In April 2011, 13 experts from various continents where invited by the Mediterranean Science Commission (CIESM) to discuss how to respond to growing concerns over international negotiations on marine genetic resources (MGRs), which have great potential for wealth and business opportunities. They were moved mainly by the inability of governments to reach agreement – a very real threat to the pursuit of the current international activities aimed at conserving and utilizing MGRs.
They highlighted that, should international dialogue deteriorate, MGRs were at risk to loose their global market attractiveness, with clear implications for a potential loss of international public goods, and resulting threats to all countries as opportunities for increased scientific knowledge, value-added products and incentives for biodiversity conservation would be lost.
To make progress, the experts recommended in particular:
- placing the current debate in its historical context;
- comparing the existing (legal) instruments, so as to point out gaps and inconsistencies;
- Identifying the major stakeholders involved (i.e. research organizations, industrial representatives, governments/Ministries, Investors, NGOs, etc.) with possible focus on their interests and concerns.
In this film Frédéric Briand (CIESM) briefly summarizes the videoconference conclusions. He signals that the way forward is a balanced integration of global efforts – at WTO and UN levels – and regional studies (including field exercises) so as to complement general rules with more specific, contextual issues. CIESM foresees to set up targeted regional actions in the Mediterranean region, in collaboration with international partners. A number of sub-regional areas, suitable both for their biodiversity patterns and their socio-politic context, have been already identified.
View short videos on selected topics:
ABS Issues, challenges and actors: a Mediterranean Regional Perspective
In parallel to (preferably even before) delving into applied aspects related to Mediterranean biodiversity, there is a need to be acquainted with this biodiversity to the lowest levels of identification. This is the reason why we have just started with ’barcoding’ of the marine biodiversity along the coast of Israel. I would suggest to establish a network of Mediterranean barcoding projects, with tight dialogues, as the so called ‘a species’ in the Levant area may emerge, working on the molecular level, as a different species in Western parts of the Mediterranean.
Dear rinkevich, I share your view on the usefulness of networking Mediterranean “barcoding” projects. Other researchers have been soliciting an action in this regard. For example, Dr. Françoise DENIS, Muséum National d’Histoire Naturelle, Concarneau, France (fdenis@mnhn.fr) is responsible for an initiative that merges with the one you are carrying out. It would be worthwhile to explore synergies. I take advantage of this opportunity to highlight the important link that exists between mapping marine biodiversity and sustainable use of MGRs. This has been reiterated in various contexts. For instance, “any ABS agreement should include measures for tracing the geographic origin of organisms upon which patents are based, conservation and sustainable use” (see conclusion of recent UBC Panel, during the Annual Meeting of the AAAS held in Vancouver on Feb. 17: http://science.ubc.ca/news/598). Laura Giuliano, CIESM
I must say that da Costa has the right (and good) arguments about this topic. Maybe the debate could benefit from further ideas from checking out INBio, Costa Rica http://www.inbio.cr and how they have managed their genetic resources for at least 10 years to the benefit of both research and industry. This by implementing national legislations based on the CBD, the Nagoya protocol etc.
In addition, the work OECD is initiating on “Ocean productivity and sustainability” which will also address this issue is worthy of attention http://www.oecd.org/document/48/0,3746,en_2649_34537_49544368_1_1_1_1,00.html
Here in Norway, we are in the process of making national legislations to the best for the environment, research and industries, all based on relevant international conventions and national laws.
Placing the forum debate on this essential level is important for researchers and actors working on the protection, bioremediation and regulated exploitation of MGRs.
Based on the Mediterranean southern shore – a stakeholder in marine biotechnology – and speaking especially from a country recently moving to more democratic policies and higher socio-economic development, I have to say that, due to our rich marine biodiversity patterns, our wealth in MGRs is real (contrary to what some posts suggested) but is not well preserved by existing agreements. The Mediterranean Sea offers huge potential for biotechnological exploitation in terms of natural products (and this is tangible through the gray and white national publications). The international operating areas must comply with common principles of access and exploitation which we should establish by sitting down together. We must avoid a vacuum of IPRs and legal rules.
