Blue genes : sharing and conserving the world's aquatic biodiversity 9781552501573, 1552501574, 9781844071050, 1844071057, 9781844071067, 1844071065, 9781849770606

Table of contents :
Content: List of Photographs, Figures and Boxes
Preface
Acknowledgements
List of Acronyms and Abbreviations
Overview
A Note on the Case Studies
1 The Gene Rush: Finding New Value in Aquatic Biodiversity
2 Managing Aquatic Genetic Resources: Tools and Policy Gaps
3 Whose to Share? Ownership and Control of Aquatic Resources
4 Thinking Locally: Rights of Indigenous and Local Communities
5 Acting Globally : National Laws on Access to Aquatic Resources
6 Results that Count: Meaningful Benefits for Fishing Communities
7 Putting Principles into Practice
Notes
References
Index.

Citation preview

Blue Genes: Sharing and Conserving the W orld’s Aquatic Biodiversity

Blue Genes: Sharing and Conserving the W orld’s Aquatic Biodiversity D a v id Greer a n d B ria n H arvey

SHSIIEISHHE] L o n d o n • S terlin g , VA

International D evelopm ent Research Centre O tta w a • C a iro • D a k a r • M o n te v id e o • N a iro b i • N ew D elh i • S in gapore

First p ublished in the U K , USA an d C a n a d a in 2 0 0 4 by E arthscan an d the In te rn a tio n a l D e v e lo p m e n t Research C e n tre ( I D R C ) C o p y rig h t © D a vid G reer and Brian Harvey, 2004 All rights reserved IS B N :

1 - 8 4 4 0 7 - 1 0 6 - 5 p apcrback 1 - 8 4 4 0 7 - 1 0 5 - 7 hardback

T ypesetting by Saxon G rap hics, Derby, U K Printed and b o u n d in the U K by C ro m w ell Press, Trow bridge C ov er design by Gillian H arvey For a full list o f pu b lic atio n s please contact: E arthscan 8 - 1 2 C a m d e n H ig h Street L ondon, N W l 0JH , UK Tel: +44 (0)20 7 3 8 7 85 5 8 Fax: +44 (0)20 7 3 8 7 899 8 Email: ea rth info@ earth scan .c o.uk Web: w w w .e a rth s c a n .c o .u k 2 2 8 8 3 Q uicksilver D rive, Sterling, VA 2 0 1 6 6 - 2 0 1 2 , USA E arthscan publishes in association w ith W W F - U K a n d the In te rn a tio n a l In stitu te for E n v iro n m e n t an d D e v e lo p m e n t In te rn a tio n a l D e v e lo p m e n t Research C e n tre P O Box 8 5 0 0 , O tta w a , O N , C a n a d a K 1 G 3 H 9 p u b @ id rc .c a /w ww.idrc.ca A catalogue record for this bo o k is available from th e British Library Library o f C ongress C ata lo g in g -in -P u b licatio n D a ta Greer, D avid (D avid Scton) Blue genes: sharing an d conserving the w o r ld s aq uatic biodiversity / D av id G reer an d Brian H arvey p. cm. In cludes bibliographical references an d index. ISBN 1 - 8 4 4 0 7 - 1 0 6 - 5 ( p b k . ) - I S B N 1 - 8 4 4 0 7 - 1 0 5 - 7 (hardback) 1.

A quatic genetic resources c o n s e r v a ti o n - G o v e r n m e n t policy. 2. A q uatic genetic

re s o u rc e s-E c o n o m ic aspects. I. Harvey, Brian J. II. Title. Q H 7 5 . G 7 1 75 2 0 0 4 3 3 3 . 9 5 ’16 ’09 l 6 - d c 2 2 2003022768 Printed on elem ental chlorine-free paper

Contents

List o f Photographs, Figures a n d Boxes Preface Acknowledgements List o f Acronyms a n d Abbreviations

vii ix xi x ii

Overview A N ote on the Case Studies

1 15

1

2

3

4

T h e G en e Rush: Finding N ew Value in A quatic Biodiversity W h y is genetic diversity so im portant? T h e blue revolution: U nlocking the secrets o f aquatic genetic resources Expanding commercial uses for aquatic genetic resources Indigenous views on valuing nature Case study 1. T h e law o f u n intend ed consequences: Conserving the o rnam ental fish industry in Barcclos, Brazil

23 24 29 32 53

M an ag in g Aquatic G en etic Resources: Tools and Policy G aps Conserving aquatic genetic diversity - still a new idea for fisheries m a nagem ent Banking blue genes: Collections o f aquatic genetic resources Access to aquatic genetic resources collections M anaging aquatic genetic resources: Filling the policy vacuum Global initiatives for improved m an age m ent o f aquatic biodiversity Case study 2. N o policy, no access? A salmon farmer’s frustrated efforts to collcct genetically pure broodstock

61

W h o se to Share? O w n e rs h ip and C o n tro l o f A quatic Resources O w nersh ip o f aquatic genetic resources: Agreements and claims T h e price o f invention: Intellectual property law and aquatic genetic resources W h o owns traditional knowledge? Biopiracy: Plain dealing or patent theft? Case study 3. An indigenous c o m m u n ity says no: N egotiating access to charr broodstock in no rth ern C anada T h in k i n g Locally: Rights o f In dig eno us and Local C o m m u n itie s Traditional co m m u n ity practices and biodiversity conservation Indigenous views on the collection and use o f aquatic genetic resources: A workshop in C anada

54

62 66 71 75 82 84 89 91 98 102 105 110 113 114 1 21

vi

BLUE GENES

T h e knowledge knot: Traditional knowledge and access to aquatic genetic resources N o knowledge, no benefits? T h e shortcomings o f Article 8(j) Case study 4. G enetic im provem ent o f farmed tilapia: Lessons from the G IF T project 5

6

7

Acting Globally: N atio nal Laws on Access to Aquatic Resources T h e collector’s c o n u n d ru m : W h a t ’s the law? Fine-tuning the C B D : T h e B onn Guidelines N ational and regional approaches to access laws C om parative analysis: H ow the new laws deal with access to genetic resources in com m unities M aking benefit sharing work: Responsibilities o f industrial countries Using fisheries certification to sup p o rt access laws Case study 5. C o m m u n it y rights vs research chill: T h e Philippine experience with access and benefit-sharing legislation

127 134 135

143 144 147 149 151 161 163 166

Results th a t C o u n t: M ean in gfu l Benefits for Fishing C o m m u n it ie s Blue gold or fools' gold? Prospects for benefit sharing Sharing benefits fairly with com m unities A h a n d o u t or a hand up? Royalties vs n on -m on etary benefits Linking sustainable livelihoods to conservation Setting the stage for effective negotiations Case study 6. Shaping negotiation tools: A marine bioprospecting agreement in Fiji

179 180 183 186 189 195

P u ttin g Principles into Practice Access and benefit-sharing laws: A work in slow progress Aquatic biodiversity managem ent: Filling policy gaps T h e four 'policy pillars’ o f ABS legislation A checklist for designing access and benefit-sharing policies

201 202 203 208 211

Notes References Index

196

213 215 227

List of Photographs, Figures and Boxes

P hotographs Cardinal tetra fisherman, Rio Negro, Brazil Salmon gene banking in bear country, British C o lum bia Returning a dourado to the Taquari River after D N A sampling, Coxim , Brazil Farmed catfish, Brazil Sorting ornam ental fish after the n igh t’s catch, Rio Negro, Brazil Farmed Atlantic salmon broodstock, British C o lu m b ia Fishing family with traditional fish trap, M arituba wetlands, Brazil Artisanal fisherman and his family, Sao Francisco River, Brazil

1 23 61 89 113 143 179 201

F ig u r e 7.1

T h e policy foundation for access and benefit-sharing legislation

208

B oxes 1.1 1.2 1.3 1.4 1.5 1.6 1.7 1.8 2.1 2.2 3.1

Lost Stocks: T h e D eclining G enetic Variability o f Pacific Salmon W h a t Is the Difference Between Biological and Genetic Resources? Breeding Fish Collecting Aquatic G enetic Resources: A Primer for Policy Makers G enetic Modification: Better Fish or Foul Play? C o n e Snails: Potent Painkillers in Pretty Shells U nderwater Chemical Warfare and the Rise o f G enetic Databases Medicinal Uses o f Aquatic Plants and Animals Protecting the G enetic Diversity o f Pacific Salmon T h e Value o f Science Plant Precedents on Sharing G enetic Resources: T h e International Treaty on Plant G enetic Resources for Food and Agriculture 3.2 T h e Wapishana G o to C ourt: T h e Case o f the Fish Killing Plant 3.3 Biopiracy Debates in Brazil

28 31 35 37 40 48 48 52 64 81 97 103 108

viii

4.1 5.1 5.2 5.3 5.4

BLUE GENES

M anaging Fisheries Abundance: Traditions o f the N u u -c h a h -n u lth in British C o lum bia C o m p arin g Laws: Defining the Scope C o m p arin g Laws: C o m m u n it y Right to C o n sen t C o m p arin g Laws: Academic vs C om m ercial Uses C o m p arin g Laws: Sharing Benefits with Indigenous and Local C o m m u n ities

115 152 154 158 160

Preface

T h e i m p a c t o f bio te c h n o lo g y can be c o m p a r e d to th a t o f the Industrial Rev olution two centuries ago. N o w h e r e is this m o re evi den t t h a n in the food a n d d r u g i n d u s ­ tries. G e n e ti c m o d ific a ti o n o f crops has b e c o m e so c o m m o n p l a c e th a t a wide variety o f p r o d u c ts in an average s u p e r m a r k e t n o w contains ingre dients p r o d u c e d or affcctcd by gcnctic enginee ring. T h e d e v e l o p m e n t o f m a n y p h a r m a c e u tic a l p r o d u c t s results from b i o t e c h n o lo g i c a l m a n i p u l a t i o n o f the gcnc tic codes for natural p lan t c o m p o u n d s . T h e in tern a tio n al trade in genetic resources is significant. T h e global m a r k e t for phar m aceuticals alone is m o re th a n U S $ 3 0 0 billion a year. Like the Industrial Revolution , the b io te c h n o lo g y revolution has created a d e m a n d by corpora tions for access to the resources o f s o u th e r n co un tr ies —w ith the difference t h a t genetic resources (genetic material c o n t a i n i n g the f u n d a m e n t a l units o f heredity) rather th a n n a tu ral resources (timber, minerals, fish) are the prize today. For their part, countries p rovid in g genetic resources have n’t forgotten the price paid by m a n y s o u th e r n cou ntr ies d u r i n g and before the Industrial Revolution: colonization by E u r o p e a n countries. C o n t r o l over access to p l a n t genetic resources a n d sharing in the benefits from their use are extraordinarily sensitive issues. In the rush to develop global policies t h a t deal with access to genetic resources, aquatic animals a n d plants have largely been overlooked. In te rn atio n al agreements such as the C o n v e n t i o n on Biological Diversity ( C B D ) a n d the A g r e e m e n t on Trade-related Aspects o f Intellectual P ropert y Rights ( T R I P S ) have been largely dr iv e n by ag ricultu ral a n d p h a r m a c e u t i c a l age nd as , a n d have t e n d e d to treat aquatic m atters as an afte rt h o u g h t. T h e same tre n d appears to be o c curri ng in the d e v e l o p m e n t o f nation al strategies for biodiversity m a n a g e m e n t a n d o f laws reg u­ lating access to gcnctic resources. P lant genetic resources have received far m o re press tha n aquatic ones for good reason: scientific u n d e r s t a n d i n g and c o m m er cial use o f aquatic genetic resources lag decades b e h in d their p la n t co u n ter p arts . But this s itua tion is c h a n g in g fast. A lt h o u g h industrial-scale a q u a c u lt u r e was virtually u n k n o w n 30 years ago, it’s no w predicted tha t m ore than 40 per ce nt o f global food fish p r o d u c t io n will co m e from farms by 2 0 2 0 . Similarly, b io p ro s p e c tin g for m ar in e o rga nism s w ith value for ph a rm aceutical o r industrial applications lags far b e h i n d terrestrial b i o p ro s pecting - b u t the ques t for the holy grail o f a cancer cure is a pow erful incentive for increased activity. M e an w h ile , the natur al capital o f aquatic genetic diversity is rapidly being er oded by overfishing a n d d e v e lo p m e n t , with species disa pp earing before they are even k n o w n to h u m a n s . W h i l e it is true th a t certain aspects o f biodiversity an d genetic resources policy can apply equally to plants or fish, significant differences need to be taken into a c c o u n t as well. For example, whereas seed co m p a n ie s can collect their genetic

X BLUE GENES

resources from international gene banks, fish farmers generally rely on wild p o p u ­ lations to replenish their broodstock. T h e very different nature o f aquatic genetic resources (for example, hidden, migratory, publicly accessible) raises ownership issues that may be different from those know n to the plant world. C o m m u n itie s in the areas where aquatic genetic resources are likely to be collected may have no traditional knowledge th at is useful to fish farmers or pharm aceutical companies yet som e co un tries’ laws make the sharing o f useful trad ition al know ledge a prerequisite for a c o m m u n ity ’s right to benefit from providing access to genetic resources. These and m any other distinctions between plant and aquatic genetic resources deserve consideration by policy makers. In addition, the vacuum in policies for the m anagem ent and conservation o f aquatic biodiversity needs to be addressed before countries begin to contem plate p u ttin g access regulations in place. This book offers an analysis o f policy gaps and proposes approaches at the international, national and c o m m u n ity levels to providing a foundation for the conservation and sharing o f aquatic biodiversity.

A cknowledgements

Dedication B lue Genes is dcdicatcd to the m e m o ry o f C h u s a Gines, w ho w orked indefatigably to p ro m o te the sustainable use o f gcnctic resources from the developing world. C h u sa agreed w ith us th a t aquatic genetic resources are as i m p o r t a n t as terrestrial ones, and she was a key figure in p ro m o ti n g and o b ta in in g I D R C approval for the Blue Genes project. C h u sa died in a plane crash in the A ndes in 2002.

Acknowledgements We w o u ld like to express o u r thanks to th e Inte rn atio n al D e v e lo p m e n t Research C e n tre in O tta w a for fu n d in g the research an d w riting o f this book. Every bo o k needs a believer. Blue Genes could n o t have been c o m p le ted w ith o u t th e u n fa ilin g s u p p o r t , e n c o u r a g e m e n t an d p a ti e n c e o f I D R C ’s B rian Davy. Thanks, Brian. M a n y people were generous in prov idin g th e in fo rm atio n and assistance we needed to develop the case studies th a t illum inate the them es addressed by Blue Genes. W e w ou ld particularly like to th a n k the following: W illiam Aalsbersberg, University o f the S o uth Pacific; E p h raim Batungbacal, T a m b u y o g D e v e lo p m e n t C enter; N in g Labbish C h a o , U niversidade do Am azonas; Gisela C o n c e p c io n and Lourdes C ru z, M arin e Science Institute, U niversity o f the Philippines; Elenita D a n o , S o uth East Asian Regional In stitu te for C o m m u n i t y E d ucation ; T im o th y Flem ing, Icy Waters Ltd; M o d a d u g u G u p ta , W orld Fish C en ter; Sandy Jo h n so n , Fisheries a n d O c e a n s C a n a d a ; C larissa M a r te , S o u th E a st Asia Fisheries D e v e lo p m e n t C enter; Jiji Rodriguez, G I F T F o u n d a tio n ; Michael T lu sty and Scott D o w d , N ew E n gland A qu ariu m ; and Bill V ernon, Creative Salm on Ltd. O t h e r s w h o p ro v i d e d in v a lu a b le i n f o r m a t i o n an d ad vice in c lu d e Yogi Carolsfeld, W o rld Fisheries Trust; Keith D a v e n p o rt, O r n a m e n t a l A quatic Trade Association; Fred Fortier, Shuswap N a tio n Fisheries C o m m iss io n ; Rainer Froese, W orld Fish C en ter; Lyle G low ka; M ichael H a le w o o d , G e n etic Resources Policy Initiative; Paul H o lth u s , M arin e A q u a riu m Intern atio nal; Steven King, S h am a n P h a rm a c e u ti c a ls ; H e a t h e r M a c A n d r e w ; D o n M cA llister, O c e a n Voice In tern atio n al; Bob M cF etridge, C a n a d ia n Biodiversity C o n v e n ti o n Office; Jeff M cN eely, I U C N ; A n n a Rosa M a r tin e z Prat; R oger P u llin, fo rm erly w ith the W orld Fish C enter; Calvin S a n d b o rn ; Krystyna Swiderska, Intern atio na l Institute for E n v ir o n m e n t and D ev elo p m e n t; and A m a n d a V in cen t, Project Seahorse.

xii

BLUE GENES

We are also grateful to the participants o f a w orkshop that we organized in British C o lu m b ia to discuss indigenous peoples’ views on the use and sharing of aquatic genetic resources: D ennis Ablcson, Carrier-Sekani Tribal Council; Robert Fritzchse, Gitxsan Hereditary Chiefs; Crystal Ross and M ark Bowler o f the Haisla Nation Fisheries C o m m ission; G lenn Barner, Nisga’a Tribal C o un cil Fisheries Program; Dave M oore, Shuswap N ation Fisheries C o m m iss io n ; Carl Sidney, Yukon Salmon C o m m ittee; Juanita Sidney, Teslin-Tlingit Fisheries Program; and Joey Amos and Burton Ayles, N o rthw est Territories Fisheries Joint M anag em en t Comm ission. We are in d e b te d to Rob West, R u th M ay o, Je n n ife r Poole and C am ille Adamson o f James & James/Earthscan and to Bill C arm a n of ID R C for their efforts in bringing Blue Genes to publication, and to C arm e n Ross o f W orld Fisheries Trust for form atting several drafts of the book. David Greer Brian Harvey

List o f Acronyms and Abbreviations

A A D IS AKVAFORSK A S EA N BGRRP CBD CBFM CGRFA C G IA R C ITES COP D A D IS DFO DNA EEZ E T C G ro u p FAMI FARM C FAO FIN G E R FSC G IFT G R A IN IA C B G R IBAMA IC L A R M ID RC IN G A IP G R I IPRs IR R C IU C N MAC MSC M SI N B SA P

A quatic A nim al Diversity In fo rm atio n System Institute o f A q u a cu ltu re Research o f N orw a y Association o f S o u th East Asian N a tio n s Biodiversity a n d G enetic Resources Research P ro g ram m e (W orld Fish C entre) C o n v e n tio n on Biological Diversity C o m m u n it y - b a s e d Fisheries M a n a g e m e n t C o m m iss io n on G en etic Resources for Food and Agriculture C onsu ltativ e G ro u p on Inte rn atio n al Agricultural Research C o n v e n tio n on In tern a tio n a l Trade in E nd an ge red Species o f W ild Flora and Fauna C o n feren ce o f the Parties (to the C o n v e n ti o n on Biological Diversity) D o m estic A n im a l Diversity In f o rm a tio n System D e p a r tm e n t o f Fisheries and O ceans, C an a d a deoxyribonucleic acid Exclusive E c o n o m ic Z o n e E rosion, T ech no lo gy an d C o n c e n tra tio n G ro u p F isherm an ’s Association o f Malalison Island Fisheries and A quatic Resource M a n a g e m e n t C o u n c il U N F ood a nd Agriculture O rg an iz atio n Fisheries In fo rm a tio n N e tw o rk on G en etic Resources Forest Stew ardship council G e n etic Im p ro v e m e n t o f Farm ed Tilapia G cnc tic Resources A ction Intern atio nal In ter-A gency C o m m it te e on Biological an d G en etic Resources In stitu to Brasileiro do M eio A m b ie n te e dos Recursos N aturais Renovaveis In tern atio n al C e n te r for Living A quatic Resources M a n a g e m e n t I n tern atio n al D e v e lo p m e n t Research C e n tre In tern atio n al N e tw o rk on G enetics in A q uacu lture Intern atio n al P lant G e n e tic Resources Institute intellectual p ro perty rights In tern atio n al Rice Research Institute In tern atio n al U n io n for the C on se rv atio n o f N a tu re M a r in e A q u a riu m C o u n cil M a rin e Stew ardship C o u n cil M arin e Science Institute, Philippines N a tion al Biodiversity Strategy and Action Plan

xiv

BLUE GENES

NGO OAU SB SEAFDEC SEARICE S ID R SPACHEE SBSTTA T R IPS UNCED UNCLOS UPOV USP W FT W IP O WTO WWF

non-governmental organization O rganization o f African Unity Smith Kline Beecham South East Asia Fisheries D ev elo pm ent C enter South East Asian Regional Institute for C o m m u n it y Education Strathclyde Institute o f D ru g Research South Pacific Action C o m m itte e for H u m a n Ecology and E nv iron m en t Subsidiary Body on Scientific, Technical and Technological Advice Trade-related Aspects o f Intellectual Property Rights United N ations Conference on E n viro nm ent and D evelopm ent United N ations C o nv entio n on the Law o f the Sea International U nion for the Protection o f New Varieties of Plants University o f the South Pacific World Fisheries Trust W orld Intellectual Property O rganization W orld Trade O rganization W orld W ide Fun d for N ature

Overview

C a r d in a l tetra fis h e r m a n , R io N egro, B r a z il (p h o to b y D a v i d Greer)

2

BLUE GENES

T he

gene r u sh :

Finding new value in aquatic biodiversity T h e genetic m a n i p u l a t i o n o f u n d e r w a t e r life represents a q u a n t u m leap forward in h u m a n s ’ use o f aqua tic biodiversity. Every year, scientists discover new ways an d new reasons to transfer genes n o t only betw een different fish species, b u t also b e t w e e n m u c h m o r e d i s t a n t l y r elated o r g a n i s m s . T h e c r e a to rs o f th e S u p e r S a l m o n , a transgenic Atlantic salm on th at c ontain s the genes o f an Arctic f lo unde r a n d grows several times faster t h a n wild stocks, have applied for US F oo d an d D r u g A d m i n i s tr a tio n approval to m a r k e t their inven tion to A m erican co ns um e rs ( M oore, 2 0 0 0 ) . Fish genes have been transferred to fruits to m ak e th em m o r e frost resistant (Specter, 2 0 0 0 ) , an d insect genes have been inserted into fish in an effort to incr ea se disease re sis ta nce ( F l e t c h e r et al, 1 9 9 9 ) . In 2 0 0 3 , an A m e r i c a n c o m p a n y secured regulatory approval to m a r k e t the GloFish - a vivid, artificially fluorescent o r n a m e n t a l fish created by injecting th e eggs o f zebra fish with a sea a n e m o n e gene ( G o n g et al, 2 0 03). T h e creation o f transgenic varieties is the m o st d r a m a t ic o f several types o f use o f genetic resources - genetic material c o n t a i n i n g functiona l units o f heredity (eg eggs, s per m , D N A ) . Fish biologists also use m o re c o n v e n tio n a l selective breeding - c o m b i n i n g the eggs a n d sperm from different p o p u la t io n s o f the same species to im pro ve farm ed stocks. For example, genetically im pro ved tilapias developed from b r o o d sto ck collected in Africa are now widely farm ed in S ou th east Asia’. G o v e r n m e n t fisheries agencies, co r p o ratio n s and even some in dig enous c o m m u ­ nities have s t a r t e d ‘b a n k s ’ o f c r y o g e n i c a l l y frozen fish s p e r m to facilitate c o m m e r c i a l b r e e d i n g a n d s toc k r e b u i l d i n g , a n d to p r o v id e i n s u r a n c e aga inst extinctions. M e an w h ile, researchers hired by p h a rm aceutical co m p a n ie s c o n t i n u e to collect a n d analyse m a r in e o rganism s whose c hemical c o m p o u n d s c ou ld provide the clues n e e d e d for the i n v e n t i o n o f a n t i - c a n c e r dru g s, painkillers or a h o s t o f o t h e r medicinal products. D e e p in the ocean recently discovered bacterial c o m m u n i t i e s in h y d r o th e r m a l vents are bei ng tested for the ability o f their enzymes to convert h a r m f u l ch emicals to safer derivatives, e n a b l in g the clean up o f oil spills an d hazard ous wastes ( Glowka , 1998a). T h e stakes are high. G lo b al sales o f p harm ac eu tica ls exceed U S $ 3 0 0 billion a year (Laird, 2 0 0 2 ) . T h e global share o f food fish p r o d u c t io n from a q u a c u l tu r e is projected to rise to 41 per cen t in 2 0 2 0 , up from 31 per c e n t in 1997 (D el gad o et al, 2 0 0 3 ) . T h e interest a m o n g a q u a r i u m hobbyists in E urope, J ap an a n d N o r t h Am er ica in c ult ure d o r n a m e n t a l fish w ith never-before-seen colours a n d m ar kings is huge. T h e variety o f raw m ater ial for genetic m o d if ic a t io n o f a quati c life is vast, i n c l u d i n g fish g e r m p l a s m a n d s o m a t i c cell D N A , tissue s a m p le s o f m a r i n e or gan isms such as snails or sponges to be screened for useful chemical c o m p o u n d s , even aquatic plants and bacteria. In som e cases, pha r m a c e u tic a l co m p a n i e s have succeeded in r e du cing th e a m o u n t s o f raw materials nee ded t h r o u g h technologies such as chemical r e c o m b in a tio n , while the m o s t c o m m o n o r n a m e n t a l species such as n e o n tetras have been bred in captivity t h r o u g h so m a n y gen er ations t h a t there

OVERVIEW

3

is little if an y need for wild broodst ock . W h i l e its n o t clear precisely h o w great the d e m a n d for aquatic genetic resources will be in the future, the explosion in new uses suggests th at it will increase significantly. W h a t is clear is tha t the trade in aquatic genetic resources requires clear policy direction. T h e r e are m a n y players w ith different and s o m e tim e s c o m p e t i n g p r io r ­ ities. C o m m e r c i a l an d aca dem ic researchers need to k n o w the rules for o b t a in in g access to the raw material in the wild, and so do the local c o m m u n i t i e s w he re the resources m a y be fo u n d . C o m p l i c a t i n g the task o f dev elo ping wo rkab le access policies is the fact th a t the real e c o n o m ic value o f genetic resources lies n o t in the physical material b u t in the knowled ge o f ho w to use it. Users o f genetic resources - a fish farmer w h o invents a new strain, a pha r m a c e u ti c a l c o m p a n y t h a t develops a n e w d r u g - p r o t e c t th eir k n o w l e d g e w i t h a p a t e n t . B u t w h o p r o te c t s the k now ledg e o f an in d ig en o u s c o m m u n i t y tha t a collector m a y nee d to speed the process o f dev elo ping an ‘in v e n t i o n ’? S h ould genetic resources a n d the tra ditional knowled ge o f their uses be valued separately in n egotiations for access? I f so, w h a t ’s a fair price for each? C o u n tr ie s a r o u n d the w o r ld are g r a p p l in g w ith q u e s ti o n s like these as th e y struggle to develop laws to regulate access to genetic resources. O n e ques ti on they usually overlook, b u t w h ic h is b e c o m i n g m o r e a n d m o r e relevant as new uses o f aquatic g e n e tic reso ur ces p r o li f er ate, is: w h a t differ en ce s b e t w e e n a q u a t i c a n d p l a n t genetic resources do access rules nee d to take into account?

GENE DRAIN: H a lt in g th e ero sio n o f g e n e tic d iversity To m a n y o f us, newly a n n o u n c e d p r o d u c ts o f genetic enginee ring can seem m ir a c ­ ulous, o u t la n d is h and s o m e ti m e s fri g h te n in g . All th e d e v e l o p m e n t s described above have h a p p e n e d in the last 20 years, usually in the absence o f clear regulatory f ra m ew orks. It’s h a r d to p r o p e rly regulate new practices w i t h o u t fully u n d e r ­ s t a n d i n g t h e i r l o n g - t e r m c o n s e q u e n c e s . S c ien tists s t u d y i n g b i o d i v e r s i t y m a n a g e m e n t repeatedly call for the application o f the pr e c a u ti o n a ry princ iple in the use o f aquatic biodiversity (Bartley a n d Pullin, 1999), b u t it takes a lot to conv inc e g o v e r n m e n t s o f the need for long-t erm risk assessment in the face o f s h o r t - te r m e c o n o m i c pressures. G o v e r n m e n t s even shy away fro m m a k i n g the small in v e stm e n t th a t it w o u ld take to b a n k fish germ pla sm as insu ran ce against extinctions, fearful th a t such an initiative m i g h t im ply t h a t they d o n ’t adeq ua tel y m an ag e risks to fish p o p u l a tio n s ( Har ve y et al, 1998). G e n e ti c diversity w ith in species is the f o u n d a t io n for aq uaculture, p h a r m a c e u ­ tical d e v e l o p m e n t a n d for all the o t h e r existing a n d p o te n tia l uses o f aq uat ic genetic resources, in a d d i tio n to bei ng valuable in its ow n right. T h e m o re genetic diversity there is w ithin a species, the greater the likelihood o f characteristics that may s o m e day be invaluable for i m p r o v e m e n t o f farm ed stocks. For example, each o f the six species o f Pacific s alm o n c ontains several h u n d r e d stocks, a small n u m b e r o f w hich are curre ntly considered com m er ci al ly valuable. S al m on are sensitive to m i n u t e ch anges in ocean te m per ature s . A stock t h a t is capable o f a d a p tin g to w a r m e r tem p er atu res p r o d u c e d by climate ch an ge m i g h t be invaluable for a q u a ­

4

BLUE GENES

culture in the future - provided science knows o f its existence and it doesn’t join the hundreds of stocks that have already become extinct, unable to survive hightech harvesting practices or the habitat impacts o f logging, mining, damm ing, agricultural run o ff or urban development. ‘Sustainable dev elop men t’ has been a catchphrase for governments around the world since the United N ation’s (U N ) Brundtland report made it popular in the late 1980s ( W C E D , 1987). However, w itho ut concerted government action and corporate buy-in, the natural capital needed for biotechnology will continue to erode at an alarming rate. M an y more marine species could be close to extinction by 20 50 if more isn’t done to stem the increasing impact o f high-technology harvesting, especially in the deep sea (Pauly, 2003). One-fifth o f freshwater fish species is considered to be extinct or endangered (Heywood, 1995). Science may have a better understanding today o f the effects o f h u m a n activities on aquatic life, b u t governments and other stakeholders still need to find the determination and resources to reduce those effects. Somewhat ironically, the wide publicity given to advances in genetic sciences and to new inventions such as the GloFish stands in sharp contrast to the lack of knowledge ab o u t aquatic biodiversity. Aquatic science in general lags be hind terrestrial sciences in identifying species, under standing ecosystem relationships and assessing potential uses for genetic resources. C o m m u n i tie s o f life on the ocean floor are the least-understood ecosystems on the planet. T h e deep sea alone may contain 10 million species that have yet to be described (Norse, 1993), and perhaps only 45,000 o ut o f a million freshwater species have been identified (McAllister et al, 1997). Every year, some aquatic species become extinct before science has even become aware of their existence. Too often, the underwater world has been out of sight, o ut of mind when it comes to funding basic science and developing policies for biodiversity m an ag em en t and conservation. W h e n a rain­ forest is clear cut, the world takes notice; b ut when a trawler scours away all the seabed life in its path, there’s no one to see.

C o nserving

a n d sh aring aquatic bio diversity :

Filling policy gaps New uses o f aquatic biodiversity require new policy approaches. T h e introduction or expansion of food fish aquaculture, for example, creates the need for policy makers to consider a wide variety of issues such as environmental impacts of fish farming, potential health risks to consumers of genetically modified products, access by fish farmers to wild broodstock and transfers of live broodstock from their ecosystems of origin, research into the different genetic characteristics of different wild stocks and conservation of wild genetic diversity. T h e 1992 C onv en tion on Biological Diversity (CBD ), signed by 188 countries (the handful that have not signed includes the US) links these diverse policy issues t h r o u g h its three objectives: the conser vation o f biological diversity; the sustainable use o f its c o m p o n e n ts ; and the fair and equitable sharing o f the benefits derived from the use o f genetic resources. T h e C B D provides guidelines

OVERVIEW

5

f or n a t i o n a l policies a n d laws. M o s t c o u n t r i e s are still a l o n g w a y f r o m i m p l e ­ m e n t i n g t h e m b e c au s e o f t h e c o m p l e x i t y o f c r e a t i n g l egislation t h a t is clear, w i d e l y s u p p o r t e d a n d e n f o r c e a bl e . D e v e l o p i n g p o l i c y a p p r o a c h e s t h a t a c c o m m o d a t e b o t h c a p t u r e f isheries a n d a q u a c u l t u r e p r e s e n t s a c h a l l e n g e f or p o l i c y m a k e r s . G o v e r n m e n t s ar e p a y i n g i n c r e a s i n g a t t e n t i o n to a q u a c u l t u r e , b u t p o l i c y d e v e l o p m e n t h a s l a rge l y b e e n r eactive - f o c u s i n g o n p u b l i c c o n c e r n s t h a t a t t r a c t t h e m o s t p ubl i c i t y , s u c h as e n v i ­ r o n m e n t a l i m p a c t s a n d g e n e t i c m o d i f i c a t i o n . T r a di t i on al l y, m a n a g e r s o f w i l d f i sh­ er i e s h a v e b e e n p r e o c c u p i e d w i t h t h e m a n a g e m e n t o f fish s t o c k s o f g r e a t e s t i m p o r t a n c e to c o m m e r c i a l fisheries. S o m e t i m e s t h a t h as m e a n t c a s t i ng a b l i n d eye to t h r e a t s to o t h e r s t o c ks t h a t m a y possess i m p o r t a n t g e n e t i c m a te r i a l. A n d it is o n l y w i t h i n t h e p a s t d e c a d e t h a t t h e t r u e e x t e n t o f g e n e t i c var ia bi l i t y w i t h i n species h a s e v e n b e e n a p p r e c i a t e d . C o n s e r v i n g t h e w i l d g c n c t i c d i v e r s i t y n e e d e d to s u p p o r t s u s t a i n a b l e c a p t u r e f isheries a n d a q u a c u l t u r e a n d to m a i n t a i n h e a l t h y a q u a t i c e c o s y s t e m s m e a n s f o c u s i n g o n all s t o c k s , n o t j u s t t h o s e w i t h c u r r e n t econom ic importance. Access t o g e n e t i c r eso ur ce s o f p l a n t s h as b e c o m e a n i m p o r t a n t p o li c y issue in m a n y c o u n t r i e s . As f o o d fish a q u a c u l t u r e e x p a n d s a n d t h e d e m a n d f or w i l d b r o o d s t o c k increases, clear policies o n access n e e d to be in pl a ce f or a q u a t i c g en e t i c r es o ur ce s as well. F o r t he s e policies to w o r k , c o u n t r i e s will n e e d to s u p p o r t t he r esear ch n e e d e d f or b e t t e r s c i ent ifi c u n d e r s t a n d i n g o f a q u a t i c e c o s y s t e m s a n d will n e e d to d e v e l o p s o u n d policies f or t he m a n a g e m e n t o f a q u a t i c g en e t i c diversity. I n t e r n a t i o n a l a g r e e m e n t s s u c h as t h e U N F o o d a n d A g r i c u l t u r e O r g a n i z a t i o n ( F A O ) C o d e o f C o n d u c t f or R e s p o n s i b l e F i s h e r i e s a n d t h e U n i t e d N a t i o n s C o n v e n t i o n o n t he L a w o f t h e Sea ( U N C L O S ) h a v e p r o v i d e d a useful s t a r t i n g p o i n t f o r a p p r o a c h e s to s u s t a i n a b l e m a n a g e m e n t o f a q u a t i c b i o d i v e r s i t y , b u t n a t i o n a l laws w i t h t e et h are m u c h in nee d.

W h o s e t o share?

Ownership and control of aquatic resources S o u t h e r n c o u n t r i e s w i t h t h e r i c h e st c o n c e n t r a t i o n s o f b i o d i v e r s i t y are usu a l l y t he p r im a r y providers o f genetic resources, an d n o r t h e r n co u n tries w ith highly d e v e l o p e d t e c h n o l o g i e s are t h e p r i m a r y users. T h i s a p pl ie s p a r t i c u l a r l y to c r o p e n h a n c e m e n t ( t h r o u g h g e n e t i c m o d i f i c a t i o n o f p l a n t c h a r act er is t i cs ) a n d to t he d ev e lo p m e n t o f pharm a ce u tic al an d industrial products th r o u g h screening o f p l a n t a n d m a r i n e s a m p l e s f or b i o l o g i c a l ef f ects. I t ’s less t r u e o f a q u a c u l t u r e , p r i m a r i l y b e c a u s e fish are m o s t successful ly b r e d in c o n d i t i o n s t h a t m o s t closely a p p r o x i m a t e t he i r o r i g i na l h a b i t a t s - e i t h er in t h e s a m e c o u n t r y o r at s i mi l a r l a t i ­ t u d e s - a n d t e m p e r a t e r e g i o n s ha v e t h e i r s h ar e o f p o t e n t i a l l y useful a q u a t i c b i o ­ diversity. Before the 1990s, gen etic resources were generally c o n s id ered c o m m o n p r o p er t y , available to all t akers. T h e n e g o t i a t i o n o f t h e C B D led to s o m e h a r d b a r g a i n i n g . D e v e l o p i n g c o u n t r i e s n o t e d t h a t t h e r e s p o n s i b i l i t y f or c o n s e r v i n g

6 BLUE GENES biological diversity would fall primarily on their shoulders, both because it is most heavily concentrated in the south and because m an y nor th e rn countries have already made use of or used up their own natural assets (Atlantic cod stocks being a case in point). Southern countries insisted on recognition of national sovereignty over natural resources as a condition o f signing the Conv en tion, thus ensuring control over access. (The Law o f the Sea, which was also negotiated in the early 1990s, extends a country’s sovereignty beyond its coastline to a maximum o f 22.2 km and creates a 321.8 km Exclusive Ec onomic Zone with exclusive exploration, exploitation and m an ag em en t rights. Beyond that is the high sea, with open access rights.) National sovereignty over natural resources provides only a limited measure of control. To commercial users of genetic resources, physical possession o f genetic material is usually secondary to the big prize: the patent on the resulting invention (for example, an improved fish strain or process for creating a drug). T h e World Trade O r g a n iz a tio n ’s ( W T O ) pressure on developing countries to agree to a universal intellectual property law system in return for trade benefits has generated considerable concern am o n g developing countries that it’s an a ttem pt to bypass their hard-won national sovereignty over genetic resources (Seiler and Dutfield, 2002). According to some critics, the W T O agreement on Trade-related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPS) is noth in g more than an extension of the ‘biopiracy’ that led to developing countries’ deman ds for control over access to their genetic resources in the first place.

T h in k in g locally : R ights o f in d ig en o u s and local co m m u n ities T h e first peoples naturally gravitated to areas with the greatest natural abundance; consequently, coastal and inland aquatic biodiversity is most richly concentrated in the traditional territories of indigenous peoples. T h e ‘ecosystem approach’ that has recently come into favour in natural resource m an ag em en t planning is a scien­ tific validation o f what was once a spiritual belief system for many indigenous peoples. T h e C B D recognizes the importance of restoring and maintaining tradi­ tional ecosystem m an ag em en t practices of indigenous and local com munities as an import an t tool for conserving biological diversity. Obviously, this is easier said than done. M any traditional communities have long since lost control over their lands and resources and, as a consequence, have seen a gradual erosion o f their cultures, ecological knowledge and traditional livelihoods. In addition, the tradi­ tional fisheries of some coastal fishing com munities continue to be depleted by commercial offshore fleets. Today, fishing comm un ities are am on g the poorest in the world, and poverty is a big barrier to conservation. For a poor fisherman in the Philippines, the choice between using illegal fishing methods and feeding his family is no choice at all. Th r o u g h international agreements such as the C B D and U N Draft Declaration on Indigenous Rights, there is greater recognition than ever before of the rights of indigenous and local communities to control over land, natural resources and the

OVERVIEW

7

use o f traditional knowledge. However, translating principles into practice at the n ational level is a very h a r d sell indeed. C a n a d a a n d Australia have been engaged for years in tre a ty -m aking w ith in d ig en o u s peoples; a n d a few o th e r nations, such as the Philippines a n d Bangladesh, have enac ted co m p r eh en siv e c o m m u n i t y rights legislation. M o s t countries, however, have a d o p t e d a wait-and-see at titude, while intern a ti onal discussions on the details o f i m p l e m e n t i n g the C B D c o n t in u e . A pa rt f ro m th e in e v i ta b l e t e n s i o n s b e t w e e n d i f f e r e n t levels o f g o v e r n m e n t (local, regional, national) over c ontrol over natural resources m a n a g e m e n t , the needs o f the p o o r d o n o t always c o n f o r m wit h the goals o f the powerful. T h e C o n v e n t i o n takes a tentative step tow ards the rec ogn ition o f c o m m u n i t y rights. Article 8(j) encourages parties to the c o n v e n tio n to en co urag e the sharing o f benefits from the use o f genetic resources w it h in d ig en o u s a n d local c o m m u ­ nities whose k now ledge c o n tr ib u te s to th a t use. T h e logic b e h i n d this provision is t h a t users o f p lan t genetic resources (for example, seed co m p a n ie s a n d p h a r m a c e u ­ tical com panies) d e p e n d on access to traditional knowledg e a b o u t crop strains or m edicin al uses o f plants. T h e same c a n n o t be said o f users o f aq uat ic genetic resources. A g r icu ltu r e dates back several t h o u s a n d years; the h istory o f a q u a ­ culture, with the notable exception o f C h i n a , can be m ea su re d in decades. W h ile local fish ermen m ay have extensive familiarity wit h the habits o f aquatic life, this type o f k now ledge m ay be irrelevant to fish farmers or scientists dev elo ping new strains o f c u l t u r e d fish. Similarly, p h a r m a c e u t i c a l researchers p r o s p e c t i n g for m ar in e or ganism s m ay be look in g for seabed creatures for w h ic h local c o m m u ­ nities have no tra dition al uses. For national g ov er n m en ts , the logic o f linking c o m m u n i t y rights over access to gene tic resources to t r a d it i o n a l k n o w l e d g e is readily a p p a r e n t : in d iv id u als or g r oups have the right to con tr ol th e use o f their ideas. However, nation states own biological resources (apart from those on private lands) in their physical state, and the C B D calls on parties to the co n v e n tio n to facilitate access to genetic resources. Providing m o re far reaching rights to c o m m u n i t i e s m i g h t simply create regulatory c o n f u s i o n a n d i n s u r m o u n t a b l e barriers to access, in a d d i t i o n to e r o d i n g the s tren gth o f n ational sovereignty for w hi ch dev elo ping coun tr ies fo u g h t so har d d u r in g the C B D negotiations. Industrial countries are even less inclined to ex pan d c o m m u n i t y rights over gcnctic resources. W h i l e m u c h d e p e n d s on variations in political systems, d e m o cr ati c g o v e r n m e n ts are n o t necessarily any m o r e likely t ha n oth er form s o f g o v e r n m e n t to view expansion o f c o m m u n i t y rights favourably. At the most, c o m m u n i t i e s m ay be given the o p p o r t u n i t y for ‘c o n s u lt a t io n ’ or ‘i n p u t ’ in the d e c is io n - m a k in g process. I n d ig e n o u s g ro u p s have d ivided views a b o u t th e C B D . S o m e c o n s id e r the q ues ti on o f right to c o n s e n t to access to genetic resources to be se co ndar y to a m o r e f u n d a m e n t a l issue: r ights to o w n e r s h i p o f a n d c o n t r o l over biological re so u r c e s in t h e i r t r a d i t i o n a l te r r it o r ie s . W h y , t h e y ask, s h o u l d i n d i g e n o u s c o m m u n i t i e s need to negotiate access to s o m e t h i n g that is theirs already? In 1993, the D r a ft U N Declaration on the Rights o f I n d ig e n o u s Peoples c o n f i rm e d their right to: ow n , develop, control a n d use the lan d a n d territorieSy including the total

8

BLUE GENES

environm ent o f the lands, air, waters, coastal seas, sea ice, flora a n d fau n a a n d other resources which they have tradition ally ow n ed or otherwise occupied or used. In 2 0 0 1 , the I n te rn a t io n a l I n d ig e n o u s F o r u m on Biodiversity declared th a t the 1993 U N D eclar atio n represented the m i n i m u m acceptable s ta nda rd , and t h a t the recognition o f the rights o f indigenous peoples is necessary to create the trus t ne eded to m ee t the C B D objective o f access a n d benefit sharing (IIFB, 2 0 01). S o m e i n d ig e n o u s group s have called for an o u t r i g h t ban on b io p ro s p e c tin g w h ile h u m a n r ig h ts issues r e m a i n u n r e s o l v e d . A n d s o m e cyn ics say t h a t indigenous c o m m u n i t i e s tha t drive a har d bargain m ay be merely h o l d i n g o u t for an illusory p o t o f g o l d ’. Diversity o f m o ti v a t io n a n d o f political ag en da is as m u c h a characteristic o f in d ig en o u s groups as o f any s am pling o f h u m a n societies. But m oti vation is really irrelevant. For access laws to be effective in the long run , som e reconciliation between the claims o f in d ig en o u s rights m o v e m e n t s and the reluc­ tance o f g o v e r n m e n t s to recognize th e m will be essential.

