Banking on a patent solution for sharing Antarctica’s ex situ genetic resources

• Main Author: Humphries, Fran
• Format: Book Part
• Language: English
• Published: Routledge 2018
• Subjects: Environmental and resources law; Antarctic; Griffith; The Antarctic; Antarc*
• Online Access: http://hdl.handle.net/10072/374451; https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315098517

Economic and conservation interests in Antarctica’s ex situ biological and genetic resources1 are converging to create a perfect regulatory storm. On the one hand, an increasing interest in Antarctica’s genetic resources for commercial purposes2 could be expected to thrive in the absence of comprehensive access and benefit sharing (ABS)3 obligations under the Antarctic Treaty System. On the other hand, efforts towards the conservation of migratory aquatic genetic resources4 are hampered by a lack of coordination between and among ex situ gene banks or repositories. A growing concern is that the genetic resources that the ex situ gene banks hold in physical and digital forms, including the ones that are originally from the Antarctic Treaty Area, may be impacted by a complex array of national ABS regimes. At the heart of the regulatory storm is the global territorial approach to ABS that does not sit comfortably with the unique governance arrangements concerning the Antarctic Treaty Area. Many Consultative Parties to the Antarctic Treaty Consultative Meeting (ATCM)5 are taking a wait-and-see approach to the possible regulation of Antarctica’s ex situ genetic resources under the proposed United Nations’ Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS)6 on the conservation and sustainable use of marine biological diversity in areas beyond national jurisdiction (New Instrument).7 Meanwhile, recipients and providers, including gene banks, of Antarctica’s ex situ genetic resources must determine on a case-by-case basis whether a resource is subject to national ABS obligations. This chapter shows that the answer can depend on the location and the purpose of the use of, and the temporal link between, the physical and the digital resource in question. This creates a level of confusion and complexity that has the potential to undermine the objectives and principles of the Antarctic Treaty.8 Arts, Education & Law Group, Griffith Law School No Full Text