection and for third parties. When using this form, we recommend that in Section C under “Other relevant details of strain history” it should be stated that the material is a biological con- trol microorganism. Collaborative research and opportunities for benefit-sharing Microorganisms are being increasingly used as bio- logical control agents with a focus on five commer- cialised species in 1970 that rose to 94 in 2018 (van Lenteren et  al. 2018, 2020, 2021). A review carried out for the Commission on Genetic Resources for Food and Agriculture (CGRFA 2021) assessed the extent to which microorganisms were used in bio- logical control. The background study paper not only discussed those microorganisms that were used com- mercially but also the thousands of potential biologi- cal control agents in collections around the world and considered that the majority were yet to be discov- ered. In general, microorganisms are poorly known: approximately 99% still remain to be discovered (Locey and Lennon 2016; Smith et  al. 2018). The more than 800 collections listed by the World Data Centre for Microorganisms (WDCM) hold over 3.3 million strains (as of March 2023) (https:// ccinfo. wdcm. org/ stati stics). The CABI collection which numbers 28,000 fungi and 2000 bacteria has in excess of 3000 potential biological control agents (Smith et  al. 2022) and there are several other collections registered with the WDCM that have an agricultural focus or, for example, purport to be collections of insect pathogens (25 collections). There are 905 spe- cies represented by 3647 strains from the 25 collec- tions that have been isolated from insects (CGRFA 2021). The majority of discoveries of new species of microorganisms are now made through genomic analysis of environmental and host samples. How- ever, this results in names being applied to sequences rather than isolated organisms, for bacteria these are given Candidatus status, a category used since the 1990s to accommodate uncultured taxa defined by DNA sequences (Pallen 2021). Although culturomics (Lagier et al. 2012) is offering improved ways of cul- turing fungi the majority of the microorganisms being discovered are yet to be grown. Molecular methods are not only used to identify microorganisms, but they are increasingly used to get a better understanding of their capacity and properties and it is now possible to target those having traits that are best suited for bio- logical control (Dang et al. 2019; Leung et al. 2020; Bridge et al. 2021; Tang et al. 2022). The molecular technologies open up access to the 99% of microbial diversity yet to be discovered and microbiome studies allow the observation of micro- organisms working in communities. It is already known that the microbiome of a plant, animal or human can improve the health and immunity of its host and in effect offer some level of biological con- trol. For example, elucidating the fruit microbiome is https://ccinfo.wdcm.org/statistics https://ccinfo.wdcm.org/statistics 320 P. G. Mason et al. 1 3 Vol:. (1234567890) important to develop effective strategies for biological control of post-harvest diseases (Zhang et  al. 2021). The integration of microbiome studies provides an opportunity to develop biological control strategies and approaches for product optimization. They can be implemented during product development at different stages, from finding for new candidates in their natu- ral environment to risk assessments that are required for registration (Rändler-Kleine 2020). They are not only useful in identifying strong and weak attributes of biological control agents, but can also be used for improving their field performance (Cernava 2021). There are numerous proposals on how countries can address ABS concerning their genetic resources. Indeed, countries are implementing processes to meet their specific interpretation of the Nagoya Pro- tocol and to deliver their own specific requirements. Microorganisms are part of the biodiversity a coun- try protects and extends its sovereign rights over but are often the element of biodiversity that the country knows least about (Mannazzu et  al. 2020; Morses 2021; Thaler 2021). Countries are implementing ABS regimes with a hope to generate funds to prevent biodiversity loss but to date there is little evidence that sufficient funds can be generated. Countries have overly optimistic expectations (Correa 2005). The administrative and transaction costs have been beyond levels of benefits that are being shared cur- rently from ABS regimes to date. For example, the effort in Costa Rica reported extensive non-monetary benefits but little monetary benefit (Richerzhagen and Holm-Mueller 2005). The World Intellectual Prop- erty Organization (WIPO) reported that the National Institute of Biodiversity of Costa Rica (INBio) agreed to provide Merck with 10,000 samples of plants, ani- mals and soil including exclusive rights to conduct research on these samples for two years and to retain the rights for any resulting patents. In exchange, Merck made an upfront one million US$ payment to INBio and provided the institute with personnel train- ing and laboratory equipment. Merck also agreed to pay royalties for any drugs developed but no products had seemingly reached the market at the time of the report (WIPO 2006). Additionally, a verbal commu- nication within the informal advisory group for DSI of the open-ended working group reported that in Brazil 11,000 products had reached the market net- ting around seven million  US$. Monetary benefits have generally, come from a share of revenue from products on the market. If you remove funding from the discovery process, you only reduce the innova- tion and public good that can come from it. Access and use of genetic resources for uses such as biologi- cal control of pest and diseases that improves yields and addresses Sustainable Development Goals such as SDG 2 Zero Hunger should not be subject to mon- etary benefit-sharing. Benefits can be shared in other ways such as capacity building, exchanging informa- tion on how to develop biological control agents and their application to reduce chemical use thus improv- ing the environment as well as reducing losses. These benefits have been identified in the Commission on Genetic Resources for Food and Agriculture, FAO, Background Study Paper No. 47 (Cock et  al. 2009). The main beneficiaries