Implementation of Access and Benefit Sharing in The Bahamas: A Precautionary Tale

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

See comments in attached review

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

There were no comments from Reviewer 1. Please see the attached document for responses for Reviewers 2 and 3.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The article examines the negative impact of the recently implemented Access and Benefit Sharing (ABS) regime on scientific research and biodiversity conservation in The Bahamas. Although designed to regulate the use of genetic resources and ensure equitable benefit-sharing, the current ABS framework is hampering essential academic and conservation efforts. The key challenges include poorly drafted legislation with punitive damages (financial and criminal), a highly bureaucratic and inefficient permitting process, and unsustainable registration fees. These obstacles are discouraging researchers, diverting funding, and damaging the country’s relationships with the international scientific community.

I have some concerns about how the article is structured. I believe it needs to be better reviewed and organized. The authors include sentences with information that should be integrated into the text rather than placed as meaningless statements at the end of paragraphs. Additionally, being a review, much more relevant literature should be provided.

I believe this review needs a major overhaul to be worthy of publication. It seems there is a strong intent and valuable information that can be utilized, but the authors need to make a greater effort for this article to have impact on the scientific community.

Please, revise all my suggestions in the attached pdf.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Comments on the Quality of English Language

 Minor editing of English language required.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Dear authors,

I read your manuscript with great interest. 

The topic you highlight is indeed of large interest to the scientific community as well as to decision makers, whom should bring home several relevant messages. 

However, the manuscript need some work to be improved, especially in the form (see my comments on the English) and in the format (literature especially is not cited correctly following the instructions for the authors of Conservation).

As far as the content is concerned, while I agree on most of the statements of the manuscript, I have some doubts on what you write in the paragraph starting at line 167. Given that “taxonomic and conservation related non-commercial data” can be shared without the need for government permission, it seems to me that data anf findings related to research are not being restricted at all. Maybe you should rewrite this paragraph, highlighting that the restriction is posed to commercial data, and whether this is an issue for basic and applied research, and for conservation in the Bahamas. I can see the iussue, but it should be explained better, IMHO.

Paragraph 4.2, especially at the beginning, is quite hard to read. Sentences as that in lines 236-7 and that at line 240-1 should be explained and supported. You do that later in the paragraph and in the subsection, but a reader could be confused reading them in the current text. Maybe this part could be rearranged to improve readability and understandability of the text.

Best regards.

SM

 

Comments on the Quality of English Language

The English is mostly correct, but often the sentences are a little bit too long and convoluted. The manuscript could, in my humble opinion, greatly benefit for a revision to make it more smoother to the reader.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The authors have properly addressed my suggestions, and I believe the article can be published. I would like to thank the authors and the editor for giving me the opportunity to review this article.

Author Response

Thank you for helping to improve the manuscript.