The use of unsustainable levels of chemical fertilizers and plant protection chemicals has resulted in a steady decline in soil and crop productivity the world over. Soil biology has undergone irreversible damage, coupled with a high concentration of toxic chemical residues in plant tissues and human bodies. Agricultural practices must evolve to sustainably meet the growing global demand for food without irreversibly damaging soil. Microbial biocontrol agents have tremendous potential to bring sustainability to agriculture in a way that is safe for the environment. Biopesticides do not kill non-target insects, and biosafety is ensured because biopesticides act as antidotes and do not lead to chemical contamination in the soil. This article is part of a larger study conducted in Ukraine by researchers at the Université de Montréal with the support of Mitacs and Earth Alive Clean Technologies. The responses of farmers who use biofertilizers (“user farmers”) and those who do not (“non-user farmers”), along with the responses of manufacturers or suppliers of biofertilizers, and research and development (R&D) scientists are captured to demonstrate the advantages of applying microbial biopesticides to field crops. Participants reported a 15-30% increase in yields and crop production after the application of biopesticides. With the use of biopesticides, farmers cultivated better quality fruits, grains, and tubers with a longer shelf life. Moreover, while the risk of crop loss remains high (60-70%) with chemically grown crops, this risk is reduced to 33% on average if crops are grown using biopesticides. The findings indicate that a large proportion of farmers would prefer to use biopesticides if they are effective and high quality products. In this context, the quality and effectiveness of products is therefore very important. Despite their benefits to soil, human health, and ecosystems, biopesticides face significant challenges and competition vis-à-vis synthetic pesticides for a variety of reasons. Therefore, the development of biopesticides must overcome the problems of poor quality products, short shelf life, delayed action, high market costs, and legal/registration issues.

The long-term monitoring of the state of the freshwater ecosystem of the River Yenisei revealed the statistically reliable content of heavy metals (Fe, Zn, Cd, Cu, U, etc.) in the water, bottom sediments, phyto- and zoo-plankton, and muscle mass of commercial fish (benthos eaters, predators and herbivorous fish) consuming different types of food. The values of the indices of the ecological state of the Yenisei River were estimated to vary from 2.38 to 2.85. The total index of risk for the water, considering the reference doses, amounts to 0.16 for the water, and to 0.47 for the flesh of commercial fish. The total index of risk for the population consuming freshwater and fish from the Yenisei River amounts to IR=0.63. The obtained value of the index is, in general, of no danger for the population health. Though the carcinogenic substances were not accurately revealed, non-carcinogenic substances were estimated to the level of non-threshold risks. The non-threshold risks of non-carcinogenic substances was found 0.017, far lower than permissible limit 0.050. The ratio of reflectory-olfactory effects and total non-carcinogenic risk was found, respectively, 0.01 and 0.34. The integrated indictor was 0.35, which did not exceed the regulatory level (II≤1). Conclusively, the risks associated to various analyzed indicators did not exceed the permissible levels and did not require additional measures of monitoring the water quality.

The Nagoya Protocol on Access and Benefit Sharing (ABS) provides for the rights of indigenous peoples and local communities (ILCs) in accordance with the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (UNDRIP). States Parties are obliged to take legislative, administrative and technical measures to recognize, respect and support/ensure the prior informed consent of indigenous communities and their effective involvement in preparing mutually agreed terms before accessing genetic resources and associated traditional knowledge or utilizing them. Within the ambit of contemporary debates encompassing indigenous peoples’ right to self-determination, this paper examines the effectiveness of the percolation of the legal intent of international law into existing or evolving domestic laws, policies or administrative measures of the Parties on access and benefit sharing. Through an opinion survey of indigenous organizations and the competent national authorities of the Parties to the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD), the findings indicate that the space, recognition and respect created in existing or evolving domestic ABS measures for the rights of indigenous communities are too inadequate to effectively implement the statutory provisions related to prior informed consent, mutually agreed terms and indigenous peoples’ free access to biological resources as envisaged in the Nagoya Protocol. As these bio-cultural rights of indigenous peoples are key to the conservation and sustainable use of biodiversity, the domestic ABS laws need reorientation to be sufficiently effective in translating the spirit of international ABS law and policies.

No abstract

Sacred sites, or indigenous and community conserved areas (ICCAs), are repositories of biological and cultural diversity, the spaces de facto governed by Indigenous peoples or local communities. There are many thousands of these sites across the world, including sacred forests, wetlands, landscapes, village lakes, catchment forests, river and coastal stretches and marine areas. Though the backbone of sacred sites or ICCAs is the robust local governance system of Indigenous/customary institutions and their customary laws/rules, aspects such as institutional analysis, institutional governance, customary laws/rules and management systems are inadequately investigated. This article suggests how customary institutions or rules enable the underlying conservation functions of sacred sites or ICCAs and that due recognition and attention need to be given to indigenous protocols re ICCAs to enable the conservation of biological and cultural diversity. Through enabling legislation or policy, the customary institutions of traditional communities managing the sacred sites can be reinforced and restored. Relevance of sacred sites or ICCAs can be established in biodiversity conservation processes if the resilience of customary institutions and the ability of institutions withstanding external challenges are appreciated.