A c t i n g globally : T ow ards n a tio n a l law s o n access to aq u atic resources Each o f the 188 signatories o f the C B D is expected to i m p l e m e n t the C o n v e n t i o n th r o u g h n ational laws and policies tha t set the rules for access to genetic resources a n d lay the g r o u n d w o r k for negotiation o f benefits in return . A b o u t 50 countries are at various stages o f d e v e l o p m e n t o f these laws a n d policies. T h e small h a n d f u l o f p o s t - C B D laws that are already in place (all in s o u th e r n countries) take a variety o f appr oa ch es to the m a n a g e m e n t and sharing o f biodiversity. For example, while the Philippines a n d Brazil have enacted laws specific to access and benefit sharing, C o s ta Rica a n d In dia have e m b e d d e d access a n d b enef it-s har ing provisions in c o m p r e h e n s i v e b i o d i v e r s i t y m a n a g e m e n t laws. Access rules typically cover d o m e st ic as well as in tern a tio n al collections, w ith m o re s tr ingent rules for foreign applicants. For go od reason, m o st co un tr ies have been taking a go-slow a p p r o a c h , waiting for f u rt h e r guida nc e from C B D i m p l e m e n t a t i o n bodies a n d from regional associ­ ations such as the Association o f S o u th East Asian N a tio n s (AS EAN), while care­ fully observing the experience o f the first coun tr ies o u t o f the starting gate. Som e s o u th e r n countrie s have been hes itant a b o u t setting rigorous access require m ents tha t m ay result in a loss o f business if collectors o f genetic resources ( o rn a m e n t a l fish, for example) can get w h a t they w a n t in countrie s with looser regulations. W h a t the go-slow a pproach m ean s is th a t fisheries m an ag er s in m a n y countries, states a n d pr o v in c e s m a y n o t yet have h e a r d o f th e C B D , t h o u g h t h e y will u n d o u b t e d l y feel its effects in due course. R eg ulat ory obstacles to research arc a serious c o ncern for b o th co m m c r c ia l an d a ca dem ic collectors an d one o f the m o s t difficult challenges for policy makers. For c o m m e r c i a l collectors, th e negotiated price o f access to genetic resources m u s t be w ith in reason, a n d the ability o f collectors to pay d e p e n d s very m u c h on the use o f

OVERVIEW

9

the resource, the type of benefit to be negotiated, and the sheer time and effort it takes to negotiate. A pharmaceutical co m pan y needs to consider that the odds of developing a marketable drug from a collected sample might be one in 10,000 or lower. Similarly, an aquaculture c o m pan y collecting wild broodstock may have little idea of the likelihood o f achieving a desired commercial result. O n e reason why the C B D takes such pains to mention no n - m o n e ta ry benefits such as technology transfer is that royalties may be an em pty promise, while a significant u p ­ front paym en t may be intolerably burdensome for a commercial collector who is making nu m er ous collections, sometimes in several countries. In addition, devel­ oping countries have been anxious to acquire the technologies that will enable them to further their own research and development expertise in the use o f genetic resources. Academic researchers generally have far less capacity than corporations to make generous deals with communities for access to genetic resources. Yet basic research such as taxonomy is vital to a better understanding of the aquatic world. Drafters o f access laws have been struggling to develop effective ways to streamline the approval process and to ease regulatory barriers to academic research, with limited success. For several years after the Philippines passed the world s first access law in 1995, approval o f access app lica tions from b o t h c o m m er cial a n d ac ademic researchers came to a virtual halt. Part of the challenge that legislative drafters face is that it may be difficult to draw clear lines between commercial and academic research. Pure academic research can lead to unexpected commercial applications, academic institutions arc becoming increasingly dep en den t on corporate financial support, and many academics cross the line into commercial activities. Th is is as true for aquatic-oriented businesses such as aquaculture or the development of cancer drugs as it is for plant-based research. A related challenge is how to define in law the rights of traditional com munities to provide or withhold consent to applications for access to genetic resources. W h a t is an indigenous or local community? W h o speaks for it? H ow m uch infor­ mation and understanding does a co m m u n it y need to be capable o f providing prior informed consent to collections? W h a t are the m i n im u m standards, if any, for reaching agreement with communities? Should the law distinguish between biological resources and gcnctic resources? Docs it matter whether or not the co m m u n ity has traditional knowledge that the collector needs? T h e latter issue in particular is problematical for the regulation o f access to aquatic genetic resources. Understandably, given that the use of aquatic genetic resources is barely beginning, the development of national access laws appears to have been largely based on the premise that ‘genetic resources’ means plant genetic resources - and that collectors need traditional knowledge along with the resource. A proposed Peruvian law assumes the provision of traditional knowledge to be a prerequisite for the right to benefit sharing; the Philippines law requires consent with or w ithou t traditional knowledge (but has been difficult to implement); and the federal Brazilian law is ambiguous. Defining c o m m u n it y rights to consent to the use of genetic resources presents an enorm ous challenge for developing and developed countries alike; dealing with aquatic genetic resources issues simply adds another wrinkle to an already complicated task.

10

BLUE GENES

It has largely fallen on the shoulders o f developing countries to lead the way in the form u latio n o f access an d b enefit-sharing laws. N o r th e r n countries, as the users, have less incentive to create a level playing field. T h e C B D calls on all parties to ensure equitable access and benefit-sharing a rrangem ents. Industrial countries could help to do so by requiring applicants for p atents involving genetic m o d ifi­ cation to d e m o n s tra te th a t genetic resources have been acquired in co m p liance w ith C B D principles a n d the laws o f th e provider country. In term s o f aquatic genetic resources, this w ou ld apply particularly to the collection o f o rn a m e n ta l fish and o f m arine o rganism s for p harm aceuticals research. In a d d itio n , certification pro g ram m e s m ig h t provide a useful c o m p l e m e n t to access an d benefit-sharing laws by e nsu rin g th at collectors o f aquatic genetic resources have m e t app ro priate standards. Certification p ro g ram m e s have proven to be a highly effective m eans o f p ro m o tin g responsible forest practices, and recently have been ad ap te d to capture fisheries u n d e r the auspices o f the M arin e Stew ardship C ou nc il.

R esults

that c o u n t :

Meaningful benefits for fishing communities It is in all o u r interests th at ag reem ents for access to aquatic genetic resources p ro m o te the sustainable use o f aquatic genetic resources an d the conservation o f aquatic genetic diversity. It m ay n o t be en o u g h for g o vern m e n ts merely to set m i n im u m standards for the neg otiation o f fair agreem ents w ith fishing c o m m u ­ nities. W h ile it will be up to c o m m u n itie s to d e term in e in each instance w h at benefits are satisfactory, go ve rn m en ts could help ensure pro du ctiv e negotiations (and thereby facilitate access) by, for example, providing negotiation training and dev elop in g policy a pp roach es to s u p p o r t a w ide range o f m o n e t a r y a nd n o n ­ m o n e tary benefits. T h e prom ise o f royalties m ig h t be seductive for c o m m u n itie s with little u n d e r ­ s ta n d in g o f the od ds against the d e v e lo p m e n t o f a m arketable p ro d u c t (roughly estim ated to be one in 10,000 in p h arm aceu tical research). U p -fro n t an d periodic pay m ents are financial alternatives if collectors are willing to take the gam ble th at th e y ’ll pay off. Local p eop le m ay also gain som e financial benefit if they arc e m p lo y e d in the collection o f aq u a tic genetic resources. T h e C B D an d som e national laws suggest th a t financial benefits should be used in ways th a t p ro m o te so u n d biodiversity m a n a g e m e n t. W h a t m ig h t these be? F u n d in g for basic social needs such as health care and schooling, while it may n o t appear to be directly related to biodiversity m a n a g e m e n t, m ay be the m ost i m p o r t a n t step o f all in increasing the capacity o f c o m m u n itie s to develop conservation-based economies. Healthy, e ducated c o m m u n itie s can better participate in the decisions that affect their lives on b o th a local and a global level. T h e type o f technology transfer th at is useful at the national level - such as the training o f scientists in te chniques for d ru g d e v e lo p m en t or genetic m od ification is likely to be irrelevant to in d igenous a nd local c o m m u n itie s . However, access to low technologies and train ing can be extremely useful, especially if they enable t h e d e v e l o p m e n t o f s u s ta in a b le fish in g live liho od s a n d are based on a clear

OVERVIEW

II

u n d e r s t a n d i n g o f c o m m u n i t y characteristics a n d needs. W h a t k in d s o f tr a in in g or tec h n o lo g ies c o u ld be involved? O n e ex a m p le is th e tr a in in g th a t th e S o u th East A sian Fish eries D e v e l o p m e n t C e n t e r ( S E A F D E C ) p r o v i d e d to a P h il ip p i n e s c o m m u n i t y to start up a successful a n d low im p a c t m u d crab fa r m in g o p e ra tio n . S E A F D E C was also in s tr u m e n ta l in w o r k in g w ith local c o m m u n i t i e s in a n o t h e r p a r t o f th e P h ilip p in e s to establish no-fish areas (A gbayani et al, 2 0 0 0 ) . In a n o t h e r ex am p le , Project Seahorse pro v id ed the tr a in i n g an d tech nical s u p p o r t n e ed ed for a n o t h e r P h ilip p in e s fishing c o m m u n i t y to set u p a seahorse ra n c h in g o p e ra tio n t h a t n o t on ly provides susta inab le livelihoods, b u t also e n h a n c e s wild seahorse p o p u la t io n s (P ro ject Seahorse, 2 0 0 0 ) . In Brazil, P ro ject Piaba has been i n s t r u ­ m e n t a l in h e lp in g fishing c o m m u n i t i e s o n th e R io N e g ro practise a susta inab le o r n a m e n t a l s i n d u s t r y t h a t c o n t r i b u t e s to t h e p r o t e c t i o n o f th e r a i n f o r e s t ecosystem (C h a o ct al, 2 0 0 1 ). W h a t these so lu tio n s have in c o m m o n is t h a t they involve a h a n d up ra th e r th an a h a n d o u t - m a k i n g available te c h n o lo g y a n d tr a in in g th a t are a p p r o p r ia t e to local c o n d it io n s a n d c ultu re, a n d p ro v id in g th e m e a n s for local e n tr e p r e n e u r s h ip to get a to e - h o ld . A little e c o n o m i c p o w e r can go a lo n g w ay in h e lp in g to e m p o w e r c o m m u n i t i e s generally. It m a y take a lot o f to e - h o ld s to b reak th e cycle o f p overty a n d n u r t u r e c o n s e r v a t i o n - b a s e d , s m a ll-s c a le f i s h in g e c o n o m i e s in c o u n tl e s s c o m m u n it ie s . H o w ever, th e alternative - a c o n t i n u i n g w astin g aw ay o f aq u atic biological diversity by g ro u p s w ith little or n o self-interest in c o n se rv a tio n - is u n a c c e p ta b le in a w o rld w h ere virtually all n a tio n s have expressed a g re e m e n t w ith the p rin c ip le o f s u s ta in a b le e c o n o m i e s , su s ta in a b le ecosy stem s a n d su sta in a b le c o m m u n it ie s . T h e phrase ‘act locally’ never to o k o n m o re u rg e n t m ea n in g . T h e real challenge in the future will be gettin g the m o s t pow erful cou ntries and the m o s t influential m u l ti­ n a ti o n a l c o r p o r a t i o n s o n b o a rd . In 2 0 0 2 , U S D e p a r t m e n t o f State g u id elin e s suggested th a t A m erican researchers ab ro ad o b tain the w ritten c o n se n t o f in d ige no us c o m m u n it ie s p rio r to collecting genetic resources. T h e irony o f t h a t advice is huge. T h e m o s t pow erful c o u n tr y in the w o rld is o n e o f a very small h a n d fu l o f countries to decline to e n d o rs e th e C B D , w h ic h set the g ro u n d - r u le s to w h ic h th e state d e p a r t m e n t guidelines refer - a n d US recalcitrance has c o n tr ib u t e d mightily to the difficulty d eveloping co un tries have faced in im p le m e n ti n g the C B D . T h e success o f sustainable livelihoods p ro jects is likely to d e p e n d on a clear u n d e r s t a n d i n g o f the c u ltu ra l b a c k g r o u n d o f a c o m m u n i t y , e n s u r in g w ide sp read p a rtic ip a tio n in and s u p p o r t for a p ro p o s e d v e n tu r e , and d e sig n in g e n terprises t h a t bu ild on trad itio n a l c o m m u n i t y practices a n d kn o w led g e. A s tu d y c o m m is s io n e d by F A O (2 0 0 1 ) fo u n d t h a t th e degree to w h ic h fisheries m a n a g e m e n t practices o r policies s t re n g th e n or w eak en sm all-scale fisheries is directly related to th e level o f u n d e r s t a n d i n g o f c o m m u n i t y fishing cultures. T h e stu d y f o u n d t h a t tra d itio n a l fishing c o m m u n i t i e s generally share tw o c o m m o n characteristics: a detaile d a n d f u n c t io n o r i e n te d k n o w le d g e o f a q u a ti c system s a n d species i m p o r t a n t to th e c o m m u n it y econom y, and p a rtic ip a tio n o f the en tire p o p u la tio n , in c lu d in g w o m e n , c h ild re n a n d th e elderly, in fishing, p roc essin g , m a r k e ti n g a n d d is tri­ b u ti o n . Ideally, th e design o f sustain ab le livelihoods pro jects takes in to a c c o u n t su ch c o m m u n i t y characteristics.

12 BLUE GENES N o n - g o v e r n m e n t a l o r g a n i z a t i o n s ( N G O s ) a n d a q u a t i c sciences i n s t i tu t e s m i g h t pl a y a u s e f ul role as i n t e r m e d i a r i e s in b e n e f i t - s h a r i n g n e g o t i a t i o n s w i t h c o m m u ­ nities, h e l p i n g to lay t h e f o u n d a t i o n f or s u s t a i n a b l e fisheries l i v e li hoo ds . A n d , a l t h o u g h t h e C B D has p r o v i d e d t h e i m p e t u s f or g o v e r n m e n t s to t h i n k a b o u t c o m m u n i t y b e n e f i t s t h a t m i g h t c o n t r i b u t e to b o t h e c o l o g i c a l a n d e c o n o m i c sust ai na b i l i t y, it w o u l d b e s h o r t - s i g h t e d to l i m i t s u c h t h i n k i n g to c i r c u m s t a n c e s in w h i c h c o m m u n i t i e s p r o v i d e access to g e n e t i c resour ces. T h e co l d t r u t h is t h a t , de s p i t e all t h e h o p e s for q u i c k i m p l e m e n t a t i o n o f t h e C B D , t en years l ater t h e re are ver y few e x a m p l e s o f t a n g i b l e b en e fi t s to c o m m u n i t i e s r e s u l t i n g f r o m access a g r e e m e n t s f or p l a n t o r a q u a t i c g e n e t i c r esour ces. Is t h e C B D p r o m i s e o f b e n e f i t s h a r i n g f or t r a d i t i o n a l c o m m u n i t i e s a fict ion? I t s p e r h a p s still t o o early to say, b u t t h e signs so far h a v e n ’t b e e n e n c o u r a g i n g . T h e c o n s e r v a t i o n a n d s u s t a i n a b l e use o f a q u a t i c b i o d i v e r s i t y o n a g lo ba l level are cr uc i al obj e ct i ves, a n d g o v e r n m e n t s n e e d to t a ke all s t e ps p os s i bl e to p r o m o t e t h e e c o n o m i c , social a n d c u l t u r a l w e l l - b e i n g o f t r a d i t i o n a l f i shi ng c o m m u n i t i e s , w h e t h e r o r n o t s o m e o n e is s e e k i n g access to t h e i r g e n e t i c resour ces. I f t h a t involves m a i n t a i n i n g a n d r e s t o r i n g t r a d i t i o n a l pr ac t i ce s, as e n v i s i o n e d b y Art icl e 8(j) o f t he C B D , so m u c h t h e bet ter , b u t s u s t a i n a b l e l i v el i h o o ds d o n o t n e e d to be t r a d i t i o n a l t o be w o r t h y o f s u p p o r t . F o r e x a m p l e , it is e s t i m a t e d t h a t a l m o s t all t h e a n n u a l g r o w t h in t ot a l f o o d fish p r o d u c t i o n b e t w e e n n o w a n d 2 0 2 0 will c o m e f r o m a q u a ­ c u l t u r e , a n d m u c h o f t h a t will o c c u r in d e v e l o p i n g c o u n t r i e s ( D e l g a d o et al, 2 0 0 3 ) . G i v e n t h a t reality, g o v e r n m e n t s s h o u l d be t a k i n g steps to e n s u r e t h a t g r o w t h in aqu a cu l tu re benefits rathe r th a n disr upt s tr adi tional c o m m u n i t i e s . O n e ex am ple w o r t h s t u d y i n g m i g h t be t he ini t iat ive o f t h e W o r l d Fish C e n t e r ( de s c r i b e d in a case s t u d y in t hi s b o o k , C h a p t e r 4) to p r o v i d e t r a i n i n g f or s ma l l - s c a l e p o n d f a r m e r s in A f r i c a n o r A s i a n c o u n t r i e s in p r o d u c t i v e a n d e c o l o g i c a l l y s o u n d f a r m i n g o f species s uc h as tilapia.

P

u t t in g

pr in c iples in t o pr a c t ic e

As d e m a n d s f or access to a q u a t i c g e n e t i c r esour ce s increase, it will be c r uc i al to fill s i g n i f ic a nt po li c y ga ps in t h e m a n a g e m e n t o f a q u a t i c g cn e t i c re s o ur ce s a n d a q u a t i c bi o d i v e r s i t y generally. Policy m a k e r s n e e d to f oc u s o n several k e y areas: i n c re as i ng scient ifi c k n o w l e d g e , i n t e g r a t i n g t r a d i t i o n a l k n o w l e d g e in p o l i c y d e v e l o p m e n t , i m p r o v i n g i n f o r m a t i o n g a t h e r i n g a n d s h a r i n g , i n c re a si n g p u b l i c a n d g o v e r n m e n t a w a r e n es s o f a q u a t i c issues, d e f i n i n g a n d c o o r d i n a t i n g a g e n c y r e s po ns i bi l i t ie s a n d e n s u r i n g b r o a d s t a k e h o l d e r p a r t i c i p a t i o n in p ol i c y m a k i n g . I n a d d i t i o n , c o u n t r i e s d e v e l o p i n g access a n d b e n e f i t - s h a r i n g policies will n e e d t o lear n f r o m t h e e x p e r i ­ e nc es o f t h e i r p r ed e ces sor s , p a y i n g p a r t i c u l a r a t t e n t i o n to c o m m u n i t y r i ght s to p r i o r i n f o r m e d c o n s e n t , t he r el e v an c e o f t r a d i t i o n a l k n o w l e d g e , a n d t h e p r o v is i o n o f i n s t i t u t i o n a l s u p p o r t f or fair a n d effective b e n e f i t - s h a r i n g a g r e e m e n t s b e t w e e n f i s hi ng c o m m u n i t i e s a n d col lector s. Finally, all o r g a n i z a t i o n s w i t h t he p o w e r to d o so n e e d to d e v e l o p cr eative a p p r o a c h e s to h e l p t r a d i t i o n a l f i s hi ng c o m m u n i t i e s b e c o m e sel f- r el i ant t h r o u g h t e c h n o l o g i c a l s o l u t i o n s t h a t are in t u n e w i t h local resour ces, m e a n s a n d c u l t ur e .

OVERVIEW

13

Policy makers face an enor mou s challenge in determining how to facilitate the sustainable use of aquatic genetic resources in a manner that promotes conser­ vation and fair play. M uch depends on trial and error, and there is no sure right way or wrong way to achieve the C B D objectives. W h a t matters most is the deter­ mination to do so, recognizing that biology tru mps politics and nature bats last.

A N o te on the Case Studies

T h e r e ’s n o th in g like a story to flesh o u t an abstract concept. Case studies can be extremely useful in illustrating p rob lem s and possible solutions in a ‘real w o r ld ’ context. Each o f the first six chapters in this b o o k concludes w ith a case study. Each case study highlights a distinct issue, alth o u g h it may also illustrate them es discussed elsewhere in the book. As p art o f th e research for case studies 1 an d 5, we visited th e c o u n tr ie s in q u e s tio n (Brazil a n d th e P h ilip p in e s). T h e m a te ria l for the rem a inin g case studies was co m piled th ro u g h interviews and literature reviews. T h e following s u m m a ry highlights som e key poin ts raised by the case studies:

C a s e S t u d y 1, C h a p t e r 1 T h e la w OF U N IN TEND ED CONSEQUENCES:

Conserving the orn am en tal fish industry in Barcelos, Brazil

T h e collection o f o rn a m e n ta l fish such as cardinal terras an d cichlids is the p rim ary e c o n o m ic activity for small c o m m u n it ie s along the m id d le Rio N e gro in the A m azon Basin. T h e trade in o rn a m e n ta l fish co ntribu tes at least 60 per cent o f the total revenues o f Barcelos, w hich is geographically the largest m un icip ality in the w orld, c o n tain in g w ith in its b o u nd aries m o re th a n 1 20,000 k m 2 o f largely in tact rainforest. Project Piaba, based at the University o f the A m a zo n , has been w o rk in g w ith local c o m m u n itie s to en h an ce the e c o n o m ic an d e n v iro n m e n tal sustainability o f c o m m u n it y o rn a m e n ta l fisheries. To protect the fishery, Barcelos has ba n n e d activities such as logging and m in in g th a t pose a po tential threat to the hab itat o f orn a m e n ta l fish, w hich migrate far in to th e r a in fo re s t to sp a w n w h e n river levels rise d u r i n g th e ra in y season. A ssum ing th a t the m un icip ality is able to c o n tin u e to stave o ff pressures for in d u s­ trial d e v e lo p m e n t o f the Rio N egro basin, a n o th e r th re at from a far less obvious source could have an equally devastating im p a c t on the local fishery. S o u th e r n F lorida is a c e n tra l h u b o f activity in the sale, d is tr i b u ti o n a n d breeding o f o rn a m e n ta l fish. To obtain b ro o d s to ck for cultu ring , breeders can simply purchase wild specimens in q u an tity from the w ild trade th at originates in areas like the Rio N egro and is sh ipp ed o u t o f Brazil by exporters in M anau s. In the past, species such as cardinal tetras have been considered too difficult to breed because o f very specific h a b itat re quirem ents. T h a t all changed in 2 0 0 0 , w hen Aquatica Tropicals to ok a Best-in-Show award after successfully breeding cardinal

16 BLUE GENES tetras. Generally, cultured fish can be sold for a cheaper price than fish collected from the wild, primarily because of the impact of transportation costs. Project Piaba is conccrncd that, if the culturing of cardinal tctras becomes widespread, the wild fishery along the Rio Negro will collapse for lack of a market. If that were to happ en , local people m ight have to turn to alternative, less ‘environmentally friendly’ livelihoods, and the incentive of communities like Barcelos to conserve aquatic ecosystems and keep out development might be considerably reduced. W h a t policy action, if any, should be taken to support the sustainability o f the Rio Negro ornamentals fishery? Should access to wild cardinal tetras used for breeding purposes be regulated? T his case study examines some o f the policy implications arising from this unusual set o f circumstances.

C a se S t u d y 2, C h a p t e r 2 N o POLICY, NO ACCESS? A salm o n fa rm e r’s fru strated efforts to collect genetically p ure b ro o d sto c k Creative Salmon, an aquaculturc business farming chinook salmon in British Co lumbia, decided to enhance its stocks by cross-breeding them with Yukon River chinook. W h a t makes Yukon chinook desirable is the high oil co ntent that is char­ acteristic of fish inhabiting Arctic waters - and an i m p o r ta n t asset for sale of salmon to Japanese markets. Because chinook populations mingle in the Yukon River on the way to their separate s p a w n in g g r o u n d s , Creative Sal m on appl ied to the C a n a d ia n D e p a r t m e n t of Fisheries and Oceans to collect broodstock from smaller tributaries where individual populations would already be separated out from the mixture in the river m o u t h and lower stages of the river. T h e com pan y could thus determine later the source o f desirable characteristics they h o p e d to am plify t h r o u g h breeding. T h e d epartm ent refused the request to collect from isolated populations in trib­ utaries because it was con ce rn ed n o t only a b o u t setting a pr eced en t for the collection o f samples outside areas open for fisheries, but also ab ou t the possibility o f subsequent collectors approaching First Nations bands for permission to collect gametes (eggs and sperm) in areas with restricted fishing. Instead, the de pa rtm en t required Creative Salm on to purchase b r oodsto ck from licensed commercial fishers harvesting mixed populations, thereby eliminating the c o m p any’s chances for genetically pure stock. In some rcspccts, Can ada faces greater challenges than other countries in devel­ oping access policies that address the question o f indigenous com m unities’ rights to prior informed consent and benefit sharing. T h e Canadian Co ns titution and the courts recognize the existence o f indigenous rights in traditional territories, b u t the nature of these rights remains to be defined in a complex process o f treaty negotiations (especially in British Columbia) that may take decades to complete. In addition, policy makers with thinly stretched resources have had little o p p o r ­ tunity or incentive to develop comprehensive rules for access to aquatic genetic

A N O TE O N T H E CASE STUDIES

17

resources at a time when d e m a n d still remains relatively low. T h e same applies to the development of policies governing gene banking. Indigenous peoples arc already sensitive about collections o f biological rcsourccs and research in their traditional territories. W ith a few exceptions, collection of aquatic genetic resources in developed countries hasn’t yet become a controversial issue in the way it has for plant collections in developing countries, b ut it can be expected to attract greater attention as the dem an d increases. Governments need to anticipate such a trend in the course o f policy making.

C ase S t u d y 3, C h apter 3 A n in d ig e n o u s c o m m u n it y says NO: N eg o tia tin g access to charr broodstock in northern Canada In an o th er part o f n o r th e rn Can a da, the In uit people along the Arctic coast recently completed an agreement that recognizes both land and resource rights. T h e Canadian D e p a r t m e n t o f Fisheries and Oceans ( D F O ) retains a role in the man ag em en t of sea-going fish, but communities have the right to prior informed consent to collcction offish broodstock. Icy Waters, the major charr-farming c o m pany in the Arctic, proposed a joint venture with Inuit com munities and an O ntario university research group to set up a new company, Suvaak Inc, to improve the c o m pany’s existing broodstock, based on previous D F O collections. Under the proposal, each o f seven partici­ pating Inuit com munities would receive a 5 per cent equity stake in the new co m pan y in exchange for sperm from six male Arctic charr from two separate stocks found in waters near the communities. Icy Waters suggested that Inuit co mmunities would also benefit through education and practical experience in fish farming, and access to genetically improved stocks as these were developed. T h e business proposal provided that each co m m u n ity would own its original fish contribution but that hybrid lines resulting from cross-breeding would be owned by Suvaaq. T h e proposed project would result in Icy Waters gaining access to a total of 14 genetically distinct charr stocks through local communities. Several difficult issues emerged during negotiations on the proposal. Local fishermen worried that the sale of genetically improved farmed fish would have a negative effect on markets and prices for wild-caught fish. Icy Waters attempted to allay this fear by suggesting that successful farming could benefit local fisheries by reducing commercial harvesting pressure on wild stocks, ensuring a valuable sport fishery, and increasing consumer awareness o f charr. Owner ship issues added a further complication. These included not only concerns about Suvaaq ownership o f successive gen eratio ns o f char r hybrids, b u t also the possibility t h a t the university research group might try to obtain a process patent based on genetic mapping of charr. M ap pin g would accompany the collection o f genetic resources and was necessary in order to ascertain whether the genetic differences between the collected populations were significant. Finally, some Inuit expressed concern that

18

BLUE GENES

the project show ed a lack o f respect for charr and th at the spirit o f th e charr m ig h t take rev eng e on th e I n u i t p e o p le if th e p ro j e c t w e n t a h e a d , a n o t u n u s u a l s e n tim e n t a m o n g native people w h o may accept technologies as a necessary evil yet still feel u n c o m f o rta b le w ith the spiritu al im p lic a tio n s o f a ltering nature. Ultimately, the c o m m u n itie s w ith he ld their co n sen t an d Icy Waters eventually m ade o th e r arra n g em en ts to ob tain a m ore limited supply o f charr bro od stock elsewhere. Icy Waters described the failed n egotiations as expensive a nd tim e-co n su m in g , com plicated by the difficulty o f dealing w ith several different levels o f authority, the need to negotiate w ith several c o m m u n itie s over a vast land area, a high level o f c o n fu s io n a b o u t the im p lic a tio n s o f fish fa rm in g a n d a lon g h istory o f local s u s p ic io n o f o u ts id e rs fro m s o u t h e r n C a n a d a . T h e case s t u d y illustrates the m a g n itu d e o f the challenge th at collectors may currently face in preparin g for an d c o n d u c tin g negotiations w ith in digenous c o m m u n itie s - a nd hence the need for careful p l a n n i n g . At p re s e n t, every n e g o ti a ti o n for access to a q u a tic g enetic resources is an e x p erim e n t th a t can help inform the d e v e lo p m e n t o f future access rules and the d ev e lo p m e n t o f s u p p o r t for successful n egotiations th r o u g h training in n egotiations an d cross-cultural c o m m u n ic a t io n , etc.

C a se S tu d y 4, C h a p te r 4 G e n e t i c im p r o v e m e n t o f fa r m e d tila p ia :

Lessons from the G I F T project T h e Intern atio n al C e n te r for Living A q u atic Resource M a n a g e m e n t (IC L A R M , now k n o w n as the W o rld Fish C enter) works w ith farmers, scientists an d policy makers to help the rural p o o r increase their inco m e, preserve their e n v ir o n m e n t an d im prove their lives th r o u g h the sustainable use o f aquatic resources. Tropical finfish currently ac c o u n t for a b o u t 90 per cent o f global aq uacu ltu re p ro d u c tio n for food. M o s t species currently farmed are genetically very similar to wild, u n d o m e s tic a te d stocks. For aqu acu ltu re to be able to m eet the expected global increase in d e m a n d for fish p rotein, there is a need for im proved strains that are faster-growing, resistant to disease a nd suited to a variety o f p o n d -f a rm in g co nd ition s. T h e situation is analogous to the early days o f agriculture. A lth o u g h the majority o f Africans rely on fish as their p rim ary source o f anim al p ro te in , p o n d farm in g has generally failed to flourish in Africa. Yet tilapia, a specics native to the c o n tin e n t, has proven to be one o f the biggest success stories in p o n d farm ing in m a n y Asian countries (particularly the Philippines, C h in a and T h a ila n d ), w here the fish’s p opu larity has b eco m e so w idespread th at it’s becom e kn o w n as the 'aquatic ch ick en ’. Tilapias are a m ajor source o f p ro tein for the p oo r in T h a ila n d because they cost h alf as m u c h as o th e r freshwater species such as catfish and snakehead. S om e of the recent success o f farm ed tilapia p ro d u c tio n in Asia is a result o f a breedin g p ro g r a m m e by IC L A R M . In the early 1990s, IC L A R M developed a new strain o f tilapia by cross-b reed in g several strains o f N ile tilapia ( Oreochrom is

A NOTE ON THE CASE STUDIES

/9

niloticus). N e ith e r genetically m odified nor transgenic, the new strain has been d e v e lo p e d u sin g tr a d i t i o n a l selective b r e e d i n g m e t h o d s u n d e r th e G e n e tic Im p ro v e m e n t o f Farm ed Tilapia (G I F T ) p ro g r a m m e . Tilapias were first in tro ­ d u c e d from Africa to S o u th e as t Asia in the 1970s, an d the G I F T strain was developed from collections m ad e in four African countries in the late 1980s and four existing collections in the Philippines. As th e c ollections were m a d e before the C B D cam e into effect, o b ta i n in g co n se n t from c o m m u n itie s w here the tilapias were collected wasn’t yet an issue. Two decades later, following a furthe r series o f IC L A R M projects, tilapia farming in rural Africa may finally be a b o u t to get a fresh start. In 2 0 0 0 , IC L A R M began a project to transfer G I F T ’s selective breeding technology from the Philippines to sub-Saharan Africa an d Egypt. T h e objectives o f th e new project were to train African scientists on the use o f the selective b reeding technology th a t is the basis for G IF T , initiate n ational breeding p ro g ra m m e s, and develop strategies for the d issem ination o f the G I F T tech no log y a nd the genetically im proved fish resulting from it. T h is is a good example o f th e types o f benefits th a t m ay be useful, at the national level, to countries providing aquatic genetic resources for use in breeding prog ram m es. W i t h th e assistance o f the Inte rn atio n al N e tw o rk on G enetics in A q uac ultu re (IN G A ), n ational research institutio ns in 13 developing countries in Asia, Pacifica and Africa have now used the selection m e th o d s developed th ro u g h th e G I F T p ro j e c t to in i ti a te n a ti o n a l b r e e d i n g p r o g r a m m e s for g e n e tic im p ro v e m e n t o f their in dig eno us cu ltured species (G u p ta et al, 2 00 0 ). T h e G I F T project has m ad e a valuable c o n tr ib u tio n to the availability o f lowcost food sources in several dev elo pin g co un tries. T h e pro jec t also h ighlights several issues that are central to m ak in g policies for the m a n a g e m e n t o f aquatic biodiversity and sharing o f genetic resources: •

•

•

Selective breed ing o f farm ed fish stocks can play an im p o r t a n t role n o t only in ensu ring cheap an d a b u n d a n t food supplies b u t also in p ro m o ti n g ‘en v iro n ­ mentally friendly’ aquaculture. (T here is a w orld o f difference betw een in d u s ­ trial farm in g o f salm on and rural p o n d farm ing in so u th ern countries.) Breeders may target wild b ro o dsto ck for collection in several locations and, indeed, several countries. If projects like G I F T are to be feasible in the future, countries pro vid in g genetic resources m ay find it useful to cooperate to avoid the need for m ultiple n egotiations w ith m ultip le co m m u n ities . IC L A R M started o u t w ith no direct com m ercial objectives yet years later tran s­ ferred to a private c o nsortiu m the right to m a rk et an d sell an im proved strain o f tilapia. W h a t s tarted o u t as a p h i l a n t h r o p i c exercise even tu a lly to o k on a co m m ercial aspect. A lth o u g h there is no d o u b t th a t the G I F T project provided significant social benefits, g o vernm ents in provider countries need to be careful a b o u t d is t i n g u i s h i n g b e tw e e n co lle c tio n s for a c a d e m ic a n d c o m m e r c i a l purp oses, recognizing that there may be considerable cross-over.

20

BLUE GENES

C a se S t u d y 5, C h a p t e r 5 C o m m u n i t y r i g h t s v s r e s e a r c h c h i l l : The

Philippine experience with access and benefit-sharing legislation

In 1995, the Philippines became the first co un try to enact an access and benefitsharing law, following forceful advocacy by c o m m u n ity groups, civil society orga­ nizations, and su pp ort from a president who w anted to make his mark at a time w h en b iop iracy had b eco m e a h o t top ic in his country. T h e challenges the Philippines has faced during the initial years o f the im plem entation o f Executive O rd e r 247 hold useful lessons for policy makers generally and in particular for those dealing with access to genetic resources in fishing comm unities. Executive O rd e r 247 was carefully prepared, with participation by a broad range o f stakeholders, and at first glance appears to be a logical and straightforward approach to facilitating access to genetic resources. As so often with the im p lem e n ­ tation o f legislation that represents a major change to the status quo, the devil has been in the details, and the details here are many. At the very least, the difficulties experienced in im p lem entin g E 0 2 4 7 suggests that, to be effective, access and benefit-sharing laws need to: • •

Provide for an efficient process w ith o u t unreasonable delays. Ensure the availability o f adequate governm ent resources to im p lem en t and enforce enabling regulations and to process applications expeditiously. • Ensure th at distinctions between academic and commercial research are clear and th at academ ic research applications can proceed w ith o u t unnecessary obstacles. • Provide adequate support for the negotiation o f prior informed consent at the c o m m u n ity level. • Clearly define the scope o f the legislation with regard to the genetic resources to which it applies.

C

ase

St u d y 6, C

hapter

6

A marine bioprospecting agreement in Fiji

SHA PIN G NEGOTIATION TOOLS:

Laws requiring the consent o f indigenous and local co m m u nities to collections o f genetic resources mean no thing unless they lead to workable agreements. T he effectiveness o f future laws and regulations will depend very m uch on the lessons learned from real-life examples o f agreements. In Fiji, the chemistry de partm en t o f the University o f the South Pacific (USP) team ed up with the World W id e Fund for N ature to develop a research project that would advance scientific knowledge while p rom oting co m m u n ity developm ent and comm unity-based conservation, emphasizing best practices for benefit sharing with comm unities. T h e Fiji constitution recognizes indigenous rights over all resources located in fishing grounds, including the seabed. USP had been doing research for years on

A N O TE O N T H E CASE STUDIES

21

the isolation from plants used for medicinal purposes and wanted to extend its w o r k into the m a r in e area. To facilitate this objective, U S P a p p r o a c h e d S m it h -K linc Bcccham, a pharmaceutical company involved in the collcction of mar ine samples. A lth o u g h Fiji had no policy on bioprospecting at the time, gover nm ent de par tments came to the support o f the project by agreeing to adopt a regulatory role that would define the approval process and ensure that the rights o f communities were protected. T h e resulting agreements with the indigenous co m m u n ity ofVerata set detailed procedures for prior informed consent by the co m m u n ity to any research activity and provided for both m onetar y and non-m one ta ry benefits, including assistance with the devel opm en t o f village-based enterprises and the establishment o f a marine conservation area to allow overfished stocks to recover.

Chapter 1

The Gene Rush: Finding New Value in Aquatic Biodiversity

Salmon gene banking in bear country, British Columbia (Photo by Monica Maclsaac )

24

BLUE GENES

O u t of sight, out of mind. No wh er e does the saying seem more appropriate than in the way we treat u nderw ater life. O u r scientific u n d e r sta n d in g o f aquatic biodiversity lags far b ehind our knowledge o f terrestrial life. Naturally, we’re quicker to un der stand the potential for commercial exploitation than we are to decipher and deal with threats to aquatic biodiversity. Food fish aquaculture, which barely existed three decades ago, has since emerged as the fastest growing food industry. Along the ocean floor, the m o d e r n e q u iv a l e n t o f th e gold prospector is the pharmaceutical c o m pany researcher, sifting through samples of sponges, ascidians and other bottom-dwelling organisms in the hope o f finding cures for cancer and other diseases. As in the plant world, advances in genetics signal that we’ve barely scratched the surface in our quest for new (and often controversial) uses for aquatic life, whether plugging a flounder gene into a straw­ berry to increase its resistance to frost or finding a way to use deep sea m icro­ organisms to gobble up oil spills. We are quickly learning how to expand our uses for the still largely untapped capital o f the waters o f the planet. But do we really know how to conserve that capital as an investment for the future? If we managed our financial assets the way we manage biological ones, we’d be going down the road to bankruptcy. Generally, global policies for the man ag em en t of aquatic biodiversity are muddled, reactive and w it hout teeth. Why? Largely because policy makers often lack access to the biological understanding needed for informed decisions and because governments typically cater to the noisiest and most influential ‘stakeholders’. T he re ’s nothing new about this reality, o f course, but no one really likes to ad m it that it’s so. Understanding the current and potential values of any resource, as well as the threats that jeopardize those values, is the first step towards sound policy devel­ opmen t. This chapter describes a diversity o f new uses that hu m an s are finding for aquatic biodiversity as well as the not-so-new h u m a n threats that con tinu e to underm in e the integrity o f biological and genetic diversity. T h e chapter concludes with a case study on the ornamental fish industry in the Rio Negro in Brazil. T h e study illustrates just how difficult it can be to develop adequate strategies for the cons erva tion an d ap p r o p riate use o f aqu atic biodiversity in the face o f ever advancing technologies. T h e Rio Negro story also illustrates the im p o rta n t role that rural c o m m u n i tie s can play in ensuring the sustainable m a n a g e m e n t of aquatic biodiversity - a theme that we’ll con tinu e to develop th ro u g h o u t this book.

W h y is gen etic diversity so important? Biological diversity is the sum total of genes, species and ecosystems - what has been described as the great evolving web of life made up of interdependent, fragile strands. Break a thread, and the strength of the whole suffers. Genetic diversity (gcnctic variability within species) holds the web together and can repair small breaks. Today, we hear a lot ab ou t the sustainable use of natural resources - and that means m aintaining the biological and genetic diversity that provides the natural capital for hu m an economies.

THE GENE RUSH: FINDING NEW VAI.UF. IN AQUATIC BIODIVERSITY

25

T h e diversity o f aq ua tic life T h e approxim ately 1.5 million living species that have been identified to date represent a te n th or less o f the total n u m b e r estim ated to exist (W ilson, 1999). Largely because aquatic creatures in h a b it a h id d e n w orld, far less is kn o w n a b o u t m a rin e an d freshwater species th an a b o u t terrestrial ones. N a m ed terrestrial species o u t n u m b e r those in ocean e n viro nm ents by seven to one, b u t the deep sea alone m ay contain 10 million species that have yet to be described (N orse, 1993). C o m m u n it ie s o f life on the ocean floor are the least u n d erstoo d ecosystems on the planet. M a n y o f the deeper parts o f the ocean are largely beyond the frontier o f existing knowledge. Scuba divers can t w ork below a b o u t 92 m - ab o u t 1/2 5 0 t h o f the d ep th o f the deepest parts o f the oceans. N ew forms o f ocean life are constantly being discovered. It was only 25 years ago th at life was fo un d to exist in hy dro th erm a l vents, approxim ately 25 0 0 m below the surface, in in ternational waters off E c u a d o r’s Galapagos Islands. T h a t led to identification o f m a n y new species o f m arine organisms, inclu din g bacteria adapted to life in near boiling water mixed with toxic chemicals issuing from the vents. U n iq u e forms o f tu bew o rm s, crabs and clams th at feed on the bacteria m ay be only the first o f a m u ltitu d e o f oth er species to be discovered in vent ecosystems (G lowka, 1 998a). Freshwater systems are no less rich in the diversity o f species th a t in h ab it th em . Perhaps 4 5 ,0 0 0 o u t o f a million freshwater species have been described (McAllister et al, 1997). T h e a b u n d a n c e o f aquatic life in coral reefs is far surpassed in m an y tropical rivers (Revenga et al, 2 00 0 ). Freshwater ecosystems a c co u n t for only a b o u t 1 /1 0 0 ,0 0 0 th o f the water on the planet, yet con tain an estim ated 12 per c ent o f all a n im al species an d 40 per cent o f all recognized fish species (A bramovitz, 1995). As w ith te rrestrial biodiversity, th e diversity o f life varies w ith g e o g rap h ical location: in b o th m arine and freshwater ecosystems, the n u m b e r and diversity o f tropical species is far greater th an in n o rth ern waters. A lth o u g h there are m a n y m ore species on land than in w ater (May, 1988), m ore than h alf o f all vertebrates are fishes. W it h the n u m b e r o f k n o w n m arin e and fresh­ w ater fish species currently a ro u n d 2 5 ,0 0 0 and clim b ing (N elson, 1994), there is clearly a high biological diversity at b o th the species an d ecosystem levels. A n d scientific research is only now begin n in g to show the extent o f genetic variation w ithin aquatic species.

C o n s e r v i n g species a n d p o p u l a t io n s : the key to genetic diversity T h e b ig g er th e n u m b e r o f species lo st, th e g re a te r th e risk o f f r a g m e n t in g ecosystems irreparably. If one species disappears, a n o th e r may increase in n u m b e r to take its place, b u t if several are elim inated, so m e th in g like a biological d o m i n o effect may occur. T h e elim in atio n o f a snail or tr o u t or salm on species can trigger a cascading effect th r o u g h o u t the food chain th a t eventually leads o th e r species to d im in ish or disappear as well. T h e diversity o f biological systems helps ensure th at a gap in an ecosystem is gradually filled and th at eventually it is restored, if n o t to its original co n d itio n , then to a new and equally stable state.

26

BLUE GENES

Each in d iv id u al in a species c o n t a i n s a vast n u m b e r o f genes - m o r e tha n 7 0 0 , 0 0 0 in some animals ( W ils on, 1988) - a n d this genetic diversity w it h in an d a m o n g animals enables p o p u la t io n s to a d ap t to local e n v i r o n m e n ta l conditi ons. Each biological species is a closed gene poo l - there is no significant exchange o f genes b e t w e e n species in t h e n a t u r a l w o r l d . B u t w i t h i n species, gen es are c onstantly exchanged an d evolving. Different species o f cone snail, for example, have developed different types o f v en o m to suit their needs - d e p e n d i n g perhaps on the types o f p r e d a t o r a n d prey they e n c o u n t e r in a variety o f ocean ecosystems. T h e se ad ap tatio n s are passed on, a n d ultimately furth er altered, t h r o u g h i n n u ­ m erable generations. A p o p u la ti o n o f n e o n tetras in a Brazilian river m ay develop a different color ation th a n its d o w n s tr e a m neighbou rs, per hap s e n s u rin g better chances o f survival in local co nditions. U n f o r t u n a t e l y for the fish, the rarer the p o p u l a t i o n a n d its colo urin g, the m o r e likely it is to be highly prized by dis crim i­ n a ting collectors o f o r n a m e n t a l fish. Variations in colorations a n d m ar kin gs are p r o d u c e d by variations in genetic structures. A local o r n a m e n t a l fish p o p u l a t i o n ’s desirable characteristic is a genetic resource. W h e n a species loses t o o m a n y i n d i v i d u a l s , it b e c o m e s g en e tic a ll y m o r e u n ifo rm a n d less ada ptab le to c h a n g in g ecological co n d i tio n s such as, in the case o f an aquatic species, ocean w a r m i n g o r increased turbidity. T h a t essential genetic diversity w ith in a species — the quality th a t enables it to fill an ecological niche evolves over h u n d r e d s o f millions o f years. Yet it takes only a blip in histo ry to d am ag e it bey o n d repair. Scientific s tu d y o f the occurre nce and f unctio ns o f genetic resources, th o u g h highly sophisticated n o w and using tools such as D N A fingerprinting, is very new. T h e science o f genetics originated w ith the Austrian b o t a n ist G r e g o r M e n d e l ’s discovery o f the laws o f inher itanc e in the 1 860s, b u t the s tructure an d f u nctio n o f the D N A m o le c u le w a s n ’t e l u c id a te d u n til 19 5 3 . As gen etics b e c o m e s m o r e sophisticated, so too will the ability o f scientists to identify, utilize a n d conserve b o t h p l a n t a n d aquatic genetic resources. In th e m e a n t i m e , wit h only a small fraction o f aquatic species having been s tu died , their n u m b e r a n d diversity are c o n s t a n t l y b e in g e r o d e d t h r o u g h o v e r e x p l o i ta ti o n a n d h u m a n d e v e l o p m e n t . T h r o u g h carelessness or negligence, aquatic genetic diversity is gradually di sa p­ p e arin g t h r o u g h an endless progression o f small cuts th a t c u m u lativ ely tear a w id e n in g ren t in the fabric o f life. T h e conservation o f aquatic genetic diversity has yet to receive the a t te n t io n it deserves. T h i r t y years ago, for example, fisheries m an ag er s in C a n a d a had little evidence t h a t the six Pacific sa lm on species were m a d e up o f m a n y genetically isolated stocks. T o d a y it is c o m m o n know ledge t h a t as m a n y as 1000 such stocks m igrate from the ocean to s pa wn in west coast streams. M a n y have b e c o m e extinct d u r in g the last ce n t u r y as the result o f logging activities, u r b a n d e v e lo p m e n t a n d o th er h u m a n inter venti ons. Today, fisheries con se rvatio n policies have b eco m e m u c h m o r e aggressive, tha nk s to the willingness o f policy makers to m a k e co nser ­ v a t i o n d e c is io n s t h a t m a y be ver y u n p o p u l a r w i t h c o m m e r c i a l fishers. U nf or tunately, c o n t i n u i n g scientific u n c e r t a in ty a b o u t the status o f stocks and the reasons for p o p u l a t i o n swings has fed public scepticism a b o u t policy shifts, espe­ cially after so m a n y years w h e n c o m m er cial i m p o r t a n c e o f a stock overrode all

THE GENE RUSH: FINDING NEW VAI.UF. IN AQUATIC BIODIVERSITY

27

o th e r considerations. But the value o f any given stock m ay becom e m u c h m ore a p p a re n t in the future if it’s the one w ith the genetic ability to adap t to climate change or to som e o th e r natural catastrophe. U nfortunately, the future, u n k n o w n values o f genetic resources to h u m a n i ty d o n ’t carry m u c h w eight in the political process. T h a t , in a nutshell, is the fu n d a m e n ta l d ilem m a facing sustainable devel­ o p m e n t strategies.