Cheers, Balkiss Bouhaouala
If we accept that some sort of rules to conserve marine environment, promote research and ensure fair sharing of benefits should be in place, can we be more specific about how these rules should look like? It is established that the model from terrestrial systems (of bilateral access-and-benefit-sharing agreements) cannot be replicated entirely in so far as activities take place in areas beyond jurisdictions of States. What elements should the ‘marine’ or ‘oceans model’ contain in terms of both access and output of research? Or, put differently, what are some of the features that it should avoid?
I was quite surprised, to say the least, by the comments of Dr. Juniper and I agree with those whose responded to his comments.
It seems to me that Kim Juniper must be aware of the scientific value and the biotechnological importance of marine genetic resources (MGR) especially since he does research on abyssal hydrothermal areas, which are by my reckoning, very marine. While I work primarily on fundamental microbiology, my colleagues and I have over the years found what appear to be valuable substances that are being used by very large companies. One type of research does not annul the other. MGR are important to me and others, not because of the money that can be made from them, but because of the sustainability of the biotechnological applications of these resources. This planet is being raped by industrialists and shareholders who know what is happening to the planet but are more interested in immediate capital gain. Maybe, just maybe, marine organisms can make a difference. There are many public examples of the value, if you wish, of products of organisms from environments mentioned in this discussion such as ectoine or the Pfu polymerase in research and industry, or products of value as detergent additives. Then there are the secret products that are sold by researchers to companies that not divulge where the genes came from. I think we know, at least, of one story of this type. At least, I know one.
This leads to the problem of regulation; I have seen with my own eyes the raping of hot springs by people, who had no permission to do so and who were intent on making a dollar back home. The publication output of researchers such as these is low, because the main interest is product development. Regulations do not hamper research, they impede piracy. So I fully agree with regulations that set up rules for the control of such resources. In this respect, CIESM is devoted to develop profits sharing when profits arise. The Mediterranean was about to be raped some years ago, were it not for CIESM.
In conclusion, marine organisms are necessarily different from terrestrial or fresh water organisms, for several reasons, foremost among them the fact that they have to cope with salt. Therefore, we can expect new products from MGR. Regulations are important to control unethical actions by the rich and famous, and they do not impede science.
If we consider biotechnology based on bacteria bioproduction as a reactor, then marine ecosystems provide an illimited number of bioreactors for delivering potential bioactives and genetic pathways for use in medecine, agriculture and bioremediation. The specificities of marine ecosystems should be considered by local scientists for debate and collaborations with regional organizations, professional associations (increasingly specialized groups) to promote and locally develop marine biotechnologies – they represent a main way for Biofutur around the world.
Apart from expressing skepticism over the value of marine genetic resources (MGRs), a viewpoint which is already countered by three previous replies, skjuniper touches upon an important point in the debate about MGRs – the purpose of a legal regime to regulate the activities. He claims that a regime would discourage research, which is directly the opposite of what a legal regime in this field aims to do.
The purpose of establishing common rules for MGRs is twofold. First, it aims to provide a basis for greater transparency and legal certainty, which should be beneficial for both providers and users of genetic resources. The second aim, no less important of course, is to ensure fair and equitable access to the resources and distribution of benefits arising from research. (Sarnaud points that currently there are large imbalances.) Fair rules for activities are all the more important, given that large parts of the oceans are legally under common ownership (equally belonging to all countries).
But it is well worth exploring why would the establishment of multilateral rules impede, rather than incite and promote research and sustainable use of MGRs? Is existence of a regime inherently detrimental, or is it the process of drafting the rules which raises doubts?
Topic raised by CIESM on the preservation and utilization of MGRs I found personally very actual and will attentively follow the discussion. Obviously, one could expect numerous “pro and contra” regarding the establishment of national legislations to protect their genetic resources which might complicate (or might not?) the current international research activities. But, at least, we have to identify all these “pro and contra” factors and discuss possible solutions/decisions.