of classical biological control being the farmers indirectly or directly where biologi- cal control agents are established as well as the pub- lic interest. The reduced crop losses from pests also serves the public good through improved food secu- rity and livelihoods. Additionally, there is the added benefit of reducing pesticide use, and thus lower residues in food. The use of augmentative and clas- sical biological control in place of pesticides enables producers to meet the standards of profitable export markets, creating jobs for growers and a very signifi- cant influx of foreign revenue in developing countries (Cock et al. 2009). Although few examples of monetary benefit- sharing have been documented, numerous examples of non-monetary benefit-sharing exist. For example, CABI has summarised Nagoya Protocol triggered benefit-sharing from projects running in the UK Cen- tre (Smith et al. 2022). The benefits shared are sum- marised as: (1) sharing of R&D results relevant to country needs; (2) collaboration in education, train- ing, research, development programmes; (3) joint authorship of publications and joint ownership of intellectual property rights; (4) access to ex situ facili- ties and to databases; (5) transfer of scientific infor- mation, knowledge and technology; and (6) institu- tional capacity-development to help build or maintain local collections. 321Best practices in the use and exchange of microorganism biological control genetic resources 1 3 Vol.: (0123456789) Production technology and technology transfer considerations for use and exchange of microbial biological control agents Patenting and production Microorganisms in their native form cannot be pat- ented unless they have been genetically modified or the processes in which they are used are novel (often dependent on the country). However, as with all pat- ents there must be novelty, an “invention” step and in many countries, non-patentable categories may include scientific theories, aesthetic creations, math- ematical methods, plant or animal varieties, discov- eries of natural substances, commercial methods, methods for medical treatment (as opposed to medi- cal products) or computer programs (https:// www. wipo. int/ paten ts/ en/ faq_ paten ts. html). There is also a requirement for the microorganism concerned to be made available because a simple written descrip- tion of the application will not suffice if a specific strain is needed for the process patented. The WIPO Budapest Treaty on the International Recognition of the Deposit of Microorganisms for the Purposes of Patent Procedure 1977 (https:// www. wipo. int/ treat ies/ en/ regis trati on/ budap est/) was implemented for this purpose. This avoids the need to deposit in each country in which protection is sought. International Depositary Authorities (IDA) are established in con- tracting states to receive these deposits, and these are recognised by all Parties to the Treaty. The European Patent Office (EPO), the Eurasian Patent Organiza- tion (EAPO) and the African Regional Intellectual Property Organization (ARIPO) have made such declarations. An IDA is a scientific institution—typi- cally a “culture collection”—which is capable of storing microorganisms, appointed by the contract- ing host state. On 7 July 2022, 48 such authorities were known: seven in the UK, four in the Republic of Korea, three each in China, India, Italy and the USA, two each in Australia, Japan, Poland, the Rus- sian Federation and Spain, and one each in Belgium, Bulgaria, Canada, Chile, the Czech Republic, Fin- land, France, Germany, Hungary, Latvia, Mexico, Morocco, the Netherlands, Slovakia and Switzerland. WIPO (2017, 2018, 2019) provide answers to key questions on patent disclosure requirements for genetic resources and traditional knowledge (https:// tind. wipo. int/ search? ln= en&p= patent% 20dis closu re% 20req uirem ents% 20for% 20gen etic% 20res ource s&f= & sf= & so= d& rg= 10& fti=0). WIPO explains that policymakers and other stakeholders often raise operational questions and seek practical and empiri- cal information about patent disclosure require- ments in relation to genetic resources and traditional knowledge. Particular strains of microorganisms have been patented. For example, a patent survey of Tricho- derma species (Hypocreaceae) demonstrated the wide range of applications that this fungus can be utilised in, including as a biopesticide and biological control agent (Al-Ani 2019). The patents include many new Trichoderma strains, for example, several that showed high activity in reducing levels of plant diseases, enabling the development of biopesticides involving mixtures of organisms. The microbial-based solutions that can be used for the biological control of the pri- mary microbial spoilers, phytopathogens, and human food-borne pathogens that affect fruits and vegeta- bles during the production and storage phases have been reviewed (De Simone et  al. 2021). It covered the most recent patents in this area and innovations, particularly those approaches that integrate biological control agents to minimise spoilage phenomena and microbiological risks. They conclude that there is a growing interest in biological control strategies that will counteract the growth of spoilage and/or patho- genic microorganisms suggesting that there will be a considerable increase in new commercial products and patents worldwide based on innovative biotech- nological solutions in the sector. Ortega et al. (2020) review 185 patents associated with endophytic fungi (from January 1988 to December 2019) and consider their applicability for abiotic stress tolerance and growth promotion of plants, as agents for biological control of herbivores and plant pathogens and bio- and phyto-remediation applications. Another example of biological control agent use in agriculture is the WO1994019950A1 (https:// paten ts. google. com/ patent/ WO199 40199 50A1/ en) patent which recognises ʾprior artʿ and describes how this is overcome through the application of: (1) a mixed culture of a yeast component and a bacterial compo- nent, and (2) a substrate for the mixed culture. The patent also references other patents which describe uses of yeasts or fungi and bacteria obtained from a natural source. For example: (1) EP 485,440 a new yeast strain obtained from the surface of citrus fruits