T h r e a t s to t he diversity o f aq ua tic species P lant biodiversity includes n o t only wild plants b u t also h u n d re d s o f th o u s an d s o f varieties o f food crops developed over centuries. A quatic biodiversity, by contrast, is alm ost exclusively limited to wild stocks, a n d that biodiversity is threatened. FAO (20 00 ) estim ates th at approxim ately 75 per cent o f the w o r ld ’s m arine fish species are fully exploited, overexploited, depleted or recovering from overfishing, a n d th a t catches will decrease if fishing is n o t reduced. D raggers traw'ling for b o tto m fish, using weighted nets th a t scour the ocean floor, can elim inate virtually all seabed life along th e route. Coral reefs, w hich contain a b o u t 25 per cen t o f all m arin e fish species (McAllister, 1999), have gradually been destroyed and eroded by the fishers’ use o f d y n a m ite and cyanide - a practice th a t is illegal b u t difficult to control. D a m ag e to reefs by ocean w arm in g, w hich disrupts entire ecosystems, poses a potentially even m ore serious threat. D ep letio n o f life is no less a con cern in rivers a n d lakes. Fish are prob ably the m ost threaten ed o f all vertebrate groups (B ruto n, 1995, cited in Froese and Torres, 1999), and freshwater species are ten times m ore likely to be threa tene d than m arin e and brackish w ater ones (Froese and Torres, 1999). O ne -fifth o f all fresh­ w ater fish are considered to be extinct or end ang ered (H ey w o o d , 1 995). In N o rth A merica alone, 123 freshwater an im al species have been recorded as b eco m in g extinct since 1900, and it has been estim ated th a t extinction rates for freshwater fauna are five times h ig h er th an those for land creatures (Ricciardi an d Rasmussen, 1999). A lth o u g h overfishing c o n trib u te s to declines, particularly in m arine species, d am ag e to hab itat is equally serious. D a m m i n g o f the C o lu m b ia River system in the n o rth w est US w iped o u t salm on p o p u la tio n s to the extent th at a recent search by the N ez Perce tribe p ro d u ced only one Snake River sockeye. In Brazil, the c o u n tr y w ith the greatest k n o w n n u m b e r o f fish species, the routes o f m igratory po pu latio n s in m a n y rivers are blocked by dam s. O t h e r industrial activities can be just as devastating. In N o r th America, careless logging has frequently dam ag ed salm on sp aw nin g streams th ro u g h a c o m b in a tio n o f effects, in clu din g increased water te m p e ra tu re th ro u g h removal o f streamside vegetation, blocking spaw ning channels w ith debris, and c o n cealm e n t o f sp aw nin g gravel in silt r u n o f f from road co n stru ctio n a nd logged areas. In som e Brazilian rivers, o rn a m e n ta l fish species are threaten ed by the po llutio n an d increased turb id ity caused by gold m in in g. Even the removal o f fruit trees b ord erin g rivers eliminates the p rim a ry food source for som e large m ig rato ry fish species. Ind u strial a g ric ultu re t h r o u g h o u t the w orld c o n tr ib u te s to h a b ita t d am ag e th ro u g h fertilizer and pesticide ru noff. So too , for th a t matter, does ru n o f f from

28 BLUE GENES

B o x 1.1

L os t S t ocks : T h e D e c l i n i n g G e n c t i c V a r i a b i l i t y o f Paci fi c S a l m o n

For th o u s a n d s of years, in d ig e n o u s p e o p le s of the w e s t c o a s t of North A m e ric a have d e p e n d e d on salmon. Six s p e c ie s of salmon (chinook, coho, sockeye, c h u m , pink and steelhead) s paw n in streams and lakes. Each sp ec ies c o m p rise s h u n d re ds of stocks, and each stock is a d a p te d to a particular sp a w n ing environm ent to w hich it unerringly returns after an o cean journey that may co ve r th o u sa n ds of kilometres and last several years (with the e xception of the freshwater steelhead). While all b e lo ng in g to the same species, different stocks do not interbreed be c a u se they are g e o g ra p h ic a lly isolated in separate spaw nin g streams. H ence each is genetically unique. A stock's a d a ptatio n over th o u sa nd s of years to a pa rtic ular water tem perature, rapidity of flow, co m bination of ch e m ica l co m p o n e n ts , etc, is reflected in m a n y ways. The high oil co nte n t of Yukon chinook, for exam ple, enables them to survive in frigid Arctic waters. Other chinook stocks, spa w n in g more than 1500 km away in the com p a ra tively warm waters of southern British C olu m bia, Washington or Oregon, have a far lower oil co n te n t b ec a u se there's no evolutionary need for it. H un d re d s of these salmon stocks have b e co m e extinct as a result of human activities. Salm on are a ‘k e ys ton e s p e c ie s ' in a stream e c o s y s te m , m e a n in g that the e c o sy ste m d e p e n d s on the p re se n ce of spa w n in g salmon. Salmon are an essential source of food for bears, eagles and other animals throughout the food chain. Their ca rca sses, carried into the forest by predators, even p rovide essential nutrients for the roots of trees (H arvey and M acduffie, 2002). When a stock is w ipe d out or severely re d u c e d , the ecosyste m it supports is also d a m a g e d . Extinct stocks can potentially be 're p la ce d ' with h atchery fish from other stocks (or stocks containin g b a nked genes from the native stock), but be c a u se hatchery stocks have less g enetic variability than wild ones, such ‘e n h a n c e m e n t’ must be done c a re ­ fully if the re p la ce m e n t stocks are not to be w e aker and less a d a p ta b le than the originals. Loss of a genetically unique stock can have far ranging repercussions. The co m m e rcial ocean fishery d e p e n d s on a relatively small n u m b e r of numerically large salmon stocks. These m e g a s to c k s provide the n um bers for the com m e rc ia l fishery but do not represent the total g e n e tic va ria bility of ea ch s p e c ie s . If a smaller, n o n -c o m m e rc ia l s to c k b e c o m e s th r e a te n e d , the v a ria b ility it re p re s e n ts s u d d e n ly b e c o m e s in e s tim a b ly v a lu a b le . For exam ple, salmon stocks have evolved by a dapting to precise e c o lo g ic a l co nditions and are s u sc ep tible to even minor variations. If clim ate c h a n g e results in signific ant w a rm in g of the North Pacific, some stocks may be unable to a d a p t to te m perature increases. If ocean w a rm in g h a p p e n s to c h a n g e the s u rv iv a l or g e o g r a p h i c d is trib u tio n of c o m m e r c ia lly im po rta n t stocks, then the c a p a c ity to survive in the c h a n g e d e nvironm ent may reside in one of the m a n y small stocks - in other words, in the reservoir of g enetic variability. Variations am on g wild salmon stocks will b e c o m e increasingly im po rta n t to the relatively new a quaculture industry as well as to the co m m e rc ia l fishery as fish farmers continue to look for desirable characteristics to introduce into cultured species. In the future, genetic variability will b e c o m e as vital to food (and e m p lo ym e n t) security as it already is for the m a in ­ te nance of healthy e cosystem s. O ver countless generations, ind ige n o us com m u n itie s have a cquired detailed k n o w led g e of ea ch stock's chara cte ristics and habits. This kno w le d g e, transmitted orally from g e n e r­ ation to generation, b e c a m e the foundation for traditional fisheries m a n a g e m e n t pra ctice s and can make a valuable contribution to m odern fisheries m a n a ge m en t. In addition, c o lle c ­ tions for fish farming and hatcheries may rely on the traditional k n o w le d g e of in dig enous p eo p les for an u n d e rsta n d in g of the characteristics of different stocks and when, where and how to co llect them . In this instance, as in m any others, the e c o n o m ic value of aquatic genetic resources may be directly d e p e n d e n t on the traditional k n o w le d ge nee de d to obtain them. In the case of many salmon stocks, the k n o w le d g e may linger on but the stocks have already dis a p pe a re d .

T H E G E N E RUSH: F IN D IN G N E W VALUE IN A QU ATIC B IO D IV ER SITY

29

u r b a n lawns a n d gardens treated w ith pesticides a n d from toxic deposits left on every street by m o t o r vehicles. T h e im pacts o f h u m a n activities on aq u ati c b i o ­ diversity arc w ides pr ea d. Too ofte n, efforts to crcate policies to conserve it get s h o r t shrift in g o v e r n m e n t . T h e l o n g - t e r m , in ta ngible benefits o f co nserv ation are always a far to u g h e r sell th a n the s h o r te r - te r m e c o n o m i c benefits o f business as usual.

T h e BLUE REVOLUTION: U n lo c k in g th e secrets o f aquatic g e n e tic resources T h e applicatio n o f bio te c h n o lo g y to a q u acu ltu r e has sparked a ‘blue rev olutio n’. T h e use o f fish h a t c h e r i e s to s u p p ly fa rm s a n d e n h a n c e w il d s tock s is n o w c o m m o n p l a c e , a n d we are n o w well in t o the s e c o n d stage o f th e rev o l u ti o n , n am ely the use o f genetic en gineerin g - in c lu d in g splicing genes from o n e fish strain or species into a n o t h e r - to p r o d u c e desired characteristics. If an aquaculture c o m p a n y in N e w E n g l a n d gets the green light fro m the US F o o d a n d D r u g A d m i n i s tr a tio n , a ‘Super S a l m o n ’ injected with a gene from an Arctic p o u t will b e c o m e t h e first t r a n s g e n i c fish av ailable to c o n s u m e r s . A n d t h e v a lu a b le c o m m er cial uses o f aqua tic genetic resources go b e y o n d a q u a c u l tu r e a n d are n o t limited to genetic m a n i p u l a t i o n . By far the m o s t active players in the field, at least in ter m s o f financial in v e s t m e n t, are p h a r m a c e u t i c a l c o m p a n i e s ta r g e tin g the d e v e l o p m e n t o f a n t i - c a n c e r d r u g s a n d o t h e r m e d ic in e s i nspir ed by c h e m ic a l c o m p o u n d s p r o d u c e d by m ar in e organisms. In 1999, the c o m b i n e d a n n u a l global m a r k e t for p r o d u c t s derived from genetic resources in several key sectors was e stim at ed at b etw een U S $ 5 0 0 billion a n d $ 8 0 0 billion (ten Kate a n d Laird, 1999). A quatic genetic resources a c c o u n te d for a tiny fraction o f t hat a m o u n t and , a lth o u g h the blue revolution is well u n d e r w a y an d the pace o f discovery has been d r a m a tic , geneticists have barely scra tched the surface in the search for n ew and m o r e s o phis tica ted uses for aq u atic genetic resources. W h i l e discoveries o f uses for p lant genetic resources have had th e benefit o f t h o u s a n d s o f years o f knowle dg e o f crop b reeding a n d o f far m o re advanced t a x o n o m ic a l sciences, genetic princ iples have been rigorously a pplied to m o s t f ar m ed fish species only in the last three decades. As a result, m o s t farm-raised a q u a t i c a n i m a l s a n d p l a n t s r e m a i n very close to t h e i r w i ld f o rm s . G e n e t i c i m p r o v e m e n t p r o g r a m m e s are b e g in n in g to be applied to m o re a n d m o re aquatic species, b u t w h e n c o m p a r e d to the levels o f d o m e s tic a tio n in livestock a n d crops, the aqua tic scctor is far b e h in d (Bartley, 1997). Millions o f aquatic species yet to be identified, especially those from deep sea ecosystems, m ay c o ntain valuable properties th a t could be used for h u m a n benefit in decades to come. T h e range o f potential uses is broad. For example, scientists have no w discovered th a t microbial c o m m u n i t i e s discovered in the near boiling waters o f deep sea vents only 25 years ago m ay provide the answer to dealing with oil spills —nam el y by eating th e m (Glowka, 1998a). W h a t ’s next is a n y o n e ’s guess.

30

BLUE GENES

T h e w ider the genetic diversity o f wild fish species, the m ore o p p o rtu n itie s for developing farmed stocks ad apte d for desired characteristics such as rapid grow th, resistance to disease, flavour or hardiness. An example o f this kind o f use o f aquatic genetic resources is the cross-breeding o f several different p o p u la tio n s o f wild African tilapia to p ro d uce a new strain designed to m atu re quickly and a d ap t easily to p o n d -f a rm in g co n d itio n s in S outheast Asia (Case S tu dy 4). C o n se rv in g the genetic diversity o f wild fish species is as im p o r t a n t for its potential social and e c o n o m ic benefits as it is for m a in ta in in g biodiversity for its ow n sake. As W ilso n (1999) p oin ts o u t, biodiversity is o u r m ost valuable an d least appreciated resource. T h e grow ing n u m b e r an d severity o f threats to biodiversity are n o t helped by the failure o f g o vern m en ts to appreciate the p oten tial future e c o n o m i c a n d social values o f biological a n d g en etic diversity. W il d gen etic diversity has inestimable value for c onv en tion al harvest fisheries, so basing fish­ eries m a n a g e m e n t policies only on c u rre n t co m m ercial values o f stocks, an d n o t c o n sid erin g th eir genetic resources, is a short-sig h te d a p p ro a c h . For example, several th o u s a n d d istin ct Pacific salm on stocks spaw n in th e rivers along the west coast o f C a n a d a . If ocean w a r m i n g occurs, stocks th a t have little c om m ercial significance at present m ay be far m ore able to a d ap t to ch an g in g water te m p e ra ­ tures than those currently em phasized in m a n a g e m e n t policies. G e ttin g the m o st value o u t o f aquatic genetic resources thus m ean s first evalu­ ating and addressing the considerable ethical, e n v iro n m e n tal an d legal issues asso­ ciated with genetic m o dificatio n, the m a n a g e m e n t o f wild genetic diversity, and the collection and use o f genetic resources. B ringing policies for the m a n a g e m e n t o f aquatic biodiversity and o f the a q u acultu re in d u s try up to speed is an e n o rm o u s challenge th a t will only get bigger as b io tech no log y co n tinu es to advance. T h e d e v e lo p m e n t o f these policies needs to go h an d in h an d w ith policies governing access to aquatic genetic resources. T h e e co n o m ic a nd social im pacts o f tod ay’s biotech no log y revolution may well be as great as those o f the Industrial R evolution three centuries ago. N ow, as then, n o rth e rn countries d e p e n d on raw materials from the south. T h e d e m a n d for b o th plant a nd aquatic genetic resources focuses largely on the regions o f the w orld with the greatest (and least dam aged) biological and genetic diversity. Identified fresh­ water fish species in Brazil alone, for instance, n u m b e r in the th o u san d s co m p ared to the h u n d re d s fo u n d in N o r th A merica. T h e disparity betw een the so u th and n o rt h in the n u m b e r o f p o te n tia lly useful species o f m a r in e fish and seabed o rganism s is just as great. Finally, there is the u n iq u e role played by in digenous and local c o m m u n itie s . E u r o p e a n c o u n tr ie s secu red the raw m aterials for th e In d u s tr i a l R e v o lu tio n t h r o u g h c o l o n i z a ti o n . D e t e r m i n e d to assert c o n t r o l over v a lu ab le g e n e tic resources, so uth ern c ountries acquired in tern atio na l legal recognition o f national sovereignty over those resources as th e price o f app ro vin g the C B D in 1992. W h a t rem ains to be seen is how b o th so u th ern and n o rth e rn countries will deal w ith the need for effective policies for access to aquatic gcnctic resources in in d igen ou s and local co m m u n itie s , whose inv olv em en t will be crucial b o th for conservation o f biological diversity and its c om m ercial use.

THE GENE RUSH: FINDING NEW VALUE IN AQUATIC BIODIVERSITY

B o x 1. 2

31

W h a t Is t h e D i f f e r e n c e B e t w e e n Bi ol o g i c al a n d G e n e t i c R c s o u r cc s?

The distinction betw een bio lo g ical and genetic resources can be confusing, but it's a crucial one. To u n d ersta nd it. we m ust c o n s id er the m eaning of the terms ‘g enetic m aterial’, ‘genetic re s o u rce s’ and 'b io logic al re s o u rc e s’. The Convention on Biological Diversity (C B D) defines: •

Genetic material as ‘any material of plant, animal, microbial or other origin containing functional units of h e re d ity’;

• •

Genetic resources as ‘genetic material of actual or potential v alu e ’; Biological resources as ‘genetic resources, org an ism s or parts thereof, popula tio ns, or any other biotic c o m p o n e n t of e c o s y s te m s with a ctu al or p otentia l use or value for h u m a n ity ’.

Until relatively recently, it m a d e sense to think of genetic resources as plant seeds or animal (in c lu d in g fish) g a m e te s (e g g s and s p e rm ) b e c a u s e those were the p rim a ry m aterials available to b re e de rs d e ve lop in g new strains. But now that it’s routine to extract DNA from one cell and put it in another, it’s clear that every cell contains the functional units of heredity and that genetic resources and biological resources are the same physica l entity. Bartley and Pullin (1999) s u g g e s t that it is a dvisable to assum e that everything aquatic and alive - and all of its DNA - has actual or potential value be c a u se of the significant kn o w le d g e ga p s in u n d e rs ta n d in g how aq u a tic ec o s y s te m s function to s u p p o rt fisheries, how to ch o ose a quatic sp e cie s for d om estic atio n, how to make rapid progress in dom e stica tin g them, and how to harness aquatic b io ch e m ic a ls and biolo g ica l processes for the benefit of hum ankind. It follows, they c o n c lu d e , that aquatic g e ne tic resources are the sum total of all aquatic plants, animals and m icro-orga n ism s on the planet, and that a q ua tic g enetic resources and biodiversity (or biological resources) are synonym ous. While such a b ro a d definition may m ake sense to a biolo gist, p a te n t lawyers take a different point of view - one that essentially differentiates betw een the inform ation in (or a bout) the resource and its ph ysical identity. Differentiating betw een biolo gica l and genetic resources has b e c o m e a central theme in the current global de b ate over intellectual property rights a g reem ents a b ou t the patenting of life and its derivatives. The International Union for the Conservation of Nature (IUCN, 2001), noting the lack of clarity of the CBD definitions, s u gg e sts that ‘b iolo gical re so urce s’ m ig h t be best defined as referring to resources of which e ach s p e c im e n is p u rc h a s e d or a c q u ire d separately, while 'g e n e tic re s o u r c e s ’ refer to g enetic information - such as, for exam ple, a g en e s e q u e n c e - that can be protected by intellectual property rights or other legal m echanism s. Such a distinction can lead to h e a d -s cratc h in g . Should a salmon used as b roo d sto c k for a fish farm (‘genetic re s o urce ’) be treated differently than one that en d s up on a restaurant plate ('bio logic al re so u rc e’)? Should different rules a pp ly to the c atc h in g of a flounder not for food but for the pu rp o se of isolating an antifreeze gene, inserting it into a strawberry, and patenting the process? Should genetic resources be defined by their uses, in clu ding the g enetic inform ation they contain, or by their physical identity? At least for the time being, the a nsw er remains unclear The evolution of the definition of 'g enetic resources' is rem iniscent of evolutions in the m eaning of susta inable d ev e lop m e n t. The Brundtland report (WCED), w hic h first b ro u g ht it into co m m o n usage, defined it as 'd e ve lo p m e n t that meets the need s of the present without co m p ro m isin g the ability of future generatio ns to meet their own n e e d s ’. Fifteen years later, a myriad of variations in the definition of the term reflect the differing prior­ ities of the defin e rs, w h e th e r th ey be g o v e rn m e n ts , c o rp o r a te interests, e n viro n m e n ta l g ro u p s or co m m u n ity a d v o c a c y groups. For the p u rp o se s of this book, we define aquatic genetic resources the way the C BD does g enetic m aterial (including the aquatic life that contains it) that is or has the potential to be

used b y humanity for the reproductio n of life or d e v e lo p m e n t of a product. In these practical

32 BLUE GENES B o x 1.2 c o n t i n u e d terms, genetic resources mean any cells containin g g enes - re productiv e or otherwise. As we will see later, such a definition has profound implications for the creation of policies that protect the rights of local and in d ig enous com m unitie s.

R a m i f i c a t i o n s f or i n d i g e n o u s a n d loc al c o m m u n i t i e s Efforts to differentiate betw een biolo g ica l and genetic resources hold significant ram ific a­ tions for the rights of in d ig enous and local com m u n itie s to control ac c e s s to life on their terri­ tories and to share in benefits from its use. Many in d ig enous p e o p le s o b je c t strongly to defining nature as a 'resource' in the first place be c a u se doing so im plies nature exists to be exploited rather than re spected. During the d e c a d e since the CBD ca m e into force, several co u n tries have e n a c te d laws g o v e rn in g a c c e s s to b io lo g ic a l a n d /o r g e n e tic resources. Those that refer to b io lo g ic a l resources m o st c o m m o n ly require c o m m u n ity c o n s e n t for acce ss; those that refer to genetic resources generally require c on se n t only by com m unitie s that p rov id e tr a d itio na l k n o w le d g e th a t facilitates the use of those re sources. This is a distinction w hose im p o rta n ce should not be underestim ated. The d is tin c tio n is m o s t c ru c ia l for fishing c o m m u n itie s that a c tu a lly p ro v id e a q u a tic g enetic resources to outsiders. The collection of plant genetic resources typically involves ta p p ing into the k n o w led g e of traditional agricultural com m u n ities or in d ig e n ou s c o m m u ­ nities that use plants for m e d icin al or other purp o se s. While traditional fishing com m unitie s have d e ve lo p e d an extensive b o d y of k n o w le d g e a b ou t fish sp e cie s of im po rta n ce to them and a b o u t the m a n a g e m e n t of aquatic e co system s, their k n o w le d g e is far less likely to provide essential information for fish b reeders or ph a rm a c eu tic a l c o m p a n ie s - the primary actors involved in the collection of a qu a tic g enetic resources. H ence the parallel to plant g enetic resources is simply not there. A c c e s s laws, which are generally driven by plant issues, are in the very early stages of im plem entation, and how they will be a pplie d remains unclear. In the m eantim e, c o n s id ­ erable uncertain ty awaits both c olle ctors of a q ua tic genetic resources and com m u n ities p rovidin g them. As this book will argue, if confusion persists a b o ut the difference betw een b io lo g ic a l and g e n e tic re sources, and if laws linking the rights of c o m m u n itie s to their provision of traditional k n o w le d g e are too rigidly a p p lie d , fishing co m m u nitie s may be left out of the equation entirely.

E x p a n d in g c o m m e rc ia l uses f o r AQUATIC G E N E T I C RESOURCES

Food fish aquaculture O v e r t he pa st c e n t u r y , t he w o r l d w i d e d e m a n d for a n i m a l p r o t e i n was m e t primarily by cattle ra n c h i n g a n d ocean fisheries. W i t h the ecosystems s u p p o rt i n g b o t h food sources pu s h e d to the limits o f p r o d u c t i o n , gr ow th o f wild fisheries has stalled. T h e slack has been taken up by farm ed fish p r o d u c t i o n , whi ch tripled to over 30 m i l l i o n t o n n e s d u r i n g t h e 1 9 9 0 s a n d is e x p e c t e d to s ur pa s s cattle p r o d u c t i o n by 2 0 1 0 . Currently, aq u a cu ltu re accou nts for m o re than o n e -t h i rd o f global fisheries p r o d u c t i o n (F AO , 2 0 0 0 ) a n d is expected to hold a greater share o f the m a r k e t than all o t h e r fisheries by the year 2 0 2 0 (Rifkin, 1998). T h e worl d p o p u l a t io n is projected to reach 9.3 billion by 2 0 5 0 , pr imarily as a result o f gro wth in develop ing co untries ( S E D A , 2 0 0 0 ) , m a n y o f whic h rely on

T H E GENE RUSH: FIN D IN G NEW VALUE IN AQUATIC BIODIVERSITY

33

fish as their main source of animal protein. Approximately 85 per cent of fish farming takes place in developing countries. While the environmental effects of aquaculture (especially salmon and shrimp farming) remain controversial, signif­ icant increases in aquaculture production may be essential to global food security. In 1998, Chinese aquaculture accounted for over two-thirds o f world production, or about 27 million tonnes (FAO, 2000). T h e other developing countries with the m o s t significant o u t p u t includ e I nd ia (2.03 million to n n es) , Bangladesh, Indonesia and Thailand. A m o n g industrial countries, Japan produces ab ou t 812 ,8 37 tonnes (including scallops, oysters and yellowtail); the US produces 457,221 tonnes largely made up o f catfish; an d salm on comprises the m aj ori ty o f N o r w a y ’s 4 0 6 , 4 1 8 tonnes (Brown, 2000).

The importance o f genetic diversity in aquaculture In nature, animals select their reproductive partners from a large pool. W h e n animals are farmed, however, reproduction is usually controlled by the farmer. Farming aquatic organisms is like farming land animals: in the artificial system of re p ro d u c tio n that f ar m ing imposes, you need c o n s ta n t injections o f gcnctic diversity to keep offspring from becoming inbred. Genetic diversity is also vital for improving breed performance, a process called broodstock improvement. Reproduction of domestic farmed animals is controlled either by farmers super­ vising matings or purchasing genetic resources - sperm or embryos - and using these genetic resources on their own breeders. A cattle farmer, for example, is likely to buy cryopreserved (frozen) semen with the desired genetic characteristics, and use it to inseminate the females selected for breeding; he may also purchase frozen embryos for implantation in his cows. There is a global network supplying such genetic resources. Farming of aquatic animals also requires a steady supply of genetic variability. T h e requirement for genetic diversity is probably even greater for farmed aquatic animals than for livestock, because the very high fecundity o f aquatic animals makes it far too easy for farmers to obtain all their seed from one or two indi­ viduals (a dangerous practice genetically because it dramatically reduces genetic variability, something that is clearly impossible with a cow or pig).

Genetic im provem ent O n e way o f increasing aquaculture p r o ductio n is thro ug h the use o f genetic im p ro vem ent techniques, including selective breeding, c h r o m o s o m e m a n i p u ­ lation, hydridization, production o f monosex animals and, more recently, gene transfer. While selective breeding may be the best long-term strategy, a variety of s h o r t - te r m strategies are used for an i m m e d i a t e increase in p r o d u c t i o n . In Venezuela, hybrids of cachama and morocoto account for perhaps 80 per cent of the aquaculture of these species. Manip ulation of the sex o f tilapia broodstock t h r o u g h h o r m o n e - i n d u c e d sex reversal and s u b s e q u e n t b r e e d in g is used to produce pre do minantly male tilapia with high growth rates.

34

BLUE GENES

Deliberate selective breeding is not the only way th at different strains evolve. New strains o f cultured fish also occur not only because a farmer is trying to improve w hat he has, but also from bottlenecks that arise when he starts out. M any culture operations begin with only a few pairs o f breeders (because fish are very fe cu n d ), an d after several g en era tio n s o f b ree din g the stock inevitably becomes genetically distinct from the founder stock. T h e degree o f distinctness, and w h e th e r it has any im p ortance for culture, varies tr em end ou sly with the species and farming system. A lthough only a small percentage o f aquaculture production currently comes from genetically im proved species (Gjedrem, 1997), su pp ort for the pro m o tio n o f genetic im provem ent programmes is well entrenched in developm ent circles. T h e Strategic Plan o f the W orld Fish C en te r (formerly IC L A R M ), a m em ber o f the Consultative G rou p on International Agricultural Research (CGIAR) and a major player in the developm ent and dissemination o f aquaculture m ethods in Asia and Africa, illustrates the trend. Focusing on carps and tilapias, the World Fish C enter plans to 'develop techniques for improving breeds o f fish, the dissemination o f those techniques, and the training o f staff in their use’ (ICLARM 2002). T h e W orld Fish C enter has long m aintained a program m e in genetic resource conser­ vation and use, primarily with the intention o f ensuring that wild genetic resources are available for breeding so as to improve livelihoods, and that they remain as far as possible u nco ntam in ated by genetic resources from introduced species (often a delicate balance; Pullin, 1993). This approach to aquaculture developm ent is virtually universal, and some o f its pitfalls are well recognized. FAO, for example, acknowledges the drawbacks in its T echn ical G u id e lin e s for R esponsible Fisheries Series (N o. 5, A q u a c u ltu r e Development), citing Article 9.3.4 o f the FAO C ode o f C o n d u c t for Responsible Fisheries: ‘States sh o u ld p ro m o te the use o f ap p ro p r ia te p roced ures for the selection o f broodstock and the production o f eggs, larvae and fry’. FAO notes that ‘few fish farmers have the training and experience to do such work efficiently and w ith o u t significant loss o f genetic fitness’ and that it is ‘advisable to establish specialized facilities for the developm ent o f improved stocks and the production of seed' (FAO, 1997).

Collection o f broodstock and the role o f local communities W hatever approach is taken to the im provem ent o f cultured stocks, farmers need ready access to genetic resources. Potential sources include: • W ild stocks in their natural habitat. • Broodstock collections (‘living gene banks’) on farms or in research institutes. • Rural p o n d farms in developing countries. • Cryopreserved gene banks (frozen sperm or embryos). Agriculture and aquaculture are worlds apart when it comes to the collection o f genetic resources for improving farmed strains. C rop producers and seed companies rarely need to collect their own seed from the wild. U nder the auspices o f groups

THE GENE RUSH: FINDING NEW VALUE IN AQUATIC BIODIVERSITY

B o x 1. 3

35

B r e e d i n g Fish

One of the m o st im p o rta n t issues in the d e b a te over s haring b enefits of plant g e n etic resources is the investm ent by small farmers in crop im provem ent. The a rg u m e n t goes as follows: farmers put time, e n ergy and m oney into de v elopin g local breeds or varieties; if the results of their efforts attract the attention of a seed com pany, they are due a share in the benefits from its further d e ve lo p m e n t and distribution. The question is, do ‘sm a ll’ aquaculturists in local com m u n ities fit this pattern? The answer is critical to the d e v e lo p m e n t of ac c e s s and benefit-sharing policies, be c a u se it will tell us how im portant traditional k n o w le d g e is in the use of aquatic genetic resources. To a n sw er this question we need first to c o n s id e r how fish are bred, and how the process differs from plant breed in g (fish are used as an e xa m p le ; similar logic ap plies to cultured shellfish, although the rep roductiv e m ethods are different). Crops, of course, are p ro d u c e d from seeds, which are easily co lle cted from a portion of the ye a r’s harvest. Hybridizations betw een different strains of crop are also usually easy. Fish, on the other hand, re pro duce in w ater and in response to a n u m be r of environmental cues that are still poorly u nd erstood for m any species. In fact, many cultured fish species will not re pro duce or even reach sexual maturity in farm conditions. The culture of such sp e cie s has thus been a stop and start pro ce s s involving: • •

Reliance on w ild -ca u g h t fry ('seed'); Rapid expansio n to the point where natural fry sources are inadequate;

• •

Investment in research to d e ve lo p tec h niq u es for artificial sp a w nin g and fry productio n; Extension work to either transfer these te ch n iq ue s to farmers or build s u p p ly lines for fry p ro d u c e d in central hatcheries.

In most ca se s the sp a w n in g te ch n iq u e s have involved ho rm o n e injection or, more simply, manipulation of environmental conditions to trig g e r g o n a d a l d e v e lo p m e n t (Harvey and Hoar, 1979; Harvey and Carolsfeld, 1993). Either way, the m ethods are a lot more co m p lic a te d than planting the best maize seeds from the previous year. Much of the te ch n o lo g y d e v e lo p m e n t has been and continues to be done by universities a n d g o v e r n m e n t fish e rie s a g e n c ie s , with fu n d in g from n a tio n a l a n d in te rn a tio n a l aid a ge n cies. The te ch n olo g y is then transferred to farmers. For exa m p le , the snakehead, a co m m o n freshwater fish in Malaysia, b e c a m e increasing po p u la r in the early 1990s when it b e c a m e known for its ‘h e a lin g ’ properties - w hich may have some basis in a high con te n t of a ra ch id on ic acid, a pre cursor for c h e m ic a ls that promote w ou n d healing. H ig her d e m a n d s led to a market for snakeh e a d fry, and simple h atchery m e th o ds were d e ve lop e d at the Universiti Sains Malaysia and transferred to farmers (Yaakob and Ali, 1992). Given the right training, farmers can also b e c o m e small-scale fish bre eders, for exa m p le in C a m b o d ia , where small-scale ‘h o u s e h o ld ’ hatcheries are being set up with assistance from the Mekong River Com m issio n (Touch and Griffiths, 2001).

G l o b a l s p r e a d o f g e n e t i c r e s o u r c e s t h r o u g h fish c u l t u r e The e m p h a s is on h atchery p ro ductio n and s tocking of fish fry in natural and m a n m a d e bod ies of w ater has p ro d u c e d a genetic co -m in g lin g at least as pervasive as that in a g ri­ culture, and as hard to sort out. It also means that roles shift (from farmer to fry producer, for exam ple) and that it is hard to identify a genetic chain of custody. Despite the relatively re cent start to aquaculture, the global translocation of p o p u la r cultured sp e cie s of aquatic anim als has been im p re ssive, and a n a lo g o u s to the g e o g r a p h ic s p re a d of c ro p s . The J a pa n e se oyster and Manila clam, for exam ple, were both delib erate introductions to North A m e rica and are now m ainstays of the North A m erican bivalve industry. Pacific salmon

36 BLUE GENES B o x 1.3 c o n t i n u e d ind ig en o u s to North A m e rica are grown in Chile and New Zeala nd, while Atlantic salmon from Europe are farm ed in both North and South A m erica. Tilapia. an African fish, is u b iq ­ uitous. and through a q uaculture transfers and su b se q u e n t e s c a p e s has b e c o m e a serious environm enta l pest in many countries. Even the m igratory South A m e rica n sp e cie s such as pa cu and tam b a qu i, w hose controlled re productio n is a recent a c hievem ent, have been delib erately transferred to Asia, where they are cultured in China and Taiwan. All these transfers h ap p e ne d before the CBD ca m e into being. The pejerrey, for example, an estuarine Argentine species, was introduced to Japanese lakes in 1966 and has b ec o m e well established in the Japanese market (it is used in sashimi and tem pura dishes). The fish is now prod u ce d in Japan and is believed to be a genetically distinct stock. Chinese carp (there are three main cultured species) have the longest history of geog ra p h ic transfer: within a d e ca d e of developing m ethods for controlled reproduction in the early 1960s, the fish were being grown throughout Europe, the US and in the United Arab Republic (Bardach et al. 1972). The end result of all this m oving around of fish is a situation where genetic p atrim ony is hazy. For this reason, and be ca use the bree d in g efforts of small fish farmers are either not re co rd e d or, more likely, relatively minor in co m p a riso n to the investm ents by state research a g e nc ie s and private co m p a n ie s , it is p ro b a b ly unwise to autom atically transfer the logic of benefit-sharing policies directly from the plant world. For cro p s, benefit sharing rides on the b a ck of traditional kn o w le d ge , a factor that is p ro b a b ly small in a qu aculture (although quite im po rta n t for collection of b ro o d s to ck or e xperim ental animals for bio p ro s p e ctin g surveys).

such as the C G I A R , gene banks in m a n y countries collect, store and distribute seeds from a myriad o f plant strains p r od uc e d by generations o f farmers, as well as from wild varieties. Just on e ba nk, at the Intern ati on al Rice Research Institute in the Philippines, stores mo re t ha n 9 0 ,0 0 0 samples o f cultivated rice and wild species (IRRI, 2004) . A q ua c ul tu r e, by contrast, is starting from scratch. O u t s i d e o f species such as the c o m m o n carp, cu ltured in C h i n a for several t h o u s a n d years, there’s little history o f fa rm in g to dr aw u p o n a n d no n e tw o rk o f k n ow le dge built up by previous gene ra­ tions o f farmers. Moreover, u n d e r s t a n d i n g the characteristics o f wild fish strains a n d h o w they can be used to im p r o v e fa rm ed stocks is very m u c h a w o r k in progress. T h e w o r k o f b u i l d i n g collections ( b o t h b r o o d s t o c k co llections and cryo pr es erv ed gene ba nks) has barely star ted . C u r r e n t l y t h ey are few a n d far between with n o t h i n g like the organization a n d c o or di na tio n t h a t exists in the p l a n t w or ld (the d e v e l o p m e n t o f fish gene bank s is discussed in detail in the following chapter). For selective breedi ng purposes a n d to bu ild up collections, research institutes a n d aq ua cu ltu re op erat ions collect b r o o d s t o c k from the wild. Case studies later in the b o o k describe three such initiatives. O n e was the fruitless effort o f a C a n a d i a n sa lm on farm er to ob tai n g o v e r n m e n t pe rmissio n to collect genetically pure wild b r o o d s t o c k to cross-breed with existing farmed stock (Case Stud y 2). A n o t h e r C a n a d i a n c o m p a n y was equally unsuccessful in ne gotiating access to Arctic charr b r o o d st o c k in I n uit c o m m u n i t i e s on the Arctic O c e a n (Case St u d y 3). Case Stud y 4 describes the W o r l d Fish C e n t e r ’s collection o f Nile tilapia from four African countries, resulting in the d e v e l o p m e n t o f a strain o f tilapia th at is n o w widely far med in Sou theast Asia.

THE GENE RUSH: FINDING NEW VALUE IN AQUATIC BIODIVERSITY

B o x 1. 4

37

C o l l e c t i n g A q u a t i c G e n e t i c R e s o u r ce s : A P r i m e r f or P ol i c y M a k e r s

There are tw o c o m m o n kin d s of a q u a tic g e n e tic re so u rc e co lle ctio n . The first is gene banking, which inclu des collections of cry o p re s e rve d sperm or ‘living gene banks* of adults maintained in captivity. The s e co n d involves p ro s p e c tin g for marine invertebrates. Both activities are substantially different from plant gene banking. What do they actually look like in the field?

Gene banking Both kinds of gene banking - for sperm and for adult breeders - involve fishing. Because the point of gene banking is to colle ct wild genetic material, colle ctors m ust be ca p a b le of going onto rivers, lakes or the ocean with the means of finding and c atc h in g live, wild fish. Anyone who has ever gone fishing knows what is involved, with the a d d e d co m plica tio n that the animals cap tu red have to be alive. Moreover, sperm donors generally have to be cap ture d ripe, at their re productive peak, or else it is im po ssib le to obtain sam ples. This requirement causes more co m plic atio ns, b ec a u se fish are only ripe at certain times of year, they tend to fr equent certain locations when they are ready to spaw n, and they may travel in sp aw n in g gro up s that can n o t be d is tu rb e d by the removal of a few fish. A ty p ic a l fish g e ne ba n k ing co lle c tio n trip, w h e th e r for e n d a n g e re d catfis h in South A m e rica or for salmon in North A m erica, involves first of all a planning phase when collectors secure the nec e ss ary perm its, usually from the national fisheries or environmental agency. They then consult sp aw n in g records for timing, location and a b u n d a n c e of fish, with input from local experts, w ho may be fisheries a g e n c y biologists, local co m m e rc ia l sp o rt fishing guides, local fisherm en or ab origin al people . W herever the information c o m e s from, the su c ce s s of the expeditio n d e p e n d s on it, and the cost of a failed expeditio n can be high. O n c e the m ost likely w h e re a b o u ts of the fish have b ee n d e te r m in e d , g e a r m ust be asse m b le d for catch ing the fish, for sam plin g and handling gam etes, or for transporting live fish if the purp ose is a b roo d sto c k collection. H e n ce the g e a r inclu des typical fishing tools such as boats, motors, nets and w aterpro of clothing for rivers, as well as c ry o g e n ic tanks if sperm is to be frozen. C a tch in g fish in a river is usually a matter of placin g nets in their path, or encircling them, either from shore or by using a boat to pull a net around them . Where waters are d e e p or turbid, as is often the case, g o od g u id es are essential. If b ro o d sto ck are sought, they need to be netted and ha n dle d carefully, and transported to the holding facility (the living gene bank) with minim al mortality from handling stress. Transportation is usually by truck, and has to be limited to less than a d a y to ensure good survival. If sperm is to be frozen, male fish must be manually sorted for ripeness, and the sperm of the sele cted d o no rs o b ta in e d by s q u e e z in g the a b d o m e n of the fish. Both p ro c e d u re s involve skill and local k n o w led g e . The freezing process is simple, and involves mixing the sp e rm with a c r y o p r o te c ta n t m ixture th a t h e lps the cells survive fre e zin g, lo a d in g the p ro te c te d sp e rm into plastic straws, and p la c in g the straws in a c ry o g e n ic container. Removal of sperm does not harm the d o n or fish, w hic h are often returned to com p le te their natural sp a w nin g in the wild. C ollectors usually aim to sam ple at least 50 males from each stock, so local k n o w le d ge is im portant in guaranteein g sam ple size. Live b roo d sto c k that have been c ollected to form a living gene bank are usually kept in tanks, p o n d s or pens, with controls in place to ensure that they and their pro ge n y don't e sc a p e , either to n e ig hbo u rin g e nclosures or to the outside world (they may be from a different w atershed and need to be k e pt from mixing gene tica lly with the local fish). Frozen sperm is transferred from the field containers (w hich are relatively small and portable, about the size of a keg of beer) to secure, long-term storage. Storage facilities can range from small tanks of liquid nitrogen on site in a research lab or farm, to rented s pa c e in large liquid

38 BLUE GENES

B o x 1.4 c o n t i n u e d nitrogen tanks in a cattle insemination centre. The software for keeping track of cryo p re served fish sam p le s is nowhere near as d e ve lo p e d as plant gene banking software, but m ost co lle ctio ns are relatively small (fe w e r than 2500 s a m p le s ) and can be m a n a g e d using spreadsheets.

P r o s p e c t i n g f or i n v e r t e b r a t e s Collecting a q ua tic invertebrates with reputed biolo gica l activity is analogous to collecting wild plants, but the m ethods obviously differ. Both activities share a heavy d e p e n d e n c e on local kn o w le d ge , although in cases w here a sp e cie s or ecosystem has been a ca d e m ica lly studied there may be no need to consult local people. Where a quatic collection differs m ost from terrestrial ones is in the range of environments that have to be searched. A nim als that are e xp o s e d at low tide can be harvested on foot, but many live at d e p th or in the w ater colum n and can only be extracted by towing nets or by diving. Diving is slow and laborious and requires s c u b a gear, s u p p o rt vessels and people trained to recognize the animals in question. Nets require a boat big eno u gh to tow them and allow o nboard sorting of the catch, as well as facilities for preserving, p rocessing or p a c k ­ aging for ship pin g. Weather is often a factor. As with c a tc hin g fish for gene b anking, the invisibility of aquatic creatures b e y on d the low tide line m eans that reliable local g u ides are indis pensable.

At the time o f the collections described in the case studies, neither C a n a d a nor the African countries ha d policies on access to gcnctic resources in i ndi ge nou s and local c o m m u n i t i e s . T h e y still d o n ’t. T h e a u th o r i ty o f the In u it c o m m u n i t i e s to provide or w i t h h o ld c on s en t was the result o f a recently approved land claims agreement. S u b s e q u e n t chapters will discuss the i m p o r t a n c e o f access policies and any progress towards their i m p l e m e n ta t io n . Finally, a n d perhaps m o s t i m p o r t a n t , in n o n e o f these three examples did the collectors d e p e n d on local knowl ed ge o f the fish stocks they w a n t e d to breed. T hi s is no t to say that traditional kn ow le dge o f fish stocks is never relevant to collectors. However, it is less o f a factor t ha n in the p lan t wor ld, where the value o f genetic resources to collectors d e p e n d s almo st universally on local know le dge - w h e t h e r it’s the expertise o f traditional breeders or c o m m u n i t y kn ow le dge o f medicinal uses o f plants. As discussed later, this difference is critical because local kn owledge o f genetic resources has been the p r im a ry rationale for the d e v e l o p m e n t o f national laws de fining c o m m u n i t y rights to benefits from their use.