Regarding the queries of skjuniper: Besides the references indicated by Daniel and sarnaud, I would recommend also to take a look on recent review on marine natural products published in Nat Prod Rep 2011, 28,196-268 (DOI: 10.1039/c005001f) and on these two websites:
http://www.microbialcellfactories.com/content/4/1/36
http://www.pharmamar.com/
In reference to points 1 and 2 raised by skjuniper, I would also suggest reading this review article:
“The Odyssey of marine pharmaceuticals : a currrent pipeline perspective ” by Alejandro M.S. Mayer er al. (2010)
cheers, Daniel
The overwhelming increase of the use of marine products in a variety of areas has been subject to such a numerous amount of publications those last years that I can only recommend in the foot of this post a subset of the most recent ones. This might hopefully help researchers dedicated to their own field to improve their understanding of the societal implications of marine research. As for regulation on access, whether we are happy with it or not, things are changing and some of us already have to deal with it. There is a large unbalance in the distribution of benefits derived from Genetic Resources. Some countries are tired of lying behind in the race and the reinforcement of national laws to comply with the CBD and avoid ‘biopiracy’ is we are or should become aware of in order to understand the world we live in and make sure it is the one we want and wish to leave the next generation with. The fact is that national legislations reinforced by some countries to protect their genetic resources already complicate processes to perform academic research or even conservation targeted expeditions. High Seas and the Areas Beyond National Jurisdiction still escape those rules, and I concur research is doing quite fine and easy to run for the moment being. I’ll be convinced it is perfectly healthy and international, particularly in those areas, when it will be opened to all the researchers interested in it worldwide, rather than restricted to the limited subset of countries that can actually access them easily for the moment being.
1. Arrieta J, Arnaud-Haond S, Duarte CM (2010) What lies underneath: Conserving the Ocean’s Genetic Resources. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 107: 18318-18324.
2. Leal MC, Puga J, Serôdio J, Gomes NCM, Calado R (2012) Trends in the Discovery of New Marine Natural Products from Invertebrates over the Last Two Decades – Where and What Are We Bioprospecting? Plos One 7: e30580.
3. Leary D, Vierros M, Hamon G, Arico S, Monagle C (2009) Marine genetic resources: A review of scientific and commercial interest. Marine Policy 33: 183-194.
4. Molinski TF, Dalisay DS, Lievens SL, Saludes JP (2009) Drug development from marine natural products. Nature Reviews Drug Discovery 8: 69-85.
5. Arnaud-Haond S, Arrieta JM, Duarte CM (2011) Marine Biodiversity and Gene Patents. Science 331: 1521-1522.
Reading this latest blurb from the CIESM leaves me shaking my head. Three points in particular merit comment:
1. Where is the “ample evidence that marine genetic resources can deliver CONSIDERABLE wealth….”?
2. “…our future drugstore and new energy sources”! Show me the data!
3. I would even be attempted to argue that “current international research activities” are doing just fine thank you very much in the absence of agreements on MGR and that regulatory regimes that would inevitably be part of the latter would serve to discourage research.
From: CIESM The Mediterranean Science Commission
Subject: Join the CIESM Forum on marine genetic resources
Marine biodiversity is under threat
There is now ample economic and scientific evidence that marine genetic resources can deliver considerable wealth and business opportunities in a sustainable way. And this is particularly true in the Mediterranean Sea where extreme ecosystems (deep sea habitats; hyper-saline environments; methane seeps; hydrothermal vents, etc) and their newly discovered microbial communities are easily accessible to both research and industry. There lies a good part of our future drugstore and new energy sources. The current inability of governments to reach agreement on the preservation and utilization of MGRs on the international stage signals a series of complex problems and growing conflicts: from the question of ownership to that of access and benefit sharing. Lack of agreement would present a very real threat to the pursuit of current international research activities in this sector and encourage unregulated destructive practices.