https://www.wipo.int/patents/en/faq_patents.html https://www.wipo.int/patents/en/faq_patents.html https://www.wipo.int/treaties/en/registration/budapest/ https://www.wipo.int/treaties/en/registration/budapest/ https://tind.wipo.int/search?ln=en&p=patent%20disclosure%20requirements%20for%20genetic%20resources&f=&sf=&so=d&rg=10&fti=0 https://tind.wipo.int/search?ln=en&p=patent%20disclosure%20requirements%20for%20genetic%20resources&f=&sf=&so=d&rg=10&fti=0 https://tind.wipo.int/search?ln=en&p=patent%20disclosure%20requirements%20for%20genetic%20resources&f=&sf=&so=d&rg=10&fti=0 https://tind.wipo.int/search?ln=en&p=patent%20disclosure%20requirements%20for%20genetic%20resources&f=&sf=&so=d&rg=10&fti=0 https://patents.google.com/patent/WO1994019950A1/en https://patents.google.com/patent/WO1994019950A1/en 322 P. G. Mason et al. 1 3 Vol:. (1234567890) and which may be used to control fruit rot pathogens; (2) US Patents 5,047,239 and 4,764, a strain of Bacil- lus subtilis (Ehrenberg) Cohn (Bacilliacae) used for biological control of fruit rot; (3) US Specification 4,377,571 Pseudomonas syringae van Hall (Pseu- domonadaceae) used for treatment of Dutch elm dis- ease; (4) US Specification 4,950,472 a new strain of Acremonium breve (Sukapure & Thirum.) W.Gams (Hypocreaceae) used to control grey mould infection of pome fruit; and (5) US Specification 4,975,277 an isolate of Burkholderia (= Pseudomonas) epacian (Palleroni and Holmes) Yabuuchi et  al. (Burkholde- riaceae) used for biological control of post-harvest disease in fruit. In Japanese Patent JP 3,077,803 refer- ence is made to Pseudomonas bacteria selected from B. epacian, B. gladioli (Zopf 1885) Yabuuchi et  al., Ralstonii picketti (Ralston et  al.) Yabuuchi et  al., P. vorans (Burkholderiaceae), Brevundimonas dimunata (Leifson and Hugh) Segers et al. (Caulobacteraceae) and Bacillus bacteria selected from B. cereus Frank- land & Frankland (Bacillaceae), B. mycoides Flügge, B. anthracis Cohn (Bacillaceae) and B. thuringiensis for biological control of soil borne diseases. Modified microorganisms used as biological con- trol agents have also been patented (https:// paten ts. justia. com/ patent/ 10508 280). For example, biological agents and populations of such agents that are modi- fied to be herbicide-tolerant or resistant are selected or engineered. The patent lists 46 ways the organism is selected (modified) and lists extensive numbers of species (e.g., pathogens, biological control agents). One of these ways is to introduce antagonistic fac- tor genes from a known biological control agent by combining them with promoters, derived from the recipient microorganism to create a new agent. For example, the naturally occurring epiphytic bacte- rium Erwinia ananas Serrano (Enterobacteriaceae) strain NR1 was genetically modified by introducing the chitinolytic enzyme gene from the bacterium Ser- ratia marcescens Biszio (Yercinicaceae) strain B2 to control the phytopathogenic fungus Pyricularia oryzae (T.T. Hebert) M.E. Barr (Magnaporthaceae), the cause of rice blast disease (Soymea and Akutsu 2006). Licensing production Microorganisms that are developed as biopesti- cides are subject to registration and must follow requirements set out by individual countries where they are intended to be used. Once a product is reg- istered production may be licensed to a third party. Green Muscle™ is based on a specific isolate of Metarhizium acridum (Driver & Milner) J.F. Bisch., Rehner and Humber (Clavicipitaceae) which infects locusts and grasshoppers. The discovery and develop- ment of this biopesticide was funded by a collabora- tion among the governments of Canada, the Nether- lands, Switzerland, Britain and the USA with CABI being involved in the 1990s. The product was licenced to Eléphant Vert and CABI provided the starter cul- tures. Eléphant Vert is mass producing and marketing Green Muscle™ in Africa and Asia for the control of devastating locust swarms (CABI 2022). Companies like Eléphant Vert have production operations around the globe (one of which is in Mali) which provide employment opportunities in communities where they are located. Metarhizium acridum was first iso- lated in the Sahel region of Africa Niger (Niassy et al. 2011) and a spore production facility was constructed at the International Institute of Tropical Agriculture (IITA) in Cotonou, Benin (Cherry et al. 1999; Lomer et al. 2001) and would have employed local people. Conclusion ABS regulations have changed the practice of bio- logical control using microorganisms. Best practices are key to ensuring that access to new and existing microorganisms for biological control continues. The use of a benefit-sharing agreement for access- ing microbial biological control agents (see Mason et al. 2018) would safeguard the biodiversity of a pro- vider country and enhance its value by maximising the research and development of that biodiversity. To protect culture collections from subsequent actions by parties claiming ownership, the use of a MDA that clearly indicates the status of the material under ABS legislation is recommended (see Verkely et al. 2020). The best practices outlined here will contribute to ensuring that high standards are in place for use and exchange of microbial biological control agents that are essential to protect biodiversity while providing solutions for important pest problems. https://patents.justia.com/patent/10508280 https://patents.justia.com/patent/10508280 323Best practices in the use and exchange of microorganism biological control genetic resources 1 3 Vol.: (0123456789) Acknowledgements The authors acknowledge support from each of their affiliated organisations for the opportunity to par- ticipate in preparing this contribution. Author contributions This contribution is an output of the International Organization for Biological Control (IOBC) Global Commission on Access and Benefit Sharing. PGM, MH and DS conceived the manuscript outline and prepared the ini- tial draft. All authors provided revisions to the manuscript. All authors read and approved the manuscript. Funding Open Access provided by Agriculture & Agri-Food Canada. Declarations Conflicts of interest The authors declare that there are no conflicts of interest associated with this publication. Research involving human participants and/or ani- mals This article does not refer to any studies with human participants or animals (vertebrates) performed by any of the authors. Informed consent There are no requirements for informed consent associated with this publication. Open Access This article is licensed under a Crea t ive Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Crea- tive Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article’s Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article’s Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http:// creat iveco mmons. org/ licen ses/ by/4. 