Lessons fr o m th e green revo lu tio n It is too early to say w he th e r the blue revolution created by advances in aquatic genetic science will - or should - have an imp act equivalent to that o f the green revo­ lution, which transformed agriculture by using genetic i m p r o v e m e n t to produce new varieties o f crops. W h i l e the green revolution greatly increased agricultural productivity, particularly as a result o f en ha nc ed growth rates, it also raised concerns a b o u t crop diversity a n d c o m m u n i t y economies. Thes e included decreases in crop

T H E G E N E RUSH: F IN D IN G N E W VALUE IN A QU ATIC B IO D IV ER SITY

39

varieties available to farmers, the inability o f farmers to save seeds from sterile crops for s ub seq uent use, an d changes in in co m e distribution a m o n g farmers. T h e r e is g r o w i n g , b u t by n o m e a n s u n iv er sal, r e c o g n i t i o n t h a t g c n c t i c i m p r o v e m e n t in a q u a c u l tu r e m u s t go h a n d in h a n d w ith genetic conservation. T h i s m e a n s e n s u r i n g the survival o f local breeds t h a t m a y a p p e a r infe rior to im p o r t e d strains, based on s h o rt- te rm measures o f g row th rate, b u t in the long term may be m ore ro b u st (eg resistant to local diseases or climate extremes) and hence provide better returns to local farmers. It also includes e n s uri ng the survival o f wild genetic resources. If the blue revolution is to increase overall food p r o d u c ­ tivity a n d m a i n t a i n healthy local e cono m ies, it will be essential to apply the lessons learned from agriculture.

A ddressin g e n v ir o n m e n ta l risks a n d controversies T h e C B D calls on m e m b e r c o u n tr ie s to a d o p t the p r e c a u t i o n a r y pr inciple in biodiversity m a n a g e m e n t . T h e difficulty o f d o in g this is n o w h e r e m o re evident t h a n in id en tify in g a n d address ing the risks o f in d u s tr ia l a q u a c u l tu r e . Public con ce rns are growing. W h i l e the p o n d f a rm ing o f species such as the tilapia in deve loping countries m ay actually p r o d u c e s o m e e n v i r o n m e n ta l benefits by recy­ cling waste an d p r o d u c i n g fertilizer, the risks o f genetic an d o th e r e n v ir o n m e n ta l effects are considerable, just as they are for o t h e r species such as s alm on , s h ri m p , a nd yellowtail. T h e biodiversity effects o f m ar ic u ltu r e have recently been reviewed, a nd symposia a nd co nsult ations now regularly c o n f r o n t the e n v i r o n m e n ta l risks o f a variety o f a q u acu ltu r e technologies. T h e im pa cts vary ac cording to the type o f operati on a n d species farm ed. In s o u t h e r n countrie s, s h r i m p f a rm ing has c o m e u n d e r attack for its i m p a c t on local ec o n o m ie s a n d cultures. Shiva (1999 ) argues th at ‘luxury c o n s u m p t i o n 4 o f sh rim p by n o r th e r n c o m m u n i t i e s comcs at great cost to the c o m m u n i t i e s th a t p r o d u c c th e m , w ith ecological im pac ts such as salinization and removal o f m a ngrove forests leading to a destr uction o f livelihoods o f the p o o r in coastal regions o f the devel­ o p in g world. T h e list o f poten tial e n v ir o n m e n ta l impacts o f net pen f a rm ing o f s alm on is also extensive a n d has led to repeated calls for its abolition by e n v i r o n m e n ta l groups. T h e r e is still no scientific consensus on the extent a n d likelihood o f a br o ad variety o f e n v i r o n m e n t a l im pa cts, especially for m i g ra to r y species such as s alm on. In 2 0 0 2 , the s alm o n f a rm ing i n d u str y in British C o l u m b i a ar gued successfully for the lifting o f a seven-year m o r a t o r i u m on the licensing o f new s alm o n sea pen farms, even th o u g h some scientists believe that the likelihood o f negative e n v ir o n m e n ta l impacts is in fact greater th a n w h e n the g o v e r n m e n t established the m o r a to r i u m . G e n e t ic issues related to far m ed s alm o n are b e c o m i n g b etter u n d e r s t o o d each year, a nd new threats, such as the role o f farm ed fish in spreading diseases a nd parasites, are p r o d u c i n g conflict and increased research s p e n d in g ( G a r d n e r a n d Peterson, 2 0 03). It is now clear th a t the i m p a c t o f food fish a q u acu ltu r e c a n n o t be m ea sure d sim ply in terms o f increased productivity. Moreover, it s pointless to de fen d a q u a ­ culture by saying it holds the answer to the w o r l d ’s food p roble m s w h e n the m a in

40 BLUE GENES

B o x 1.5

G c n e t i c M o d i f i c a t i o n : B e t t e r Fish o r F o u l Play?

The a pplication o f co n tem p o ra ry b io lo g ica l kn ow ledge to issues like food a n d n utrition a n d h um an health has to occur. It has to o ccu r for the sam e reasons that things have o ccu rre d for the p a s t ten m illennia. People w ant to live better, a n d they w ill use the tools they have to do it. B iology is the be st to o l we have (R o b e rt Shapiro, ch a irm a n a n d CEO, M o n sa n to C o m p a n y (qu o te d in Specter, 2000 )).

G e n e tic re s o u r c e s are the raw m a te ria l for g e n e tic m o d ific a tio n . While c o n v e n tio n a l bree d in g pra ctice s serve mainly to amplify d esirable ch aracteristics that already exist in a sp e cie s or variety, genetic m anipulation enable s b reeders to incorporate single traits s e le c ­ tively and quickly, without the norm al limitation that bree d in g can only be betw een m e m b e rs of the same species. Traditional m eth o d s of plant and animal bre e d ing , hybridization, and ch ro m o so m e set m anipulation all constitute genetic modification, but international a g re e ­ ments and national legislation define genetically m odified org a nism s m uch more narrowly as tr a n sg en ic org a n ism s - those that have had g enes from another sp e cie s or g enus inserted into their cells (FAO, 2000). However, the World Fish Center uses a b ro a d e r definition that inclu des the p ro du c ts of ca p tive and selective bre ed in g, hybridization betw een species, d e v e lo p m e n t of m onosex populations, and several other tec h niq u es (Penman, 1999). The p ro du c ts of genetic modification are everywhere. More than 60 per ce n t of s u p e r­ m arket fo o d s are estim ated to contain g e n e tic ally altered p ro d u cts, and the n u m b e r is steadily rising to the point that w hat used to be the e xception is ra pidly b e c o m in g the rule. H u n d re d s of foods contain p ro d uc ts from varieties of all the major crops, genetically e n g i­ neered for ch aracteristics such as e n h a n ce d growth rate, pest and disease resistance, or a da ptability to coo le r climates. D om estic livestock reflect the results of genetic research in ways ranging from the simple use of cry o pre se rv ed semen to p ro p a g a te a herd of be e f cattle to the experim ental creation of clones of especially prod u ctive animals. In princip le and to some extent already in practice, the kinds of genetic a d v a n c e s that pe rm e a te the farming of terrestrial plants and animals are all possible for aquatic organisms. Fish gene banks have existed since the early 1980s, and several spe c ie s of genetically e n g i­ neered farmed fish have been d e ve lo p e d (although, as this book is written, they have yet to receive marketing approval).

M a n i p u l a t i n g t h e g e ne : A p r i m e r The basic unit of living m atter is the cell. The diversity of life ra n g es from s ingle -celle d o rg a n is m s such as a m o e b a e and bacteria to humans, with app ro xim ate ly 3 trillion cells. Inside each cell, ch ro m o so m e s (two sets of 23, in the case of hum a ns) store genetic infor­ mation on long strands of d e o xy rib on u cle ic acid (DNA). The information for how any cell is structured and functions is e n c o d e d on se g m e n ts of DNA called genes. Each g e ne contains c o d e s with instructions for the p ro d uc tio n of a sp e cific protein a chain of amino acids, each with a different function. Proteins can be transport molecules, a n tib o d ie s , m e s s e n g e rs , e n z y m e s , h o rm o n e s (su ch as grow th h o rm o n e ) or s tru ctu ra l proteins. G e ne s contain ‘p ro m ote rs' and inform ation b lo c k s th a t read, a c c e p t or re ject m essa g es for gene activation for the creation of proteins. A g e n e in a rose petal will respond to a m e ss a ge to p ro d u c e red pig m e nt, but a palm leaf g e ne will blo ck the same message. The g e n e tic c o d e of an o rg a n is m d e s c r ib e s the e ss e n tia l c h a r a c t e r is tic s th a t will be inherited by each individual - the distinctive coloration of a neon tetra, the cold tolerance of a winter flounder, the toxicity of a cone snail. The entirety of the genetic inform ation stored in an org anism is calle d its genom e. B io te chnolo gy can be broadly defined as any te ch niq u e that uses living o rga n ism s or their parts to make and m od ify p roducts, improve plants and animals, or de ve lop m icro ­ o rg a nis m s for s p e cific p u rp o se s (H obbelink, 1991). The earliest forms of bio te ch n o lo g y -

THE GENE RUSH: FINDING NEW VALUE IN AQUATIC BIODIVERSITY

B o x 1.5 c o n t i n u e d selective bree d ing of plants and animals and using m icro o rg a n is m s to make p ro d u c ts such as beer, wine, bread and ch e e se have been in existence for several thousand years, but te c h n iq u e s for m anipula tin g the essential foundation of living structures have a p p e a re d only in the p a st three d e c a d e s . These tec h n iq u e s inclu de tissue culture, cell fusion, em bryo transfer and re c o m b in a n t DNA te c h n o lo g y that enable scientists to create whole organism s from single cells, fuse different cell types to create hybrids with the qualities of both parent cells, im pla nt animals with e m b ryo s of other animals, and isolate gene s from one organism and insert them into another. Genetic engineerin g involves the disa rran g ing and recom b inin g of gene fragments, often of unrelated s pecies. By cutting a fra g m e n t of a genetic s e q ue n ce and pasting it into cells of an unrelated species, scientists can insert a gene of one org anism into an unrelated one. As a result, a plant may be fooled into a cc e p tin g m e ssag e s that turn its leaves a different colour, or pro m ote rs may be in troduced into fish g enes so they will respond in a desired m anner when transferred into the cell of a strawberry - eg p ro d u c in g a horm one for cold tolerance. Genetic e ng ineerin g in effect provides a shortcut around conventional selective bree d ing by directly altering the essential ch aracteristics of a species - although with the d isa d van tag e that by excisin g only short s e g m e n ts of DNA, scientists may well be overlookin g other essential sections of the genom e. While it has b e c o m e well established in agriculture, g enetic e n gineerin g is largely at the e x p e rim e n ta l s ta g e in a q u a c u ltu re . Most c o m m o n ly , a q u a c u ltu ris ts im p ro ve s to c k s or sp e cie s by using the sperm of one strain or variety to fertilize the e g g s of another. For e xam ple, a salmon fa rm er who wants to p ro d u c e fish with high oil co n ten t may cross-breed a c o ld e r w ater salmon stock with another stock that is a d a p te d to the w a rm e r environm ent where the offspring are inte nded to be grown. Genetic e ng ineerin g offers a s p e e d ie r road to the same destination.

T h e c o m i n g o f s u p e r fish - t r a n s g e n i c r e s e ar ch in a q u a c u l t u r e P roduction of farm ed fish can be c o n sid e ra b ly en h a n ce d through the culturing of stocks with traits a m e n a b le to p ro d u c t io n in ca p tiv ity . S uch traits in c lu d e g ro w th rate, d is e a s e resistance, and te m p e ra ture tolerance. A de sira b le trait a c h ie v e d through c o n ve n tio n a l c ro ss -b re e d in g (inseminating the e g g s of one stock with the sperm of another) is slow to e m e rg e and often u np re d ic tab le . Using m o lecula r biolo gy to identify and isolate such genes and then transfer them to b ro o d sto ck can c o n s id era b ly acce lerate the process. In addition, new traits not present in a g e n o m e can be transferred to it from an unrelated species, e nabling the p ro ductio n of new p h en o typ e s (Hew and Fletcher, 1997) A q u a c u ltu re currently relies alm ost exclu sive ly on c o n ve n tio n al b re e d in g te ch n iq u e s, namely those that mate parents from the same sp ecies. However, species such as salmon, tilapia, and channel catfish are being actively investigated as c a nd ida te s for the de ve lo p m e n t of transgenic varieties that utilize genes from different species. A prom inent exam ple is the d e ve lop m en t of the so-called Super Salmon, which may achieve several times the rate of growth of unim proved stocks. Researchers initially p ro d u c e d the strain through the transfer of growth prom o tin g g e n etic material from an oce a n pout into Atlantic and Pacific salmon species. In other experiments, anti-freeze protein genes from c o ld w a te r fish such as the winter flounder have been incorporated into the gen om e of the Atlantic salmon, which lacks the anti-freeze gene and can no t survive the subzero tem peratures that may o c cu r in sea ca g e farming in the northwest Atlantic (Hew and Fletcher, 1997). In both exam ples, a genetic resource from one aquatic species was used to c h a n g e the genetic make-up of another. A lthough no tr a n sg e nic fish are yet being sold, they may be on the m arket in the next few ye a rs if health and e n v iro n m e n ta l issues are a d d re s s e d (FAO, 2000). A/F Protein, the c o m p a n y d e ve lo p in g the S uper Salmon on the east co a st of C an a da , reportedly has orders

41

42 BLUE GENES

B o x 1.5 c o n t i n u e d for 15 million g e n e tic a lly m o d ifie d salmon e g g s. A q u a B ounty Farms, a subsidiary, has a pplie d to the US Food and Drug A dministration for perm ission to market the tr a n sg e nic fish. If the a p plic ation is a p p ro v e d , the Super Salmon will be the first tr a n sg e nic animal appro ve d in the US for human c o n s u m p tio n (Moore, 2000). A ssum ing this occurs, the penetration of markets co uld pro c e e d quickly, as it has for agricultural p roducts: in 1993, no genetically engineered c ro p s were sold com m e rcially; a mere five years later, an estimated 28 million hectares globally were planted with tr a n sg e nic cro p s (C rucible Group, 2000).

T h e fish in t h e s t r a w b e r r y : G e n e t r a n s f e r s b e t w e e n p h y l a Genetic manipulation has progre ssed to the point where gene transfers o c c u r not only within sp e cie s or betw een related species (for exam ple, one species of fish to another), but also b e tw e e n m u c h m o re d is ta n tly rela ted o r g a n is m s . For e x a m p le , s u b s e q u e n t s te p s in e n h a nc in g cold tolerance in salmon could inclu de the use of insect proteins to d e v e lop a potent anti-freeze gene for fish (F letcher et al, 1999). Testing is u n d e rw a y in the US to in tro d u c e in s e c t g e n e s into strip e d bass to e n h a n c e d is e a s e re s is ta n ce (FAO, 2000). Researchers have implanted fish anti-freeze gen e s into strawberrie s (Specter, 2000) and to b a c c o (Reid et al, 1993) to prom ote frost hardiness, and have inserted salmon calcitonin p ro d u c in g gen es into ra bbits to control calcium de pletio n in bon e s (FAO, 2000). In addition to e n h an c in g aq u a cu ltu re productio n, anti-freeze proteins may also improve the quality of frozen fo ods, and could prove useful in m e d ica l applic ations. For exam ple, they can extend the shelf life of blood platelets prior to transfusion and, used in c onjunctio n with cryosurgery, can destroy m a lig nant tu m ours (Fletcher et al, 1999). It is estimated that biological k n o w le d ge d o ub les every five years. In the field of genetics, however, the quantity of information d ou b le s every 24 months. B io techn o lo g ica l discoverie s are constantly fuelling new te ch n iq u e s for using a q u atic genetic resources. Rifkin (1998) s u gg e sts that the com m ercia l possibilities are limited only by the hum an imagination and the c h a n g in g d e m a n d s of the m a rke tp la ce a claim m any scientists would take issue with but that nonetheless reflects the potential social im p a c t of biotechnology. The key point for this book is that every new co m m e rcia l a p plic ation, and the research that dem on strate s it to be viable, requires the collection of genetic material, som etim es from m any locations in several c ou n tries. As the pa ce of d is c o v e ry c o n tin u e s to increase, reg u la to ry clarity re gardin g ac c es s will b e c o m e essential.

Ethical and e n v iro n m en ta l concerns a b o u t genetic engineering K neen (1 999) says that ‘the fa c t that we do not really know w hat the long-term c o n s e ­ q u e n ce s of genetic e n gineerin g will be, and are not prep a red to move slowly and to find out, m eans that a g rand expe rim en t is taking place, and the outcom e is a n y o n e ’s guess'. Many p ro ponents of genetic transfers maintain that there is little or no risk and that the social benefits, e specially g lobal food security, are param ount. The general p u b lic, as well as much of the scientific community, remain to be co n vin ce d . While genetic m anipulation for m e d ica l p u rp o s e s has largely found p u b lic a c c e p ta n c e , altering the m olecula r foundatio ns of the food s u p p ly h a s n ’t. Even p e o p le who a c c e p t the notion of g e n e tic m a n ipu latio n within sp e cie s may draw the line at inter sp e cie s transfers. For some, it's simply an ethical m atter hum ans s h o u ld n ’t tam p e r with nature by ‘playing G o d ’ with living creatures. One of the b ig g es t unresolved issues is the potential environm enta l im p a c t of raising genetically m odified animals. If a farm ed Super Salmon grows to three times the size of a wild c h in o o k , will e s c a p e e s from fa rm s c o m p e t e or b re e d with wild s to c ks ? W h e th e r e s c a p e d , genetically e n g ineered fish have a selective a d va n ta g e over wild stocks is hotly

THE GENE RUSH: FINDING NEW VALUE IN AQUATIC BIODIVERSITY

B o x 1. 5

43

continued

d e b a te d , b u t it’s n e v e rth e le s s a c o n c e r n to the p u b lic . Even if s u c h c o n c e r n s are large ly h y p o t h e t ic a l a n d m a n y s c ie n tis ts w o u ld d i s a g r e e w ith th e m , th e fa c t re m a in s th a t th e y re p r e s e n t th e m o o d of the p u b lic and m u s t be ta ken seriously. A n d b e c a u s e p o lic y in this area te n d s to re fle ct the p u b lic m o o d , they m u s t be c o n s id e r e d w h e n d e v e lo p in g g u id e lin e s for the c o lle c tio n a n d use o f a q u a tic g e n e tic re s ou rce s. In 20 0 2 , s e v e ra l A fric a n g o v e r n m e n t s jo in e d to k e e p fo o d aid c o n ta in in g g e n e tic a lly m o d ifie d o rg a n is m s from e n te rin g th eir c o u n trie s , fe a ring c o n ta m in a tio n of c ro p div ersity a n d p o s s ib le risks for h u m a n health (G R A IN , 2 0 0 2 b ). W h a t will h a p p e n if and w h e n tr a n s ­ g e n ic fish hit the m a rk et? Will s o m e c o u n tr ie s ban the use of tr a n s g e n ic fish in a q u a c u ltu re fo r fe a r of c o n ta m in a tio n of w ild sto c ks , p ro h ib it the c o lle c tio n o f w ild b ro o d s t o c k fo r s u c h a use. or e ven b a r the im p o rta tio n of tr a n s g e n ic fo o d fish fo r c o n s u m p t io n ? So far. p o lic y m a k e r s h a ve la rg e ly s te e r e d c le a r of fish t r a n s g e n ic s b e c a u s e so m a n y th o r n y iss ue s s u rro u n d the p ra c tic e , b u t the time will c o m e s o o n e r ra ther than later w h e n it n e e d s to be d e a lt with. If th a t tim e is w h e n a g e n e tic a lly e n g in e e r e d c o ld -to le ra n t tila p ia b e g in s to in va d e North A m e ric a n lakes, then it will be far to o late.

beneficiaries are c o u n t r i e s w i t h n o f oo d sho rta ge s. M o r e t h a n a n y t h i n g else, the h e a t e d c on tr ov e rs ie s over t h e i m p a c t s o f in d u s t r ia l a q u a c u l t u r e p o i n t to th e n e e d for b e tte r scientific i n f o r m a t i o n a n d s o lu tio n s, im p r o v e d bio d iv ersity m a n a g e m e n t policies, a n d a n e n d to 'decide, a n n o u n c e , d e f e n d ' a p p r o a c h e s by g o v e r n m e n t s i n t e n t o n p r o m o t i n g n e w i n d u s t r ie s . U l t i m a t e l y , a l t h o u g h a q u a ­ c u l t u r e is likely to create the largest d e m a n d for a q u a t i c g e n e ti c resources a m o n g c o m m e r c i a l users, the rate o f its g r o w t h will d e p e n d o n w h e t h e r p u b l i c be n e fit s (in a d d i t i o n to priv at e pr ofit) exceed p u b l i c costs. P u b lic c o n tro v ers ies a b o u t th e e n v i r o n m e n t a l a n d social i m p a c t s o f a q u a c u l t u r e are p a rt i c u l a rl y r elev ant to this b o o k be c au s e t h e y m a y affect c o m m u n i t y decisions o n a p p l i c a t i o n s for access to b r o o d s t o c k for fish f a r m in g . O n th e C a n a d i a n wes t coast, s o m e i n d i g e n o u s pe op le s w o r k o n o r w a n t to set u p t h e i r o w n s a l m o n farms; o t h e r s n o t o n l y o p p o s e n e w o p e r a t i o n s b u t call for th e r em ov a l o f existing one s, for b o t h e n v i r o n m e n t a l a n d political reasons. It is very likely t h a t th e wi llingness o f i n d i g e n o u s a n d l o ca l c o m m u n i t i e s to c o n s e n t to acce ss to a q u a t i c g e n e t i c resources, in c o u n t r i e s t h a t have e s ta bl is he d th ei r r ig ht to d o so, will d e p e n d o n the a q u a c u l t u r e i n d u s t r y ’s ab ility to m i t i g a t e o r p r e v e n t e n v i r o n m e n t a l im p a c ts .

O r n a m e n t a l fish breeding T h e t ra de in o r n a m e n t a l fishes is b ig business. T h e gl ob al t ra de value for e x p o rt s o f all fish a n d fish p r o d u c t s was e s t i m a t e d at over U S $ 5 1 billion in 1 9 9 7 ( W a t s o n , 2 0 0 0 ) . By c o n t r a s t , the value o f th e t ra d e in o r n a m e n t a l s is h a r d to gau ge b u t has b e e n e s t i m a t e d at U S $ 1 5 billion (Bartley 2 0 0 0 ) . It has increased a n n u a l l y by an average o f 14 p e r c e n t since 198 5 ( F A O , 1 9 9 9 ) a n d is r e p o r t e d to involve a b o u t 4 0 0 0 species, w i t h an a p p r o x i m a t e 5 0 - 5 0 split b e t w e e n fr e s h w a t er a n d m a r i n e . E u r o p e , N o r t h A m e r i c a a n d J a p a n are t h e p r i m a r y m a r k e t s , w i t h t h e U S a c c o u n t i n g for a n e s t i m a t e d 6 0 p e r c e n t o f th e d e m a n d ( B a q u e r o , 1 9 9 9 ) .

44 BLUE GENES Distinctions between the freshwater a n d marine trades A l t h o u g h t h e h i g h e s t val ue f r e s h w a t e r o r n a m e n t a l species are a l m o s t exclusively col l ec t e d f r o m t h e w i l d a n d m a y be so l d in ver y sma l l q u a n t i t i e s ( 5 0 to 1 0 0 a year f or s o m e s p e c i e s ) , a b o u t 9 0 p e r c e n t o f f r e s h w a t e r o r n a m e n t a l s ar e c u l t u r e d (Bartley, 2 0 0 0 ) . H o n g K o n g , S i n g a p o r e , t h e U S ( Fl o r ida ) a n d C z e c h o s l o v a k i a are p r i m a r y c e n t r es o f f a r m i n g activity. E m p l o y m e n t in t h e c u l t u r i n g o f o r n a m e n t a l fish is also s i g n i f i c an t in several o t h e r c o u n t r i e s . In Sri L a n k a , for i n s t a n c e , a b o u t 2 5 , 0 0 0 p e o p l e d e p e n d o n t he i n d u s t r y ( Ra j ap a k s e , 1 9 9 8 ) . By c o n t r a s t , o n l y a b o u t 2 5 o f 8 0 0 0 m a r i n e o r n a m e n t a l species c a n b e easily c u l t u r e d . C a p t i v e b r e e d i n g c u r r e n t l y a c c o u n t s f or o n l y a b o u t 3 p e r c e n t o f t he t o t a l s u p p l y a n d is g r o w i n g v e r y s l o w l y b e c a u s e o f b i o l o g i c a l a n d t e c h n i c a l c o n s t r a i n t s ( M a r i n e A q u a r i u m C o u n c i l , 2 0 0 1 ) . T h e s e a h o r s e , f or e x a m p l e , is n o t o r i o u s l y d if fi cu lt to raise in c a pt i v i t y b e c a u s e o f its d e p e n d e n c e o n live f ood. N e v e r t h e l e s s , t h e r e is a s t r o n g p u s h to b r e e d a n d d o m e s t i c a t e thi s a n d o t h e r h i g h val ue species (Bartley, 2 0 0 0 ) , c r e a t i n g a n e e d f or c ol l ec t i o n s o f w i l d b r o o d s t o c k . D u r i n g r e c e n t years, as n e w t e c h n o l o g i e s a n d a n i m p r o v e d u n d e r s t a n d i n g o f r e e f e c o l o g y p r o v i d e t h e m e a n s to c r c a t c f u n c t i o n i n g m i n i reefs in h o m e a q u a r i u m s , t h e r e has b e e n i n c re a s i n g d e m a n d f or c ol l e c t i on s f r o m cor al reefs in t he S o u t h Pacific. A l t h o u g h ov er 9 0 p e r c e n t o f t h e o r n a m e n t a l fish k e p t in t h e U S are f r e s h w a t e r s p e ci e s , t h e d e m a n d f o r m a r i n e o r n a m e n t a l s is s t e a d i l y g r o w i n g . A p p r o x i m a t e l y 85 p e r c e n t o f m a r i n e a q u a r i u m fish e x p o r t e d to t h e U S a n d E u r o p e are c a p t u r e d f r o m reefs in t h e P h i l i p p i n e s a n d I n d o n e s i a , w h i c h c o n t a i n t h e g r ea t es t di ve r si ty o f de s i r e d species s u c h as wrasse, b u t t e r f l y fish, a n e m o n e fish, d a m s e l fish, a n g e l fish a n d s u r g e o n fish. C l a m s , sea a n e m o n e s , sea stars , sea c u c u m b e r s , sea u r c h i n s a n d a few o t h e r i n v e r t e b r a t e s are also a g r o w i n g p a r t o f t he t r a d e f r o m t h e s o u t h ( B a q u e r o , 1 99 9 ) .

Collection o f w ild ornamentals fo r the aquarium trade I n m a n y d e v e l o p i n g co u n t r i es , col l ect i ng f r e shwat e r a n d m a r i n e o r n a m e n t a l fish p r ovi des a n i m p o r t a n t s o u r ce o f i n c o m e in areas w i t h few e m p l o y m e n t al ternatives. F o r m a n y i n d i g e n o u s a n d local c o m m u n i t i e s , t he col lection o f o r n a m e n t a l s is t he p r i m a r y e c o n o m y activity. Aq ua r i s t s pa y h i g h prices for s p e c i m e n s o f rare o r exotic f r e s h w at e r o r n a m e n t a l s s u c h as j u v e n i l e s t i n g rays o r m i n i a t u r e catfish. E q u al l y i m p o r t a n t in t he c a p t u r e t r ad e are l ow- co s t species sold in large qua n t i t i e s . T h e a n n u a l e x p o r t o f o r n a m e n t a l s f ro m A m a z o n a s state in Brazil, for e x a m p le , averages a b o u t 2 0 mi l li on s p e c i m e n s ( C h a o et al, 2 0 0 1 ) , a n d t h e t o w n o f Barcelos o n t he Rio N e g r o derives t h e m a j o r i t y o f its i n c o m e f r o m t he sale o f c a rd i na l tetras a n d cichlids. T h e c o l l ec t i on o f o r n a m e n t a l fish t ypical ly d e p e n d s o n villagers f a m i l i a r w i t h t h e i r h a b i t s . In M a l a y s i a , f or e x a m p l e , killi fish are g a t h e r e d b y w o m e n a n d c h i l d r e n w h o rely o n t r a d i t i o n a l k n o w l e d g e to f i n d t h e m in l e a f lit ter at t h e b o t t o m o f s t r ea ms . M a n y o r n a m e n t a l fish are n o c t u r n a l a n d c a n o n l y be c a p t u r e d by local p e o p l e t h o r o u g h l y f a m i l i a r w i t h t he i r h a b i t s . Typically, local fishers arc p a i d a sma l l a m o u n t by m i d d l e m e n w h o p r o v i d e a list o f species a n d n u m b e r s n e e d e d a n d sell t h e c a t c h to e xpor te rs .

T H E G E N E RUSH: F IN D IN G N E W VALUE IN A Q UATIC BIOD IVERSITY

45

Collections fo r breeding B r e e d i n g o f t h e m o s t p o p u l a r f r e s h w a t e r species ( g u p p i e s , mo l l i e s a n d n e o n tetras) has s u c h a l o n g hist ory, a n d h as p r o d u c e d so m a n y varieties, t h a t t h e r e is v i r t ua l l y n o d e m a n d f or w i l d s p e c i m e n s f or g e n e t i c e n h a n c e m e n t o f c u l t u r e d s t o c k s . 1 H o w e v e r , in o t h e r se ct or s t h e d e m a n d f or w i l d fish is i n c re a si n g as i m p r o v e d t e c h ­ n ol og ie s e n a b l e t h e c u l t u r i n g o f a w i d e r r a n g e o f f r e s h w a t e r a n d s o m e m a r i n e o r n a ­ m e n t a l species. T o a b r e e d e r o f a n o r n a m e n t a l fish, gen e s t h a t p r o d u c e d i st i nc t i ve c o l o r a t i o n s a n d m a r k i n g s of f e r t h e s a m e t y p e o f v a l u e t h a t c o l d r e s i s t an c e o r g r o w t h g en es d o for f o o d fish b r ee der s. H o w d o e s a b r e e d e r o b t a i n t h e b r o o d s t o c k n e e d e d to p r o d u c e t he s e c h a r a c t e r ­ istics in a c u l t u r e d p o p u l a t i o n ? D e p e n d i n g o n t h e c i r c u m s t a n c e s , t h e r e are t h r ee options: 1 As in f o o d fish a q u a c u l t u r e , m a k e a n e x p e d i t i o n to t h e fish’s n a t u r a l h a b i t a t a n d col lect s p e c i m e n s f r o m t he wi l d. T h i s m a y i nvol ve m a k i n g a dea l w i t h local fishers to d o t he w o r k . It m a y also involve t a k i n g a d v a n t a g e o f t he ir k n o w l e d g e o f w h e r e to f i n d fish a n d h o w to c a t c h t h e m . In these c i r c u m s t a n c e s , co l le c t i o ns for b r e e d i n g o r n a m e n t a l s are c o m p a r a b l e to c ol le c t i o ns f or f oo d fish a q u a c u l t u r e . 2

I f t h e species has a l r ea d y b e e n b r e d o ve r m a n y g e n e r a t i o n s (as in t h e case o f n e o n t etr as) , selectively b r ee d f r o m ex i s t i n g c ol l e c t i on s to p r o d u c e d es ir a b l e c o l o r a t i o n s o r m a r k i n g s in t h e i r of fs pr in g.

3

I f t h e r e is a l r e ad y a s i g n i f i c a n t live t r a d e in t h e fish f r o m its c o u n t r y o f o r i gi n, b u y s p e c i m e n s f r o m an i m p o r t e r a n d use t h e m as b r o o d s t o c k . T h i s o p t i o n is s i g n i f i c an t f or c o m m u n i t i e s i n v o l v e d in c o l l e c t i ng fish f or sale be c au s e, w h e r e s u c h a live t r a d e exists, it m a y be i m p o s s i b l e t o d e t e r m i n e w h e t h e r fish c o l le c te d in a r iver in S o u t h A m e r i c a o r a n A f r i c a n la ke will e n d u p in a h o b b y i s t ’s a q u a r i u m o r be b r e d c o m m e r c i al l y .

Impacts o f aquaculture o f ornamentals on com munity fisheries an d ecological values T h e c u l t u r i n g o f o r n a m e n t a l fish stirs u p n o n e o f t h e c o n t r o v e r s y t h a t s u r r o u n d s the farming o f salm on and shrimp. Indeed, som e environmentalists m ig h t assume it c o u l d h a v e a b en e f i ci a l effect by r e d u c i n g f i s h i n g pr e s s u r e o n v u l n e r a b l e o r e n d a n g e r e d species. W h i l e t h a t m a y be t r u e in s o m e cases, c o m p e t i t i o n by a q u a ­ c u l t u r e w i t h t h e w i l d t r a d e c a n be d e v a s t a t i n g for local fisheries a n d , ul t i ma t e l y, for fish h a b i t a t . M a n y i n d i g e n o u s a n d local c o m m u n i t i e s arc c o m p l e t e l y o r s u b s t a n ­ tially d e p e n d e n t o n t h e o r n a m e n t a l fish t r ade. T h e n e o n t et r a f i sher y in S o u t h A m e r i c a n i n d i g e n o u s a n d local c o m m u n i t i e s was w i p e d o u t m a n y years ago b y t h e t r a d e in f a r m e d fish, n o w b as ed p r i m a r i l y in H o n g K o n g . C a s e S t u d y 1, at t h e e n d o f t hi s c h a p t e r , i ll ustr ates t h a t a s i mi l a r fate c o u l d a w a i t t h e c a r d i n a l t etr a fisher y o n t h e m i d d l e Ri o N e g r o in Brazil. T h e b o t t o m line is t h a t p e o p l e ha v e to m a k e a living, a n d i f t h e y c a n ’t m a k e it f r o m fi shi ng , t h e y ’ll d o w h a t e v e r t h e y n e e d to p u t f o o d o n t h e t able, i n c l u d i n g l o g g i n g a n d m i n i n g . T h e e n d o f t h e c a r d i n a l t et r a f isher y c o u l d be t h e d e a t h k n el l f or local

46

BLUE GENES

efforts to protect the fish’s rainforest habitat. T h e case study describes the efforts of Project Piaba to pr o m o te sustainable livelihoods for local fishers, protect fish habitat, and anticipate the impacts of com pe tition from aquaculture in other countries. It also illustrates the complications inherent in designing access policies that take into account different uses of aquatic genetic resources, different types of collections, and the cultures of fishing communities.

P h a r m a c e u t ic a l a n d in d u s tria l uses o f m a r i n e o rg a n is m s The value of aquatic genetic resources is by no means confined to reproductive cells. In strictly monetary terms, the chemical com po und s produced by many marine organisms are far more likely to be a source o f ‘blue gold’, in this case for the pharma­ ceutical companies engaged in their collection. As in the case of food fish aquaculture, the future commercial value of these aquatic genetic resources will certainly depend on the success of research and development programmes. However, it will also depend on the regulatory requirements for access to and use of aquatic genetic resources. In all the examples that follow, and in discussing bioactive compou nds from the sea in general, one must be careful to distinguish between the levels at which these biological resources can be tapped. At the simplest level, they can be collected, some­ times in prodigious quantities, and extracted for the drug. At another level, biotech­ nologists may be able to work out ways to synthesize a c o m p o u n d or an even more effective analogue, which reduces the need for further collection. Finally, actually isolating the gene or genes that produce the drug opens the door to inserting that gene in another organism, either a micro-organism that can be grown in large q u a n ­ tities and used as factories for the drug, or even directly into a hu m an patient. All of these approaches, while using different technologies, depend on genetic resources. Marine organisms are especially interesting because they are a rich source of bioactive c o m p o u n d s , m an y from novel chemical classes not fo und on land. Currently, about half the wo rld’s best-selling drugs contain chemical structures derived from c o m p o u n d s found in nature (Glowka et al, 1998). Unlike plants, m a r in e orga nism s possess primitive versions o f h u m a n genetic systems and therefore hold particular promise for new drugs. All the major pharmaceutical firms - Mcrck, Lilly, Pfizer, H o f fm a n - L a R o c h c and Bristol-Myers Squibb - have marine biology divisions. Interest in marine bioprospecting may lead to a further rush o f activity am o n g large and small companies when the first ocean-derived pharmaceuticals come onto the market in the next few years (Plotkin, 2000). Exploration for marine genetic resources is typically an international undertaking in which co m panies and g o v e r n m e n t institutions in industrialized countries prospect in the marine waters of other nations, often tropical ones, that contain biodiversity rich marine ecosystems such as coral reefs. Several compounds isolated from marine sources are currently in various phases of clinical trials. These include four anti-cancer agents (from an Indian Ocean mollusc, a Caribbean tunicate, a sea whip, and the US west coast bryozoan Bugula neritina), as well as an immuno-suppressant from a Bahamian sponge (ten Kate and Laird, 1999). While no com pou nd from a marine source has yet advanced to commercial use, a variety of drugs now on the market do owe their existence to aquatic life. For example,

THE GENE RUSH: FINDING NEW VALUE IN AQUATIC BIODIVERSITY

47

the most c o m m o n ly prescribed antibiotics in US hospitals were derived from aquatic molds. T h e h o rm o n e calcitonin, extracted from salmon, has been found effective in p rev en tin g osteoporosis. A n d p r o t a m i n e sulfate, derived from salm o n sp erm , provides an antidote to the anticoagulant heparin (Plotkin, 2000).

Anti-cancer drugs: The Holy G rail o f the pharm aceutical industry T h e 100+ kn o w n varieties o f cancer share a c o m m o n characteristic: the u n c o n ­ trolled grow th o f cells th a t take on ab n o rm a l shapes and cease their n o rm al fu n c ­ tions. T h e m o s t effective anti-cancer drugs w o rk either by selectively poisoning cancer cells or by prev enting them from reprod ucin g. S om e o f the m o s t pro m isin g progress in recent years has been based on research into the defence m echa nism s o f m a rin e anim als and plants, especially those from so u th ern occans. M a n y parts o f the ocean floor are p o p u la te d by organism s th a t look vulnerable because they move slowly or n o t at all, and have no protective shells or any ap p a re n t ability to resist a predator. W h a t they often do have, however, are toxins so p o te n t and com plex th a t there’s no need for any o th e r defence. Eleutherobin, a chemical derived from a soft coral originally collected off the no rthw est coast o f Australia, works by preventing cancerous cells from reproducing, a n d could be m o re effective than taxol (a derivative o f the bark o f the yew tree) in treating breast an d ovarian cancer. A lth o u g h eleutherobin soun ds like a w o n der drug, there’s one m ajor catch that m ay stymie d evelo pm ent o f a p ro d u c t - even if all the soft coral capable o f p ro d u cin g eleutherobin were collected, there still w ould n o t be eno ug h to m eet the d e m a n d for clinical testing, let alone the world market. O n c e the coral’s anti-cancer properties were detected in laboratory tests, it took three years to synthesi7.e eleutherobin, the c o m p o u n d responsible, and synthesis is expensive. T h e rewards, however, are great. Initial testing o f a sea squirt fou n d in the Philippines has show n it to be effective in killing colon cancer cells in the test tube, b u t considerable qu antities may be needed for fu rth er testing. C y ano bacteria (formerly k n o w n as blue-green algae), som e o f the m o st ancient o f all living organisms, p rod uce c o m p o u n d s th at may fight oth er diseases as well. Research has show n th at the cry pto p hy cin s p ro d u ce d by cyanobactcria n o t only have anti-cancer po tential b u t m ay also be effective against viral diseases such as herpes and HIV. Like e leuth ero bin , cry pto ph ycin s can be synthesized, b u t only at a prohibitive cost. T h e sponge is one o f the m o s t prolific sources o f existing and p oten tial p h a r m a ­ ceutical pro du cts. For m o re than 30 years, one o f the m o s t effective trea tm e n ts for leukem ia has been a d ru g based on chemicals p ro d u ced by a sponge fo u n d in the Florida Keys. T h e same sp onge has also been fo u n d to be effective in killing certain viruses. T h is led to the d ev elo p m en t o f the first d ru g th at can be taken internally as an effective tr e a tm e n t for herpes a nd shingles. G lo bal sales o f ara-A an d ara-C now exceed U S $ 1 0 0 m i llio n a n n u ally . O t h e r species o f s p o n g e , in a d d i t i o n to p ro d u c in g a variety o f po tential anti-cancer c o m p o u n d s , have led to the devel­ o p m e n t o f a n ti-in fla m m a to ry an d anti-m alarial drugs (P lotkin, 2000).

48 BLUE GENES

B o x 1. 6

C o n e Snails: P o t e n t P ai nk i l l e r s in P r e t t y Shells

The de co ra tive shell of the co n e snail, long prized by collectors, provides no clue to its re p u ­ tation as one of the m ost toxic creatures on the planet. The con e snail has an ingenious m eans of c a tc hin g faster moving prey on the coral reefs it inhabits - it simply la unches a miniature harpoon (a d isp o s a b le tooth) that can kill a large fish almost instantly. C one snail venom contains a variety of toxic c o m p o u n d s , each of which has a different effect on the nervous system. One of these c o m p o u n d s interrupts pain signals from the b o d y to the brain by blocking the transmission of proteins through nerve cells. One drug p ro d u c e d from cone snail venom , ziconotide, is c on s id ere d to be h u n d re d s of times more potent than morphin e and has the a d d e d benefit of not being addictive. It has been estimated that ziconotide, if and when m arketed, may p ro d u c e sales of up to a billion dollars a year. As there are about 500 s pe cie s of cone snail, each of w hic h may p ro d u c e 200 different poisons, there may be eno rm o us potential for d e v e lo p m e n t of other equally beneficia l and profitable p ro d uc ts, assum ing that the ne c es sa ry research can be done (Plotkin, 2000). Obtain ing the snails’ venom ducts for screening used to be a sim ple matter: a researcher would simply go to the bea ch and buy cone snails from fisherm en, who w ould discard the flesh anyw ay before selling the shells to tourists.2 Then, in the early 1990s, cam e a national c a m p a ig n to c o m b a t b io p ira cy of genetic resources by foreign interests. The end result was the P hilipp in es’ b io p ro s p e ctin g law, Executive Order 247, w hich established regulations for the collection of all b iolo gical resources and created requirements for prior inform ed consent by c om m unitie s. For years afterw ards, uncertainty in the scientific co m m u n ity a b o u t how to obtain a p p ro v a l for a c c e s s d e la y e d rese a rch into the p ro p e rties of m a rin e o rg a n ism s , including cone snails. This ph en o m e n on , since d u b b e d ‘research chill’, will be referred to several times in later chapters.

B o x 1. 7

U n d e r w a t e r C h e m i c a l W a r f a r e a n d t h e Ri se o f G c n c t i c D a t a b a s e s

Most peop le know that some jellyfish can sting, and that eating im p roperly prep ared fugu (puffer fish) can kill you. They are p ro b a b ly aware that ste pp in g on a stingray or crown of th o rn s sta rfish c a n la n d you a fatal in je c tio n of v e n o m . T h e s e e x a m p le s re fle c t the w id e s p re a d ability of a q u atic animals to p ro d u c e ch e m ica ls that have dram atic b iolo gical e ffe c ts on o th e r o r g a n is m s . Plants do the s a m e th in g - m a n y im p o r t a n t b io a c tiv e c o m p o u n d s p ro d u c e d by plants are d efence m e ch a n ism s - but the aquatic world is where c h e m ic a l warfare really thrives. At all levels of the a q ua tic food chain, c h e m ic a l d e fe n c e s are highly d e v e lo p e d and represent some of the m ost fascinating strategies and molecule s known to science. For exam ple, tetrodotoxin - the fugutish poison c a p a b le of indu cing paralysis in tiny doses and p ro b ab ly the most studied natural poison - is actually p ro d u c e d not by the fish itself but by a marine bacteriu m it eats (and to which it remains immune). The m arin e e n v iro n m e n t is e s p e c ia lly c o n d u c iv e to the e m e r g e n c e of to xic natural c o m p o u n d s that give a n im a ls or plants a c o m p e titiv e e d g e . The search for b io a ctiv e c o m p o u n d s in rainforest plants and animals may be m u ch better entrenched in the public imagination, but the fa ct is that the a quatic world is u n d o u b te d ly just as prod u ctive - just harder to explore. Nevertheless, there are already a stag g e ring am ou n t of data c olle cted not only on the o cc u rre n ce of toxic or m ed icina l c o m p o u n d s in a quatic plants and animals, but also, to an e x te n t that m ig h t s u rp r is e m a n y p e o p le fa m ilia r o nly with te rre s tria l b io p ro sp e c tin g , on the ch em ical m ake-up of the c o m p o u n d s and even their genetic codes. By way of illustration, consider the three principal banks of genetic information: GenBank (USA), the European Molecular Biology Laboratory Nucleotide S equence Database (Europe) and the DNA Database of Japan. Most scientific journals now insist that DNA and amino acid s equences that a p pear in articles be submitted to a seq ue n ce data base before publication.

THE GENE RUSH: FINDING NEW VALUE IN AQUATIC BIODIVERSITY

49

B o x 1. 7 c o n t i n u e d Each group collects a portion of the total seq ue n ce data reported by scientists worldwide, and all new and updated da tabase entries are e xc h an g e d between the groups on a daily basis. One can reach the G e n B a n k d a ta b a s e through FishBase, and a d v o c a te s of be ne fit sharing will be sob e re d to learn that this da ta b a s e alone contains entries on over 2000 fish s p e c ie s (that is, it ignores m olluscs, algae, bacteria, e c h in od e rm s , reptiles and aquatic p lants that p r o d u c e b io a ctive m o le c u le s ). The entries p ro vid e n u c le o tid e s e q u e n c e s g enetic blueprints - for c h em ica ls isolated from each species, and in m ost ca se s those c he m ic a ls have p h a rm a c o lo g ic a l effects. For the stonefish Synanceia verrucosa, the most ven om ou s fish in the world, the genetic s e q u e n c e for verrucotoxin is p rovided. The venom, like te trodotoxin and m ost other b io lo g ic a l ag e nts, has a m ultitude of p h a r m a c o lo g ic a l effects, some of w hic h have a c a d e m ic interest, and others of w hic h may have p ractical a p plica tio n in clu ding the d e ve lo p m e n t of p h a rm a c e u tic a l drugs. For bioactive age n ts like verrucotoxin that also happ e n to be proteins, the path towards productio n of the c o m p o u n d by genetic e n gineerin g is relatively straightforw ard. It involves incorporation of a m an m a d e c o p y of the gene into a suitable p ro d u c e r' (a ba cteriu m , for exa m p le) that can be grown in large quantities. The bacterium p ro d u ce s the ch e m ica l in the same w ay as insulin is now manufactured. W hat this m eans is that the p a ce of scientific discovery, specifically our u n de rs ta nd ing of the genetic basis of basic cellular functions, is a d v a n cin g extremely rapidly and is g e n e r­ ating vast libraries of g enetic data. These data may have p ractical a pplic ation totally out of proportion to the investm ent in time and effort n ee d e d to co lle ct the ‘d o n o r’ - a single animal is often enou g h - on w hic h they are b a se d . Local c o m m u n itie s m a y intuitively see the c on n e ctio n betw een an aquarist or fish fa rm e r c olle ctin g males and fem ales for breeding, but if a gene s e q u e n c e for a bioactive c o m p o u n d can be o b tained from a single s pecim en, patented, and used to p ro d u c e the c o m p o u n d in a bioreactor, how realistic is it to insist on royalties from a c o m p a n y a dozen steps rem oved from the original collection?

