Biological prospecting: the ethics of exclusive reward from Antarctic activity

Abstract

Biological prospecting is being undertaken in the Antarctic and, as novel material starts to yield significantly higher commercial rewards, the Antarctic Treaty Consultative Parties might decide to regulate it through the Antarctic Treaty System. This will be problematic since activities are already being undertaken, patents have been filed and products developed. Furthermore, there are differing perceptions of the status of the Antarctic, with some considering it global commons and others considering it the common heritage of mankind. These 2 doctrines can be inferred from the rhetoric of the Treaty and its subsequent legal instruments through which human activities, including the use of resources, are managed. However, the Antarctic Treaty System does not support either in practice because activities such as fishing and bioprospecting already return an exclusive reward for effort, with no benefit-sharing arrangements. Under the Convention on the Conservation of Antarctic Marine Living Resources, the Parties determine allowable catches for a fishery based on scientific assessment, and this may discharge them from providing access and benefit-sharing arrangements to the international community potentially available through other international law (e.g. the Law of the Sea Convention or the Convention on Biological Diversity). The major turning point in Antarctica came when the Convention on the Regulation of Antarctic Mineral Resource Activities -which acknowledged the rights of the international community -failed to enter into force. Today the international community is rewarded with a relatively healthy Antarctic environment and free access to some scientific information, which are benefiting all mankind. But the international community does not get direct financial reward from Antarctic activities because access is constrained by law and by a lack of capacity. There is no mechanism for disbursing compensation to all mankind in any case, although the Antarctic Treaty Consultative Parties could certainly rectify this if they had the will to do so. So far they have not.

Research Handbook on Polar Law

“…27 In a related theme, others have noted the close connection between resolution of the bioprospecting question in Antarctica to resolution of questions surrounding Antarctica's global purported status as either a global commons or the common heritage of mankind. 28 Mirroring debates elsewhere in the world, ethical issues have been at the centre of debates in relation to bioprospecting in Antarctica, including who has the right to benefit from the utilization of Antarctic biodiversity. 29 However, in Antarctica there is an added dimension to these questions.…”

Shall the forthcoming Chinese Antarctic law be obligation‐oriented?

“…Of its own kind, Antarctica is a perfect target for number of reasons for not prohibiting marine resource exploitation. Activities such as collecting samples of biological material in the Antarctic are being undertaken on an increasing scale and for a range of potential applications (Jabour, 2010). All such activities shall be put under the legal system established by the CCAMLR, which was concluded under Article IX, paragraph 1(f) of the Antarctic Treaty in respect of the preservation and conservation of living resources in Antarctica.…”

“…Of its own kind, Antarctica is a perfect target for number of reasons for not prohibiting marine resource exploitation. Activities such as collecting samples of biological material in the Antarctic are being undertaken on an increasing scale and for a range of potential applications (Jabour, 2010). All such activities shall be put under , 2006).…”

Challenges for social impact assessment in coastal regions: A case study of the Tomakomai CCS Demonstration Project

“…Moreover, questions around long-term liability, transboundary issues, and ongoing scientific research into ecosystem effects (e.g. Grehan et al, 2009;Jabour, 2010; Proelss and Gussow, 2011) across a suite of new ocean technologies indicate rigorous SIA procedures are particularly important in a marine context Existing governance and decision-making processes for offshore developments may hence require further refinement to address the breadth and complexity of societal concerns engendered by marine environments. This paper thus takes Vanclay's (2012) principles for social impact assessment (SIA) in coastal management, and uses the case study of the Tomakomai CCS Demonstration project to draw out more specific challenges for undertaking SIA for offshore or coastal projects.…”