Suchergebnisse

Evidence from DNA‐analysis is commonplace in human criminal investigations, and while it is increasingly being used in wildlife crime, to date, its application to control and enforcement activities in fisheries and aquaculture has only been sporadic. Contemporary DNA‐analysis tools are capable of addressing a broad range of compliance issues, species identification, mislabelling of fish products, determining the origin of catches and the farm of origin of aquaculture escapees. Such applications have the potential to ensure traceability along the fish product supply chain and to combat consumer fraud and Illegal, Unreported and Unregulated fishing. Nevertheless, DNA‐analysis is not yet used routinely in investigations into compliance with fisheries and aquaculture legislation. One potential reason for this is that DNA‐analysis techniques may have been regarded as too expensive. However, costs have plummeted over the past decade prompting us to objectively assess whether the costs associated with routine use of DNA‐analysis techniques for fisheries and aquaculture control and enforcement activities do constitute an impediment. Based on a number of recent fisheries and aquaculture compliance investigations that incorporated DNA‐analysis, our results indicate that the use of genetic analysis was justified and worthwhile in all cases examined. We therefore conclude that the costs associated with DNA‐analysis do not represent a barrier to the routine adoption of DNA‐analysis techniques in fisheries and aquaculture compliance investigations. Thus, control and enforcement agencies should be encouraged to use such techniques routinely. ; publishedVersion

Evidence from DNA‐analysis is commonplace in human criminal investigations, and while it is increasingly being used in wildlife crime, to date, its application to control and enforcement activities in fisheries and aquaculture has only been sporadic. Contemporary DNA‐analysis tools are capable of addressing a broad range of compliance issues, species identification, mislabelling of fish products, determining the origin of catches and the farm of origin of aquaculture escapees. Such applications have the potential to ensure traceability along the fish product supply chain and to combat consumer fraud and Illegal, Unreported and Unregulated fishing. Nevertheless, DNA‐analysis is not yet used routinely in investigations into compliance with fisheries and aquaculture legislation. One potential reason for this is that DNA‐analysis techniques may have been regarded as too expensive. However, costs have plummeted over the past decade prompting us to objectively assess whether the costs associated with routine use of DNA‐analysis techniques for fisheries and aquaculture control and enforcement activities do constitute an impediment. Based on a number of recent fisheries and aquaculture compliance investigations that incorporated DNA‐analysis, our results indicate that the use of genetic analysis was justified and worthwhile in all cases examined. We therefore conclude that the costs associated with DNA‐analysis do not represent a barrier to the routine adoption of DNA‐analysis techniques in fisheries and aquaculture compliance investigations. Thus, control and enforcement agencies should be encouraged to use such techniques routinely.

The 196 parties to the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) will soon agree to a post-2020 global framework for conserving the three elements of biodiversity (genetic, species, and ecosystem diversity) while ensuring sustainable development and benefit sharing. As the most significant global conservation policy mechanism, the new CBD framework has far-reaching consequences- it will guide conservation actions and reporting for each member country until 2050. In previous CBD strategies, as well as other major conservation policy mechanisms, targets and indicators for genetic diversity (variation at the DNA level within species, which facilitates species adaptation and ecosystem function) were undeveloped and focused on species of agricultural relevance. We assert that, to meet global conservation goals, genetic diversity within all species, not just domesticated species and their wild relatives, must be conserved and monitored using appropriate metrics. Building on suggestions in a recent Letter in Science (Laikre et al., 2020) we expand argumentation for three new, pragmatic genetic indicators and modifications to two current indicators for maintaining genetic diversity and adaptive capacity of all species, and provide guidance on their practical use. The indicators are: 1) the number of populations with effective population size above versus below 500, 2) the proportion of populations maintained within species, 3) the number of species and populations in which genetic diversity is monitored using DNA-based methods. We also present and discuss Goals and Action Targets for post-2020 biodiversity conservation which are connected to these indicators and underlying data. These pragmatic indicators and goals have utility beyond the CBD; they should benefit conservation and monitoring of genetic diversity via national and global policy for decades to come. ; Supplementary material: Tables S1 and S2 and Fig. S1 compile estimates of Ne/Nc from several reviews and new data. ; The EU Framework Horizon 2020 through the ...