B a c te ria w ith b ite : M in in g m ic r o b ia l life E n z y m e s f r o m b a c te r i a i n h a b i t i n g w a t e r s n e a r t he b o i l i n g p o i n t in se ab e d h y d r o t h e r m a l vents are being tested for their ability to c o n s u m e toxic wastes an d oil spills. Freshwater h o t springs are a n o t h e r poten tia l source o f bacteria whose adaptability to extreme ecological c on di t io ns m ay be useful in industry. T h e Taq polymerase en zy me for the po lymerase chain reaction, n ow in ro utine use by researchers, originated from heat-resistant bacteria f o u n d at a geyser in W y o m i n g ’s Yellowstone Na t io n a l Park. In 1997, the Diversa C o r p o r a t i o n m a d e an a g r e e m e n t w i t h the U S N a t i o n a l P a r k Service to b e g in b i o p r o s p e c t i n g at Yellowstone. T h e E d m o n d s Institute, a small e n v ir o n m e n t a l gr ou p in W a s h i n g t o n state, successfully challenged the a gr e e m e nt in c ou rt a n d w o n an or der for an envi­ r o n m e n t a l review, yet to be c o n d u c te d . Diversa has been gradually b ui ld in g an extensive microbial g e n o m i c library t h r o u g h the collection o f samples from m a n y countries, a n d in tends to use the libraries to develop p r o d u c t s for the p h a r m a c e u ­ tical, a g r i c u l t u r a l , c h e m i c a l p r o c e s s i n g a n d i n d u s t r i a l m a r k e t s (D iv er s a C o r p o r a t i o n , 2 0 0 0 ) . In 2 0 0 2 , the c o m p a n y applied to E n v i r o n m e n t C a n a d a for approval to s tu dy organisms at pa per or pulp processing facilities on private lands a n d expressed an interest, in e x p a n d in g its activities to pu blic lands. Diversa m a d e its p r o p o s a l p u b l i c at t he W o r l d I n d i g e n o u s Peopl es c o n f e r e n c e in British C o l u m b i a , w he re s o m e i n d ig e n o u s delegates d c n o u n c c d it as ‘b i o co l o n ia l is m ’

50

BLUE GENES

(Dalton, 2002). Even bacteria have become controversial in the debate over access to genetic resources.

Time a n d cost o f drug developm ent Isolation of chemical compounds o f value to the pharmaceutical or cosmetics indus­ tries can prove extraordinarily lucrative. Global sales of pharmaccuticals have been estimated at US$300 billion a year, of which the co mponent derived from genetic resources accounts for between $75 billion and $150 billion (ten Kate and Laird, 1999). A com pou nd derived from a sea sponge to treat herpes was estimated a few years ago to be worth US$50 million to $100 million annually. Current estimates of the potential value of anti-cancer agents found in marine organisms range to well over US$1 billion a year. T h e full potential of marine organisms to produce valuable compounds is unknown, because so few have been tested and because the ocean floor is largely unexplored. If regulators and policy makers think protecting local rights to plant genetic resources is a challenge, they have only to consider the complexities of marine life, its trans-boundary habits and its untapped potential to realize that aquatic gcnctic resources represent an awesome challenge waiting in the wings. While profits from drug sales can be extraordinarily high, so are the costs of research and development. Testing for co m p o u n d s that may prove useful is a little like aiming for a dartboard in a dark room. Success is rare. Perhaps one in 10,000 chemicals produces a promising lead, and fewer than one-quarter of the chemicals reaching clinical trials are likely to be approved as a new drug (McChesney, 1992). Moreover, a commercially marketable dr ug takes several years of development, i n c l u d i n g the process o f screening c a n d i d a te c o m p o u n d s , isolating active co m pounds, testing for possible toxicity, and undertaking clinical trials. A l t h o u g h b io p r o s p e c ti n g has generally been increasing, some c o m p a n ie s involved in it suggest that if natural pr oduct research becomes too expensive, it will be aband oned for other more profitable approaches like synthetic and c o m b i­ natorial chemistry, genomics and bioinformatics. T h e am o u n ts o f raw material needed to yield usable quantities o f anti-cancer co m p o u n d s can be enormous. For example, a tonne o f Caribbean sea squirts produces only a gram of the anti-cancer c o m p o u n d ecteinascidin (Plotkin, 200 0). However, the use o f co mbinatorial chemistry can reduce the need for collection by enabling researchers to rapidly generate a huge n u m b e r o f chemical co m p o u n d s for screening and to ease the identification and pr oductio n by chemical synthesis o f the active c o m p o u n d . C o n ti n u in g advances in biotechnology could mean that future d e m a n d for acccss to aquatic genetic resources drops off (ten Kate and Laird, 1999), a scenario of which regulators need to be aware.

Collection o f samples Collectors of marine organisms may need only a scientific permit (as in Canada) or the equivalent to harvest samples for screening. While local divers may be paid to help with collections, m ore often than n o t there is little or no c o m m u n i t y i n v o lv e m e n t in the collection process, a n d no r e q u i r e m e n t for c o m m u n i t y

T H E G E N E RUSH: F IN D IN G N E W VALUE IN A QU ATIC B IO D IV ER SITY

51

c o n s e n t . Areas w h e r e c o ll e c ti o n s take place are g enerally o u t s i d e t r a d i t i o n a l c o m m u n i t y b o u n d a r i e s , a l t h o u g h the re c o g n iz e d r igh ts o f s o m e i n d i g e n o u s c o m m u n i t i e s (as in Fiji) m a y extend to offshore waters a n d the seabed. In d ig e n o u s g r o u p s involved in n e g o t i a t i o n s for l a n d a n d r e so u r c e rig h ts (as in w e s t e r n C a n a d a ) m ay claim similar rights. D e p e n d e n c e on local k n o w le d g e o f m ar in e organism s is less likely to be a factor t h a n in collection o f fish genetic resources, sim ply because c o m m u n i t i e s m ay have no tra ditional uses for, or m ay even be u naw are o f the existence of, m ar in e organ ism s far b e y o n d the shore. However, as illustrated in Box 1.8, tra dit io nal m edicinal uses o f s o m e aquatic animals a n d plants are n o t u n c o m m o n . R e q u ir e m e n ts for collection perm its are likely to b e c o m e m o r e s tr ingent wit h the d e v e l o p m e n t o f natio na l access a n d biodiversity conse rvation laws. However, as m a n y spccics o f m a r in e organism s arc n o t c n d c m i c to partic u la r co untrie s, collectors can avoid regulatory req u irem en ts by m o v in g their operations to m ore ‘friendly’ countries. T h i s is o n e reason w h y countrie s such as those in the A S E A N have a d o p t e d a regional a p p r o a c h to the i m p l e m e n t a t i o n o f access laws. Given the cost a n d tim e involved in collection, an d the a b u n d a n c e o f m ar in e orga nism s in m a n y countries, p a y m e n ts for access to genetic resources have ty p i ­ cally been low to date. It was es tim at ed in 1991 th a t the total revenue likely to be received by dev elo ping c ountries seeking royalties for u n i m p r o v e d genetic material o f any kin d, terrestrial or aquatic, coul d be less th a n U S $ 1 0 0 million ann ual ly (B ar ton, 1991, cited by Reid et al, 1993). In the p h a rm aceutical industry, royalties paid for samp les w i t h u n k n o w n clinical activity have a m o u n t e d o n ly to 1 to 5 per cent o f n et sales. Nevertheless, while the relative a m o u n t involved m ay be low, the scale o f revenues generated in the ph a r m a c e u tic a l i n d u str y m ea ns tha t even a small share o f net profits can p r o d u c e extremely large revenues for a devel­ o p i n g c o u n t r y o n c e a p r o d u c t has been develop ed a n d m a r k e t e d (Reid et al, 1993). In t h e 199 0s, S h a m a n P h a r m a c e u t i c a l s , o p e r a t i n g in th e b o t a n i c a l s field, a n n o u n c e d a ‘reciprocity’ p r o g r a m m e th a t w o u l d ret urn benefits to indigen ous c o m m u n i t i e s from w hich samples h a d been collected. T h e c o m p a n y expressed a c o m m i t m e n t to p r o v i d e v a r io u s types o f b e n e f it s regardless o f w h e t h e r a mar ketable p r o d u c t was developed or w h e t h e r i ndigenous knowled ge was essential for p r o d u c t d e v e l o p m e n t (Bierer et al, 1 9 9 6 ) . O t h e r c o m p a n i e s hav e f o u n d S h a m a n ’s innovati on too risky to ad o p t. Typically, very few retur ns from d r u g d e v e l o p m e n t trickle d o w n to in digenous and local c o m m u n i t i e s wher e collections are made.

52 BLUE GENES

Box 1.8

M e d i c i n a l Uses o f A q u a t i c P l a n t s a n d A n i m a l s

A lth o u g h w e have said that local k n o w le d g e d o e s not have the sa m e im p o rta n c e for a q u a tic g e n e tic resources as it do e s for terrestrial, m e d ic in a l p ro p e rtie s of a q u a tic plants and anim als ce rta in ly exist. M an y a q u a tic plants are h a rve ste d for m e d ic in a l p u rp o s e s , just as others have always been used as food. E xa m p le s of the latter are cattails, w hich have e d ib le shoots and roots, and a rro w h e a d s, w h o s e large e dib le tu b e rs were eaten by N ative A m e ric a n s . M e d ic in a l a q u a tic p lants in c lu d e w a te rc r e s s ( R oripp a n asturtium aquaticum ), also w id e ly used as a salad green, and w a te r lily roots that are c o m m o n ly eaten in many parts of the w orld as well as used for m e d ic in e . M a rs h m a llo w roots, flowers and le a ve s ha ve m e d ic in a l uses in c lu d in g as a c o u g h s u p p re s s a n t , im m u n e system b o o s te r and w o u n d healer, while p e n n y w o rt { H ydrocotyle s p p ) has been used to alleviate s y m p to m s of arthritis. Seaweed was a po p u la r food and an im po rta n t trading item am o n g North w est Coast p e op les in western C a n a da . Dried red laver ( Porphyra abbottae), containin g all essential vitamins and minerals, w as co m m o n ly m ad e into cakes, sometim es flavoured with the juice of c h e w e d rock chitons (a shellfish). Cultivation of nori. a close relative of red laver, is a US$10 billion industry in Japan, and industrial productio n of the plant is beg inn in g in North A m e rica as well. Coastal tribes co m m o n ly traded dried s e a w eed to interior tribes such as the Carrier and Gitksan, w ho used it as a m e d ic in e for goitre, an affliction cau se d by iodine deficiency. Other m e d icin a l a p p lic a tio n s of s ea w e ed in clud e d the use of the gelatinous material in roc kw e e d re c e p ta c le s to treat burns and sores, to strengthen lim bs, and to remove foreign ob je cts or soothe stinging in the eye. The N uu-chah-nulth peop le used bull kelp to m ake a skin salve (Turner 2000. 2002). On the aquatic animal side, m e d icin a l leeches are u n d e rg o in g a revival in popularity, after being c olle cted to near-extinction in Europe during the last century. As a result of severe loss of h ab itat, the m e d ic in a l leech is now listed on A p p e n d ix III of the Bern C o n v e n tio n , A p p e n d ix II of CITES and Annex V of the Habitats Directive. It is also listed as Vulnerable by the IUCN and as Rare in the GB Red List. Leeches have proved uniquely useful in cleaning and o x y g e n a tin g the sites of p la s tic and re c o n s tru c tiv e surgery, and the b e s t kn ow n s pecies, Hirudo m edicinalis is now bred in captivity in Europe and the US. The southern African species Afiolimnatis buntonensis is another c a n d id a te for surgical use, but has yet to be bred in captivity (A ppleton, 2001). Wild popula tio ns of m e d ic in a l leeches would seem to be a valuable genetic resource. Practitio ne rs of tr ad itio n al C h in e se m e d ic in e rely on a variety of a q u a tic plants and animals, some of w hic h are used for multiple healing pu rposes. Cuttlefish bone, for example, is used to staunch ble e din g , stop nocturnal emissions, treat diarrhoea, and cure skin ulcers. Pipefish are used to cure im p o te n ce and treat swellings. Clamshell, kelp and sargassum s eaw eed are c o m b in e d to clear p hlegm and stop c o u g h in g . Both marine and river turtles are used in the treatm ent of fever. Seahorses remain in high d e m a n d for the treatm ent of arthritis, im po te nce and urinary tract infections, and they have m a ny other uses. Ground oyster shell is used for its ca lm in g effect, and a b alone shell is used in the treatm ent of h e a d a c h e , dizziness and tremors (B ensky and G am ble , 1993). W hether one su b sc rib e s to theories of m e d icina l value or not, the fa ct is that many aquatic orga n ism s are already used for m edicinal p u rposes, either by local co m m un itie s (as in the exa m p le of the arrowhead plant) or, as in the case of seahorses, on an industrial scale that raises serious conservation co n ce rn s. The difficulty of addre ssin g these co n ce rn s is often increased by the fa ct that m a n y local co m m u n itie s rely on the collection of creatures such as the seahorse for a substantial part of their income, even if they have no local use for the animal.

T H E G E N E RUSH : F IN D IN G N E W VALUE IN A Q U A T IC BIO D IV E R SIT Y

In d ig

53

e n o u s v iew s o n v a lu in g n a t u r e

M a n y in d ig e n o u s c o m m u n i t i e s th a t have tr adition ally subsisted on aquatic r esour ce s h a v e d e v e l o p e d a n d m a i n t a i n a r e l a t i o n s h i p w i t h t h e m t h a t is f or e i g n to W e s t e r n c o n c e p t s . Fish ha v e m a d e s u c h a vital c o n t r i b u t i o n to t h e w e l l - b e i n g o f i n d i g e n o u s p e o p l e s l i vi ng o n lakes, rivers, a n d o c e a n c oa st l i n e s t h a t t h e y h ave c o m e to f o r m a n i n te gr al p a r t o f c o m m u n i t y c u l t u r e s a n d b e l i e f s y s t em s over h u n d r e d s o r t h o u s a n d s o f years. S o m e c u l t u r e s rej e ct e d t h e W e s t e r n n o t i o n o f h u m a n d o m i n a n c e o v er o t h e r l i vi ng b e i n g s . I n t h e n o r t h w e s t c o a s t o f N o r t h A m e r i c a , for e x a m p l e , i n d i g e n o u s p e o p l e s s u c h as t h e N u u - c h a h - n u l t h r eve r e d t he s a l m o n . T h e y w o u l d ca r ef ul l y r e t u r n s a l m o n b o n e s to t h e river, b o t h in g r a t i t u d e f or t he gift f r o m t he s pi r it o f t h e s a l m o n a n d as a s y m b o l o f r e b i r t h a n d r e n e wa l . T h e i m a g e o f t he s a l m o n wa s c e n t r a l to t h e d e v e l o p m e n t o f a s o p h i s t i c a t e d b o d y o f art, s on g s a n d d a n c e s t h a t c e l e b r a t e d t h e s a l m o n spirit. N o t sur pr i si n gl y, s o m e i n d i g e n o u s c o m m u n i t i e s c o n s i d e r it i n a p p r o p r i a t e to d e s c r i b e fish as b io lo gi c a l o r g e n e t i c ‘r e s o u r ce s ’, as s u c h a d e f i n i t i o n c o n n o t e s o w n e r s h i p a n d is alien to t h e i r beliefs. T h e a r g u m e n t b y g en e t i c i s t s t h a t t h e r e ’s n o t h i n g sa cr ed a b o u t ‘p u r e ’ species c o n t r a d i c t s f u n d a m e n t a l p r i n c i p l e s g u i d i n g in dig e no us cultures. I n dig eno us peoples m a y oppose genetic m odification o f a q u a t i c g e n e t i c life s i m p l y o n t he p r e m i s e t h a t it d e m o n s t r a t e s a la ck o f r es p ec t for c re a tu r e s w i t h a s pi r it u al life o f t he i r o w n - o r lack o f respe ct f or t h e C r e a t o r o f t h o s e c r eat ur es . T h e o p p o s i t i o n v oi c ed b y s o m e C a n a d i a n i n d i g e n o u s p e o p l e s to t h e e s t a b l i s h m e n t o f s a l m o n f a r m s m a y be b as ed in p a r t o n s u c h beliefs. M a n y i n d i g e n o u s p e o p l e a c c e p t t h e i dea o f s a l m o n h a t c h e r i e s o n l y g r u d g i n g l y , as a n evil n e c es sa r y f or t h e r e b u i l d i n g o f stocks, a n d s t r o n g l y o p p o s e t h e ide a o f c o l l e c ti n g g e n e t i c r esour ces f or l ater use.

54 BLUE GENES C

ase

S t u d y 1. T

h e law o f u n in t e n d e d

consequences

:

C onserving the ornam ental fish industry in Barcelos, Brazil Environmental groups that protest against industrial food fish farming because o f its environmental impacts may throw their s upp ort behind the culture o f o r n a ­ mental fish, assuming that it can help save wild fish populations. As this case study illustrates, the opposite may be true - but no t for the reasons one migh t expect. O n e o f the difficulties with setting policy for m a n a g i n g a qu ati c genetic resources is the wide variety o f local cultural and ecological circumstances that need to be taken into a c c o u n t . In the 1990s, following the passage o f the Co nv e n t io n on International Trade in Endange red Species o f Wild Flora and Fauna (CIT ES), some airlines prohibited the transportation o f live ornamental fish.3 Some environmental groups have also pushed for the culturing o f o rn a ­ mental fish to relieve pressure on wild stocks. At the 22 nd Professional Fish Show held by the Florida Tropical Fish Farms Association (FTFFA), Aquatica Tropicals took the Best in Show award for the cardinal tetra. These seemingly unrelated events shared one thing in c o m m o n - the potential to damage a thriving Amazon Basin subsistence fishery, the survival o f which may be crucial to the protection of riverine ecosystems from industrial development. T h e airlines eventually rescinded their ban on the transportation of live or na ­ mentals. FTF FA members, meanwhile, have high hopes that successful culture of the cardinal tetra will lead to a commercial industry that, operating w it ho ut high handling and transportation costs, could compete so well that the wild cardinal tetra fishery migh t follow the example o f the neon tetra fishery and become merely a historical footnote.

Links betw een the ornam ental trade, the local econom y, and ecosystem conservation T h e diversity o f fish in Amazonia is such that more than 3000 species have already been identified. T h e middle Rio Negro - the primary fishing grounds for live or namental fish in the Amazon Basin - exports approximately 20 million live fish annually, generating a bo u t US $ 3 million for the local e c o n o m y (Ch ao et al, 2001). T h e cardinal tetra accounts for over 80 per cent o f or namental fish exports from Brazil (Chao, 1998). T h e trade in ornamentals (primarily cardinal tetra and discus) contributes at least 60 per cent o f total revenues in Barcelos, a c o m m u n it y 400 km upriver from Manaus with a population of 16,000. An estimated 1000 local fishermen make their living from the fishery, with entire families, including w o m e n and children, typically being involved in collection, sorting, handling and transportation (Prang, 2001). T h e collection o f cardinal tetras has a short history compared to most tradi­ tional fisheries. It was only in the mid-1 95 0s that the aquarist He rbert Axelrod discovered the existence of the cardinal tctra after hearing stories from local fisher­ men about a species similar to the neon tetra but larger and more brightly coloured (Axelrod, 2001). T h e cardinal tetra became an instant hit in the world o f aquarium

T H E G E N E RUSH: F IN D IN G N E W VALUE IN A QU ATIC B IO D IV ER SITY

.55

hobbyists a n d w ithin a few years the trade h a d grown to millions o f specimens, p rovid ing a new a n d steady source o f i n c o m e for villagers along the river near Barcclos, w hich h a d langu ish ed sincc the e n d o f the r u b b e r trade earlier in the century. C a r d in a l tetras are highly prolific, b u t the health o f their p o p u l a tio n s largely d e p e n d s o n p r is t i n e river a n d fore st c o n d i t i o n s . T h e fish are v u l n e r a b l e to t u r b id it y and pollution in the Rio N eg ro, the waters o f w h i c h are highly acidic and ionic - o n e o f the mai n reasons w h y cardinal tetras are so difficult to breed in aquaria. D u r i n g the rainy season, w h e n the river rises m o r e th a n 9 m , the tetras migrate from shallow streams into vast areas o f the flooded forest to breed. In m o st co untrie s, p r o te c tio n o f fish h abit at is se co ndar y to the needs o f industries with greater e c o n o m i c value. T h e reverse is true in the Rio N eg r o basin. Barcelos, w hi ch covers an area o f 1 2 2,490 k m 2 o f largely intact jungle (and is geographically the largest m u n ic i p a lit y in the wor ld), has passed bylaws p r o h ib i tin g b o th industrial logging and gold m i n i n g in order to p r o te c t the o r n a m e n t a l fishery. As d e v e l o p m e n t pressures t h r o u g h o u t the A m a z o n Basin c o n t i n u e to increase, Barcelos has the potential to act as a buffer zone - provide d t h a t the m u n ic ip a l and higher levels o f g o v e r n m e n t are able to cooper ate a n d t h a t the o r n a m e n t a l fish i n d u str y c o n tin u e s to provide satisfactory livelihoods for local people. It is ironic t h a t on e o f the m o s t serious threats to the c o n t i n u a t i o n o f the fishery has co m e from efforts to prote ct A m a z o n ecosystems by c u r b in g the trade in live animals. Blanket conservation policies can have u n i n t e n d e d a n d c o u n t e r p r o d u c tiv e con se­ quences if they're m a d e w i t h o u t an a dequate u n d e r s t a n d i n g o f variations in local uses o f species and in e c o n o m i c a n d cultural circumstances.

T h e t h r e a t o f a q u a c u l t u r e to t h e w i l d f i s h e r y If the Barcelos fishery is h u r t by c o m p e t i t i o n from a new a q u acu ltu r e i n d u str y in a n o t h e r c o u n t r y , t h a t to o will be an u n i n t e n d e d c o n s e q u e n c e o f n o t u n d e r ­ s ta n d i n g or ack n o w le d g in g local co n d itio n s. T h e Florida a q u a c u ltu r e i n d u str y w o u l d sim ply be following the law o f su p p ly a n d d e m a n d . I f hobby ists w a n t c ulture d tetras because th e y ’re ch eaper a n d less fragile a n d ther e’s a willing seller, w h y sh o u ld g o v e r n m e n ts intervene? Already, over 90 per cen t o f freshwater o r n a ­ m e n t a l sales are far m ed fish. P opular h o m e a q u a r iu m species such as guppies, mollies a n d n e o n tetras have been bred for decades. Advances in bree ding te c h ­ nologies are sim ply m a k in g it possible to cu lture species onc e t h o u g h t impossible to farm - the cardinal tetra bei ng one o f the m o s t recent examples. Barcelos is by no m ea ns u n i q u e in its co nc er n a b o u t the im p a c t o f the c o n t i n u i n g expansion o f o r n a m e n t a l a q u acu ltu r e on the cap tur e industry. In Sri Lanka, for instance, the o r n a m e n t a l fishery repre sents 8 per c e n t o f th e v o l u m e o f e x p o r t e d fish b u t a cc oun ts for 7 0 per cent o f its value, a n d s u p p o rts so m a n y people th a t few fishers are willing to s u p p o r t a q u acu ltu r e (Bartley, 2 0 0 0 ; W a ts o n , 2 0 0 0 , cited in Tlusty, 2 0 0 2 ). Policies on a q u a c u l t u r e g e n e r a l ly foc us o n e n v i r o n m e n t a l i m p a c t s w h e r e f a rm ing operations occur. However, the s ituation is m o re co m plicated t h a n this. T l u s ty ( 2 002) suggests that, while aq uacultural p r o d u c t io n o f species has m a n y

56 BLUE GENES benefits for the aquarium trade, captive cultivation should be avoided when the wild harvest maintains habitat and when a cultural and economic benefit would disappear if collections come to an end. Assuming the government of Brazil took seriously the threat of foreign aquaculture to the Barcelos fishery and, ultimately, the rainforest ecosystem, how should it act? Control over access to cardinal tetras for breeding is one option, b ut may be virtually impossible in the circumstances un der which the trade in live ornamentals operates. In fact, it’s unlikely that the C B D ’s efforts to ensure that provider communities and countries have a say in and receive benefits from new uses of genetic resources are likely to work very well for com munities like Barcelos. Emerging access and be n e f it-s h a rin g laws, i n c lu d in g th a t o f Brazil, focus a lm ost exclusively on b io p ro s p e c ti n g . C o llectio n for o r n a m e n t a l b r eeding works very differently. Breeders have no need to make forays deep into the jungle to find promising spec­ imens. For the most part, they can simply gather broodstock by purchasing wildcaught fish that are already shipped abroad for sale to aquaria. In the case of the cardinal tetra, there’s no need to tap into traditional local knowledge at all - that was done 50 years ago when Dr Axelrod first ‘discovered’ the tetra. Some critics of the effectiveness o f the C B D have suggested that importing countries need to take further steps to discourage biopiracy in developing co u n ­ tries and their communities. For instance, patent offices might require applicants to identify the location from which material (or traditional knowledge) used to develop a new strain was collected. While such a requirement could conceivably be useful for the protection o f com m un ities providing sea squirts or sponges, it’s hardly likely to be relevant for ornamental breeders who have bou ght their fish from importers and have no knowledge o f the precise origin o f their aquarium stock. Chain of custody certification has been suggested as an other way to encourage both conservation and fair play in dealings with aquatic genetic resources. In a recent poll, US hobbyists indicated that they would be prepared to pay as m uch as 50 per cent more for quality fish from a ‘green’ fishery than for substandard fish from a poorly managed fishery (Dowd, 2001). Certification of wild fish collected along the Rio Negro could help pro mote the Barcelos fishery, and the work of Project Piaba (discusscd below) should help facilitate certification approvals. T h e Marine Aquarium Council already has a certification progra m m e in place and is planning to extend it to cover the use of aquatic genetic resources.

T h e relevance o f Brazilian access law to th e Barcelos fishery Assuming that collectors do wish to travel to Barcelos to search for and collect popu lations o f cardinal tetras that m ight lead to a new cultured strain, what pro tection does the new access and benefit-sharing law (Provisional Act No. 2 1 8 6 - 1 6 , August 2001) provide to communities? Prior to the creation of this controversial law, foreign collectors o f ornamental fish needed approval from the I nstituto Brasileiro do Meio A m b ie n t e e dos Recursos N a tu r a i s Renovaveis (IB AM A), the n a tio n a l e n v i r o n m e n ta l man ag em en t agency. Such collections, often made by individuals, have not always

T H E G E N E RUSH: F IN D IN G N E W VALUE IN A QU ATIC B IO D IV ER SITY

57

p roceeded w i t h o u t i n ciden t. For example, in 1999, I B A M A officials a p p r e h e n d e d a G e r m a n aquarist w h o was collecting cichlids in the Rio N eg r o region to s tudy their feeding hab its.4 Generally, even if agcncics arc ti p p ed off by local people, the re moten ess o f m o s t parts o f the A m a z o n makes e n f o r c e m e n t o f regulations very difficult. T h e effect o f Provisional Act 2 1 8 6 - 1 6 , w hich covers scientific research, t e c h n o l o g i c a l d e v e l o p m e n t , a n d b i o p r o s p e c t i n g , is to l i m i t t h e iss u a n c e o f collection perm its to national public or private institutions. Individuals can no lo n g e r o b t a i n t h e m . C o n s e q u e n t l y , an a q u a r i s t w o u l d first have to m a k e an a g r e e m e n t w i t h an a c c r e d i te d Brazilian i n s t i t u t i o n , w h i c h in t u r n w o u l d be required to o b tain the c o n s e n t o f the in d ig en o u s or local c o m m u n i t y where collec­ tions will occur. A local c o m m u n i t y is def ined in the law as ‘a h u m a n g r o u p ... differentiated by its cultural co n d it io n s, w hich is, traditionally, organized along succcssivc gen er ations a n d w it h its o w n c u s to m s , a n d conserves its social a n d e c o n o m i c in sti tu tio n s ’.5 It’s n o t clear w h e t h e r such a def inition w o u l d apply to a m u n i c i p a l i t y such as Barcelos or to o n e o f the m a n y scattered family villages w ith in its boun dar ies. E ith e r way, the c o n s e n t o f a c o m m u n i t y ( o th e r t h a n on i n d i g e n o u s lands) is re quire d onl y if the collection involves the use o f t r a d it io n a l k n o w le d g e related to gen et ic her itage. T h e original collector o f car dinal tetras, H e r b e r t Axelrod, m a d e his f ind t h r o u g h c h a n c e i n f o r m a t i o n p r o v id e d by local peo ple. O n c e he h a d established a d e m a n d for th e species, the fishery bega n, less t h a n 40 years ago. A s s u m i n g a villager provid e s i n f o r m a t i o n to an a q u a r is t t o d a y a b o u t a pr ev io us ly u n k n o w n (to aquarists) s u b p o p u l a t i o n o f car dinal tctras, w o u l d th a t c o n s ti t u t e t r a d iti o n a l k n o w l e d g e for the p u r p o se s o f the act? Is it e n o u g h t h a t a villager s im p ly k n o w s a b o u t the c o l o r a t i o n or m a r k in g s o f a p o p u l a t i o n for w h ic h a c o m m u n i t y has no tr a d it io n a l use? I f an a quarist o n ly wishes to collect s p e c im e n s from p o p u l a t i o n s already fished for the o r n a m e n t a l trade, is it e n o u g h th a t villagers o n ly k n o w h o w a n d w h e r e to collect t h e m , in o r d e r to be eligible for th e r ig h t to con sen t? Generally, o t h e r n a t i o n a l laws are no m o r e clear t h a n Brazil’s a b o u t th e n a t u r e a n d scope o f provisions o n t r a d itio n a l k n o w l e d g e , a n d the fact t h a t th ey have been d r a fte d p r im a r ily for p l a n t b i o p r o s p e c t i n g offers c o n s i d e r a b l e r o o m for c o n f u s i o n a b o u t t h e i r a p p l i c a t i o n to a q u a t i c g en etic resources. A s s u m i n g the k n o w le d g e o f local fis h e r m e n confers the r ig h t to i n f o r m e d co ns en t, then what? T h e Brazilian act provides th a t any tradition al know ledge related to genetic heritage m a y be d e e m e d to be held by the c o m m u n i t y even if o n l y o n e m e m b e r o f t h e c o m m u n i t y h o ld s th is k n o w l e d g e (Article 9). T h e c o m m u n i t y th en has the right to receive benefits from the e c o n o m i c use o f their trad itional k now le dge by third parties (eg a fish farm outside Brazil). Presumably, those benefits w o u l d be negotiated by the aquarist a n d a Brazilian nation al insti­ tu t io n , as the act does n o t ap pea r to c o n t e m p l a t e direct negotiations o f benefits w ith a c o m m u n i t y , w h ich only has the right to decide on the use o f its traditional know ledge (Article 8). A share o f royalties is the m o st likely benefit to be n e g o ­ tiated. T h e big C a t c h 22 is th at any Rio Neg ro c o m m u n i t y t h a t consents to the use o f o r n a m e n t a l b r o o d s t o c k for a q u a c u ltu r e o utside its o w n area is likely to be quickly blacklisted, creating serious divisions a m o n g local groups.

58

BLUE GENES

In short, w h a t the Barcelos fishery m ost needs is assistance with m ain tain in g a sustainable a n d reasonably profitable c a pture fishery, a n d the only benefit that matters is keeping the aquaculture i ndustry at bay. Are aquatic gcnctic resources blue gold? Perhaps in the m in d s o f the national governm ent an d national institutions, bu t certainly n o t to Barcelos - or to similar c o m m u n i tie s in other countries that rely on capture fisheries for wild ornamentals. T h i s is precisely the reason w h y makers o f access and benefit-sharing laws need to have a clear u n d e rstan din g o f the implica­ tions o f legislative provisions for aquatic as well as plant genetic resources a n d o f vari­ ations in local circumstances t ha t have a direct bearing on conservation objectives.

M a i n t a i n i n g a s u s t a i n a b l e fish ery : T h e w o r k o f P r o j e c t P i a b a T h e real profits in the A m a z o n o r n a m e n t a l i n d u st r y arc m a d e by the exporters in M a n a u s and im p o rte r s in Florida a n d elsewhere. T h e earnings o f a Barcelos fish­ e r m a n r oughly a p p r o x i m a te the m i n i m u m wage in Brazil. However , as Prang ( 2 001) p o in ts o u t, the o r n a m e n t a l fishery provides greater r e turn s t h a n o th e r extractive activities in the A m a z o n an d provides one o f th e few o p p o r t u n i t i e s to earn e n o u g h for basic necessities a n d c o n s u m e r goods. T h e o r n a m e n t a l s trade m a k e s it pos sible for p e a s a n t fishers to r e m a i n in th e i n t e r i o r r a t h e r t h a n em ig ra tin g to u r b a n centres like M a n a u s . W i t h o u t the trade, local people w o u ld likely be driven to find alternative w o r k in logging a n d gold m i n i n g , a n d the m u n icip ality w o u ld have less incentive to try to keep e n v ir o n m e n ta lly destructive industries out. W h i le higher returns to local fishers w o u ld be desirable, their m o s t i m p o r t a n t need is assurance t h a t a sustainable fishery can c o n t i n u e indefinitely. To this end, P roje c t Piaba, based at t h e U n i v e r s it y o f th e A m a z o n a n d p r i m a r i l y f u n d e d th r o u g h the H e r b e r t Axelrod F o u n d a t i o n , has u n d e r t a k e n a variety o f activities aim e d at m a i n t a i n i n g the live o r n a m e n t a l fishery at co m m er ci al ly feasible an d ecologically sustainable levels. Its objectives are to: •

•

•

•

• •

Collect baseline d ata on the ecosystem, s o c io - e c o n o m y a n d diversity o f fishes in ord er to analyse the i m p a c t o f the o r n a m e n t a l fish trade on social a n d natural en v i r o n m e n ts . D iagn os e diseases a n d reduce m orta li ty o f captive fish, in t r o d u c e fish care t e c h ­ niques to im pro ve the survival and quality o f fishes and turtles, and eventually establish pr otocols for exp ort q u a r a n ti n e . Provide e n v ir o n m e n ta l e du cati o n a n d socio-cultural history to local children, f i s h e r m e n , d i s t r i b u t o r s a n d p u b l i c , a n d p r o m o t e car eer d e v e l o p m e n t in a q u a r i u m science a n d conservation. Crea te c o m m u n i t y - b a s e d fishery m a n a g e m e n t strategies for m a n a g e d harvest levels, stock e n h a n c e m e n t o f fishes a n d turtles a n d the d e v e l o p m e n t o f a q u a ­ culture o f native species wher e appro priate. Assist in the revision o f policies by r egula tory agencies in o r d e r to p rote ct vulner able species an d en h a n c e the e c o n o m i c viability o f the region. E n c oura ge local en tr ep ren eu r s h ip , eco to u r ism , the p r o d u c t i o n o f local crafts a n d the com m er ci al izat ion o f o th e r sustainable natur al resources.

THE GENE RUSH: FINDING NEW VAI.UF. IN AQUATIC BIODIVERSITY

59

Project Piaba objectives are based o n the p re m ise t h a t su stain able fisheries require a s c i e n ti f ic basis fo r m a n a g e m e n t t o g e t h e r w i t h s u p p o r t fo r c o m m u n i t y m a n a g e m e n t strategics. So little is k n o w n a b o u t the R io N e g ro ecosystem th at extensive baseline d ata are r e q u ire d before d e v e lo p in g in te g ra te d m a n a g e m e n t strateg ies. D u r i n g its first te n years ( 1 9 8 9 - 1 9 9 9 ) , in a d d i t i o n to c o n d u c t i n g baseline surveys o f fish diversity and so c io -cu ltu ral im p lic a tio n s o f the o r n a m e n ta l fishery, Project Piaba established a p u b lic a q u a r i u m a n d e n v i r o n m e n t a l e d u c a tio n p ro g r a m m e s in Barcelos a n d w o rk e d w ith local p eop le to d efine issues t h a t need to be add ressed if c o m m u n i t y - b a s e d m a n a g e m e n t strategies are to be effective (C h a o et al, 2 0 0 1). T h e Project has also p ro v id ed tr a in in g in h a n d li n g a n d tr a n s p o r t a ti o n te c h n iq u e s to redu ce m o rta lities a n d increase th e q u ality o f th e fish catch. T h e Barcelos fishery illustrates the co m p le x ity o f d e v e lo p in g c o m p l e m e n t a r y policies for th e m a n a g e m e n t o f a n d access to a q u a tic genetic resources, a n d the im p o r t a n c e o f ta k in g in to a c c o u n t local e c o n o m ie s a n d ecologies. In the Barcelos case, these in clu d e the following: •

•

•

Policies for th e collection o f a q u a tic gen etic resources ne ed to take into a c c o u n t b o t h direct a n d in d ire c t e n v i r o n m e n t a l a n d social im p a c ts o f d ifferen t uses in differe n t locations. Policies for access to a q u a tic gen etic resources n eed to go h a n d in h a n d w ith aq u a tic resources m a n a g e m e n t policies th a t recognize a c o m p l e m e n t a r y rela­ tio n s h ip b etw ee n science-based a n d c o m m u n i t y - b a s e d m a n a g e m e n t . T h e y also n e e d to e n s u r e c o o r d i n a t i o n b e t w e e n m u n i c i p a l a n d h i g h e r levels o f g o v e r n m e n t in im p l e m e n t i n g policies t h a t p r o m o t e susta ina ble uses. Access laws a n d re gu latio ns need to clearly iden tify c o m m u n i t i e s h av in g rights to p r i o r i n f o r m e d c o n s e n t . L aw s t h a t r e s tr i c t t h a t r i g h t to c o m m u n i t i e s p ro v id in g tr a d itio n a l k n o w le d g e nee d to clearly define th e n a tu r e o f trad itio n a l k n o w le d g e to w h ic h th e laws apply. B e n e fits to c o m m u n i t i e s m a y be m o s t u s e f u lly d i r e c t e d to m a i n t a i n i n g s u s ta in a b l e liv e lih o o d s t h a t in t u r n c o n t r i b u t e to c o n s e r v a t i o n o f a q u a ti c ecosystems.

C h apter 2

M a n a g in g A q uatic G en etic Resources: Tools a n d Policy G aps

Returning a dourado to the Taquari River after D N A sampling, Coxim, Brazil (Photo by D avid Greer)

62

BLUE GENES

W h e n it c o m es to effective policies for the m a n a g e m e n t a n d co n s erv atio n o f biological a n d genetic diversity, fisheries are the p o o r cousins to agriculture. W h y the com pa riso n? T h e r e are three reasons: Firstly, agriculture has relied on genetic resources for decades, using gene banks a n d o t h e r form al and informal collections. T h i s process is only n o w b e g i n n i n g to h a p p e n in aquacu ltur e. Secondly, cou ntr ies have long cooperated to m ak e sure t h a t samples o f p lan t genetic resources (from b o t h farm ed a n d wild strains) are collected a n d stored in tru st for the future benefit o f h u m a n ity . C o u n t r i e s co u ld a n d sh o u ld be d o in g the same for aquatic genetic resources, b u t no nationa l or in tern a ti o n al go v e r n m e n t a l initiative has yet oc cu rre d to m a k e it h a p p e n . Finally, o n c e the genetic m o d if icatio n o f crops started to b e c o m e c o m m o n p l a c e a n d the conservation o f p lan t gcnctic resources cam e to be seen as i m p o r t a n t , g o v e r n m e n ts had to start m a k i n g laws a n d policies to deal w ith all the p r o b l e m ­ atical issues th a t surfaced. T h e th o rn ie s t issue o f all was the q u es tion o f o w nership and c o ntrol o f genetic resources. W h e n cou ntries began to discuss how to deal w ith such issues, as they did d u r i n g the negotiation o f the C B D in 1992, it seem ed to m ak e sense to talk a b o u t genetic resources generally, n o t just crop genetic resources. T h e p r o b le m , as we’ll discuss in this a n d following chapters, is th a t crops are so different from fish tha t policies th a t m a y m a k e sense in an agricultural c o n t e x t m a y be irrelevant or even c o u n t e r p r o d u c t i v e w h e n applied to the fish world. A s s u m in g t h a t ’s the case, h o w does o n e go a b o u t dev elo ping policies that are specific to a q u a t i c gene tic resources? Firstly, o n e needs to en s u re t h a t th e r e ’s already a go od f o u n d a t io n o f policies for the m a n a g e m e n t o f aquatic biological (as o p p o s e d to g eneti c) resources. S econdly, policy m a k e r s will nee d to be well i n f o r m e d a b o u t c u r r e n t a n d p o t e n t i a l issues t h a t policies o n a q u a t i c genetic resources will need to address. As this c h apter will explain, conside rable progress needs to be m a d e in b o t h these areas.

C o n s e r v in g a q u a t ic g e n e t i c d iv e r s it y Still a n e w idea for fisheries m a n a g e m e n t T h e genetic diversity o f the aquatic w orld is slipping away while g o v e r n m e n ts for the m o s t p ar t r em ain either oblivious to the extent o f its decline or r eluctan t to act forcefully to conserve it. It comes d o w n to basic political realities. U n til very recently, we lived in an era w h e n the b o u n t y o f river a n d sea was con sid ered virtually inexhaustible - w hich m i g h t have been true e n o u g h until industrial fishharvesting technologies a n d a wide variety o f h abita t destroying activity on land had taken their toll. Even today, w h e n e v e r a fish p o p u l a t i o n tem p o ra rily r e b o u n d s, usually for reasons b e y o n d h u m a n u n d e r s t a n d i n g , s om e fisheries m anagers use the ev en t as a reason to dismiss c o n c e r n s a b o u t t h r e a t e n e d a q u a t ic ecosystems as m is gu ided d o o m a n d gloo m . W e ’ve seen it w ith climate change, w e’ve seen it with the A t l a n t i c cod fishery: regardless o f w h a t the p r e p o n d e r a n c e o f s cic ntific

MANAGING AQUATIC G EN ETIC RESOURCES: TOOLS AND POLICY GAPS

63

evidence might say, governments are reluctant to take meaningful and coordinated action as long as there are louder voices pressing them to stay the course. In the late 1980s, the U N ’s Brun dtland commission issued a wake-up call by dr a w in g a tt e n t i o n to the in t e r d e p e n d e n c e o f ec o n o m ic , e n v i r o n m e n t a l and co m m u n ity long-term well-being. ‘Sustainable development' has been a c o m m o n phrase ever since. T h e problem remains that, w ithout strong government c o m m i t ­ ments and a clear understanding o f what it takes to achieve sustainable devel­ opm ent, what was once a call to arms risks being reduced to an em pty catchphrase. W ith aquatic ecosystems, it’s all too tempting to ad op t an ‘o ut o f sight, o ut o f m i n d ’ approach and hope for the best. W h o knows? Maybe things aren’t as bad as they seem. But th a t’s a faint hope at a time when it appears the world will increas­ ingly depend on fish for its food needs. Is aquaculture the answer? T h e n we need to make sure that we conserve genetically diverse wild stocks so that we still have the opp o r tu n ity to breed the best farmed ones. It’s essentially the same story in the search for powerful medicines or novel industrial applications that are based on the knowledge we get from studying deep sea organisms and other forms of aquatic life. Increasingly, we see the potential value o f aquatic genetic resources for all kinds of social purposes, b ut they’re disap­ pearing before we’ve had a chance to understand how they might be used —and in some cases before we’ve even discovered that a species exists in the first place.

C h a n g i n g a t t i tu d e s to w a r d s co n s e rv a tio n : A steep le a r n in g curve T h e genetics of fish have been studied for decades, and even before the advent of fast and sensitive tools such as D N A fingerprinting it was clear that single species could be subdivided into separate, genetically distinct populations. But the i m p o r ­ tance o f this fact was generally lost on fisheries managers - the people who make the decisions on where, how and how m uc h fishermen can fish. And since there was no fish farming until comparatively recently, the practical value of aquatic genetic resources, as opposed to their evolutionary significance, simply wasn’t recognized. Fisheries managers arc gradually beginning to pay attention to gcnctic diversity. W h a t is difficult for people familiar with genetic resources issues in agriculture to appreciate is the struggle this newfound awareness represents, and the ‘newness’ of the concept o f aquatic genetic resources to policy makers. As illustrated by Box 2.1, it can take a very long time for this awareness to translate into policy change, especially at a time of declining government resources and increasing competition for a share of dwindling fisheries resources.

