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 oth- ers 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, includ- ing 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 environ- ment and free access to some scientific information, which are benefiting all mankind. But the inter- national 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.

Highlights

  • 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 (Foster et al 2009, UNU-IAS 2009)

  • This paper explores whether Antarctica’s uniqueness excuses the Antarctic Treaty Consultative Parties (ATCPs) from access and benefit-sharing obligations that they might otherwise owe to the international community from an unowned area, for example the Southern Ocean seabed

  • The purpose of this paper is to explore the ethics of exclusive reward from Antarctic bioprospecting and the fundamental question relates to whether the Antarctic is global commons or its resources, the common heritage of mankind

Read more

Summary

Introduction

Activities such as collecting samples of biological material (bioprospecting) in the Antarctic (i.e. the continent of Antarctica and the Southern Ocean surrounding it) are being undertaken on an increasing scale and for a range of potential applications (Foster et al 2009, UNU-IAS 2009). Bioprospecting as it is currently being undertaken is raising interesting issues — the answers to which are not, so far at least, wholly satisfactory from an egalitarian point of view. It was reported recently that Antarctic bioprospecting has neither accepted definitions, nor clarity about jurisdictional scope, regulatory status, access arrangements, environmental implications, commercial use of material and information or benefit-sharing (Netherlands Government 2008). In common with many areas of the world, Antarctic bioprospecting is already happening, patents are being filed and products developed inside this management vacuum

Objectives
Findings
Discussion
Conclusion
Full Text
Published version (Free)

Talk to us

Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have

Schedule a call