0/. References Al-Ani LKT (2019) A patent survey of Trichoderma spp. (from 2007 to 2017). In: Singh H, Keswani C, Singh S (eds) Intellectual property issues in microbiology. Springer, Singapore, 163–192 Bailey KL (2014) The bioherbicide approach to weed control using plant pathogens. In Abrol DP (ed) Integrated pest management: current concepts and ecological perspective. Academic Press, San Diego, pp 245–266 Bedford GO (2013) Biology and management of palm dynastic beetles: recent advances. Annu Rev Entomol 58:353–372 Bridge P, Stackebrandt E, Smith D (2021) Trends in the sys- tematics of bacteria and fungi. CAB International, Wallingford Buitenhuis R, Cock MJW, Colmenarez YC, De Clercq P, Edg- ington S, Gadaleta P, Gwynn R, Heimpel G, Hill M, Hinz HL, Hoddle MS, Jäkel T, Klapwijk JN, Leung K, Mc Kay F, Messelink GJ, Silvestri L, Smith D, Sosa A, Wäckers FL, Cabrera Walsh G, Wyckhuys KAG, Zaviezo T (2023) Sustainable use and conservation of microbial and inver- tebrate biological control agents and microbial biostimu- lants. Background study paper No. 71. Comm Genet Resour Food Agric. Rome, FAO. https:// doi. org/ 10. 4060/ cb357 1en CABI (2022) Green Muscle providing strength against dev- astating locusts in the horn of Africa. https:// www. cabi. org/ news- artic le/ green- muscle- provi ding- stren gth- again st- devas tating- locus ts- in- the- horn- of- africa/. Accessed 18 Oct 2022 Cernava T (2021) How microbiome studies could further improve biological control. Biol Control 160:104669 CGRFA (2021) 3.2 Sustainable use and conservation of microbial and invertebrate biological control agents, and biostimulants. Submitted to 18th regular session CGRFA document CGRFA-18/21/11.2. FAO Commission on Genetic Resources for Food and Agriculture. https:// www. fao. org/3/ ng832 en/ ng832 en. pdf. Accessed 18 Oct 2022 Cherry A, Jenkins NE, Heviefo G, Bateman RP, Lomer CJ (1999) A West African pilot scale production plant for aerial conidia of Metarhizium spp. for use as a mycoin- secticide against locusts and grasshoppers. Biocontrol Sci Technol 9:35–51 Cock MJW, van Lenteren JC, Brodeur J, Barratt BIP, Bigler F, Bolckmans K, Cônsoli FL, Haas F, Mason PG, Parra JRP (2010) Do new access and benefit sharing proce- dures under the Convention on Biological Diversity threaten the future of biological control? BioControl 55:199–218 Cock MJW, van Lenteren JC, Brodeur J, Barratt BIP, Bigler F, Bolckmans K, Cônsoli FL, Haas F, Mason PG, Parra JRP (2009) The use and exchange of biological con- trol agents for food and agriculture. Background Study Paper No. 47. Commission on Genetic Resources for Food and Agriculture, FAO, Rome. https:// www. fao. org/3/ ak569e/ ak569e. pdf. Accessed 18 Oct 2023 Collinge DB, Jørgensen HJL, Latz MAC, Manzotti A, Ntana F, Rojas EC, Jensen B (2019) Searching for novel fungal biological control agents for plant disease control among endophytes. In: Hodkinson TR, Doohan FM, Saunders MJ, Murphy BR (eds) Endophytes: for a growing world. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp 25–51 Collinge DB, Jensen DF, Rabiey M, Sarrocco S, Shaw MW, Shaw RH (2022) Biological control of plant diseases: what has been achieved and what is the direction? Plant Pathol 71:1024–1047 Convention on Biodiversity (CBD) (2022e) Digital sequence information on genetic resources: draft recommenda- tion submitted by the co-chairs. CBD/WG2020/4/CRP.4. https:// www. cbd. int/ doc/c/ b3cb/ c3a7/ b5a2d 964d0 c754b fa3a7 8ef8/ wg2020- 04- crp- 04- en. docx. Accessed 27 Feb 2023 Convention on Biodiversity (CBD) (2011) The Nagoya Pro- tocol on access and benefit-sharing. https:// www. cbd. int/ abs/. Accessed 27 Feb 2023 http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ https://doi.org/10.4060/cb3571en https://doi.org/10.4060/cb3571en http://www.cabi.org/news-article/green-muscle-providing-strength-against-devastating-locusts-in-the-horn-of-africa/ http://www.cabi.org/news-article/green-muscle-providing-strength-against-devastating-locusts-in-the-horn-of-africa/ http://www.cabi.org/news-article/green-muscle-providing-strength-against-devastating-locusts-in-the-horn-of-africa/ https://www.fao.org/3/ng832en/ng832en.pdf https://www.fao.org/3/ng832en/ng832en.pdf https://www.fao.org/3/ak569e/ak569e.pdf https://www.fao.org/3/ak569e/ak569e.pdf https://www.cbd.int/doc/c/b3cb/c3a7/b5a2d964d0c754bfa3a78ef8/wg2020-04-crp-04-en.docx https://www.cbd.int/doc/c/b3cb/c3a7/b5a2d964d0c754bfa3a78ef8/wg2020-04-crp-04-en.docx https://www.cbd.int/abs/ https://www.cbd.int/abs/ 324 P. G. Mason et al. 1 3 Vol:. (1234567890) Convention on Biodiversity (CBD) (2022a) 4th meeting of the Open-ended Working Group on the Post-2020 Global Biodiversity Framework, summary report, 21–26 June 2022a https:// enb. iisd. org/ fourth- meeti ng- worki ng- group- post- 2020- global- biodi versi ty- frame work- summa ry. Accessed 27 Feb 2023 Convention on Biodiversity (CBD) (2022b) Submission of views and information on the post-2020 global biodiver- sity framework. https:// www. cbd. int/ confe rences/ post2 020/ submi ssions. Accessed 27 Feb 2023 Convention on Biodiversity (CBD) (2023a) Access and ben- efit-sharing clearing-house. https:// absch. cbd. int/ en/. Accessed 27 Feb 2023a Convention on Biodiversity (CBD) (2023b) Access and benefit-sharing clearing-house country profiles. https:// absch. cbd. int/ en/ count ries/ status/ party. Accessed 27 Feb 2023b Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) (2022d) Digi- tal sequence information on genetic resources. Deci- sion 15/9 of the conference of the Parties. https:// www. cbd. int/ doc/ decis ions/ cop- 15/ cop- 15- dec- 09- en. pdf. Accessed 28 Feb 2023 Convention on Biological Diversity (2022c) Kunming-Mon- treal Global Biodiversity Framework. Decision 15/4 of the conference of the Parties. https:// www. cbd. int/ doc/ decis ions/ cop- 15/ cop- 15- dec- 04- en. pdf. Accessed 7 March 2023 Cook