64 BLUE GENES

B o x 2. 1 Protecting the Genetic Diversity of Pacific Salmon Before the mid -1980s, co m m e rc ia l salmon fisheries in British C olu m b ia and the large recre­ ational fisheries for trout were m a n a g e d with little if any attention to genetic diversity. Little was known a bo u t the actual genetic separation of different stocks of the same sp e cie s of salmon or trout, and most of the basis for even assum ing there were separate stocks was an e cd o ta l. Fishermen claim ed they could recognize different stocks, and there was genetic e v id e nc e that pointed to separation, but the fish were generally harvested as though each sp e cie s was hom og e ne o u s. When C a n a d a ’s DFO o p e n e d a sockeye salmon fishery on the Fraser River, the fact that there were numerically small s o cke ye stocks that went up small tributaries, and huge stocks that went up others, was not generally taken into a cc ou n t. S ockeye were sockeye, and if an o p en ing had a d is p roportionate im p a c t on certain stocks n o b o d y was worrying a b o u t it, offi­ cially or unofficially. For trout, which are traditionally ‘e n h a n c e d ’ through hatcheries to serve the sports fishery, transplantation of a single h atchery stock into innum erable small lakes was the norm. Trout were trout. And that was the situation not just for salm onid s in C a na da, but for fish everyw here - at a time when plant gene banking was already extensive. In 1992. when a non-profit o rganization tried to interest fisheries authorities in saving salm on g e n e tic re sources, the re sp o n s e w as ge n e ra lly n e ga tive . While the o c c a s io n a l g o v e rn m e n t biolo gist saw the need to preserve ge n e tic diversity and worried a b o u t the effects on small stocks of the mixed stock fishery, their m a n a ge rs were protective, and the image that upset them m ost was the gene bank. Gene banks were ‘technical fixes', which d eflected attention away from the ‘real’ problem of habitat loss and, in the w ords of a one time p ro v in c ia l D ire cto r of Fisheries, th e y were a w a y to turn a q u ic k p rofit on fish g e n e tic re so u rce s .' The im p lic it o b je c tio n , and p o s s ib ly the m o s t pow e rfu l, was th a t co lle ctin g g e n e tic resources for co nserva tio n was a n o the r w a y of sa ying th a t fisheries m a n a g e rs w e re n ’t doing their jobs, and in a d e c a d e of turmoil w here fisheries were being shut down and closures were almost daily m edia events, m an a g ers were u n d e rsta n d a b ly sensitive. W hen se ve ra l British C o lu m b ia First N a tion s later b e c a m e in te re s te d in sa lm on g e n e b anking, the g o ve rn m e n t of British C olum bia formally decline d to s u p p o rt it. But the decline in the British C olu m bia salmon fisheries was undeniable, and after relentless criticism from conservation NGOs, fisheries age ncie s in British C olumbia beg a n to c h an g e their policies on genetic diversity. The first d e v e lop m e n t was a reversal of d e c a d e s long reliance on salmon hatcheries that p rovided large n u m be rs of genetically similar fish for stocking streams. Hatcheries ca m e to be seen as another 'technical fix’, and in the mid-1990s the federal fisheries minister stated publicly that genetic diversity was important and needed to be c o n s erve d . Fishing o p e n in g s that could a d versely affect small, gen etica lly unique stocks were closed in a cou ra g e ou s attempt to reduce the ‘editing out’ of genetic diversity that mixed stock fisheries entailed. DFO began developing a new Wild Salmon Policy that s pecifi­ cally elevated genetic diversity to a cardinal principle. In 1998, the d e p a rtm e n t c ontracted the training of its own technicians in gene banking and began collecting selected stocks from several salmon species. In 2002, the d e p artm e n t took over the gene banking pro g ra m m e entirely, essentially importing a technology it had a b a n d o n e d research on 15 years ago. The point is not that DFO is doing its own gene banking but rather the painful process by which fisheries m a na g e rs b e ca m e sensitized to the im p o rta n c e of genetic diversity. In 15 years, one g ov e rn m e n t d e p a rtm e n t w e n t from funding its own research on genetic co n s e r­ vation to reinventing it at many times the original cost. Multiply this e xp e rien c e by the thou­ sands of fisheries d e p a rtm e n ts in the world, and add in the youth of fish farming as an activity that relies on genetic diversity, and you have some idea of the gulf betw een plant and aquatic g enetic resources. A qu a tic g enetic resources have always been there, but their signific ance has been hid den be ca u se they were the basis for the last great wild harvest ind u lg e d in by hum a n kind - fisheries. It was only when fisheries be g a n to falter, and a q u aculture be g a n to make d e m a n d s for starting material, that a q ua tic genetic resources seem ed to matter.

M ANAGING AQUATIC GENETIC RESOURCES: TOOLS A N D POLICY GAPS

65

W h a t to conserve? B e c a u s e so l i t t l e is k n o w n a b o u t fish s p e c i e s a n d s t o c k s t h a t m a y b e c o m e i m p o r t a n t to a q u a c u l t u r e , i n d u s t r y a n d c o n s e r v a t i o n in th e f u t u r e , it is i m p o r t a n t to c o n s e r v e n o t o n ly c u r r e n t l y e c o n o m i c a ll y v a lu a b le a q u a ti c g e n e tic reso urces b u t also th o s e t h a t m a y b e u sefu l in th e f u t u re . In s o u t h e r n c o u n tr ie s , fisheries h ave g e n e ra lly p r o c e e d e d in th e c o m p l e t e a b s e n c e o f i n f o r m a t i o n o n th e v ery ex isten ce o f in d i v i d u a l g e n e ti c s to ck s. In o t h e r w o r d s , th e r e has b e e n a t e n d e n c y to fo cu s on a b u n d a n c e o f fish s to c k s t h a t are e c o n o m i c a l l y v a lu a b l e n o w r a t h e r t h a n th e g e n e tic d iv ersity n e e d e d to e n s u r e f u t u r e value. T h e m o b i l i t y o f fish a n d t h e fin a n c ia l a n d te c h n i c a l c o n s t r a i n t s to g e n e b a n k i n g are tw o factors t h a t d if fe re n tia te fish g e n e ti c res o u rces c o n s e r v a ti o n fr o m c ro p a n d fo restry g e n e ti c re s o u rc e c o n s e r v a t i o n ( H o d g k i n a n d O u e d r a o g o , 1 9 9 6 ). Yet th e r e is a n o t h e r c o n s i d e r a t i o n . S u s t a in a b l e m a n a g e m e n t o f a q u a ti c b io d i v e rs i ty d e p e n d s o n c o n s e r v in g th e m a n y diverse a q u a ti c o r g a n i s m s t h a t m a k e u p f o o d w e b s a n d c o n t r i b u t e to m a i n t a i n i n g e n v i r o n m e n t a l q u a li ty (P u llin a n d C a sal, 1 9 9 6 ) . W h i l e an ec o sy s te m a p p r o a c h to c o n s e r v a t i o n w o u l d h e lp s u s ta in eco sy ste m h e a lt h w h ile p r o t e c t i n g i n d i v id u a l species, c r e a t in g g e n e ti c re s o u rc e p o lic y t h a t reflects such c o m p l e x e co sy s tem n e e d s h as n ev er b e en d o n e b efo re. In th e p ast, g o v e r n m e n t s h a v e b e e n r e l u c t a n t to a d o p t a n e c o s y s t e m a p p r o a c h to fish c o n s e r v a t i o n , p r i m a r i l y b e c a u s e o f co st, c o n f l i c t i n g e c o n o m i c in te re sts, a n d s cien tific u n c e r ­ tainty . T h i s a t t i t u d e is c h a n g i n g , b u t t h e p r a c t ic a l a b il it y to 'm a n a g e for b i o ­ d i v e r s i t y ’ is still l i m i t e d , p r o b a b l y b e c a u s e it is so d a u n t i n g . I f e v e ry a q u a t i c o r g a n i s m d e p e n d s o n every o t h e r o n e , w h i c h o n e d o y o u conserve?

Taking communities into account in conservation policy I'h e t h r e e i n t e r d e p e n d e n t c o m p o n e n t s o f s u s t a i n a b l e d e v e l o p m e n t a re a s u s ta in a b l e e c o n o m y , s u s ta in a b l e e c o s y s te m s , a n d s u s ta in a b l e c o m m u n i t i e s . It’s well u n d e r s t o o d t h a t g o v e r n m e n t a n d i n d u s t r y h ave a r e s p o n s ib i li ty to c o n se r v e e c o sy s te m s t h a t , if p r o t e c t e d , will p r o v i d e th e n a t u r a l c a p ita l fo r f u t u r e g e n e r a ­ tio n s. H e a l t h y e c o n o m i e s a n d h e a lt h y e c o s y s te m s in t u r n c o n t r i b u t e to m a i n ­ ta i n i n g h e a lt h y c o m m u n i t i e s . T h e p a r t t h a t ’s o ft e n o v e r l o o k e d in th e e q u a t i o n is th e i m p o r t a n t role t h a t t r a d i t i o n a l c o m m u n i t i e s , as o p p o s e d to g o v e r n m e n t or in d u s try , can p lay in c o n s e r v i n g e c o s y s te m s - p r o v i d e d th e y h ave th e rig h t, the m e a n s a n d th e m o t i v a t i o n to d o so. T h e i m p o r t a n c e o f c o m m u n i t y stab ility to th e c o n s e r v a t i o n o f a q u a ti c resou rces m a y seem o b v io u s , b u t it h as n o t alw ays b e e n f r o n t a n d c e n tr e in p o lic y m a k i n g . In th e m a r k e t- b a s e d e c o n o m y , th e c h ip s fall w h e r e t h e y may. T r a d i t i o n a l c o m m u n i t y liv e lih o o d s can d is a p p e a r for a n y o f a n u m b e r o f reason s, i n c l u d i n g th e in a b i li ty to c o m p e t e w ith large-scale c o m m e r c i a l fisheries (or a q u a c u l t u r e ) a n d th e d e s t r u c t i o n o f fish h a b i t a t as a res u lt o f lo g g in g , m i n i n g , o r u r b a n d e v e l o p m e n t . M a n y lo n g e s ta b lis h e d i n d i g e n o u s a n d local c o m m u n i t i e s h ave d e v e lo p e d a ca re fu l b a la n c e b e tw e e n m a i n t a i n i n g sta b le local e c o n o m i e s a n d s u s t a i n i n g t h e e c o sy s te m s n e e d e d to s u p p o r t t h e m . W h e n local e c o n o m i e s arc d i s r u p t e d , t r a d i t i o n a l c c o s y s te m m a n a g e m e n t sy s te m s are d i s r u p t e d as well. L o cal p e o p le n e e d liv e lih o o d s t h a t are

66

BLUE GENES

bo t h con se rvation based a n d eco no mically sustainable. Case S tu d y 1 graphically illustrates h o w d e p e n d e n t ecosystem con se rvation can be o n the p rote ctio n o f local fisheries livelihoods in areas like Brazils Rio Negro. T h e c oun tr ies th at have ratified the C B D (almost all the c ou ntr ies in the world) are c o m m i t t e d , u n d e r Article 8(j), to m a i n t a i n i n g a n d p r o m o t i n g tra d it io n a l c o m m u n i t y practices relevant to the conservation an d sustainable use o f biological diversity. G o v e r n m e n t s can use a variety o f tools to do so. T h e s e m ay include actively p r o m o t i n g c o - m a n a g e m e n t o f aquatic ecosystems and resources, devel­ op in g p r o g r a m m e s to s u p p o r t the exp ansion o f sustainable fisheries livelihoods, a n d directly involving c o m m u n i t i e s in m a k i n g policy. In a d d it io n , as suggested by Article 8(j), they can ens ure tha t in d ig en o u s a n d local c o m m u n i t i e s share in the benefits resulting from the use o f aqua tic genetic resources. Carefully considered benefits, w h e t h e r m o n e t a r y or n o n - m o n e ta r y , can s tr engthen the ec onom ics o f fishing c o m m u n i t i e s in a way tha t takes ecosystem sustainability into a c c o u n t as well. We will discuss h o w this m i g h t be achieved in later chapters.

B a n k in g blue g e n e s : C o lle c t io n s o f aquatic g e n e tic resources A quatic genetic diversity can be conserved in three ways: • • •

By p r o te c tin g the h ab it at o f aquatic creatures from u r b a n d e v e lo p m e n t, d a m building, forestry, p o llu ti o n , etc. By regulating fishing. By collecting a n d s toring genetic material (eg fish sperm or w hol e fish) in gene banks th a t can b o t h guar d against ex tinction and preserve material until science is ready or able to use it (eg to en h a n c e farmed stocks).

Ideally, all three o f these approac hes c o m p l e m e n t o ne another . Ironically, the third ap p r o a c h - by far the simplest a n d least expensive - has proven to be the m o s t difficult to im p l e m e n t . W h e r e once farmers in local c o m m u n i t i e s stored seeds from o n e years harvest to use in the next, toda y an elaborate system o f inte rn a tio n a l gene ban ks stores genetic material from a r o u n d the w or ld , in trust for the benefit o f all h u m a n k i n d . For example, the Inte rn a ti o n a l Rice G e n c b a n k , established in 1977 , n o w holds in cold storage m o re th an 9 0 , 0 0 0 samples o f cultivated rice a nd wild species, d o n a t e d by m o r e t h a n 100 c o u n t r i e s . T h e I R R I states o n its w e b s ite ( w w w i r r i . o r g / G R C / i r g / b i o d i v - g e n e b a n k . h t m ) th a t the seeds are held in trust and are m a d e available to the w o r l d s scientists in the public an d private sectors. As w e’ll discuss later, the rules for access to genetic resources collections held by plant gene ban ks are one o f the m o s t t ro u b le s o m e issues for policy makers ( W h o really o w n s the seeds? T h e gene bank? T h e c o u n t r y th a t p r o v id e d them ? T h e c o m m u n i t i e s fro m w h i c h they originally came? T h e farmers w h o s e an ces tors developed new strains cither accidentally or by design?). T h e p o i n t is that s o m e o n e

MANAGING AQUATIC GENETIC RESOURCES: TOOLS AND POLICY GAPS

67

had the foresight to m ake sure th at p lant genetic resources a ro u n d the w orld are conserved for h u m a n i ty ’s best interest, however th at m ig h t be d e te r m in e d , and g ov ern m en ts a ro u n d the w o rld have co m e on board to en courage an d su p p o r t the collections. Regardless o f the politics, the theo ry o f conserving w h a t m ig h t be lost forever a nd using it for fu tu re h u m a n (c o n s u m e r an d c o m m e rc ial) ben efit is so u n d . T h e same th eo ry is equally applicable to aquatic genetic resources. C u r r e n t collections o f aquatic genetic resources are usually m a in tain ed in gene banks for aq uacu lture or conservation. G e n e banks have already been in tro d u ce d in C h a p te r 1, and b o th e nd uses o f gene b an k in g rely on similar technologies and pose similar questions o f policy. In the discussion th a t follows, th e emphasis is on gene banks for aqu aculture, b u t m a n y o f the issues regarding collection an d access are the same for gene banks aim ed at research or ‘restoration’ o f en d ang ere d stocks.

W h y bank fish genes? A gene b an k is a collection o f genetic resources. Collections m ay take m a n y forms. T h e y m ay be living plants or anim als conserved in situ (in place) or ex situ (at a location rem o te from their natural habitat). Alternatively, they m ay co n tain only reproductive material such as seeds, w hich can be stored for years before needing periodic regeneration, or cryopreserved sp erm , w hich can be stored indefinitely. E ither way, gene banks m a in ta in the raw m aterial for food security a nd the m ean s to breed better crops, farm better fish, or repopulate depleted stocks. Agricultural gene banks have proven invaluable w here an agricultural crop has been devastated by disease, for example, the case o f rice in Indonesia in the mid1970s. A gene for resistance to the disease was fou n d in one sam ple o f a variety o f rice collected in 1963 in India. W i t h o u t its presence in a gene ban k , it is unlikely th at a gene for resistance w o uld ever have been fo u n d . T h e re are over 4 6 0 p lan t gene bank s th r o u g h o u t the w o rld , in clu din g app ro xim ately a dozen m ajo r ones established u n d e r the auspices o f the C G I A R . T h ese gene banks all c o m m u n ic a te w ith one a n o th e r a nd exchange material. Fish gene banks could fill m a n y o f the same fun ction s as plant gene banks, as well as new ones, such as providing wild genetic material for efforts to rebuild depleted stocks. Collections o f aquatic gcnctic resources can be ‘bro o d s to ck collec­ ti o n s ’ ( ‘living g ene b a n k ') or ‘cry o p re serv ed g ene b a n k s' o f frozen sp erm or em bryos. Broodstock collections take up space and are m ore expensive th an cryo­ preserved banks to replenish and m ain ta in . M o st cryopreserved banks are for fish sp e rm , a lth o u g h m e t h o d s for freezing bivalve (oyster an d clam ) g am etes an d em bryos have recently m a d e possible gene ban ks for these groups. T h e re is still no technology for gene b an k in g o f crustaceans (shrim p, etc). T h e h is to ry o f fish gene b a n k s is s h o r t (a p p r o x im a te ly tw o decades) a n d a lth o u g h there are a n u m b e r o f large state-run collections (for example, those in N orway, India, Russia, and Finland), the bulk o f the cryopreserved material is held in small private or university-based banks whose n u m b e r s arc n ow h ere near those for plants. T h e re is no co o rd in atio n betw een these banks. Nevertheless, the range o f species held is broad, and te chniques for new species are being developed all the time. T h o se th a t do exist serve a variety o f fu nctions, inclu ding as repositories o f

68

BLUE GENES

w ild g e n e tic m a te ria l as a so u rce for b r e e d i n g , p riv a te b a n k s o f gen etically im proved b roodstock, a nd banks o f sperm collected by g o v e rn m e n t agencies and aboriginal groups as a m eans o f assisting recovery efforts for wild stocks. Banks o f sperm from freshwater fish p re d o m in a te , w h ic h reflects the p re p o n d e r a n c e o f cultured freshwater species rather than any greater ease o f freezing gametes from such species (m arine species are in fact technically easier to cryopreserve). C o m m e rc ia l use o f frozen fish germ plasm has already beg un . For example, west coast salm on farms in C a n a d a have recently beg un to draw on private gene banks in their b roo dsto ck p ro g ram m e s (see Case Study 2), a nd genetically im proved tilapia strains bred from wild b roo dsto ck collected in Africa are represented in a b an k in the Philippines (Case S tud y 4). Fish breeders or conservationists w ith o u t access to these banks m u s t rely on existing wild stocks to o btain the raw material needed to rebuild depleted stocks a n d engage in selective b reed in g o f farm ed stocks, and access will only co m e w ith the d e v e lo p m e n t o f regional and national policies on exchanging material held in fish gene banks. T h e collection o f genetic resources for fish is coloured by a sense o f urgency that reflects the extrem e pressures on aquatic ecosystems. By the tim e aquaculturists a n d h a tc h e r y m a n a g e rs m a k e s i g n ifi c a n t p ro gress in d e v e lo p i n g gen etically im proved broodstocks, there m ay be m u c h less wild genetic material left to w ork with. O v erfishing and ha bita t destru ctio n have b o th taken an im m en s e toll, and climate change m ay well c o n trib u te to fu rth er losses o f aquatic genetic diversity. G e n e b an k in g helps ensure th a t genetic variability o f threate ned fish stocks will n o t be lost w hile efforts to restore a nd preserve h a b itat c o n tin u e. For species w ith ec o n o m ic value in aq uacu lture, gene b an k in g safeguards biodiversity for later use in selective breeding.

Policy i mp lic ati on s: G e t t i n g local p e rm i s s i o n to collect aq u a tic ge netic resources F utu re d evelo pm ents in cryopreservation tec hnology will u n d o u b te d ly expan d the n u m b e r o f aquatic gene banks, an d this will have im plications for ease o f use and type o f user. Before a b o u t 19 9 5, for exam ple, cryo preserv ation o f fish sperm required costly e q u ip m e n t and la boratory facilities. W it h the in tro d u c tio n o f inex­ pensive field kits, however, com panies, fisheries agencies an d aboriginal groups are now able to create their own gene banks, relying on outside assistance only for training and inv en tory m an ag e m e n t. As the n u m b e r of banks grows, so does the n u m b e r o f po tential conflicts, espe­ cially as collections begin to c o n c e n tra te o n species an d p o p u la tio n s th a t are declining. T h e m o s t likely conflicts will be w here access is s o u g h t to genetic resources o f com m ercially i m p o r t a n t species in areas where local an d in digenous c o m m u n itie s have som e m a n a g e m e n t rights. Paradoxically, this conflict m ay be w o r s e n e d by th e m o v e to w a rd s g re ater local p a r t i c i p a t i o n in reso urc e m a n a g e m e n t, as local c o m m u n itie s deal w ith m ore requests for genetic material from locally m ana ge d stocks. D e v e lo p m e n t agencies and g o v e rn m e n ts c a n n o t e n c o u r a g e c o m m u n i t i e s to m a n a g e th e i r o w n resou rces, in c l u d i n g g e n e tic resources, w ith o u t also pro vid ing the policy tools for m ain ta in in g som e degree o f

MANAGING AQUATIC GENETIC RESOURCES: TOOLS AND POLICY GAPS

69

local control. In this sense, a request to extract genetic resources is no different from a fishing incursion by a neighbour or competing stakeholder: both require guidelines and policies. T h e collection, storage and transport of plant and animal genetic resources has been the subject o f intense international debate for decades, and there is a growing body o f standards specifically for plants and animals. Whil e the C B D is m ea nt to encompass all genetic resources, in reality it is the o ut com e of the debate on plant and terrestrial animal resources. For aquatic animals, there are no standards beyond what some local agencies and jurisdictions have set for themselves. Th e C a n a d i a n D F O , for exa mple, does sa lm on gene b a n k i n g (for co ns erv ati on reasons) within the framework o f existing rules on transplantation o f gametes and disease control, but there are no specific guidelines or policies for access and benefit sharing. Canadian First Nations, several o f which collect salmon gcnctic resources (also for conservation and possibly including some o f the same stocks that D F O collects), may opt to operate according to their own internal guidelines. T h e situation is like all ad hoc arran ge men ts: co nv e ni e nt , and m o re or less smoothly functioning until too m any people get involved. As we have seen above, increased involvement is inevitable. If policies are not developed to cope with it, conflict will also be inevitable. Increases in regulatory complexity for collection o f aquatic genetic resources will mean increased cost to collectors. As a relatively new commercial activity, fish farming is likely to go through m an y cycles as species enter culture and become established. For m any species, a boom follows establishment of the first farms, then is succeeded by a decline in prices (as supply increases) and the eventual weeding out o f players. Hence it is difficult to predict how commercial operations will view any increase in costs associated with new policies for collection and exchange o f genetic resources. Regulations that apply to the industry are still being developed for other areas (pollution, certification, other environmental effects), so its reasonable to assume that farms will take new policies on genetic resources in their stride. Meanwhile, fish farmers wait for access policies to be developed. Case Study 2 at the end o f this chapter describes the di lemma of a salmon farmer, frustrated and thwarted in his attempts to collect pure’ broodstock from a spawning stream because the g overnment had yet to turn its m in d to policy development.

Steps towards an international system for aquatic genetic resources T h e pr esent p l a n t gene b a n k i n g system has gro wn o u t o f m a n y decades of collection o f plant genetic resources and their use in developing new crops. It has followed the m e t a m o r p h o s i s o f genetic resources from the ‘heritage o f h u m a n k i n d ’ to the subject o f the largest international convention ever signed, from an era when disinterested collectors were welcome in local c omm uni ti es to a time where national governments are s hutting down access. It primarily serves the needs o f crop breeders working with highly evolved breeds grown on a large scale in m on oculture in simplified ecosystems.

70

BLUE GENES

As we have seen, aquatic genetic resources are im p o r t a n t n o t only in large-scale, intensive aq u a c u ltu re (the closest parallel to m o d e r n agriculture), b u t also in small-scale farm ing systems that are m ore c o n n ected w ith natural ecosystems, as well as in the p ro d u c tio n o f wild stocks that c o n tin u e to be provided by ecosystems th at are essentially unaltered. T h e collection and use o f aquatic genetic resources for these kinds o f endeavours is just beginning. In som e ways this is a good th in g for policy m akers, because w ith th e C B D in place in so m a n y c o u n tr ie s the g ro un d-rules are far clearer th a n they ever were for plants. T h e problem for aquatic genetic resource collections is thus less one o f k n o w in g the rules an d profiting from the experience in the pla n t w orld, a nd m o re a m a tte r o f organization and co ord ination . O n e similarity is, however, very clear: as in agriculture, aq uacu ltu re seed supplies are b e c o m in g c o n cen trated in fewer an d fewer h an d s as fish farmers look to outside sources for fish seed (W elc o m m c, 1999). In som e cases they may in fact have no choice, an d local varieties w ith desirable culture characteristics may actually be su pp lan ted by species or varieties being p ro m o te d by seed com panies. Nevertheless, m a n y fish farms still d ep en d on collection o f wild broo dstock , and research on genetic m odification o f farmed fish relies heavily on the analysis and selection o f traits from a wide diversity o f wild stocks. O n e o f the m ain p roblem s w ith having a n u m b e r o f disco nn ected collections t h a t have b ee n ass e m b le d for v a rio u s reaso ns (a q u a c u l tu r e , c o n s e r v a t i o n / e n h a n c e m e n t, p harm aceutical, pure research) is that there is n o c o m m o n g ro u n d or purpose. A private c o m p a n y m ain ta in in g a ban k o f catfish sperm for their a q u a ­ culture op eration s is unlikely to travel in the same circles, read the same journals or atte nd the same meetings as a research scientist with a gene ban k o f zebra fish sperm or a g o v e r n m e n t biolo gist c ollecting wild sa lm o n genetic m aterial for conservation. All of them may be u nfam iliar with the C B D . If one considers th at g ene b a n k i n g o f a q u a ti c o rg a n i s m s has b een g o in g o n , in sm all, s c attered pro g ram m e s like these since the m id -1 9 7 0 s, two things are clear: Firstly, a lot o f a q u a ti c g e n e tic reso urces are b e in g c o lle c te d , m a n a g e d a n d u sed for m a n y p u rp o s e s . S eco nd ly, th e s t a n d a r d i z a t i o n so e v id e n t in p l a n t g en e b a n k i n g (c olle ctio n te c h n i q u e s , p re s e rv a tio n te c h n i q u e s , c o n s e n t a n d p u b li c a ti o n o f holdings) is completely absent. T h e re arc, however, clear signs th at this situation will change. Sincc the late 1970s, F A O has c o nv en ed period ic co n su lta tio n s a nd conferences o n aqu atic genetic resources, aided in the 1990s by W orld Fisheries T rust and IC L A R M (now W orld Fish C enter). T h is series o f co nsultation s led in the late 1990s to recog­ nition th at there already exists a large a m o u n t o f inform a tion on aquatic genetic resources. D raw in g on the experience o f FAO in creating the D om estic A nim al Diversity In fo rm a tio n System (D A D IS ), W orld Fisheries T ru st and FAO began to p ro m o te a similar consolidation a n d stan dardizatio n o f aquatic an im al diversity info rm atio n. T h e p ro g r a m m e , provisionally called Fisheries In fo rm a tio n N e tw o rk on G en etic Resources (F I N G E R ) , began w ith an expert con su ltatio n in R o m e in N o v e m b e r 2 0 0 1 , an d has now progressed to a pilot stud y to collect existing info r­ m a tion on key species. A l t h o u g h F I N G E R goes well b e y o n d th e c o lle c tio n s o f a q u a ti c g e n e tic resources held in gene b an k s (it includ es, for ex am ple, gene se q u en ce s from

MANAGING AQUATIC GENETIC RESOURCES: TOOLS AND POLICY GAPS

71

a q u a tic o rg a n ism s , as well as m u s e u m collections) it is p ro b a b ly a necessary step in th e c reation o f a gene b a n k in g system a n y th i n g like th e o n e th a t exists for plants. It will certain ly have so m e basic differences from th e p la n t system , b u t it will d efi­ n itely be a p o w e rfu l to o l for policy c reatio n , because th e system will establish s t a n ­ d ard ized c o m m u n i c a t i o n s b etw e en isolated collections, as well as rules for access to in f o r m a t io n on the collections. A lth o u g h b u il d in g th e system will take tim e, it will ev entu a lly afford a unified p ictu re o f th e state a n d e x te n t o f a q u a tic g enetic resource collections. If a u nified gene b a n k in g system for a q u a tic o rg a n ism s ever does em erg e, it will reflect the diversity o f uses a n d m o tiv es revealed by F I N G E R .

A c cess

t o a q u a t ic g e n e t i c r e s o u r c e s c o l l e c t i o n s

C o u n tr ie s’ in te r d e p e n d e n c e on g e n e tic resources Even th e m o s t b iologically self-sufficient co u n trie s lo ok to o th e r parts o f th e w o rld for g enetic resources for cro p d e v e lo p m e n t. W h e a t o rig in a te d in th e N e a r East, b u t th e genes th a t led to s e m i- d w a r f w h eats c a m e from Jap an via the U S a n d M exico. D isease-resistant genes fo u n d in C e n tr a l A m e ric a m a y s u p p o r t cro p yields as far aw ay as I n d i a ( C r u c i b lc G r o u p , 1 9 9 4 ). T h e d e li b e r a t e m o v e m e n t o f a q u a ti c species o u t o f the ir c o u n tr ie s o f o rigin is m u c h m o r e recent, an d less extensive, t h a n th a t o f plan ts, p rim a rily because o f th e relative difficulty o f t r a n s p o r t in g fish over lo n g distances (a lth o u g h m o v e m e n t o f alien species 'b y a c c i d e n t’ is a n o t h e r m a tte r). W i t h the e xce ptio n o f a few w idely c u lt u re d species, th e d iversity o f a food fish species is likely to be c o n fin e d to a c o u n t r y or a g ro u p o f n e ig h b o u r in g c o u n ­ tries. T h e exc ep tio n s to this rule are, how ever, significant. T ilap ias, for ex am p le, are an A frican fish n o w c u ltu re d all over th e w o rld (see C ase S tu d y 4), a n d th e A tla n tic sa lm o n is n o w c u lt u re d w idely in N o r t h a n d S o u th A m erica, t h o u s a n d s o f k ilo ­ m e tres aw ay fro m its original h a b itat. In b o th cases, c u ltu re o f th e tr a n s p la n te d d o m e s tic a te d species has caused co n tro v ersy related to gen etic effects on native species, an d has even redu ced the o p ti o n s for c u lt u r i n g th e m . W h e n a subsistence fa rm e r w a n ts to s u p p l e m e n t his in c o m e w ith sm all-scale fish c u ltu re , fa r m in g a local species m ay n o t be an o p ti o n , especially w h e n (as in Brazil, for ex am p le) the state is actively p r o m o t i n g tilapias. I n t e r d e p e n d e n c e a m o n g c o u n tr ie s for crop g enetic resources has been a p rim a ry s tim u lu s for in t e r n a t io n a l co lla b o ra tio n in th e ir exch an g e a n d use. E x am p les are th e f o r m a ti o n o f th e C G I A R g e rm p la s m collectio n s, a n d efforts to d ev e lo p a m u ltila te ra l system for access to gcn ctic resources a n d th e s h a r in g o f benefits. T h e r e is m u c h less ev id en ce o f such co lla b o ra tio n in th e fish w o rld , a lt h o u g h this m a y c h a n g e as f u r t h e r p rogress is m a d e in fish b r e e d i n g efforts a n d ex ch an g e ( R a y m o n d , 1 9 99 ). T h e existence o f regional a q u a c u l tu re n e tw o rk s such as the N e t w o r k o f A q u a c u ltu r e C e n tr e s in Asia is e vid en ce o f such a tr e n d , as is F A O ’s w o rk to w a rd s estab lishin g the F I N G E R in f o r m a t io n system for a q u a tic a n im a l gen etic resources.

72

BLUE G EN E S

K in d s o f d e m a n d for access As w e h a v e seen, c ol l ec t i on s o f a q u a t i c g e n e t i c r es o ur ce s are d e v e l o p i n g in a n ad h o c way. P h a r m a c e u t i c a l a n d a q u a c u l t u r e c o m p a n i e s , r e s e a r c h i n s t i t u t e s a n d g o v e r n m e n t agencies have been the p r im a r y initiators. In a d d i tio n , so m e indigenous

com m unities

have recently b e g u n

c r y o p r e s e r v i n g f i sh s p e r m .

C o m m u n i c a t i o n a b o u t t h e n a t u r e , p u r p o s e , l o c a t i o n a n d i n d e e d t h e v er y exi st e nce o f c ol l ec t i on s is p oo r . As c o m m u n i c a t i o n i m p r o v e s , d e m a n d s f or access to c ol lec­ t i o n s ( n o w so c o m m o n p l a c e f or p l a n t g e n e t i c r esour ces) will b e g i n to occ ur . W h a t will t he s e d e m a n d s be like, a n d w h a t s h o u l d b e t h e policies to dea l w i t h t h e m ? E x a m p l e s o f access d e m a n d s m i g h t i n c l u d e a g o v e r n m e n t a g e n c y r e q u e s t i n g g e n e t i c r e s o u r c e s c o l l ec t e d b y a c o n s e r v a t i o n society, a n a q u a c u l t u r e c o m p a n y r e q u e s t i n g g e n e t i c r eso ur ce s h e l d by a n i n d i g e n o u s c o m m u n i t y , o r a u n i v e rs i t y r es e ar ch er w i s h i n g to e x p e r i m e n t w i t h g e n e t i c r esou r ce s c o ll e c te d by g o v e r n m e n t , i n d u s t r y o r a local c o m m u n i t y . All s u c h r e q ue st s will raise a n u m b e r o f issues, n o t all o f t h e m rel a t ed to o w n e r s h i p . F o r e x a m p l e , are t h e g e n e t i c r es ou r c e s ( w h i c h m a y exist in t h e f ro z en state) a n y d i f f e r e n t f r o m t h e fish t h a t p r o v i d e d t h e m ? D o e s t h e r e q u e s t i n g p a r t y n e e d to go t h r o u g h t h e i d e n t i c al p e r m i s s i o n s t e ps f o l l o we d by t h e o r i g i n a l col lec t o r ? I f t h e g e n e t i c m a t e r i a l is to b e t r a n s p o r t e d o u t s i d e t h e o r i g in a l w a t e r s h e d , w h o g r a n t s p e r m i s s i o n ? C l e a r l y i f t h e r e are n o pol i c i e s in pl a ce r e g a r d i n g t h e o r i gi na l col l ec t i on s, t h e s i t u a t i o n will o n l y get m o r e c o m p l i c a t e d o n c e r e q u e s t s are m a d e f or access to t h e m . T h i s is i ll us t r at e d, f or e x a m p l e , b y C G I A R ' s ( 2 0 0 1 ) d e v e l o p m e n t o f g u i d e ­ lines f or t h e a c q u i s i t i o n a n d t r ans f er o f a q u a t i c g e r m p l a s m . T h e g u i d e l i n e s are d e s i g n e d to c o m p l y w i t h A rt i cl e 15 o f t he C B D , w h i c h p r o v i d e s t h a t access to g e n e t i c r e s o u r c e s shall b e o n m u t u a l l y a g r e e d t e r m s a n d s u b j e c t t o t h e p r i o r i n f o r m e d c o n s e n t o f t h e c o n t r a c t i n g p a r t y ( c o u n t r y ) p r o v i d i n g t h e resour ces. T h e g u id e l i n e s r e q u i r e C G I A R C e n t r e s to o b t a i n p r o p e r , f o r m a l p e r m i s s i o n f r o m t he relevant a u t h o ri z e d g o v e r n m e n t b o d y prior to collecting or a c q u ir in g any g e r m p l a s m ’ b y w a y o f a l e tter o f a g r e e m e n t , g e r m p l a s m a c q u i s i t i o n a g r e e m e n t , o r o t h e r legal d o c u m e n t , c o n t r a c t o r a g r e e m e n t . W h i l e t he g u id e l i n e s m a y satisfy t he r e q u i r e m e n t s o f A r t i c l e 15, t h e r e is n o g u a r a n t e e t h a t n a t i o n s o f o r i g i n h a v e d e v e l o p e d p ol i c i e s t h a t g o v e r n access to c o l l e c t i o n s w i t h i n t h e c o u n t r y o r to a q u a t i c g e n e t i c r e s o u r c e s g e ne ra l l y. I n m o s t c o u n t r i e s s u c h p ol i c i e s ar e n o n ­ e xi s t e n t o r h a p h a z a r d at bes t, y et t he i r d e v e l o p m e n t will b e es senti al to a c h ie v i n g t h e C B D s objecti ves. T h e f o l l o w i n g e x a m p l e s ill ust r at e s o m e o f t h e dif fi cult ies cr ea t e d b y c u r r e n t po li c y gaps.

Canada: Cultus Lake sockeye O n e c h a r a c t e r i st i c o f g en e t i c r es o u r ce c o l l e c t io n , especiall y t h o s e in g e n e b a n k s f r o m w h i c h s a m p l e s c a n literally b e t a k e n ‘o f f t h e s h e l f ’, is t h e i r u n p r e d i c t a b l e utility. A c u r r e n t e x a m p l e is p r o v i d e d b y t h e case o f C u l t u s L ak e s oc ke y e s a l m o n . C u l t u s L ak e s oc ke y e are a m u c h d i m i n i s h e d p o p u l a t i o n o f Br iti sh C o l u m b i a s a l m o n t h a t s p a w n in a sma l l lake a t t a c h e d to a t r i b u t a r y o f t h e F r a ser River.

MANAGING AQUATIC GENETIC RESOURCES: TOOLS AND POLICY GAPS

73

Representative males o f the stock were gene ban ke d in 1995 by the C a n ad ian D F O , as p art o f a study d e m o n s tra tin g the utility o f cryopreservation technology. T h e sam ples re m a in e d in storage for six years, paid for by the d e p a r t m e n t a l research la boratory originally involved in their collection. Recently, two events raised the profile o f the collection. First, the C u ltu s Lake stock becam e critically depressed, to the extent th a t it was proposed for listing u n d e r the new Species At Risk Act, an d a separate division o f th e sam e fisheries d e p a r t m e n t began to c o n tem p late using the collection to restore the stock, and indeed to add to the collection. Second, a new parasite began to d ecim ate m a n y o f the salm on stocks in the area, in clu ding the C u ltu s stock, an d the m aterial frozen in 1995 had a su dd en interest for researchers w an tin g to com p are gametes from present day stock with stocks in ‘pre-parasite’ days. T h e u p sh o t is that a stock cryopreservcd alm ost at r a n d o m is now the subject o f discussion betw een two g o v e rn m e n t d ep a rtm e n ts, w h ich will have to share a limited collection. A n eig h b o u rin g First N a tio n , w hose sockeye stocks have been hard h it by the same parasite, is now interested in taking p art in any expanded gene b an k in g op eration in the c o m in g years.

Brazil: D N A fingerprinting an d cryopreservation offish sperm A n o th e r exam ple is from Brazil, w here the recent acquisition o f C an a d ia n tec h ­ nologies for fish gene b an k in g and D N A fing erprinting has created local capacity n o t only for collection, storage and exchange o f genetic resources (in the form o f frozen sperm) b u t also for amassing info rm atio n on the genetic stru cture o f fish pop ulation s. Both the b an k ed gametes and th e D N A sequence in fo rm atio n have p o t e n t i a l a p p li c a ti o n in c o n s e r v a ti o n , m a n a g e m e n t a n d a q u a c u l t u r e . T h e g o v e rn m e n t o f Brazil has been careful to insist on a clause in the tech no log y transfer agreem ent that stipulates that no gcnctic material shall leave the country, a n d there are regulations in place w ith in the c o u n tr y th at theoretically con tro l the access to aquatic genetic resources b o th by Brazilian nationals a nd by foreigners. O u tsid ers m u s t, for example, secure the c oo pe ration o f a Brazilian institu tio n before collecting any biological material, and IBAMA grants a special scientific collecting licence to Brazilian scientists to collect specimens for research. N e ith e r a rra n g e m e n t says a n y th in g a b o u t the acquisition or transfer o f genetic resources betw een sectors w ith in the country. However, collections o f m igratory fish genetic resources are slowly being built up in Brazil by universities, the private sector an d go ve rn m en t. Transfer betw een sectors is entirely feasible. An example m ig h t be the use o f cryopreservcd wild gcnctic resources for aq uacu lture trials by a university extension d e p a rtm e n t, resulting in d e v e lo p m e n t o f an im proved b r o o d ­ stock th a t could then be provided to farms th r o u g h o u t the country. Yet there are no formal n ational policies to control such transfers. T h e g o v e rn m e n t o f Brazil is clearly sensitive a b o u t genetic resources leaving the country, b u t h ow they are m oved a ro u n d w ithin the c o u n tr y a nd betw een sectors seems n o t to be regulated. Both o f the technologies in this example — cryopreservation a nd D N A finger­ p rin tin g - are rapidly e x p an d in g into new countries and organizations, an d bo th are capable o f quickly generating highly m o bile collections o f genetic resources or

74

BLUE GENES

genetic resource inform a tio n. D N A fin gerp rin tin g is especially pow erful a nd , once the technology is in place, d e m a n d s very little in the way o f sam ple collection. A tiny clip o f fin or even a single scale is e n o u g h to provide valuable gcnctic in fo r­ m atio n a b o u t the p o p u la tio n being studied, an d th at in fo rm atio n has value n o t only for m a n a g e m e n t o f stocks b u t also potentially for breeding. T h e p roposed F I N G E R referred to earlier w ou ld provide a ‘h o m e ’ for such in fo rm atio n , an d by its very creation stim ulate the d e v e lo p m e n t o f policies on its sharing.

A ccess to in d ig en o u s co llection s T h e ability to cryopreserve fish sperm in the field m ean s th at collections can be started by anyone. If an in dig eno us grou p is involved, the need for policy becomes acute. For example, several collections o f salm on gcnctic material, in clu din g those o f the C arrier-Sekani an d S husw ap First N a tio n s in C a n a d a , are m a in ta in e d in d e­ pe n d e n tly o f any g o v e rn m e n t agency. C ollectors notify the D F O o f their in ten tio n and receive ‘perm ission’ to take sperm from salm on , b u t o ne need only consider th e i m p l i c a ti o n s o f th e o n g o i n g tre a ty process b e tw e e n First N a t i o n s a n d g o v e rn m e n t to im agine a n u m b e r o f scenarios for w hich there is presently no policy fram ew o rk whatsoever: • • • •

D oes a First N a tio n really need the perm ission from the governm ent? If a c o m p a n y requests a sam ple o f genetic material from a First N a tio n ’s gene bank, w h o adjudicates the request, and against w h at criteria? If the c o m p a n y w ants to start its ow n collection in a First Nation's ‘territo ry ’, to w h o m should they apply for permission? O n c e gametes are ‘on the s h e lf’, sh ou ld they c o n tin u e to be treated as th o u g h they are simply p a rt o f a fish th a t was freshly collected for research purposes?

Q u e stio n s like this need to be c o n fro n te d w hen developing policy. In the case described above, the only existing p e rm ittin g m ech a n ism s deal exclusively with living fish or their gametes, an d are in te n d e d to prevent disease transmission or the transfer o f fish from on e w atershed to another. G e n e b an k in g is n o t even c o n t e m ­ plated.

A ccess to locally d evelop ed breeds Small-scale fish farmers often invest years o f selective b reeding effort in developing broo dsto ck s th at thrive in local co n d itio n s. T h e original b ro o d s to c k need n o t necessarily be an ind igen ou s species. In V ie tn a m , for example, a farm ed strain o f the ind igenous c o m m o n carp m ay be an im p o r t a n t reservoir o f genetic diversity w ith characteristics th a t are im p o r t a n t for p o o r families. T h is particular strain, grown in rice fields, is valuable because it does n o t leave terraced fields w hen they are periodically flooded. An ‘im p ro v e d ’ strain o f carp, w ith better grow th p erfor­ m ance, is n ow being p ro m o te d for rice field culture, yet this new strain requires significant physical im p ro v e m e n ts in the p o n d e n v ir o n m e n t . T h e biodiversity

MANAGING AQUATIC GENETIC RESOURCES: TOOLS AND POLICY GAPS

75

value o f the existing strain is now being recognized, an d represents a considerable in vestm en t on the part o f farmers over m a n y years (E dw ards et al, 2000). T h e situation is analogous to a farmer cultivating a crop variety th at represents several generations o f im p ro v em e n t. T h e result, in b o th cases, is genetic material w ith ad ded value. In the plan t w orld, the co ncep t o f farmers’ rights arose to p rotect this inv estm en t o f effort, b u t there is no similar con cep t for aquatic farming.

M a n a g in g

a q u a t ic g e n e t ic r e s o u r c e s :

Filling the policy vacuum In 1992, the C B D em p hasized the need for effective natio nal policies for the conservation a nd use ol biodiversity an d genetic resources. M o re th an ten years later, a few developing countries have p u t new laws into place, b u t m ost countries have m a d e little progress towards effective policies for aquatic gcnctic rcsourccs. Such policies are needed n o t only to ensure b etter m a n a g e m e n t b u t also to pave the way for policies for access to aquatic genetic resources. T h e absence o f clear or enforceable policies regarding fisheries m a n a g e m e n t, a q u a c u ltu re d e v e lo p m e n t and gene b a nk ing , for example, could c om plicate developing guidelines for evalu­ a ting access applications. Clear policies, s u p p o rted by adeq uate in fo rm a tio n , can also facilitate the n egotiation o f access agreem ents by d e te r m in in g how the provi­ sions o f an ag re e m e n t can p r o m o te c on se rv atio n, as well as th e usefulness o f aquatic genetic resources to d o n o r countries an d co m m u nities. Efforts to create aquatic versions o f plant-related policies are d o o m e d to failure. W h ile legal regimes governing the conservation and use o f different types o f b io ­ diversity m ay share som e c o m m o n characteristics, it is also i m p o r t a n t to develop policies th a t reflect the biological and social realities o f the harvest o f aquatic life. Because so few o f these are k n o w n , aquatic genetic resource policy is generally con sp icu ou s by its absence. C o n se rv a tio n o f aquatic genetic resources w orks at several levels, includ ing sustaining in dividual fisheries an d ecosystems th a t d e p e n d on diversity. In recent years the depletion o f fish stocks has sparked an intense interest in fish genetic resource c onservation (H arvey et al, 1998). C on servatio n m e ch a n ism s can include fishing quotas or p roh ibition s, h abitat pro tec tion an d restoration, gene banking, a n d p ro m o ti n g sustainable c o m m u n i t y fisheries. T h e p rim ary em phasis to date has been on fishing lim itations a nd hab itat protection. Yet the degrad ation o f fish stocks and expansion o f conservation pro g ra m m e s com es at a tim e w hen the aqu aculture in d u s try ’s need for wild genetic material is increasing rapidly. Moreover, the wild relatives o f m o s t farmed aquatic species greatly exceed, b o th in a b u n d a n c e and genetic diversity, the farmed p op u latio n s (Bartley an d Pullin, 1999), a situation th a t is the reverse o f th a t for d om estic a n im a l diversity. H e n c e th ere is still a reservoir o f wild g en etic diversity for sustainab le use. U n fo rtu n a te ly , there are few n a tio n a l or state policies for its conservation.

