Revisiting Bioprospecting in the Southern Ocean in the Context of the BBNJ Negotiations

Abstract

This article revisits marine bioprospecting in the Southern Ocean in the context of the efforts to develop an international legally binding instrument (ILBI) under the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea on the conservation and sustainable use of marine biological diversity in areas beyond national jurisdiction. After briefly introducing the Antarctic Treaty System (ATS), this article examines the extent to which the ILBI will likely spatially overlap with the ATS. As the next step, it is highlighted that future provisions on marine genetic resources (MGRs) in the ILBI might substantively differ from the way the ATS currently regulates bioprospecting. Based on that, the final section reflects on how the ILBI will normatively and institutionally relate to the ATS.

The Voice of Science on Marine Biodiversity Negotiations: A Systematic Literature Review

“…Furthermore, research discusses overarching themes such as convergence and divergence in the negotiations (Humphries and Harden-Davies, 2020;Wang and Chang, 2020), ocean resilience to climate change and other human activities (Yadav and Gjerde, 2020), science-policy interfaces (Gaebel et al, 2020), the interplay between institutional frameworks (Balton, 2019;Clark, 2020;Gardiner, 2020;Haas et al, 2020a;Nickels, 2020;Papastavridis, 2020), dispute prevention and settlement (Payne, 2020;Shi, 2020), pathways for strengthening monitoring, control and surveillance in ABNJ (Cremers et al, 2020), the relevance of traditional knowledge (Mulalap et al, 2020) and first ideas to grant non-state actors rights to represent the interests of humanity (Payne, 2020) and nature rights on its own on the global scale (Harden- when governing the global commons.…”

Reflecting on the Role of the Arctic Council vis-à-vis a Future International Legally Binding Instrument on Biodiversity in Areas Beyond National Jurisdiction

“…As a conflict clause, 41 Article 4(3) would determine the normative and institutional relationship between the ILBI and other relevant instruments, frameworks and bodies. 42 In its current form, Article 4(3) notably uses the term undermine and if the final conflict clause in the ILBI does so as well, the term undermine and its interpretation will be of continuing relevance.…”

Data_Sheet_1.pdf

“…Furthermore, research discusses overarching themes such as convergence and divergence in the negotiations (Humphries and Harden-Davies, 2020;Wang and Chang, 2020), ocean resilience to climate change and other human activities (Yadav and Gjerde, 2020), science-policy interfaces (Gaebel et al, 2020), the interplay between institutional frameworks (Balton, 2019;Clark, 2020;Gardiner, 2020;Haas et al, 2020a;Nickels, 2020;Papastavridis, 2020), dispute prevention and settlement (Payne, 2020;Shi, 2020), pathways for strengthening monitoring, control and surveillance in ABNJ (Cremers et al, 2020), the relevance of traditional knowledge (Mulalap et al, 2020) and first ideas to grant non-state actors rights to represent the interests of humanity (Payne, 2020) and nature rights on its own on the global scale (Harden- when governing the global commons.…”