RJ, Papendick RI (1972) Influence of water potential of soils and plants on root disease. Ann Rev Phytopath 10:349–374 Correa CM (2005) Do national access regimes promote the use of genetic resources and benefit sharing? Int J Environ Sustain Dev 4:444–463 Dang Z, McLenachan PA, Lockhart PJ, Waipara N, Er O, Reynolds C, Blanchon D (2019) Metagenome profil- ing identifies potential biocontrol agents for Selaginella kraussiana in New Zealand. Genes-Basel 10:106 De Simone N, Capozzi V, Amodio LM, Colelli G, Spano G, Russo P (2021) Microbial-based biocontrol solutions for fruits and vegetables: recent insight, patents, and innova- tive trends. Recent Pat Food Nutr Agric 12:3–18 Díaz-Rodríguez AM, Gastelum LAS, Pablos CMF, Parra-Cota FI, Santoyo G, Puente ML, Bhattacharya D, Mukherjee J, de los Santos-Villalobos S (2021) The current and future role of microbial culture collections in food security worldwide. Front Sustain Food Syst 4:614739 European Union (EU) (2022) Regulation (EU) No 511/2014 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 April 2014 on compliance measures for users from the Nagoya Protocol on access to genetic resources and the fair and equitable sharing of benefits arising from their utilization in the union. https:// eur- lex. europa. eu/ legal- conte nt/ EN/ TXT/? uri= CELEX: 32014 R0511. Accessed 18 Oct 2022 Evans HE (1993) Studies on the rust Maravalia cryptoste- giae, a potential biological control agent of rubber-vine weed (Cryptostegia grandiflora, Asclepiadaceae: Peri- plocoideae) in Australia, I: Life-cycle. Mycopathologia 124:163–174 Hajek AE, Eilenberg J (2018) Natural enemies an introduc- tion to biological control. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge Hajek AE, McManus ML, Delalibera Junior I (2007) A review of introductions of pathogens and nematodes for classi- cal biological control of insects and mites. Biol Control 41:1–13 Hajek AE, Gardescu S (2016) Classical biological control of insects and mites: a worldwide catalogue of pathogen and nematode introductions. United States Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Forest Health Technology Enterprise Team, Morgantown. FHTET-2016–06. https:// bugwo odclo ud. org/ resou rce/ pdf/ Class ical_ Biolo gical_ Contr ol_ Catal og_ FHTET- 2016- 06_ 2nd_ edjuly_ 2016. pdf. Accessed 18 Oct 2022 Hajek AE, Gardescu S, Delalibera I (2021) Summary of clas- sical biological control introductions of entomopathogens and nematodes for insect control. BioControl 66:167–180 Huger AM (2005) The Oryctes virus: its detection, identifica- tion, and implementation in biological control of the coco- nut palm rhinoceros beetle, Oryctes rhinoceros (Coleop- tera: Scarabaeidae). J Invert Pathol 89:78–84 IOBC (2022) International Organization for Biological Con- trol homepage. https:// www. iobc- global. org/ index. html. Accessed 18 Oct 2022 Kumar J, Ramlal A, Mallick D, Mishra V (2021) An overview of some biopesticides and their importance in plant pro- tection for commercial acceptance. Plants 10:1185 Lacey LA, Grzywacz D, Shapiro-Ilan DI, Frutos R, Brown- bridge M, Goettel MS (2015) Insect pathogens as bio- logical control agents: back to the future. J Invert Pathol 132:1–41 Lagier JC, Armougom F, Million M, Hugon P, Pagnier I, Robert C, Bittar F, Fournous G, Gimenez G, Maraninchi M, Trape J-F, Koonin EV, La Scola B, Raoult D (2012) Microbial culturomics: paradigm shift in the human gut microbiome study. Clin Microbiol Infec 18:1185–1193 Leung K, Ras E, Ferguson KB, Ariëns S, Babendreier D, Bijma P, Bourtzis K, Brodeur J, Bruins MA, Centurión A, Chattington SR, Chinchilla-Ramírez M, Dicke M, Fatouros NE, González-Cabrera J, Groot TVM, Haye T, Knapp M, Koskinioti P, Le Hesran S, Lyrakis M, Paspati A, Pérez-Hedo M, Plouvier WN, Schlötterer C, Stahl JM, Thiel A, Urbaneja A, van de Zande L, Verhulst EC, Vet LEM, Visser S, Werren JH, Xia S, Zwaan BJ, Magalhães S, Beukeboom LW, Pannebakker BA (2020) Next-generation biological control: the need for inte- grating genetics and genomics. Biol Rev 95:1838–1854 Lin G, Tanguay A, Guertin C, Todorova S, Brodeur J (2017) The making of a vector: a new method for loading pred- atory mites with entomopathogenic fungi for biological control of their prey. Biol Control 115:105–111 Locey KJ, Lennon JT (2016) Scaling laws predict global microbial diversity. PNAS 113:5970–5975 Köhl J, Kolnaar R, Ravensberg WJ (2019) Mode of action of microbial biological control agents against plant diseases: relevance beyond efficacy. Front Plant Sci 10:845 Lomer CJ, Bateman RP, Johnson DL, Langewald J, Thomas M (2001) Biological control of locusts and grasshop- pers. Annu Rev Entomol 46:667–702 MIRRI (2016) Microbial resources research infrastruc- ture best practice manual on access and benefit shar- ing. https:// zenodo. org/ record/ 28488 1#. Y07r6 3bMJPY. Accessed 18 Oct 2022 https://enb.iisd.org/fourth-meeting-working-group-post-2020-global-biodiversity-framework-summary https://enb.iisd.org/fourth-meeting-working-group-post-2020-global-biodiversity-framework-summary https://enb.iisd.org/fourth-meeting-working-group-post-2020-global-biodiversity-framework-summary https://www.cbd.int/conferences/post2020/submissions https://www.cbd.int/conferences/post2020/submissions https://absch.cbd.int/en/ https://absch.cbd.int/en/countries/status/party https://absch.cbd.int/en/countries/status/party https://www.cbd.int/doc/decisions/cop-15/cop-15-dec-09-en.pdf https://www.cbd.int/doc/decisions/cop-15/cop-15-dec-09-en.pdf https://www.cbd.int/doc/decisions/cop-15/cop-15-dec-04-en.pdf https://www.cbd.int/doc/decisions/cop-15/cop-15-dec-04-en.pdf https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX:32014R0511 https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX:32014R0511 https://bugwoodcloud.org/resource/pdf/Classical_Biological_Control_Catalog_FHTET-2016-06_2nd_edjuly_2016.pdf https://bugwoodcloud.org/resource/pdf/Classical_Biological_Control_Catalog_FHTET-2016-06_2nd_edjuly_2016.pdf https://bugwoodcloud.org/resource/pdf/Classical_Biological_Control_Catalog_FHTET-2016-06_2nd_edjuly_2016.pdf https://www.iobc-global.org/index.html https://zenodo.org/record/284881#.Y07r63bMJPY 325Best practices in the use and exchange of microorganism biological control genetic resources 1 3 Vol.: (0123456789) Mannazzu I, Budroni M, Zara G, Zara S (2020) Preservation, characterization and exploitation of microbial biodiver- sity of agri-food and environmental interest. Microor- ganisms 8:1938 Margalit J, Dean D (1985) The story of Bacillus thuringien- sis var. israelensis (B.t.i.). J Am Mosq Control Assoc 1:1–7 Mason PG, Cock MJW, Barratt BIP, Klapwijk JN, van Len- teren JC, Brodeur J, Hoelmer KA, Heimpel GE (2018) Best practices for the use and exchange of invertebrate biological control genetic resources relevant for food and agriculture. BioControl 63:149–154 Mason PG, Barratt BIP, Mc Kay F, Klapwijk JN, Silvestri L, Hill M, Hinz HL, Sheppard A, Brodeur J, Diniz Vitorino M (2023) Impact of access and benefit-sharing implemen- tation on biological control genetic resources. BioControl, in Press. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1007/ s10526- 023- 10176-8 Morin L (2020) Progress in biological control of weeds with plant pathogens. Annu Rev Phytopathol 58:201–223 Morin L, Evans KJ (2012) Rubus fruticosus L. aggregate – European. In: Julien M, McFadyen RC, Cullen JM (eds) Biological control of weeds in Australia 1960 to 2010. CSIRO Publishing, Collingwood, Australia, pp 499–509 Morse I (2021) ‘Profound ignorance’: microbes, a missing piece in the biodiversity puzzle. https:// news. monga bay. com/ 2021/ 04/ profo und- ignor ance- micro bes-a- missi ng- piece- in- the- biodi versi ty- puzzle/. Accessed 1 March 2023 Neilson C, Hajek AE (2005) Control of invasive soybean aphid, Aphis glycines (Hemiptera: Aphididae), popula- tions by existing natural enemies in New York State, with emphasis on entomopathogenic fungi. Environ Entomol 34:1036-1047 Niassy S, Diarra K, Ndiaye S, Niassy A (2011) Pathogenicity of local Metarhizium anisopliae var. acridum strains on Locusta migratoria migratorioides Reiche and Farmaire and Zonocerus variegatus Linnaeus in Senegal. Afr J Bio- tech 10:28–33 Ortega HE, Torres-Mendoza D, Cubilla-Rios L (2020) Patents on endophytic fungi for agriculture and bio- and phytore- mediation applications. Microorganisms 8:1237 Pallen MJ (2021) The status Candidatus for uncultured taxa of Bacteria and Archaea: SWOT analysis. Int J Syst Evol Microbiol 71:005000 Palmer W, Vogler W (2012) Cryptostegia grandifolia (Roxb.) R. Br. – rubber vine. In: Julien M, McFayden R, Cullen J (eds) Biological control of weeds in Australia. CSIRO Publishing, Melbourne, pp 190–197 Paudel S, Mansfield S, Villamizar LF, Jackson TA, Marshall SDG (2021) Can biological control overcome the threat from newly invasive coconut rhinoceros beetle popula- tions (Coleoptera: Scarabaeidae)? A review. Ann Ento- mol Soc Am 114:247–256 Rändler-Kleine M, Wolfgang A, Dietel K, Junge H, Cernava T, Berg G (2020) How microbiome approaches can assist industrial development of biological control prod- ucts. In: Gao Y, Hokkanen H, Menzler-Hokkanen I (eds) Integrative biological control: ecostacking for enhanced ecosystem services. Progress in Biological Control, vol 20. Springer, Cham 201–215 Richerzhagen C, Holm-Mueller K (2005) The effectiveness of access and benefit sharing in Costa Rica: implications for national and international regimes. Ecol Econ 53:445–460 Sheppard AW, Paynter Q, Mason P, Murphy S, Stoett P, Cowan P, Brodeur J, Warner K, Villegas C, Shaw R, Hinz H, Hill M, Genovesi P (2020) IUCN SSC Invasive Species Spe- cialist Group. The application of biological control for the management of established invasive alien species causing environmental impacts. The Secretariat of the Conven- tion on Biological Diversity Technical Series No. 91, 88 p. https:// www. cbd. int/ doc/ publi catio ns/ cbd- ts- 91- en. pdf. Accessed 21 Oct 2022 Silvestri L, Mason P (2023) Improved access to biological con- trol genetic resources: navigating through the Convention on Biological Diversity and the Nagoya Protocol. BioCon- trol, in Press. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1007/ s10526- 023- 10183-9 Silvestri L, Sosa A, Mc Kay F, Vitorino MD, Hill MP, Zacha- riades C, Hight S, Weyl P, Smith D, Djeddour D, Mason PG (2020) Implementation of access and benefit-sharing measures has consequences for classical biological control of weeds. BioControl 65:125–141 Smith D (2003) Culture collections over the world. Int Micro- biol 6:95–100 Smith D, Ryan MJ (2019) International postal, quarantine and safety regulations. Microbiology Australia publication special issue: sustainable use and preservation of micro- bial resources. Microbiol Austr 40:117–120 Smith D, Hinz H, Mulema J, Weyl P, Ryan MJ (2018) Biologi- cal control and the Nagoya Protocol on access and benefit sharing–a case of effective due diligence. Biocontrol Sci Techn 2810:914–926 Smith D, Ryan MJ, Luke B, Djeddour D, Seier MK, Varia S, Pollard KM, Pratt CF, Kurose D, Shaw RH (2021) CABI UK and Nagoya Protocol triggered benefit shar- ing. CABI Work Paper. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1079/ CABIC OMM- 62- 8160 Smith D, Caine T, Ryan MJ (2022) Contribution of CABI to sustainable futures through the utilization of fungal genetic resources. In: Kurtboke I, Baluswamy V, Bennett T (eds) Importance of microbiology teaching and micro- bial resource management for sustainable futures. Else- vier, WFCC, pp 230–273 Soymea M, Akusu K (2006) Biocontrol of plant diseases by genetically modified microorganisms: current status and future prospects. In: Siddiqui ZA (ed) PGPR: biocontrol and biofertilization. Springer, Dordrecht, pp 297–312 Stackebrandt E, Smith D, Casaregola S, Varese GC, Verkleij G, Lima N, Bridge PD (2014) Deposit of microbial strains in public service collections as part of the publication pro- cess to underpin good practice in science. Springerplus 3:208 Steinkraus DC (2007) Management of aphid populations in cotton through conservation: delaying insecticide spraying has its benefits. In: Vincent C, Goettel MS, Lazarovits G (eds) Biological control: a global perspective. CAB Inter- national, Wallingford, UK, pp 383–391 Stenberg JA, Sundh I, Becher PG, Björkman C, Dubey M, Egan PA, Friberg H, Gil JF, Jensen DF, Jonsson M, Karls- son M, Khalil S, Ninkovic V, Rehermann G, Vetukuri RR, Viketoft M (2021) When is it biological control? A framework of definitions, mechanisms, and classifications. J Pest Sci 94:665–676 https://doi.org/10.1007/s10526-023-10176-8 https://news.mongabay.com/2021/04/profound-ignorance-microbes-a-missing-piece-in-the-biodiversity-puzzle/ https://news.mongabay.com/2021/04/profound-ignorance-microbes-a-missing-piece-in-the-biodiversity-puzzle/ https://news.mongabay.com/2021/04/profound-ignorance-microbes-a-missing-piece-in-the-biodiversity-puzzle/ https://www.cbd.int/doc/publications/cbd-ts-91-en.pdf https://doi.org/10.1007/s10526-023-10183-9 https://doi.org/10.1079/CABICOMM-62-8160 https://doi.org/10.1079/CABICOMM-62-8160 326 P. G. Mason et al. 1 3 Vol:. (1234567890) Sundh I, Goettel MS (2013) Regulating biocontrol agents: a historical perspective and a critical examination com- paring microbial and macrobial agents. BioControl 58:575–593 Sweetman HL (1936) The biological control of insects. Com- stock Publishing Company Inc, Ithaca, United States Tang XF, Huang YH, Li HS, Chen PT, Yang HY, Liang YS, Du XY, Liu ZH, Li EF, Yang YC, Pang H (2022) Genomic insight into the scale specialization of the biological con- trol agent Novius pumilus (Weise, 1892). BMC Genomics 23:90 Thaler M (2021) Is global microbial biodiversity increas- ing, decreasing, or staying the same? Front Ecol Evol 9:565649 United Nations (UN) (2022) Sustainable development goals. https:// www. undp. org/ susta inable- devel opment- goals#: ~: text= The% 20Sus taina ble% 20Dev elopm ent% 20Goa ls% 20(SDGs)% 2C% 20also% 20kno wn% 20as% 20the ,people% 20enj oy% 20pea ce% 20and% 20pro speri ty. Accessed 18 Oct 2022 van Lenteren JC, Bolckmans K, Köhl J, Ravensberg WJ, Urbaneja A (2018) Biological control using invertebrates and microorganisms: plenty of new opportunities. Bio- Control 63:39–59 van Lenteren JC, Bueno VHP, Luna MG, Colmenarez Y (eds) (2020). CAB International, Wallingford, UK van Lenteren JC, Bueno VHP, Klapwijk JN (2021) Augmen- tative biological control. In: Mason PG (ed) Biological control: global impacts, challenges and future directions of pest management. CSIRO Publishing, Clayton South, Australia, pp 166–196 Vargas-Gaete R, Doussoulin H, Smith-Ramírez C, Bravo S, Salas-Eljatib C, Andrade N, Trávníček B (2019) Evalua- tion of rust pathogenicity (Phragmidium violaceum) as a biological control agent for the invasive plant Rubus ulmi- folius on Robinson Crusoe Island, Chile. Australas Plant Pathol. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1007/ s13313- 019- 0615-y Verkley G, Perrone G, Pina M, Scholz A, Zuzuarregui A, Perugini I, Turchetti B, Smith D, Lima N (2020) New ECCO tools for core material deposit and transfer agree- ments to promote compliance in procedures for deposit and supply of cultures from a public microbial culture col- lection. FEMS Microbiol Let 367:fnaa044 Vlitos AJ, Hooker WJ (1951) The influence of sulfur on popu- lations of Streptomyces scabies and other Streptomycetes in peat soil. Amer J Bot 38:678–683 Winston Winston RL, Schwarzlander M, Hinz HL, Day MD, Cock MJW, Julien MH (2014) Biological control of weeds: a world catalogue of agents and their target weeds, 5th edn, FHTET-2014-04 WFCC (1999) Guidelines for the establishment and operation of collections of cultures of microorganisms, 2nd edition. http:// www. cabri. org/ guide lines/ micro- organ isms/ M100A p1. html. Accessed 19 Oct 2022 WIPO (2006) Article 27.3(b), relationship between the TRIPs agreement and the CBD, and the protection of traditional knowledge and folklore. IP/C/W/469 13 March 2006 (06– 1111). Council for Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights, Communication from the United States. https:// docs. wto. org/ dol2fe/ Pages/ FE_ Search/ FE_S_ S009- DP. aspx? langu age= ECata logue IdList= 74743 ,70854 ,66392 ,71013 ,62129 ,56741 ,75819 ,47775 ,77543 ,71998 Curre ntCat alogu eIdIn dex= 2Full TextH ash= HasEn glish Record= TrueH asFre nchRe cord= TrueH asSpa nishR ecord= True. Accessed 18 Oct 2022 WIPO (2017) Key questions on patent disclosure requirements for genetic resources and traditional knowledge. World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO), 2nd edition. Geneva. https:// www. wipo. int/ edocs/ pubdo cs/ en/ wipo_ pub_ 1047_ 19. pdf. Accessed 18 October 2022 WIPO (2018) Guide to intellectual property issues in access and benefit sharing agreements. www. wipo. int/ publi catio ns/ en/ detai ls. jsp? id= 4329. Accessed 18 October 2022 WIPO (2019) Intellectual property and genetic resources. Briefing document No, 10. WIPO, Geneva. https:// www. wipo. int/ edocs/ pubdo cs/ en/ wipo_ pub_ tk_ 10. pdf. Accessed 18 October 2022 Wu L, Sun Q, Sugawara H, Yang S, Zhou Y, McCluskey K, Vasilenko A, Suzuki K-I, Ohkuma M, Lee Y, Robert V, Ingsriswang S, Guissart F, Philippe D, Ma J (2013) Global catalogue of microorganisms (gcm): a comprehen- sive database and information retrieval, analysis, and visu- alization system for microbial resources. BMC Genomics 14:933 Zhang H, Serwah Boateng NA, Ngolong Ngea GL, Shi Y, Lin H, Yang Q, Wang K, Zhang X, Zhao L, Droby S (2021) Unravelling the fruit microbiome: the key for developing effective biological control strategies for postharvest dis- eases. Compr Rev Food Sci F 20:4906–4930 Peter Mason chair of the IOBC Commission on Biological Control and Access and Benefit-Sharing, is a principal research scientist with Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada. He conducts research on biological control of arthropod pests and contrib- utes to developing biologically based regulatory oversight of biological control. He is an honorary member of the Interna- tional Organization for Biological Control. Martin Hill is distinguished professor and head of entomol- ogy at Rhodes University, Makhanda/Grahamstown, South Africa. His research interests include the biological control of invasive alien aquatic weeds and insect pests, as well as the development of microbial agents for the control of pests in cit- rus and other crops. David Smith is a microbiologist with 48 years’ service with CABI in the conservation and use of microbial diversity. He is the director of Biological Resources supporting Bioscience to develop and implement projects in microbiology. He  pub- lished over 200 scientific papers, articles and book chapters. He developed standards for the operation of biological resource centres in the UK for European projects and globally with the OECD. He leads a team of CABI Access and Benefit Sharing Champions in eleven countries, implementing best practice for compliance with the Nagoya Protocol. He is a past president of the World Federation for Culture Collections (2004-2010) and a fellow of the Royal Society for Biology. Luciana