76

BLUE GENES

D e v e lo p m e n t o f policies governing fish gene b an k in g is a goo d example o f the complexity o f the p ro b lem , as it m u s t consider the technology n o t only as an insurance policy against extinctions b u t also as a sourcc o f gcnctic m aterial for breeding p ro gram m e s. T h ese are two very different applications that are usually p ro m o te d by different stakeholders. Policy m u s t also take into ac c o u n t how the technology can affect spread o f disease a m o n g watersheds, facilitate in tro d u c tio n s a n d tran sfers o f sto cks a n d species o u ts id e th e i r n a tu r a l ranges, a n d raise o w n e rsh ip and c o n tr o l issues t h a t arise n o t o nly o u t o f collection o f genetic resources b u t also o u t o f their p oten tial use years or even decades later (Harvey, 1999).

T h e b o tto m line: Poor in form ation equals p oor p olicy Policies for the conservation a nd sustainable use o f aquatic genetic resources are still po o rly d ev elop ed in m o s t c o u n trie s. T h o s e th a t exist have te n d e d to be developed in reaction to crises, th ro u g h closure o f vanishing fisheries such as cod in Atlantic C an ad a. U ntil recently, policy m a k in g for fisheries a nd aqu acu ltu re has rarely considered genetic resources, c o n cen tratin g instead on harvest levels o f in d i­ vidual species an d p rotection o f fish health. M is m a n a g e m e n t o f aquatic genetic resources has c o n tin u e d in spite o f grow ing public awareness o f en v iro n m e n tal issues (Bartley and Pullin, 1999). Several related factors co n tr ib u te to the cu rre n t policy v acu u m . In ad d itio n to l i m i ta t io n s on k n o w le d g e o f a q u a ti c c o m p a r e d to o t h e r types o f bio lo gical resources, the inaccessibility o f the aquatic realm and the difficulty o f policing w h a t c a n n o t be seen act as d ete rren ts. Lack o f u n d e r s t a n d i n g o f th e genetic structu re o f fish p o p u la tio n s has been an obvious im p e d im e n t: if genetic diversity is n o t yet described, h ow can it be the subject o f policy? A nd un til recently, the m y th th at aquatic p ro d u c tio n is inexhaustible has prevailed, a nd fish have been viewed as c o m m o n p rop erty available to all takers, w ith in a wide range o f access regimes. Policies on using aquatic genetic resources also have to take into acco un t public concerns a b o u t the use o f genetically m o dified organisms an d en v ir o n ­ m en tal im pacts o f industrial aq uacu lture, and need to acknow ledge u n certainty a b o u t the fu n c tio n in g o f genes an d genotypes in aquatic systems b o th in n ature a n d on farms (Bartley an d Pullin, 1999).

Barely scratching the surface: Limitatioyis to scientific knowledge M ost aquatic gcnctic resources have yet to be characterized (C orrea, 1999). M a n y are still undiscovered, while the gcnctic fine stru cture o f those species th at are k n o w n has only begu n to be studied. Unlike terrestrial life, aquatic life in habits a h i d d e n a n d relatively in accessib le e n v i r o n m e n t . D e s p it e re p e a te d calls for ‘ecosystem-based m a n a g e m e n t’ o f fisheries, know ledge o f aquatic ecosystems is far less co m p lete than th at o f terrestrial ones. A lth o u g h the m a jo rity o f k n o w n species are terrestrial (May, 19 88 ), som e m arin e biologists have suggested th at 80 per cen t o f all species th at will eventually be discovered will be aquatic (Plotkin, 20 0 0 ). For example, only a b o u t 4 5 ,0 0 0 o ut

M A N A G IN G A Q U A T IC G E N E T IC RESOURCES: TO O L S A N D POLICY GAPS

77

o f a p o t e n t i a l m i l l i o n f r e s h w a t e r species h a v e b e e n d e s c r i b e d ( M cA l l i s t e r et al, 1 9 9 7 ) . T h e p o t e n t i a l f or n e w discover ies o f a q u a t i c o r g a n i s m s t h a t c a n be f a r m e d o r e x t r a ct e d f or useful c h c m i c a l s is h u g e , a n d m a x i m i z i n g t he p o t e n t i a l f or a q u a ­ c u l t u r e d e v e l o p m e n t a l o n e will d e p e n d o n a m u c h b e t t e r u n d e r s t a n d i n g o f wi l d fish s t oc k s a n d t h e i r p r o p e r t i e s . Id en tific atio n o f n ew m a ri n e species largely follows a c a d e m ic interests, a l t h o u g h a n y i n t e r es t i n g f i nds are likely to p r o m p t at least a p r e l i m i n a r y l o o k f r o m t h e p h a r m a c e u t i c a l i n d u s t r y . S ci e n t i f ic resear ch i ts elf r equ i r es access to g e n e t i c r es o ur ce s q u i t e a p a r t f r o m a n y l ater c o l l e c t i o n f or e c o n o m i c ’ p u r p o s e s , y et e n c o u r ­ a g e m e n t o f r es e ar ch is vital to u n d e r s t a n d i n g t h e va l u e a n d t h r e a t s to a q u a t i c g e n e t i c resour ce s. St rat egi es for t h e i r use a n d c o n s e r v a t i o n c a n n o t be d e v e l o p e d w i t h o u t this k n o w l e d g e . T h e F A O o f t h e U n i t e d N a t i o n s m a i n t a i n s f i sher y p r o d u c t i o n statistics t h a t r e p r e s e n t o n e o f t he be s t d a t a sets o n a q u a t i c r e s o ur ce s a n d are relied u p o n for m a n a g e m e n t d ec is i on s . H o w e v e r , s uc h statist ics are b as ed o n h ar v e s t a n d d o n o t i n c l u d e a c o m p l e t e a s s e s s m e n t o f s t oc ks ( Bar tl ey a n d P u l l i n , 1 9 9 9 ) . M o r e o v e r , t h e y are heavily c o m p r o m i s e d b y t h e abi li t y o f i n d i v i d u a l n a t i o n s to r e p o r t t h e m a n d h e n c e give a ver y i m p e r f e c t p i c t u r e o f t h e b i o d i v e r s i t y o f o c e a n s a n d especiall y o f i n l a n d water s.

Lim itations o f tradition al knowledge T r a d i t i o n a l k n o w l e d g e o f p l a n t s c o n t r i b u t e s e n o r m o u s l y to t h e d e v e l o p m e n t o f i m p r o v e d c r o p st r ai ns in t h e a g r i c u l t u r e i n d u s t r y a n d o f d r u g s in t h e p h a r m a c e u ­ t i c al i n d u s t r y . T h e k n o w l e d g e h e l d b y t r a d i t i o n a l f i s h i n g c o m m u n i t i e s c a n c o m p l e m e n t a n d h e l p f ocus rese ar ch activities a n d is a n i m p o r t a n t asset in d e t e r ­ m i n i n g t h e p r o p e r t i e s o f a q u a t i c g e n e t i c resour ce s. F a m i l ia r i t y w i t h fish m i g r a t i o n r o u t e s , s p a w n i n g cycl es a n d t h e h a b i t a t p r e f e r e n c e s o f d i f f e r e n t s p e ci e s , f or e x a m p l e , has b e e n p as se d f r o m g e n e r a t i o n to g e n e r a t i o n a n d t o d a y c a n c o n t r i b u t e to e ff or t s to i d e n t i f y d e s i r a b l e c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s f or b r e e d i n g f a r m e d s t o c k s a n d c o n s e r v i n g wi l d ones . E s pe c ia ll y in s o u t h e r n c o u n t r i e s , c o m m u n i t i e s m a y also have k n o w l e d g e o f m a r i n e o r g a n i s m s a n d t h e i r t ox i c o r m e d i c i n a l p r o p e r t i e s t h a t m a y be useful in t he d e v e l o p m e n t o f d r u g s a n d o t h e r p r o d u c t s . B u t p l a n t a n d a q u a t i c g e n e t i c r esour ce s differ gr ea t l y in b o t h t h e n a t u r e a n d e x t e n t o f t r a d i t i o n a l k n o w l e d g e , a ke y p o i n t t h a t affects t h e d e v e l o p m e n t o f access po l i c y a n d to w h i c h we will r e t u r n at l e n g t h in C h a p t e r 4. M u c h o f t h e k n o w l e d g e t h a t has p r o v e n m o s t useful in t he g e n e t i c m o d i f i c a t i o n o f p l a n t s relates to d o m e s ­ ti c a t e d c r o p s a n d has b e e n a c c u m u l a t e d by f a r m e r s over h u n d r e d s o r t h o u s a n d s o f years. S o m e r ur a l c o m m u n i t i e s h a v e a l e n g t h y ( b u t m u c h s h o r t e r ) h i s t o r y o f p o n d a q u a c u l t u r e , p r i m a r i l y in d e v e l o p i n g c o u n t r i e s , b u t n o e x p e r i e n c e f a r m i n g species c u r r e n t l y f a v o u r e d in i n d u s t r i a l a q u a c u l t u r e . W h a t t r a d i t i o n a l f i s h i n g c o m ­ m u n i t i e s c a n o f f e r is e x t e n s i v e k n o w l e d g e o f a q u a t i c e c o s y s t e m s a n d t h e i r m a n a g e m e n t . W h a t t h e y lack, as C h a p t e r 4 will ill ustrate, is t h e t y p e o f k n o w l e d g e o f g e n e t i c r eso ur ce s t h a t c o ll ec t o r s are likely t o n e e d —a n i m p o r t a n t de f i c ie nc y t h a t c o u l d well b a r c o m m u n i t y effort s to n e g o t i a t e b e n e f i t s as l o n g as c o u n t r i e s s p e ci f ­ ically l i n k b e n e f i t - s h a r i n g r ights to t r a d i t i o n a l k n o w l e d g e .

78

BLUE GENES

Research needs Scientific u n d e rs ta n d in g o f aquatic species and ecosystems is a necessary f o u n ­ d atio n for conservation o f aquatic genetic resources. Research on aquatic genetic resources is n o t only far less advanced th a n for plants b u t also faces ad ditional com p licatio ns associated w ith the com plexity o f aquatic ecosystem interactions a n d the relative inaccessibility o f aquatic ecosystems. W it h in the last decade, the fisheries m a n a g e m e n t literature has b eco m e d o m in a te d by calls for ‘ccosystembased m a n a g e m e n t’; however, the sam e literature acknowledges that the scientific u n d e rs ta n d in g o f aquatic food chains is now here near w here it needs to be for this c h a n g e in m a n a g e m e n t to occur. A t p re s e n t, the o n ly tr u e ec o sy s te m -b ased m a n a g e m e n t th a t can occur in fisheries is to set aside p ro tected areas or no-take zones, a k ind o f ecosystem m a n a g e m e n t by default. Both developed a nd developing countries have paid relatively little a tten tio n to research and d e v e lo p m e n t o f aquatic genetic resources. In the US, for example, only 1 - 2 per ce nt o f the to tal federal in v e s tm e n t on b io te c h n o lo g y has been devoted to m arin e bio techn olog y a nd aq uacu lture (C orrea, 1999). In C a n a d a , it is only in the last decade th at go vern m en ts have invested heavily to identify gcnctic differences betw een salm on p o p ulation s, and it was n o t until 1999 that the federal g o v e rn m e n t, w h ic h has m a n a g e m e n t a u th o r it y for sa lm o n , form ally declared conservation o f genetic diversity an i m p o r t a n t m a n a g e m e n t goal. In Africa, fish are fairly well k n o w n at the species level, b u t w ithin species genetic diversity (the genetic resources o f species) has hardly been studied. Even for African tilapias, the genetic resources o f w hich have been studied to som e extent, the in fo rm a tio n available on genetic resources covers less th an 40 per cent o f the a b o u t 70 species k n o w n (Abban, 1999) - an d this is the aquatic a nim al whose culture is spreading fastest a ro u n d the w orld. D evelop ing countries need all the su p p o r t they can get to streng then their aquatic biodiversity in fo rm a tio n systems an d scientific capacity. A lth o u g h the im p o rta n c e o f research on aquatic genetic resources is n ow a p p re ­ ciated m ore than ever (as can be seen from the rapid increase in p ublications on fish genetic structure), spen d in g cuts in m a n y c ountries have taken a significant bite o u t o f research. T h e result has been a shift to w ard s co rp o ra te sp on sored research, w h ic h t e n d s to be fo cu s e d on p ractic al, p ro f ita b le a p p li c a ti o n s . Partnerships, for example, betw een a university a nd a corpo ratio n , can obviously b rin g th eir ow n pro b le m s if they m ean th a t w o rk is skewed tow ards in d u stry needs. It m ay m ean p u tt in g the cart before the horse because the cart carries the cash. Logically, basic science s h o u ld precede an d lead to app lied science, b u t applied scicncc is m o re likely to rcccivc c o rp o rate fu n d in g . T h e relatively u n ­ developed state o f research on aquatic genetic resources, c o m b in e d w ith the urgent need for in fo rm a tio n , m eans th at it is particularly susceptible to this bias. M u c h o f the basic research on genetic resources th a t has already been d o n e in the plan t w orld, before access requ irem ents becam e an intern ation al issue, remains to be acco m plished in the fish w orld. T h is research includes the all im p o r t a n t characterization o f genetic m a k e -u p at the subspecies (p op ulatio n or strain) level, w here gains from selective b reeding are likely to arise. W e have already referred to the explosion in this k in d o f research, prim arily using the tools o f microsatellite

M A N A G IN G A QU ATIC G E N E T IC RESOURCES: T O O L S A N D POLICY GAPS

79

D N A analysis, for s a lm o n id fishes. Microsatellite research requires the collection o f tissue samples from individual fish (usually a small ‘cl ip p in g ’ o f fin) a n d while the p r ocedure is non-invasivc it results in the carrying away o f gcnctic material. U n til s o u th e r n fisheries research laboratories acquire the tech n o lo g y for D N A fing erprinting, a process t h a t is still in its early stages, genetic material will need to be taken from its c o u n t r y o f origin for study. I f scientific researchers are subject to the same access rules as c orpora te b ioprosp ec tors, D N A studies or indeed any kind o f biodiversity research project m ay be s ub ject to c u m b e r s o m e a n d expensive access negotiations. T h e s e m ay furth er discourage research, especially given the lim ited ability o f research in st itu ti ons to provide c o m p e n s a t io n . Yet w i t h o u t the basic k now le dge o f aquatic biodiversity th at research provides, g o v e r n m e n ts will find it difficult to evaluate access applications objectively (Grajal, 1999). It’s a c o n u n d r u m that will prove difficult to resolve. In the m e a n t i m e , biologists an d t axonom ist s in m a n y national biodiversity research institutions are f in din g it increasingly difficult to collect genetic material even w ith in their ow n countries, an d to do their w o r k in the field to generate basic scientific knowledge (Ruiz, 1998). T h e lag in aquatics-related knowled ge m ea ns th a t access to aquatic genetic resources for basic research m ay be even m o re crucial th a n in p lan t research, a n d i m p e d i m e n t s are likely to delay advances in uses o f aquatic genetics resources, especially in aquac ulture .

P u b lic concerns a b o u t genetic m odification O n e reason policy makers are s o m etim es r eluc tant to deal with genetic resources is th a t genetic m o d ificatio n is such a h o t issue for the general public. Public concer ns a b o u t ethical, e n v i r o n m e n ta l a n d health issues related to the use o f aquatic genetic reso urce s differ in n a t u r e a n d e x t e n t f ro m t h o s e a b o u t use o f p l a n t g en etic re so ur ce s. C o n c e r n s a b o u t e n v i r o n m e n t a l i m p a c t s o f i n d u s t r i a l a q u a c u l t u r e include, for instance, the i m p a c t o f fish farm escapees o n the integrity o f wild stocks, the possibility o f spread o f disease, and the impacts o f far m ing on local ecosystems. ‘G e n e ti c m o d ific a tio n ’ has only recently entered the public vocabulary, b u t it hasn’t taken long to b e c o m e controversial, and public a n d media con ce rns are frequently exacerbated by c o n f u sio n a b o u t its m e a n i n g a n d im plica tion s. T h e med ia focus on polarized views has sim ply cl o u d ed the picture. G e n e t ic m o d i f i ­ cation o f crops by c o m p a n ie s such as M o n s a n t o m a y receive m o re a tt e n t io n than w o r k d o n e on fish, in par t because so m a n y food p r o d u c ts c ontain genetically m o difi ed ingre dients ( no ta bly soy derivatives). However, conc er ns a b o u t uses o f aqua tic gcnctic resources arc in some respects m o re intense because a higher form o f life is involved. M a n y people even refuse to eat farm ed fish. For these people, genetically m odi fi ed ‘super fish’ are even less acceptable. Even the idea o f a fish gene being i m p l a n t e d in a straw be rry to im pro ve frost resistance is a b h o r r e n t to some, even th o u g h the end result m ay be a berry identical in taste a n d app ea ra nc e to any other. In a d d i tio n to w o r ry in g a b o u t the possible health risks o f eating antibiotict r e a t e d fish, a n d especially fish f ro m g e n e tic a lly e n g i n e e r e d var ieties, s o m e

80

BLUE GENES

co n s u m e rs m a y feel i t s in a p p r o p ri a te to t a m p e r w ith the genetic s tructur e o f living creatures. A representative o f the US F ood a n d D r u g A d m in is tr a t io n , charged with evaluating A q u a B o u n t y ’s request for pe rm ission to m a r k e t the genetically m o difi ed ‘S up er S a lm o n ’, n o te d th a t ‘ethical co nc er ns a m o n g the public over the a p p r o p ria t e use o f animals are issues n o t evident w ith transgenic plants, an d m ay affect public acceptance o f transgenic animals as food sources’ ( E n v ir o n m e n ta l New s N e t w o r k , 22 O c t o b e r 2001 ). W h i l e this m ay exaggerate the extent to which pu blic perce ptions o f fish and p lan t p r o d u c ts differ, the distinction does ap p ear to influence m a r k e t in g approvals a n d will m o st certainly affect policy. O n e has only to c o n s id e r the spate o f official g o v e r n m e n t p r o n o u n c e m e n t s t h a t follow any a n n o u n c e m e n t o f advances in h u m a n cloning to appreciate the position o f policy makers. Efforts by c o n c e r n e d citizens (and policy makers) to m a k e i n f o r m e d ju d g e ­ m e n t s on genetic m o d if i c a ti o n issues are fre q u e n tly c o n f o u n d e d by m i s i n f o r ­ m a t i o n . F o r e x a m p l e , th e a r tic le q u o t e d ab o v e also s ta te d t h a t ‘g en e ti c a lly engineered sa lm on are designed to grow bet wee n 10 an d 30 times faster th an n atural s a lm o n ’ - a tenfold exaggeration o f A q u a B o u n t y ’s d es crip tio n o f the gr owth rate o f the ‘Super S a lm o n ’. D i s to r tio n o f in f o r m a tio n to s u p p o r t strong positions is a c o m m o n failing o f advocacy g rou ps on b o t h sides o f genetic m o d i f i ­ cation issues a n d sim ply magnifies public confu sio n. In the same way th a t public interest in wildlife conservation focuses o n th e ‘cute a n d c u d d l y ’, con ce rns a b o u t genetic m o d if icatio n o f fish te n d to target species like salm o n t h a t cap tur e the p ublic i m a g in a tio n either because they are prized for their taste or because they are r o m a n tic iz e d for th eir a p p e a r a n c e a n d d r a m a t ic life cycles. By c o m p a r is o n , the genetic modifi cation o f m u n d a n e species such as tilapia appears to generate little public atte n tio n , per ha ps in p a r t because the fish is rarely sold unprocess ed in n o r th e r n coun tr ies. If m o r e p eo p le were aware they were eating tilapia in their fish burgers, this situation m i g h t change. For all these reasons, i n f o r m e d p u blic u n d e r s t a n d i n g o f the role o f aquatic g e n e t i c re so u r c e s in s u s t a i n a b l e d e v e l o p m e n t a n d f o o d security, a n d o f the complexities o f e n v i r o n m e n t a l a n d health issues, is vital to s o u n d policy devel­ o p m e n t . In the p la n t w orld, the in tern a ti o n al collabo ra tio n referred to above has helped p r o m o t e public awareness. For example, the Inte rn a tio n a l P lant G cnctic Resources Institute ( I P G R I ) has tried to increase awareness o f the benefits o f agri­ c u ltu r a l bi odivers ity a m o n g policy m a k e r s in d e v e l o p i n g c o u n t r ie s , u s in g an ap proach t h a t targets the media, N G O s and go v e r n m e n ta l officials ( R a y m o n d , 1999). Given the greater com plexity o f issues s u r r o u n d i n g the use an d co nser ­ vation o f a quatic genetic resources, there is a need to e n h a n c e b o t h public an d policy m a k e r s ’ u n d e r s t a n d i n g o f these issues. In m a n y respects, p u blic u n d e r ­ s ta n d i n g is as vital as scientific k now ledge in creating conservation a n d use policies tha t are need ed to s u p p o r t the d e v e l o p m e n t o f access policies.

MANAGING AQUATIC GENETIC RESOURCES: TOOLS AND POLICY GAPS

81

Box 2 . 2 T h e V a l u e o f S c i e n c e Policy makers, like any decision makers, w ant ‘facts', They blend these facts with social and moral consid eratio ns and co m e up with w hat seems to be a fair c o m p ro m is e - a policy. In the case of aq u a tic g e ne tic resource policies, both scientific and traditional kn o w le d g e are important. We have already seen that traditional k n o w le d g e has potential value when it can lead peop le to genetic resources, but how important is science? First, w hat is s cie nce? S cience is a tool for d e s c rib in g the natural world in u n a m b ig u o us terms. S cience works to re du ce uncertainties, although it never eliminates them completely. Scientists are taught the scientific method, w hic h involves asking answ erable questions. The results of s c ie n tific e n q u ir y are c o n tin u a lly b e in g refin ed a n d, alo n g with tra d itio n a l k n o w le d ge , provide two legs of the th re e -le gg e d stool on which human societies sit (the third leg is moral and spiritual beliefs). S cie nce is im portant to policy making in several ways. Firstly, it is fu nd a m e n tal in u n e q u iv­ ocally d e scribin g genetic variability. Taxonomy identifies g enera and s pecies; behavioural b iolo gy de s crib e s where they may be found: and g en e tics helps us draw the blueprints of their DNA S cience also tells us a b ou t the status of a quatic g enetic resources through catch statistics, ta g g in g studies and censuses. Thirdly, and perha p s most im portant, ecosyste m studies tell us how each c o m p o n e n t of genetic variability interacts with every other level of the food chain a very im portant insight that can help us p re d ic t the effects of removing that variability from the system. Policy makers need all of the abo ve kinds of scientific inform ation. The status of genetic resources alone is enough to illustrate the im p orta nc e of science - if peop le have no idea of h ow m a n y m e m b e rs of a s p e c ie s or p o p u la tio n a c tu a lly exist, and their p r o s p e c ts for continuin g to exist, how can they devise policies for sharing a cce ss? In anoth er example, one of the m ost c o m m o n ly heard calls following the sig n in g of the C BD was for more taxonomy, be ca u se it is im possib le to create policies on g enetic resources that have not been d e s c rib e d . The Global Taxonomy Initiative of the CBD w as recently created in response to the ‘ta xonom ic im p e d im e n t' to the sound m a n a g e m e n t of biodiversity, and is e v ide nce that this call has been heeded. W hat h a p p e n s when policies on a quatic resources are m a d e in the a b s e n c e of a d e q u ate inform ation? A good exa m p le is in the m a n a g e m e n t of freshwater a q uaculture in countries where invasive, exotic spe c ie s are being p rom oted. In Brazil, for example, tilapia farm ing is p rom oted by the Ministry of Agriculture, while the m a n a g e m e n t of wild fish stocks is more closely allied to the Ministry of Environment. If neither is aware of the d e g re e of invasion of tilapias into natural waters som ethin g that is measured by science - how can fair policies be created? If sterile tilapias are created - also a p ro d u c t of sc ie n ce - how does this d e v e l­ o p m e n t alter policy? A nother exam ple is from tem perate aq u a culture, namely the farming of salm on. There is now w id e s p re a d c o n c e rn that e s c a p e d farm ed salmon will breed with wild stocks and cause a fu n d a m e n tal c h a n g e in their genetic make-up. To create fair policies on farm ing - which we have already seen involves the collection of g enetic resources - peo ple need to know the in cid e n ce and risks of this kind of hybridization and its prob ab le outcom es. These answers can only be pro vided by scientific enquiry.

82

BLUE GENES

G

lobal in itiatives f o r im p r o v e d m a n a g e m e n t o f

AQUATIC BIODIVERSITY To judge by the n u m b e r o f international ag reem ents related to the conservation an d use o f a q u a tic biodiversity, ev ery o n e’s agreed t h a t th e s itu a tio n is pretty desperate a nd it’s ti m e for concerted action. T h e p roblem w ith inte rn atio nal agree­ m en ts is th a t (a) th ey’re n o t always b in d in g on m e m b e r countries, (b) countries w hose p a rtic ip a tio n is m o s t crucial all too freq uen tly o p t o u t, an d (c) at the national level, it may take a long tim e to grapple with dom estic com p licatio ns and conflicts w hen it com es to im p le m e n tin g h ig h - m in d e d principles. In th e case o f aquatic genetic resources, the p roblem is that m a n y g ov ernm en ts have been far too p rcoccu picd w ith difficult p lan t gcnctic rcsourccs issues to pay m u c h a tten tio n to fish.

International agreem ents related to aquatic biological diversity W h ile m o s t in tern atio n al agreem ents on aquatic biodiversity focus on fishing, they frequently m e n tio n principles th a t have direct relevance to the m a n a g e m e n t an d sharing o f aquatic genetic resources an d can be a go od starting p o in t for policy dev elop m en t. S om e o f these agreem ents will be useful simply for b a ck g ro u n d rcfcrcncc to aquatic biodiversity issues. Examples o f this kind o f agreem en t include the U nited N atio n s G eneral Assembly R esolution on large-scale pelagic drift net fishing, the U n ite d N a tio n s C o n v e n t i o n o n th e Law o f th e Sea ( U N C L O S ) , th e U n ite d N atio n s A g reem ent on Straddling Stocks and H igh ly M igrato ry Species an d the Kyoto D eclaration ad o p te d at the C o n feren ce on the Sustainable C o n tr i b u ti o n o f Fisheries to Food Security. T h e R am sar C o n v e n tio n on W etlan ds (1971) provides the fram e w ork for in te rn atio n al c oo peratio n on the use o f w etlands a n d their resources - a vast designation th a t embraces virtually all in land waters in clud in g very large, periodically in u n d a te d areas th a t provide subsistence fishing for m an y local c o m m u n itie s . O t h e r agreem ents are m o re directly relevant. T h e FAO C o d e o f C o n d u c t for Responsible Fisheries is a good example. T h is com prehensive d o c u m e n t , w ith its ac co m p an y in g Technical G uidelines, contains the principles o f sustainable fish­ eries an d is valid n o t only for nations b u t for c o m m u n it ie s as well. T h e code p ro m o tes the sustainable use o f aquatic biodiversity an d includes (in Article 7, Fisheries M a n a g e m e n t) sections on a qu acultu re an d small-scale, subsistence and artisanal fisheries. A n o t h e r g o o d e x a m p le is th e J a k a r ta M a n d a t e on M a r i n e a n d C o a s ta l Biological Diversity, a d o p te d by signatories o f the C B D in 1995. T h e Jakarta M a n d a t e n o t only raised the profile o f aquatic biodiversity (a very i m p o r t a n t d e v e lo p m e n t for policies o n access a nd benefit sharing), b u t also triggered a Plan o f W ork w hose activities include local an d in digenous c o m m u n ities . A similar process is currently u n d e r way w ith in the C B D , nam ely the d e v e lo p m e n t o f a Plan o f W o r k on Inland Waters. O n c e this plan o f w o r k is created an d im p le m e n te d the

M A N A G IN G A Q U A T IC G E N E T IC RESOURCES: TO O L S A N D POLICY GAPS

83

C B D will h o u s e n o t o n l y t h e g e n er al p r i n c i p l e s o n access a n d b e n e f i t s h a r i n g b u t also t he specific a c t i o n s o n m a r i n e a n d f r e s h w a t e r b i ol ogi ca l diversity. Finally, t h e M a r i n e S t e w a r d s h i p C o u n c i l ( M S C ) , a g l o b a l p r o g r a m m e t h a t p r o m o t e s s u s t a i n a b l e use o f a q u a t i c b i o d i v e r s i t y t h r o u g h p r o d u c t c e r t i f i c a t i o n ('eco l a b el l i n g ’) i ll ustr ates a p r ac t i ca l a p p l i c a t i o n o f t h e p r i n ci p l e s o f s u s t a i n a b l e use o f a q u a t i c biodiver sity. T h e M S C certifies i n d i v i d u a l fisheries u s i n g criteria c o n t a i n e d in t h e F A O C o d e o f C o n d u c t d e s c r i b e d a bove . Acti ve s ince t h e m i d 1 9 9 0 s , t h e M S C o r i g i na l l y c o n c e n t r a t e d o n fisheries in d e v e l o p e d c o u n t r i e s . In r e s p o n s e to c ri t ic i s m t h a t t h e c e r t i f ic a ti on pr oc e s s ac t u al l y w o r k e d a g a i n s t s mallscale fisheries, t h e M S C r ec en tl y b e g a n a p r o g r a m m e o f c o m m u n i t y ce rt i f i c a t i on a n d is actively b u i l d i n g n e t w o r k s t h a t i n c l u d e c o m m u n i t y fisheries. T h i s d e v e l ­ o p m e n t u n d e r l i n e s t h e i m p o r t a n c e o f local c o m m u n i t i e s in fisheries m a n a g e m e n t a n d , c o m i n g f r o m a p r a g m a t i c p r o g r a m m e like t h e M S C , s h o u l d e n c o u r a g e p ol i c y m a k e r s i n t e r es t e d in p r o t e c t i n g t h e r i g ht s o f t h o s e c o m m u n i t i e s n o t s i m p l y to go fishing, b u t to h a ve a say in access to a q u a t i c g e n e t i c r es ou r ce s in t h e i r territory.

Aquatic biodiversity issues: The countries’ views S i g n a t o r i e s to t h e C B D h a v e a g r e e d to d e v e l o p N a t i o n a l B i odi ve r si t y Strategies a n d A c t i o n P l an s t h a t d es c r i be t h e s t a tus a n d t r e n d s o f b i o d i v e r s i t y in t h e i r c o u n ­ tries, i m p o r t a n t issues, a n d activities d i r e c t e d t o w a r d s r es o l vi n g p r o b l e m s . N o t all c o u n t r i e s h a v e p r o d u c e d t h e s t r a t e g i e s , a n d t h e q u a l i t y is h i g h l y v a r i a b l e . N e v e r t h e l e s s , t h e N a t i o n a l Bi o d iv er s i t y S t r a t e gy a n d A c t i o n P l an s ( N B S A P s ) offer a u n i q u e w i n d o w i n t o t h e n a t i o n a l p e r c e p t i o n o f b i o d i v e r s i t y issues. W o r l d Fisheries T r u s t ( W F T ) r e c en t l y e x a m i n e d t h e N B S A P s o f 5 2 c o u n t r i e s in t e r m s o f t he i r co ve r ag e o f a q u a t i c b io d iv e r s i t y issues. T h e analysis w a s d o n e as p a r t o f a r e p o r t o n f i s he r i e s a n d b i o d i v e r s i t y t h a t p r o v i d e d n a t i o n a l b i o d i v e r s i t y p l a n n e r s w i t h a c o m p e n d i u m o f ke y issues a n d t h e ma t er i a l s t h e y n e e d to b e t t e r i n c o r p o r a t e f i s he r i e s i ss ues in b i o d i v e r s i t y p l a n n i n g ( W o r l d F i s h e r i e s T r u s t , 2 0 0 2 a ) . A l t h o u g h W F T ’s s t u d y c o n c e n t r a t e d o n n a t i o n s w i t h ‘o u t s t a n d i n g a q u a t i c b io log i ca l d iv er si t y’, a n d i n c l u d e d s o m e o f t h e m a j o r f i sh i n g n a t i o n s as well as d e v e l o p i n g c o u n t r i e s , t h e f i n d i n g s are i n s t r u c t i v e f or p o li c y m a k e r s i n t e r ­ e s t ed in access a n d b e n e f i t - s h a r i n g issues a n d t h e roles o f local a n d i n d i g e n o u s c o m m u n i t i e s in c o n s e r v i n g a n d u s i n g a q u a t i c g e n e t i c resour ce s.

If the content of National Reports to the CBD Secretariat is any indication of national priorities, then it must be said that the W F T study on NBSAPs did not uncover evidence of national concern over access to aquatic genetic resources. Articles 15 and 8j (access and traditional knowledge, respectively) are generally not explicitly represented, a situation that reflects the almost complete lack of national policies on aquatic genetic resources. National biodiversity planners are much more likely to worry about aquatic biodiversity in terms of assessment and moni­ toring or pollution reduction than from the standpoint of the sharing of genetic resources. H o w e v e r , t h e i m p o r t a n c e o f a q u a t i c b i o d i v e r s i t y for local c o m m u n i t i e s is r e­ i n f o r c e d in o t h e r ways. O f 17 issues in a q u a t i c bi o d i v e r s i t y i d e n t i f i ed b y W F T , t w o o f t h e t o p t h r e e (in t e r m s o f f r e q u e n c y o f c i t a t io n b y c o u n t r i e s ) w e r e ‘g o v e r n a n c e ’

84

BLUE GENES

a n d 'responsible fishing’, each o f w hich was cited by 70 per cent o f the countries exam ined. Calls for better governance were near universal, a nd generally represent a desire to find new ways o f inclu din g local co m m u n itie s in fisheries m a n a g e m en t. 'Alien species’, 'native species’ an d ‘a q u a cu ltu re’ were less frequently cited on their ow n, b u t tog ether totalled 80 per cent o f the countries - a clear indication th at the raw m aterial o f aq u atic genetic diversity is also a su b je ct for c o n c e rn a m o n g planners. T h e s e o b s e r v a tio n s reinforce th e m a in p o i n t b e in g m a d e t h r o u g h o u t th e present boo k, nam ely th at aquatic biodiversity is th reaten ed , an d local c o m m u ­ nities are d e m a n d i n g a greater choice in its m a n a g e m e n t - b u t they also m ake it clear th at, for m o s t n ational policy makers, co ntrol over ‘aquatic genetic diversity’, is simply n o t being considered as so m e th in g to w hich local c o m m u n itie s have rights. T h e r e are exceptions - for exam ple B u r u n d i ’s a t t e m p t to involve local c o m m u n itie s in preserving biodiversity, or C a m e r o o n ’s difficulty in integrating ind igenous land claims into biodiversity p la n n in g - b u t by and large the issues o f equity and access are n o t perceived as im p o rta n t. T h is situation does n o t ap pear to reflect any geographic or political bias because it pertains to bo th developed and developing countries. It m ay n o t satisfy the In u it people w h o are un w illin g to allow genetic prosp ectin g o f their Arctic charr stocks (Case Study 3), b u t it is the political reality such c o m m u n itie s m u s t co nfro nt. T h is reality m ay be explained by any o f a n u m b e r o f factors, in c lu d in g a lack o f appreciation o f the positive role ind igen ou s an d local c o m m u n itie s could play in the m a n a g e m e n t o f aquatic gcnetic diversity given the m ean s to do so; a lack o f willingness to delegate au th o rity to ‘lower levels’ o f g o v ern m en t, and an absence o f c o o r d i n a ti o n a m o n g g o v e r n m e n t agencies. H ow ever, ass u m in g t h a t a greater d e m a n d for access to aquatic genetic resources materializes in the future, devel­ o p in g effective access and benefit-sharing policies should be a vital p a rt o f each c o u n tr y ’s aquatic biodiversity strategy.

C a se S t u d y 2. N o p o lic y , n o a c c e ss? A salm on farm er’s frustrated efforts to collect gen etically pure brood stock A Vancouver Island fish farm er’s efforts to collcct salm on b ro o d s to ck in C a n a d a illustrate the need for policy makers to quickly develop policies governing the c ollection o f a q u a tic gen etic resources. As this case stu d y illustrates, existing policies for fisheries m a n a g e m e n t are simply n o t ad eq uate to deal w ith such collec­ tions, and m ay result in evaluations o f applications based on irrelevant criteria. Policy makers need also to ensure th a t access policies are broad en o u g h to deal w ith a wide range o f issues. Five species o f salm o n - ch in o o k , c h u m , sockeye, coho an d steelhead - return from the ocean to spaw n in the rivers o f the Yukon Territory. For som e c hin oo k, the jo urney lasts four m o n t h s an d covers m ore tha n 3 0 0 0 km from the Bering Sea to the creeks in the so u th ern part o f the territory w here the fish originally hatchcd. Yukon c h in o o k s u p p o r t co m m ercial an d sports fisheries as well as in digenous food fisheries. T h e fish is especially prized in Japanese markets for its high oil co nten t.

M ANAGING AQUATIC GENETIC RESOURCES: TOOLS A N D POLICY GAPS

85

As in th e N o r t h w e s t T e r r i to r y a n d N u n a v u t , a u t h o r i t y to issue g e r m p l a s m o r b r o o d s t o c k c o lle c tio n p e r m i t s rests w i t h th e C a n a d i a n D F O . L ike th e I n u i t , th e Y u k o n First N a t i o n s ( i n d i g e n o u s p e o p le s ) h av e n e g o t i a t e d a la n d c la im s a g r e e m e n t w i t h t h e C a n a d i a n g o v e r n m e n t . U n d e r th e t e r m s o f th e a g r e e m e n t , t h e m a i n i n s t r u m e n t f o r s a l m o n m a n a g e m e n t is t h e Y u k o n S a l m o n C o m m i t t e e , w h ic h c o m p r is e s b o t h First N a t i o n a n d n o n - F i r s t N a t i o n m e m b e r s a n d m a k e s r e c o m ­ m e n d a t i o n s to D F O o n fisheries m a n a g e m e n t a n d policy. A p p l ic a t io n s to co llec t b r o o d s t o c k are m a d e t h r o u g h th e C o m m i t t e e , a n d th e Y u k o n D F O office issues a c o lle c tio n p e r m i t p r o v i d e d th e C o m m i t t e e a p p ro v e s t h e a p p l i c a t i o n a n d D F O has n o o b je c t io n s . T h e c o m m i t t e e can refer a p p li c a ti o n s to i n d i v id u a l F irst N a t i o n s b a n d s , b u t d o e s n o t yet h ave clear p r o t o c o l s for d o i n g s o .2 C re a tiv e S a lm o n L td , an a q u a c u ltu re b u siness fa r m in g b o th c h in o o k a n d A tl a n t i c s a l m o n in B ritish C o l u m b i a , several h u n d r e d k i l o m e t r e s s o u t h o f th e Y u k o n T e rrito ry , d e c id e d in th e late 1 9 8 0 s to im p r o v e its o p e r a t i o n s by c u l t u r i n g Y u k o n R iv e r c h i n o o k . D o m e s t i c a t i n g th is s t r a in w o u l d ta k e several years a n d r e q u i re a n n u a l c o ll e c ti o n s o f eggs a n d s p e r m fr o m t h e w ild . It w o u l d also be c o m p l i c a t e d in m o r e s o u t h e r l y w a te rs b e c a u s e o f th e s t r a in ’s e x a c t in g r e q u i r e m e n t s fo r d a y le n g t h a n d t e m p e r a t u r e . B ec ause c h i n o o k p o p u l a t i o n s m i n g le in th e Y u k o n R iv er o n th e w a y to th e ir s e p a r a te s p a w n i n g g r o u n d s , C re a tiv e S a l m o n a p p li e d to D F O to co llec t b r o o d ­ s t o c k fr o m sm a lle r t r i b u t a r ie s w h e r e in d i v i d u a l p o p u l a t i o n s w o u l d a lre a d y b e se p a ­ r a t e d fr o m t h e m i x t u r e in th e river m o u t h a n d lo w e r stages o f th e river. T h e c o m p a n y c o u ld t h u s d e t e r m i n e la ter th e s o u r c e o f d e sira b le ch a ra c te ristic s it h o p e d to a m p l if y t h r o u g h b re e d i n g . It a r g u e d t h a t th e g e n e b a n k i n g th e y p l a n n e d to carry o u t c o u ld also a c t as an in s u r a n c e p o lic y a g a in s t th e risk o f e x t i n c t i o n (a use to w h i c h it is c u r r e n t l y p u t by D F O fo r o t h e r s a l m o n i d sto c k s a t risk in B ritish C o l u m b i a ) , a n d o ffered to leave h a l f o f th e co lle c te d s e m e n in th e Y u k o n for local c o n s e r v a t i o n p u r p o s e s . C r e a ti v e S a l m o n c o n c l u d e d it w o u l d n e e d 50 p airs o f p a r e n t fish to estab lish a d iverse g e n e p o o l (th e u s u a l n u m b e r r e c o m m e n d e d for e s t a b li s h in g a n e w b r o o d s t o c k ) , b u t w o u l d settle for five p a ir s .3 T h e c o m p a n y b e g a n by c o ll e c ti n g liv ing a d u l t fish a n d u sin g th e i r g a m e t e s (eggs a n d s p e r m ) to p r o d u c e fry. D F O re fu se d th e r e q u e s t to c o llcct fr o m is o la te d p o p u l a t i o n s in t r i b u t a r ie s b ec a u se it w as c o n c e r n e d n o t o n ly a b o u t s e t ti n g a p r e c e d e n t for th e c o lle c tio n o f s a m p le s o u t s i d e areas o p e n for fisheries, b u t also a b o u t th e p o s s ib ility o f s u b ­ s e q u e n t c o ll e c to r s a p p r o a c h i n g F irst N a t i o n s b a n d s f o r p e r m i s s i o n to c o ll e c t g a m e t e s in areas w i t h res tric te d fis h in g .4 I n s te a d , th e d e p a r t m e n t r e q u i r e d C re a tiv e S a l m o n to p u r c h a s e b r o o d s t o c k f r o m l i c e n s e d c o m m e r c i a l fish e rs h a r v e s t i n g m i x e d p o p u l a t i o n s , t h e r e b y e l i m i n a t i n g t h e c o m p a n y ’s c h a n c e s fo r g e n e tic a lly p u r e sto c k . H a v i n g o b t a i n e d p e r m i s s i o n to co lle ct g a m e t e s , a l t h o u g h n o t fr o m d i s t i n c t p o p u l a t i o n s , C re a ti v e S a l m o n n o w faced th e p r o b l e m o f a r r a n g i n g fo r i n c u b a t i o n o f th e fertilized eggs it w o u l d p r o d u c e . T h e c o m p a n y w as fo rce d to k e ep th e eggs in th e Y u k o n b ec a u se q u a r a n t i n e r e g u la tio n s d o n o t p e r m i t t h e m to b e m o v e d u n ti l t h e y are c e rtified to be free o f disease, a p ro c ess w h ic h takes a b o u t th r e e w e ek s, a fte r w h i c h t i m e th e eggs w o u l d u n f o r t u n a t e l y b e to o fragile to m o v e .

86 BLUE GENES Creative Salmon thus made an arrangement to pay a local hatchery, operated by a private utility company, to care for the developing eggs - in effect to become a living gene bank. In the late 1990s, Creative Salmon decided that wild Yukon chinook genetic material could now be incorporated in its breeding programmes by collecting sperm and cryopreserving it, then using the frozen sperm to con tinu e genetic im pro vem en t of its resident broodstocks. T h e collection o f eggs was therefore phas ed o u t a n d replaced by a cr yo pr es er va tio n p r o g r a m m e t h a t allows the co m pan y to continue its efforts to domesticate Yukon chinook. However, despite the c o m pany’s having invested in the collection of sperm samples over several years, Yukon chinook are not yet being produced for commercial sale and Creative Salmon has recovered none o f its development costs. At present there appears to be considerable confusion at all levels (including government, fishing communities and First Nations) ab ou t the nature, role and implications of gene banking in conservation and in the im provem ent o f farmed stocks. Some First Nations fishing com munities have probably never heard of gene banking; at the other extreme, some First Nations such as the Shuswap in British Colum bia have adopted short-term gene banking programmess, expressing frus­ tration with the absence o f government policy and action. Others, such as the Carrier-Sekani Tribal Co unci l, have quietly pursued long-term gene ban king programmes in the interest o f conservation and with the cooperation of D F O . In the case o f Yukon c h i n o o k , acco rding to the chair o f the Yukon Salmon C o m m it te e (a m em ber of theTcslin First Nation), Creative Salmons efforts could benefit Yukon First Nations involved in commercial fisheries by advertising the qualities o f Yukon c h in o o k . T h e C o m m i t t e e may co nsid er referring fu tur e collection applications to band councils in territories where collections occur.5 In some respects, Can ada faces greater challenges than other countries in devel­ oping access policies that address the question o f indigenous comm un ities’ rights to prior informed consent and benefit sharing. T h e Canadian Co nst it ution and the courts recognize the existence o f indigenous rights in traditional territories, but the nature o f these rights remains to be defined in a complex process o f treaty negotiations (especially in British Columbia) that may take decades to complete. Some indigenous peoples, such as the Yukon First Nation, have already completed the nego tiation o f land claims th at confer a c o m b i n a t i o n o f ow ner sh ip and man ag em en t rights. O t h e r indigenous peoples aren’t involved in the treaty process either because they have chosen to negotiate their rights through the courts or because they signed treaties before Can a d a became a nation. In the case of completed land claims negotiations in areas such as the Yukon, Cana da retains decision-making rights regarding the m anagem ent of anadromous fish such as salmon that spend part of their life cycles in the ocean —outside tradi­ tional indigenous territories. Generally, land claims agreements do not specifically address the issue of consent to collection of aquatic genetic resources, and D F O policy doesn’t require consent. T h e most interesting aspect o f the present case study may in fact be that First Nations were not directly involved in the granting of permission to collect - not because they were being deliberately excluded from the process, b u t simply because the removal o f genetic resources for the purpose of

M A N A G IN G A Q U A T IC G E N E T IC RESOURCES: TO O L S A N D POLICY GAPS

87

g e n e b a n k i n g is n o t specifically a d d r e s s e d b y a n y ex i st i ng p ol i c y o r legislation. B u t co l l ec t i on o f a d u l t s in t h e m i x e d fishery, as C r e a t i v e S a l m o n e v e n t u a l l y e n d e d up d o i n g , is D F O s responsi bi l i t y, so t h a t a g e n c y e n d e d u p , dc f acto, r u l i n g o n a g e n e b a n k i n g r e q u e s t t h a t m a y h a v e m o r e to d o w i t h s t o c ks t h a t s p a w n in First N a t i o n s ’ t r a d i t i o n a l territory. C a n a d a , like m a n y o t h e r c o u n t r i e s , is still a l o n g w a y f r o m d e f i n i n g specific policies o n access a n d b e n e f i t s h a r i n g . I n d i g e n o u s p e o p l e s are a l r e ad y sensitive a b o u t c ol l e c t i on s o f bi ol ogi ca l r eso ur ce s a n d rese ar ch in t h e i r t r a d i t i o n a l t e r r i ­ tories. W i t h a few e x c e p t i o n s , c o l l ec t i on o f a q u a t i c g e n e t i c r es ou r ce s h a s n ’t yet b e c o m e a c o n t r o v e r s ia l issue t h e w a y it has f or p l a n t c ol l ec t i on s in d e v e l o p i n g c o u n t r i e s , b u t it c a n b e e x p e c t e d to a t t r a c t g r e a t e r a t t e n t i o n as t h e d e m a n d inc r e ase s. G o v e r n m e n t s i n v o l v e d in t h e i m p l e m e n t a t i o n o f t h e C B D n e e d to a n t i c i p a t e s u c h a t r e n d a n d n o t lag in t h e d e v e l o p m e n t o f a p p r o p r i a t e policy.