C. Silvestri is an environmental law researcher at the National Scientific and Technical Research Council (CONI- CET) in Argentina. She served as a legal and technical adviser https://www.undp.org/sustainable-development-goals#:~:text=The%20Sustainable%20Development%20Goals%20(SDGs)%2C%20also%20known%20as%20the,people%20enjoy%20peace%20and%20prosperity https://www.undp.org/sustainable-development-goals#:~:text=The%20Sustainable%20Development%20Goals%20(SDGs)%2C%20also%20known%20as%20the,people%20enjoy%20peace%20and%20prosperity https://www.undp.org/sustainable-development-goals#:~:text=The%20Sustainable%20Development%20Goals%20(SDGs)%2C%20also%20known%20as%20the,people%20enjoy%20peace%20and%20prosperity https://www.undp.org/sustainable-development-goals#:~:text=The%20Sustainable%20Development%20Goals%20(SDGs)%2C%20also%20known%20as%20the,people%20enjoy%20peace%20and%20prosperity https://doi.org/10.1007/s13313-019-0615-y http://www.cabri.org/guidelines/micro-organisms/M100Ap1.html http://www.cabri.org/guidelines/micro-organisms/M100Ap1.html https://docs.wto.org/dol2fe/Pages/FE_Search/FE_S_S009-DP.aspx?language=ECatalogueIdList=74743,70854,66392,71013,62129,56741,75819,47775,77543,71998CurrentCatalogueIdIndex=2FullTextHash=HasEnglishRecord=TrueHasFrenchRecord=TrueHasSpanishRecord=True https://docs.wto.org/dol2fe/Pages/FE_Search/FE_S_S009-DP.aspx?language=ECatalogueIdList=74743,70854,66392,71013,62129,56741,75819,47775,77543,71998CurrentCatalogueIdIndex=2FullTextHash=HasEnglishRecord=TrueHasFrenchRecord=TrueHasSpanishRecord=True https://docs.wto.org/dol2fe/Pages/FE_Search/FE_S_S009-DP.aspx?language=ECatalogueIdList=74743,70854,66392,71013,62129,56741,75819,47775,77543,71998CurrentCatalogueIdIndex=2FullTextHash=HasEnglishRecord=TrueHasFrenchRecord=TrueHasSpanishRecord=True https://docs.wto.org/dol2fe/Pages/FE_Search/FE_S_S009-DP.aspx?language=ECatalogueIdList=74743,70854,66392,71013,62129,56741,75819,47775,77543,71998CurrentCatalogueIdIndex=2FullTextHash=HasEnglishRecord=TrueHasFrenchRecord=TrueHasSpanishRecord=True https://docs.wto.org/dol2fe/Pages/FE_Search/FE_S_S009-DP.aspx?language=ECatalogueIdList=74743,70854,66392,71013,62129,56741,75819,47775,77543,71998CurrentCatalogueIdIndex=2FullTextHash=HasEnglishRecord=TrueHasFrenchRecord=TrueHasSpanishRecord=True https://docs.wto.org/dol2fe/Pages/FE_Search/FE_S_S009-DP.aspx?language=ECatalogueIdList=74743,70854,66392,71013,62129,56741,75819,47775,77543,71998CurrentCatalogueIdIndex=2FullTextHash=HasEnglishRecord=TrueHasFrenchRecord=TrueHasSpanishRecord=True https://www.wipo.int/edocs/pubdocs/en/wipo_pub_1047_19.pdf https://www.wipo.int/edocs/pubdocs/en/wipo_pub_1047_19.pdf http://www.wipo.int/publications/en/details.jsp?id=4329 http://www.wipo.int/publications/en/details.jsp?id=4329 https://www.wipo.int/edocs/pubdocs/en/wipo_pub_tk_10.pdf https://www.wipo.int/edocs/pubdocs/en/wipo_pub_tk_10.pdf 327Best practices in the use and exchange of microorganism biological control genetic resources 1 3 Vol.: (0123456789) to the Spanish Ministry of Environment for access and benefit- sharing (ABS) international negotiations. She was one of the experts contributing to the GEF UNEP IUCN Regional Pro- ject on ABS for Latin American and the Caribbean, where she focused on ensuring effective legal ABS frameworks and ade- quate institutional capacities in eight countries of the region. She also served as an expert to the Informal Advisory Com- mittee to the ABS Clearing-House of the Nagoya Protocol. She has extensive expertise in international cooperation, interna- tional negotiations, biodiversity protection and ABS. Philip Weyl is an entomologist with CABI since 2016 in the weed biological control section, working with existing biologi- cal control agents as well as developing new agents for release. He has been a CABI Access and Benefit Sharing Champion in Switzerland since 2018 and was part of the team to develop and have the Swiss centre best practice approved by the Federal Office of Environment (BAFU). He also serves on the Inter- national Organization for Biological Control (IOBC) Global Commission on biological control and ABS. Jacques Brodeur is a full professor at the Université de Montréal and director of the Institut de recherche en biologie végétale. He held the Canada Research Chair in Biological Control (2005-2020). He studies the biology and ecology of natural enemies used for biological control. A long-term goal of his research is to identify the governing ecological principles and mechanisms of multispecies interactions within arthropod communities, and to apply these principles to develop reliable and predictive biological control programs. He has been presi- dent of IOBC Global (2008-2012) and chair of the IOBC Com- mission on Biological Control and Access and Benefit-Sharing (2008-2016). Marcello Diniz Vitorino is a forest engineer and entomolo- gist from Universidade de Blumenau - Brazil, teaching and researching entomology, phytopathology and biological con- trol of weeds since 1998. Participating in several projects in the search and introduction for agents to control Brazilian weeds in many parts of the world, such as Florida, Hawaii, South Africa and Australia. He is a member of the Brazilian Entomologi- cal Society and a current articulator of the action to introduce biological control of weeds in the national strategy for invasive species in Brazil. Best practices in the use and exchange of microorganism biological control genetic resources Abstract Introduction The main challenges Microorganism use in biological control Natural biological control Conservation biological control Classical biological control Augmentative biological control Commercial biological control Exploration for microbial biological control agents Best practices for exchange of microorganism biological control genetic resources Collaboration to facilitate information exchange on microbial biological control agents Networks Institutionalorganisation practices Sharing knowledge on availability of microbial biological control agents Gaining access to microbial biological control agents through collaboration Collaborative research and opportunities for benefit-sharing Production technology and technology transfer considerations for use and exchange of microbial biological control agents Patenting and production Licensing production Conclusion Acknowledgements Anchor 24 References