Chapter 3

W h o s e t o Shar e? O w n e r s h i p a n d C o n t r o l o f A q uatic Resources

Farmed catfish, Brazil (Photo by Joachim Carolsfield)

90

BLUE GENES

C h a p t e r 2 discussed the need for better policies for con se rvation and use o f aquatic genetic resources. O n e o f the biggest challenges to policy m a k i n g is the q ue stion o f ow nership o f a n d c ontrol over aquatic gcnctic resources. W h o has the right to p e r m it or d e n y access to genetic resources ( w hether sa lm on or seaweed or sponges) a n d u n d e r w h a t circumstances? It’s a co m pli cate d e n o u g h ques ti on in the world o f plants a n d , as we shall see in this chapter, it’s far m o re co m plica ted w h e n it comes to fish - an d n o t just because fish have a p e n c h a n t for m igra ting large distances. Unlike p la n t genetic resources, m a n y o f w hich already exist in collections, aquatic genetic resources are still m ai nl y gather ed from in situ sources - ie from their natural h a b it a t in the wild. D u r i n g the past 20 years w e’ve seen the in tern a tio n al c o m m u n i t y replace the traditional n o t i o n o f genetic resources as c o m m o n p r o p e r ty w ith rec og nition o f n a t i o n a l s o v e r e i g n t y over g c n c t i c res ou rce s. W e ’ve seen i n c r e a s i n g t e n s i o n s b e t w e e n N o r t h a n d S o u t h ove r th e p a t e n t i n g o f i n v e n t i o n s u s in g g e n e t i c resources. After concerted efforts by indigenous groups, w e’re seeing s o m e c o u n ­ tries b e g i n n i n g to recognize indigen ous rights over lands and biological resources to a far greater extent t h a n has h a p p e n e d in previous decades. M o r e generally, w e’re seeing increasing s u p p o r t for th e d e v o l u t i o n o f d e c i s i o n - m a k i n g pow er s over resource use to c o m m u n i t i e s , gr ow in g o u t o f a rec og nition th a t the best hopes for sustainable d e v e l o p m e n t m ay lie in m a k i n g use o f local know ledge, skills a n d motivation. T r an slating t h e o r y to fact is a n o t h e r m atter. T h e r e is no s hort age o f i n te r ­ nati o nal c o n v e n tio n s recognizing c o m m u n i t y and in d ig en o u s rights over genetic resources and over their traditional knowle dg e o f h o w to use t h e m . As we shall see later, dozens o f countries are curre ntly in the process o f w o r k in g o u t h o w to m ee t th e i r i n t e r n a t i o n a l c o m m i t m e n t s to e x p a n d c o m m u n i t y r ig h ts over g e n e tic resources - a n d countless research institutions w o r ry t h a t their access to vital scien­ tific a n d com m e r c ia l in f o r m a tio n m ay be jeop ar dized if n ew regulations are too strict. U n c e r ta in ty a b o u t how to r e spond to co nc er ns a b o u t ‘research chill’ is one reason w h y c ountries have been so slow to p u t access a n d benef it-sharing laws an d policies into practice. A s eco nd reason is u n c e r ta in ty a b o u t w h e t h e r to include o n l y g c n c tic res ou rce s w i t h i n t h e a m b i t o f s u c h laws or w h e t h e r to req u ir e c o m m u n i t y c o n s e n t for access to all biological resources regardless o f h o w th ey ’ll be used. T h e value o f genetic resources d e p e n d s as m u c h on ideas as it does on c o ntrol o f th e resour ces t h em selv es . G e n e t i c resour ces are m e r e l y th e raw m a te r ia l for inven tion —useless w i t h o u t the k n o w h o w to p r o d u c e a new fish or p la n t strain or d e v e l o p a d r u g . T h e c o m m e r c i a l value o f g e n e t i c re so u r c e s has s p a r k e d an expansion in the law o f intellectual p r o p e rty rights (IPRs) t h a t has been every bit as controversial as the exp ansion o f laws restricting access. S h o u l d inventors be allowed to p a t e n t life forms? If so, w h a t cons titutes invention? S h ould countries pr ovid in g genetic resources have the right o f free access to inve ntions derived from them? A n d h o w can provide r co untries m ak e sure th at intellectual p r o p e r ty laws ar en ’t used by collectors to bypass nation al access laws? M a n y indigenous a n d local c o m m u n i t i e s have equally s tron g co ncerns a b o u t contr ol over access to genetic resources and the use o f ideas, b u t with a different

W H O S E T O SHARE? O W N E R S H IP A N D C O N T R O L O F A Q U A T IC R ESO URC ES

91

slant. W i t h few e x c e p t i o n s , c o m m u n i t i e s h a v e little say in w h o gets to use a q u a t i c life o r h o w t h e y m a y d o so. I n d i g e n o u s m o v e m e n t s in p a r t i c u l a r h a v e b e e n p u s h i n g h a r d f or g r ea t e r r e c o g n i t i o n o f o w n e r s h i p a n d c o n t r o l r igh t s a n d have s o m e b a c k i n g f r o m i n t e r n a t i o n a l h u m a n r i g ht s a g r e e m e n t s to s u p p o r t t he i r cause. In r e c e n t years t h e o b v i o u s v a l u e o f t r a d i t i o n a l k n o w l e d g e to users o f g e n e t ic r e s o ur ce s has a d d e d fuel to t h e fire. T r a d i t i o n a l m e d i c i n a l uses o f p l a n t s h ave in s p i r e d t h e d e v e l o p m e n t o f m a n y p h a r m a c e u t i c a l p r o d u c t s . Seed c o m p a n i e s have b e n e f i t e d f r o m t h e k n o w l e d g e o f g e n e r a t i o n s o f f a r m e r s in o t h e r p a r t s o f t h e w o r l d . W h o o w n s t r a d i t i o n a l k n o w l e d g e a n d w h o has t h e r i g h t to c o n s e n t t o its use?

O

w n e r s h ip o f a q u a tic g e n e t ic r eso u r c e s:

A greem ents and claims U n l i k e a gr i c u l t u r a l c r op s, a q u a t i c life largely i n h a b i t s p u b l i c l y o w n e d territory. A u t h o r i t y to m a n a g e fish g e n e t i c r e s o u r ce s ( w h i c h ar e still a l m o s t u ni v e r s a l l y t h o u g h t o f as ‘f isheries’) m a y be d i v i d e d b e t w e e n d i f f e r e n t levels o f g o v e r n m e n t , as in C a n a d a , w h e r e t h e f ederal g o v e r n m e n t m a n a g e s o c e a n r esou r ce s as well as fish t h a t m i g r a t e i n l a n d to s p a w n , w h i l e p r o v i n c i a l g o v e r n m e n t s are in c h a r g e o f i n l a n d fish. I n s o m e cases, m a n a g e m e n t a u t h o r i t y m a y also be d e v o l v e d t o i n d i g e n o u s g r o u p s s uc h as t h e N u n a v u t p e o p l e o f n o r t h e r n C a n a d a , w h o s e l a n d a g r e e m e n t w i t h t h e federal g o v e r n m e n t gives t h e m t h e r i g h t to c o n t r o l access to bi ol og i ca l a n d g e n e t i c resour ces. D e p e n d i n g o n n a t i o n a l c o n s t i t u t i o n s , laws a n d a d m i n i s ­ t r at ive pr ac t i ce s, t h e r e m a y be a c h a i n o f m a n a g e m e n t a u t h o r i t y t h a t i n c l ud e s n a t i o n a l g o v e r n m e n t s , s t a t e / p r o v i n c i a l g o v e r n m e n t s , lo c al g o v e r n m e n t s , u n ­ o r g a n i z e d i n d i g e n o u s a n d local c o m m u n i t i e s , a n d local c o o p e r a t i v e s s uc h as t h o s e t h a t h o l d exclusi ve f i sh in g r i g ht s in t h e P h i l i p p i n e s . T h e c o n c e p t o f fish b e i n g c a u g h t f or f o o d is s t r a i g h t f o r w a r d e n o u g h , b u t w h e n fish t a ke o n t h e g r a n d e r i d e n t i t y o f ‘a q u a t i c g e n e t i c r e s o u r ce s ’, e v e r y t h i n g c ha n g e s . U n d e r t h a t guise, t h e y ’re b e i n g u s e d as b r o o d s t o c k f or a q u a c u l t u r e o p e r a t i o n s , o r p e r h a p s t he i r D N A is b e i n g t r a n s p l a n t e d i n t o a d i f f e r e n t species. In t h o s e c i r c u m ­ s ta n ce s, it m i g h t b e said, a fish is n o l o n g e r a fish b u t a c o l l e c t io n o f ‘g e n e t i c m a t e r i a l ’ - or, as t h e C B D p u t s it, ‘m a t e r i a l ... c o n t a i n i n g f u n c t i o n a l u n i t s o f h e r e d i t y ’ ( eg s p e r m , e g gs o r D N A ) . W h e n fish a r e u s e d as a q u a t i c g e n e t i c resour ce s, o w n e r s h i p takes o n a w h o l e d i f f e r e n t level o f i m p o r t a n c e - b o t h be c au se t h a t fish m a y be w o r t h m u c h m o r e as a g e n e t i c r es o u r ce t h a n as a b a r b e c u e d fillet a n d b e c a u s e t he k n o w l e d g e o f h o w to use t h e fish as a g e n e t i c r es o u r ce has its o w n s e p a r a t e w o r t h - m o r e o n this l ater in t h e c h a p t e r . T h e b o t t o m line is t h a t t he m u l t i p l i c i t y o f fisheries m a n a g e m e n t r e g i m e s in d i f f e r e n t c o u n t r i e s c a n ’t d o t h e j ob o f d e t e r m i n i n g w h o has t h e r i g h t to col l ect — o r p e r m i t t h e c o l l ec t i on o f — an a q u a t i c g e n e t i c r es ou r ce . It d o e s n ’t h e l p m a t t e r s t h a t it m a y n o t al wa ys be easy to tell w h e t h e r a fish is b e i n g u s e d s i m p l y as a fish (eg a c a r d i n a l t e t r a for di sp l ay in an a q u a r i u m ) o r as a g e n e t i c r e s o ur ce (a t et r a for b r e e d i n g ) , as o u r earlier d i s c us s i on o f t h e o r n a m e n t a l fish t r ad e in t he Ri o N e g r o ( Ca s e S t u d y 1) m a d e clear.

92

BLUE GENES

F or m o s t o f th e 2 0 t h c e n t u r y , a q u a t i c g en eti c resources were c o n s id e r e d c o m m o n property, available for everyo ne’s use regardless o f the location o f the resource or the nationality o f the user. Two in tern a ti o n al agr ee m en ts in the early 1990s radically ch an g ed the rules for o w nership a n d c o ntrol o f aquatic life. T h e se were the U N C L O S a n d the C B D .

O c e a n re so u rc e s : T h e L a w o f t h e Sea T h e Law o f the Sea cam e into force in 1994 a n d has been signed by m o r e t h a n 130 countries. A n in te rn a tio n al a g r e e m e n t th a t sets c o n d i tio n s a n d limits on the use the oceans, i n c l u d in g the seabed, U N C L O S establishes the rights a n d obligations o f coastal states in c o n t ig u o u s waters, sets c o n d it io n s for the c o n d u c t o f m ar in e research, a n d obliges coun tr ies to pr ovide access to surplus catch.

Sovereignty U N C L O S b o t h defines a n d limits coastal c o u n tr ie s ’ sovereignty over the seas an d their biodiversity. Coastal states can claim full sovereignty over their territorial sea to a m a x i m u m o f 12 nautical miles (22.2 km) (Article 3). Beyond the territorial sea, U N C L O S creates a 2 0 0 mile Exclusive E c o n o m i c Z o n e ( E E Z ) in w h ic h coastal countries can claim exclusive rights for exp loratio n, exploitation, co ns er ­ vation, a n d m a n a g e m e n t o f all natural resources (living or non-liv ing) on the seabed and in its subsoil, a n d overlying waters (Article 56). Som e co untries have n o t yet ratified U N C L O S , a n d m a n y have n o t yet claim ed their E E Z . Be yond the E E Z s are the high seas, to w hi ch all cou ntr ies have o p e n access rights. T h e C B D , in Article 22, conf irms t he rights a n d obligations established u n d e r U N C L O S a n d requires all parties to i m p l e m e n t the c o n v e n tio n consistently w ith those rights and obligations.

Research U N C L O S grants each coastal state the exclusive right to regulate, au thorize, an d c o n d u c t scientific research in its territorial sea (Article 245) . However , each state is required to con sen t, in n o r m a l circumstances , to scicntific research projects in E E Z s or on the c o n t i n e n t a l shelf (which includes the territorial sea) by o t h e r states or intern a tio nal organizations ‘to increase scientific knowle dg e o f the m a r in e envi­ r o n m e n t for th e b e n e f i t o f all h u m a n k i n d ’ ( Article 2 4 6 ) . In t u r n , f or eign researchers m u s t provide i n fo r m a t io n on their research activities, accept th e p ar tic­ ipation o f the coastal state research p r o g ra m m e s , a n d allow the coastal state access to all data a n d samples derived from the m a r in e scientific research project (Article 249) . T h e se provisions, des igned to facilitate access a n d benefit s har ing at the nati o nal level, apply to waters adjace nt to coastal c o m m u n i t i e s , as the territorial sea begins at the low water line.

W H O SE TO SHARE? OW NERSHIP AND C O N TR O L OF AQUATIC RESOURCES

93

Surplus catch Each state must determine its capacity to harvest living resources within its EEZ. If it is unable to meet the allowable catch it has established, it must provide other states access to the surplus (Article 62). While this provision is clearly intended to apply to food fisheries, it could theoretically apply as well to other life such as seabed invertebrates.

I n l a n d w aters: N a t i o n a l so vereign ty Biological diversity flourishes most richly in tropical regions while the countries with the technology to make the most advanced use o f genetic resources are generally the north e rn , most developed countries. Consequently, the benefits from the c o m m er cial use o f genetic resources have largely been enjoyed by companies in the N or th. Yet, following the new found global concern ab ou t dis­ appearing biodiversity, the responsibility for conservation inevitably falls on the poorer southern countries. T h e rush for genetic resources by transnational c orpo­ rations has been unfavorably compared to Europe’s colonization of southern co u n ­ tries, two centuries earlier, to gain access to the raw materials needed for the Industrial Revolution (eg Shiva, 1997). Du ring the negotiations leading to the C B D , some southern countries insisted on recognition of national sovereignty over genetic resources as a condition of agreeing to the C B D . In theory, recognition of national sovereignty m ean t the ability to control access and negotiate a fair share o f the benefits arising from the use of genetic resources. T h e C B D is the m o s t co m p r e h e n siv e i n t e r n a ti o n a l i n s t r u m e n t for the man ag em en t of biodiversity. Its three objectives are the conservation of biological diversity, the sustainable use of its co mponents, and the fair and equitable sharing o f the benefits arising out of the utilization of genetic resources. T h e extent of global c o m m i t m e n t to the C B D is reflected by the fact that, by June 2004, it had been ratified by 188 countries - almost all of the nation states in the world (with the notable exception of the US). While the Conv en tion doesn’t have the force of law, ratification signifies a c o m m i t m e n t to enact national laws to bring its provi­ sions into effect. In addition to recognizing national sovereignty, the C B D creates rights and responsibilities for m em ber countries regarding access to genetic resources. It calls on all Parties to ‘create conditions to facilitate access to genetic resources for envi­ ronmentally sound uses’ by other Parties. It requires provider countries’ informed consent to access to genetic resources and calls on collecting parties to share with provider countries ‘in a fair and equitable way’ the results of research and devel­ o p m e n t and the benefits arising from commercial and other uses. Recognition of national sovereignty under the C B D means that aquatic genetic resources in the wild are owned by the country in which they are located. National sovereignty over public lands extends as well to inland waters (with rare excep­ tions, such as in some Scandinavian countries) and to the aquatic life they contain. Although the C B D recognizes sovereign rights over genetic resources, it m ust be

94

BLUE GENES

b o r n e in m i n d that t enur e a n d ow n e r sh ip systems are neither u n ifo r m across all coun tr ies n o r clearly defined in any given country. O w n e r s h i p rights m a y range fro m t r a d it io n a l c o m m o n t e n u r e to state e n f o rc e d private rights to la nd a n d na tural resources, in c lu d in g biodiversity ( C o l u m b i a University, 1999). T h e fact tha t aquatic genetic resources are m o re likely than p la n t genetic resources to be publicly o w n e d has significant im plications for the m a n a g e m e n t o f access. O n e o f these is t h a t th e resources c o m m o n l y exist w it h in the territories o f tra ditio nal c o m m u n i t i e s t h a t m ay have rights to c ontrol their use.

The im p lica tio n s o f n a tio n a l sovereignty f o r conservation a n d aqu a cu ltu re N a ti o n a l sovereignty over genetic resources is clearly a d o n e deal, b u t w h e t h e r it will advance the cause o f cons erva tion is debatable. C ertain ly th a t w as n’t the m o t i ­ v a t i o n o f the d e v e l o p i n g c o u n t r i e s t h a t in sis ted o n r e c o g n i t i o n o f n a t i o n a l sovereignty in ret urn for signing the C B D . T h e y were m o re c o n c e r n e d with having a substantial say in the b u r g e o n i n g in te rn a tio n al trade in genetic resources - n o t tha t they could be faulted for r e s e n t m e n t over past exploitation by n o r th e r n c o u n ­ tries a n d c o r p o r a t i o n s . Nevertheless, for the C B D s c o n s e rv a ti o n objective to succeed, b o th dev elo ping a n d developed co untries will need to c o m e to the real­ ization th a t it’s in their own best interests to prev en t the f u rt her erosion o f genetic diversity. It was n o t w i t h o u t g o o d reason t h a t th e FA O I n t e r n a t i o n a l U n d e r t a k i n g formally a d o p t e d the c o n c e p t o f genetic resources as the c o m m o n heritage o f h u m a n k i n d . T h e r e a s o n i n g o f t h a t a g r e e m e n t was t h a t th e p r in c ip l e o f free ex cha ng e was essential for the m o s t beneficial e x p lo r a t io n a n d use o f genetic diversity for p lan t br ee ding a n d o th e r scientific purposes. As Jain (19 94) points ou t , as the w o r l d ’s p o p u l a t i o n c o n tin u e s to grow rapidly, it will b e c o m e increas­ ingly i m p o r t a n t to identify n ew genetic variability for h ig h er crop yields. T h i s will require a great deal o f in tern a tio n al co operati on in research, in c lu d in g the ready exchange o f p la n t genetic resources an d new technologies. If t h a t ’s true for p l a n t genetic resources, it will also be so for aquatic genetic reso urces d u r i n g t h e n e x t t w o d e c a d e s . D e v e l o p i n g c o u n t r i e s w e n t fro m c o n s u m i n g 45 per ce n t o f the w o r l d ’s fish to 70 per c e n t today. It is expected th at by 2 0 2 0 th a t figure will increase to close to 80 per cent (IF P R I, 2 0 0 3 ) . Given the declines in wild fish pop u la tio n s, it appears likely th a t cap ture fisheries will be unab le to m e e t the d e m a n d a n d th a t the gap will need to be filled by a growth in fa rm ed p r o d u c t io n . Existing aq u acu ltu r e ope rations have barely tap p ed the possi­ bilities offered by genetic diversity a m o n g food fish species. As discussed in the previous chapter, the efficiency w ith which the aq uaculture industry is able to m e e t global food needs will d e p e n d to a large degree on effective in tern a ti o n al co operation in sharing genetic material and knowledge. As national access laws are still in the formative stages a n d are bei ng w r itten w ith an alm ost exclusive foc us on p l a n t s , i t ’s to o early to say h o w big an i m p a c t n a t i o n a l sovereignty (and, for t h a t matter, e m e r g i n g c o m m u n i t y rights o f consent) will have on in te rn a tio n a l sharing o f fish genetic resources. It w o u ld be b o t h ironic a n d

W H O S E T O SHARE? O W N E R SH IP A N D C O N T R O L O F A Q U A TIC RESOURCES

95

u n f o r t u n a t e if the d o o r to best quality fish genetic resources was to be s h u t at a time w h e n a q u acu ltu r e is poised to overcome its e n v i r o n m e n ta l s h o r tc o m i n g s a n d begin to m a k e a m a jo r c o n t r ib u t i o n to global food security.

O w n e r s h i p in t r a d i t i o n a l c o m m u n i t i e s N at io n a l systems for o w nership o f genetic resources are often very m u c h at odds with tra dit ional c o m m u n i t y practices. M o s t tra dit io nal c o m m u n i t i e s in devel­ o p in g countries have c o n t i n u e d to apply their own ten u r e system for biological resources, while the state enforces private and public p r o p e rty rights on goods a n d resources, a n d intellectual p r o p e rty laws o n i n d u s tr y a n d c o m m e r c e . S o m e tra d i­ ti o n al t e n u r e sys tems re g a rd in g gene tic resources are g r o u n d e d on collective o w nership or heritage, a n d som etim es, particularly in the case o f m edicin al plants, on religious a n d mystical cons ideration s (Khalil, 1995). In m a n y cases where g o v e r n m e n t s have asserted sovereign rights over genetic resources, the land remains u n d e r traditio nal c o m m u n i t y tenur e. T h e end result is th a t the state reaps the benefits from agr ee m en ts for the use o f resources, while the b u r d e n o f conservation m ig h t be said to rest w ith the c o m m u n i t i e s . T h e d a nger is that, once c o m m u n i t i e s have lost c o ntr ol over local resources as well as the ability to practise tra dition al livelihoods, they m ay lose as well b o t h the k now ledge a n d the m o t i v a t i o n to ta ke care o f local e c o s y st e m s . T h e c h o i c e b e t w e e n d o i n g whatever it takes to feed o n e ’s childre n a n d con se rving an en d a n g e r e d fish p o p u ­ lation is no choice at all. A lt h o u g h the C B D ’s provisions appl y to agr ee m en ts at the national level, they also take into a c c o u n t the role o f tradition al c o m m u n i t i e s in con se rving a nd using biodiversity. Article 8(j) requires Parties to the C B D to ‘respect, preserve and m a in t a i n knowledge, inno vations and practices o f indigenous and local c o m m u ­ nities e m b o d y i n g traditional lifestyles relevant to the conservation and sustainable use o f biological diversity’ a n d to enc o u r a g e the equ it able s h a rin g o f benefits arising from the use o f such kno wled ge , in n o v ati o n s a n d practices. Article 8(j) confers no rights to c o m m u n i t i e s b u t is based on the premise t h a t s ha ri ng in benefits from the use o f genetic resources will help c o n tr ib u te to their conservation a n d sustainable use. H o w to i m p l e m e n t Article 8(j) has been one o f the greatest challenges for C B D Parties. Discussions at the C o n f er en ces o f the Parties have generally assu m ed (a) th a t the use o f genetic resources generally d e p e n d s on tra ditio na l knowled ge and (b) th a t those using genetic resources are usually based in cou ntr ies o t h e r than the provider country. As w e ’ll explain in the following chapter, the first, critical p o in t is far less tru e for aquatic t h a n for p lan t genetic resources. In d ig e n o u s peoples, local c o m m u n i t i e s a n d their advocates have high hopes th a t Article 8(j) will m e a n greater rec ogn ition o f c o m m u n i t y rights over traditiona l resources, b u t this m a y n o t be the result for fishing c o m m u n i t i e s if these rights are tied to an intim ate know ledge o f gcnctic resources.

96 BLUE GENES

R e c o g n i t i o n o f i n d i g e n o u s p e o p le s ’ rights In the traditional cultures of indigenous peoples in widely separated parts of the world, the concept o f ‘ownership' has little meaning. First Nations participants at a workshop we hosted during the preparation of this book emphasized that they consider it inappropriate to refer to fish as ‘resources’ - gcnctic or otherwise. Indigenous peoples’ attitudes ab out equality or ‘oneness’ of all living creatures, while they may be an essential part o f spiritual beliefs, are likely to be rooted in a c o m m o n sense recognition that surviving in a natural ecosystem requires m ai n­ taining the cycles of species, and that ownership is superfluous where there is abun dance to be shared. But times change. Today, claims o f ownership make a frequent appearance in the rhetoric o f the indigenous rights movem en t - but mainly as matter o f political necessity in campaigns to win legal recognition of the right to use lands and bio­ diversity in traditional areas of occupation. ‘Ow nersh ip’ and ‘title’ arc words well understood by courts that may have more difficulty relating spiritual beliefs to Western property law. Ow nership of land and control over aquatic life has become a contentious issue in coastal and riparian indigenous communities because of the broad extent of and fragility of fish habitat, the traditional im portance of fish for sustenance, and frequent uncertainty a bou t rights o f access to fisheries. Recent attention to fish as genetic resources has added a new twist th at isn't an issue for plan t genetic resources: in the case of migratory fish, several indigenous comm unities may claim traditional ownership and the right to be consulted by a collector regardless of where broodstock is collcctcd if a fish passes through their territory at some stage in its life cycle. Most countries have made little progress towards resolving indigenous rights issues. This will undoubtedly impede efforts to facilitate access to genetic resources in indigenous communities. O n e notable exception is the Philippines, which under the 1997 I ndige nou s Peoples Rights Act extends a prior info rm ed consen t re q u i re m e n t to virtually all potential uses o f natural resources in recognized indigenous territories. A n o t h e r is Cana d a, where co ur t decisions recognizing indigenous rights have led government negotiations of treaties with some indigenous peoples. Case Study 3 at the end of this chapter, although it describes an unsuccessful negotiation with indigenous communities for access to broodstock, illustrates one useful model for access negotiations with communities with co-management or ownership rights. Although there is no una nimity am on g indigenous groups ab out the approach proposed by the C B D - some have turned their backs on the Conve ntion, while others are actively working with national governments to develop workable access laws - there is naturally widespread scepticism about how Article 8(j) will be inter­ preted to ensure fair treatment and meaningful benefits for communities. In 1993, the Draft United Nations Declaration on the Rights o f Indigenous Peoples confirmed their right to ‘own, develop, control and use the land and terri­ tories, including the total environment o f the lands, air, waters, coastal seas, sea ice, flora and fauna and other resources which they have traditionally owned or

WHOSE TO SHARE? OWNERSHIP AND CONTROL OF AQUATIC RESOURCES

97

B o x 3. 1 P l a n t P r e c e d e n t s o n S h a r i n g G e n e t i c R e s o u r ce s : T h e I n t e r n a t i o n a l T r e a t y o n P l a n t G e n e t i c R e s o u r c e s f or F o o d a n d A g r i c u l t u r e The CBD's recognition of national sovereignty over genetic resources represented an abou tface from anoth er international a g re e m en t more than a d e c a d e earlier. In 1981, m e m b e r countries of the UN FAO a d o p te d the International U ndertaking on Plant Genetic Resources as an instrum ent to prom ote international h arm ony in matters regarding a c c e s s to plant g enetic resources for food and agriculture. The p u rp o se of the U n dertaking, to be monitored by the C om m issio n on Genetic Resources for Food and Agriculture (CGFRA), was to ‘ensure that plant genetic resources of ec o no m ic a n d/or social interest, particularly for agriculture, will be explored, preserved, evaluated and m a d e available for plant bree d in g and scientific p u rp o s e s ’ (CGFRA, 2002). The International U ndertaking's recognition of genetic resources as the ‘co m m o n heritage of m a n k in d ’ was in large part a response to a d e m a n d from d e ve lop ing nations to keep plant g enetic resources in the pu b lic dom ain and to put a brake on further privatization of a g ric u l­ tural g e ne tic resources. Their c o n c e rn s in c lu d ed gene b anking in northern countries of s e e d s p r o d u c e d by southern fa rm e rs; the a c c u m u la tio n of seed c o m p a n ie s u n d e r the control of transnational corporations; and the im plem entation of m o n op o ly Plant Breeders' Rights (essentially a pate nt) over crop varieties, limiting farmers' a c c e s s to b re e d e rs ’ lines and finished varieties. Conflict over ac c e s s to plant b re e d e rs ’ lines in the years following the a p p ro va l of the International Undertaking led to a 1989 annex re c ognizin g fa rm e rs ’ rights as a c o u n te r­ bala nce to plant b re e d e rs ’ rights. A m on g other things, fa rm e rs ’ rights e stablished the rights of farm ers and their c o m m u n itie s to p a rtic ip a te fully in the benefits d e rived from plant gen e tic resources. By the early 1990s, as the privatization of agricultu ra l research and patenting of plant g enetic resources in industrial countries increased, d e ve lo p in g countries were expressing disillu sionm ent a b o ut the effectiveness of the International Undertaking and pro m ise s to im p le m e n t fa r m e rs ’ rights. C o n s e q u e n tly they p ro p o s e d re p la c in g the c o n c e p ts of c o m m o n he ritag e and o p en a c c e s s with national s o v e re ig n ty and be n e fit sharing to allow nation states to better control and benefit from their biolo gical resources (GRAIN, 2000a). The en shrinem ent of these princip les in the CBD necessitated a rene g o ti­ ation of the International U n dertaking to ensure harm ony betw een the two agreem ents. The re sult w a s the In te rn a tio n a l Treaty on P lant G e n e tic R e s o u rc e s for F ood and Agriculture, a p p ro v e d by FAO m e m b e r countries in 2001 after seven years of difficult n e g o ­ tiation. The treaty is intended to meet the nee d s of both plant breeders and farmers, g u a r­ antee the future availability of plant genetic resources for food and agriculture, and ensure fair a n d e q u ita b le s h a rin g of b e n e fits . The a g re e m e n t , w h ic h c o v e r s 64 fo o d c ro p s a cco u n tin g for 85 per ce nt of global human nutrition, places some constraints on intellectual p ro p e rty over the s e e d s in the m ultilateral system and im p o se s o b lig a tio n s for be ne fit sharing when a c c e s s e d s e ed s are c o m m e rc ia liz e d . Civil so cie ty o rg a n izatio ns such as G e n e tic R e s o u rc e s A c tio n In te rn a tio n a l (G R A IN ) a n d the E rosion, T e c h n o lo g y and Concentration Group (ETC), while a c k n o w le d g in g the treaty as a step forward, also criticize it for not g u a ra n te ein g fa r m e rs ’ rights and doin g too little to ensure equity and benefit sharing. The history of the International Undertaking illustrates the increasing tension betw een d e v e lo p e d and de v elopin g countries over the expansio n of intellectual p roperty rights and the d e m a n d s of de ve lop in g countries and farming com m u n ities for gre ater control over their genetic resources and the use of traditional k n ow le dg e d e v e lop e d by farmers. It also u n d e r­ scores the almost exclusive e m phasis on plant g enetic resources in international n e g o tia­ tions on a c c e s s and be ne fit sharing. The International U n d e rta k in g and the treaty that s u c c e e d e d it were m a de ne c es sa ry by the in te rd e p e n d e n c e a m o ng countries for ac ce s s to crop g e rm p la sm ne e d e d to ensure global food security.

98 BLUE GENES

B o x 3. 1 continued W hile there is c u rre n tly no p a ra lle l i n t e r d e p e n d e n c e in a c c e s s to fish g e r m p la s m , the e x p a n d in g i m p o rt a n c e of a q u a c u ltu re in m e e tin g g lo b a l fo o d n e e d s m a y ultim a te ly c re a te the n e ed to a d d r e s s sim ilar is sues to th o se th a t have d o m in a te d the n e g o tia tio n s to w a rd s the re v is e d In te rn a tio n a l U n d e r t a k i n g - m o s t n o ta b ly the c o m p a t ib i li t y b e tw e e n in te lle c tu a l p ro p e r ty rig h ts p ro te c tio n a n d th e p ro te c tio n of c o m m u n it ie s p r o v id in g a q u a tic g e n e tic re s o u rc e s for in te rn a tio n a l a q u a c u ltu re d e v e lo p m e n t.

otherwise occupied or used’. In 2001, the International Indigenous Forum on Biodiversity (IIFB, 2001) told the CBD Working Group on Access and Benefit Sharing that the 1993 UN Declaration represented the minimum acceptable stan­ dards and that the trust needed to meet the CBD objective of access, and that benefit sharing wouldn’t come without recognition of the rights of indigenous peoples. How far to go in that direction remains a challenge for countries intent on facilitating acccss to gcnctic rcsourccs. Some indigenous groups sec the CBD encouragement of benefit sharing with communities as a way to avoid tackling the hard issues that come with recognition of indigenous rights, especially if benefit sharing is limited only to those communities that can prove genetic resources users need their knowledge - and if benefits are solely tied to conservation objectives. The growing litany o f ‘biopiracy’ complaints suggests that countries may find it increasingly hard to separate access issues from indigenous rights issues.

THE PRICE OF INVENTION: I n t e l l e c t u a l p r o p e r t y la w a n d a q u a t i c g e n e ti c re so urces Patent applications have caused no end of controversy in the use of plant genetic resources. Naturally, a seed company that develops a genetically modified strain of millet resistant to a fungal infection, for example, considers it a top priority to protcct its invention so that competitors don't copy it and flood the market with a cheaper version. But what if the company came up with the idea by modelling its invention on another strain developed by farmers in a traditional agricultural community? The last few years have seen a succession of international disputes - a notable example being the outcry that arose when a US company attempted to patent Basmati rice despite its long history in south Asia. W h at if a pharmaceutical company succeeds in developing and patenting a pain-killing drug after hiring a researcher to visit shamans in the Amazon, learn about their healing practices, and bring back samples of their medicinal plants for analysis in the US? Obviously, the ownership of ideas (whether scientific inventions or traditional knowledge) has been the source of far more wealth than the ownership of genetic rcsourccs in their physical state. The global trade in plant gcnctic rcsourccs is big business, estimated by ten Kate and Laird (1999) to be several billion dollars annually, so it’s hardly surprising that the scramble to get legal protection for products and processes has had some significant impacts on developments in intel­ lectual property law - developments that have been almost entirely shaped by plant genetic resources issues.

W H O SE TO SHARE? OW NERSHIP AND C O N TR O L OF AQUATIC RESOURCES

99

As we m entione d in the previous chapter, the n u m b e r of genetically modified fish strains developed in the past couple o f decades is infinitesimal compared to the n u m b e r of plant strains. Pharmaceutical companies are struggling to find powerful cures based on marine organisms, but the vast majority o f drugs inspired by co m p o u n d s existing in nature are based on plants - by 1996, only two o f the top selling 150 pharmaceuticals were derived from marine organisms (Brush and Stabinsky, 1996). Nevertheless, there may be sufficient parallels between some uses of plant and aquatic genetic resources - for example, between plant and marine bioprospecting and between farmed fish and crop enhan ce m en t — that patent law agreements can safely acco mm od ate both types o f activity. Where the intellectual property comparisons between the two fields diverge most dramatically is in the area o f traditional knowledge. T he re is simply no parallel in traditional fishing villages to traditional farmers’ knowledge o f crop breeding and to other com m un ities’ knowledge of medicinal plants. This might seem a matter of no great note were it not for the fact that several emerging national biodiversity laws, based loosely on the C B D guidelines, spell out the rights of traditional communities in terms o f the knowledge they contribute to the use of aquatic genetic resources. There is no d o u b t that traditional fishing c o m m u ­ nities have a wealth of knowledge that comes from the importance of fish as food or ceremonial object - including knowledge o f fish life cycles, migration habits, habitat preferences and of techniques for catching fish - yet it is likely to be largely irrelevant to uses for breeding. As we’ll show in this and the following chapters, a too rigid interpretation o f laws tying co m m u n ity rights to traditional knowledge could mean significant future conflicts (as the trade in aquatic genetic resources becomes more co m m o n ) and run counter to the C B D ’s objectives o f promoting conservation, sustainable use and equitable sharing o f benefits.

P a n d o r a s p a t e n t box: F ig h ti n g for th e r ig h t to o w n genes a n d g en e tic in v e n tio n s By protecting the ideas o f inventors from unauthorized use by others, intellectual property law (including patents, copyright, trademarks, industrial designs and trade secrets) protects an inventor’s economic interests and the interest of society in encouraging new inventions that may benefit the public. A patent is a legal certificate that gives an inventor exclusive rights to produce, use, sell or im po rt an invention for a fixed period, usually 17 to 20 years. A patent application must d e m o n s t r a t e t h a t an inven tion is useful (have industrial applica tion) , novel (recent, original and not already publicly known), not obvious to a person skilled in the technology and more inventive than mere discovery of what already exists in nature. Patents can be granted for products, specific uses of products (eg use o f a drug to cure cancer but not for purposes yet to be discovered), and processes used to create a product. T h e law of patents was developed in 19th-century Europe to protect inventions o f factory machinery and excluded the protection o f living materials, foods and medicines. However, deman ds for protection of inventions related to commercial uses o f genetic resources have revolutionized patent criteria, and the state o f the

100

BLUE GENES

law remains in flux in the wake of new scientific advances and amid controversies ab ou t the patenting of life and the role of traditional knowledge in invention. In the 1960s, the US legislated the right o f plant breeders to patent seeds, preventing others from selling the same variety, and in 1980 the US Supreme C o u r t accepted the first patent on a genetically altered micro-organism. By 1997, the US had granted 69 patents on animals (Correa, 1999). Keeping track of the current state o f the law is further complicated by the fact that different countries take different approaches to patent law. T h e European Patent C o n v e n ti o n provides that microbiological processes are patentable but ‘essentially biological processes’ are not, thereby excluding plant varieties obtained by conventional breeding. No such restriction exists in the US (Crucible Group, 1994). Decisions by the US Patent and Trademark Office to grant m on o poly rights over plant, animal and h u m a n gcnctic materials have sparked a rush to collect, map and patent genes, based largely on their potential. Developing co u n ­ tries have been under pressure to recognize US patents, although many developing countries exclude patent protection for plant varieties and animal races (Correa, 1999). Both the scope o f protection and the rights of patent holders continue to be expanded as the law continues to evolve in industrial countries. By contrast, devel­ oping countries such as Argentina, Brazil and India have set limits by allowing patents on processes but not products and by requiring patent holders to make socially useful products available in the domestic market (Grenier, 1998). Genetic modification o f animal life (the ‘Harvard m ouse ’ is a controversial example) has drawn attention to the need to address deman ds to allow patents on living creatures. Pharmaceutical companies and bioprospectors collecting on their behalf have been actively pa tenting processes to develop drugs and cosmetics derived from research based on aquatic genetic resources that range from marine invertebrates to algae. Patenting o f new fish varieties (such as the Super Salmon and Arctic char varieties) and o f processes used in their development has been more limited b u t can be expected to increase significantly as the aquaculture industry expands. T h e US Patent and Trademark Office led the way by approving a patent protecting a m eth o d of increasing the growth rate o f a transgenic salmon (Correa, 1999). T h e adaptation of patent laws to cover gcnctic resources is still controversial. A cotton gin is a very different type of invention from a cotton (or catfish) gene. Patenting o f living materials not only raises ethical questions, it also frequently raises concerns about the novelty o f ‘inventions’, especially when an inventor may have relied for inspiration on traditional knowledge. Historically, while tech ­ nology exporting countries have been qu ick to develop p a te n t legislation to prom ote new development, technology importers have had little reason to develop their own patent laws. Developing countries have been understandably reluctant to embrace universal patent laws relating to uses of genetic resources (as TR IP S proposes) because applicants from industrialized countries are the primary benefi­ ciaries (G R A I N , 1998a). As Halewood (1999) notes, the net effect o f global­ ization of intellectual property laws through agreements such as TR IP S and the North American Free Trade Agreement has been primarily to benefit developed countries in the use o f genetic resources.

W H O S E T O SHARE? O W N E R S H IP A N D C O N T R O L O F A Q U A T IC RESO URC ES

101

P l a n t br e e d e r s ha v e p u s h e d f or a n e x t e n s i o n o f i nt e l l e ct u a l p r o p e r t y r ights to i n c l u d e n e w varieties p r o d u c e d by b re e de r s. T h e r e are n o e q u i v a l e n t m e c h a n i s m s f or a q u a t i c g c n c t ic resour ce s, b u t t hese arc likely to d e v e l o p , al beit w i t h m o d i f i c a ­ t i on s t h a t reflect t h e fact t h a t few a q u a t i c a n i m a l s h a v e b e e n d o m e s t i c a t e d ( Ba r tl ey a n d Pul l i n, 1 9 9 9) .

TRIPS: Controlling access to genetic inventions All c o u n t r i e s t h a t are m e m b e r s o f t h e W o r l d T r a d e O r g a n i z a t i o n ( W T O ) are o b l i g e d to i m p l e m e n t T R I P S . T h e a g r e e m e n t f ocuses o n t h e i m p o r t a n c e o f i n t e l ­ l ect u a l p r o p e r t y r igh t s in p r o m o t i n g t r a d e l i be ra l i z at ion. T h e e m p h a s i s o n i n t e l ­ l ect u a l p r o p e r t y in W T O a g r e e m e n t s is a r e s p o n s e to t h e e xp l os i ve g r o w t h in i n f o r m a t i o n t e c h n o l o g y a n d b i o t e c h n o l o g y in i n t e r n a t i o n a l t r a d e as well as t he desire o f s o m e i n d u s t r i a l c o u n t r i e s to p r o t e c t p r o d u c t s f r o m i nt e l l e ct u a l ‘p i r a c y ’ in f oreign m a r k e t s ( C r u c i b l e G r o u p , 2 0 0 0 ) . T R I P S r eq ui r es all m e m b e r states to set m i n i m u m s t a n d a r d s o f i nt e l l e ct u a l p r o p e r t y p r o t e c t i o n , t h e r e b y e n s u r i n g a far h i g h e r d eg r e e o f g lob a l u n i f o r m i t y t h a n p r e v i o u sl y exi sted. P at e n t s m u s t b e available f or i n v e n t i o n s in all fields o f t e c h n o l o g y w i t h o u t d i s c r i m i n a t i o n , w h e t h e r p r o d u c t s are i m p o r t e d o r locally p r o d u c e d . A r t ic l e 2 7 r equ i r es m e m b e r states to a d o p t n a t i o n a l level i nt e ll e ct ua l p r o p e r t y s y s t e m s f o r all p r o d u c t s a n d p r o c e s s e s , i n c l u d i n g p h a r m a c e u t i c a l s , m o d i f i e d m i c r o - o r g a n i s m s a n d m i c r o b i o l o g i c a l processes. U n l i k e t h e earlier i n t e r ­ n a t i o n a l u n d e r t a k i n g , T R I P S clearly a ppl ie s to i n v e n t i o n s d e r i v e d f r o m a q u a t i c g e n e t i c resour ces. N e g o t i a t i o n s o n t h e pas sage o f T R I P S h i g h l i g h t e d t h e ver y d i f f e r e n t v i e w p o i n t s o f in dustrial an d d e v e lop ing c o u n trie s on the ex ten t to w h ich p a t e n ti n g o f b io l o g i c a l d i v e r s i t y - r e l at e d i n v e n t i o n s s h o u l d b e p e r m i t t e d . T h e m o s t c o n t r o ­ versial s e ct i on o f T R I P S has b e e n Ar t ic l e 2 7 . 3 ( b ) . W h i l e it al lows c o u n t r i e s to e x c l u d e p l a n t s a n d a n i m a l s as w e l l as e s s e n t i a l l y b i o l o g i c a l p r o c e s s e s f r o m pa t e n t a b i l i t y, W T O m e m b e r s m u s t p r o v i d e p r o t e c t i o n f or p l a n t varieties e i t h e r by p a t e n t s a n d / o r by a n effective su i generis s ys t e m - t h a t is, a u n i q u e s ys t em o f r ights f or a specific i t e m o r t e c h n o l o g y . T h e e x e m p t i o n f or p l a n t s a n d a n i m a l s r e m a i n s a c o nt r o v e rs i a l issue, w i t h s o m e d e v e l o p e d c o u n t r i e s f ac i n g s t r o n g p r es s u r e f r o m i n d u s t r y to p u s h for t h e r e m o v a l o f t h e e x e m p t i o n . S o m e critics o f T R I P S a r g u e t h a t d o i n g so w o u l d u n d e r m i n e t h e C B D b y d e p r i v i n g c o u n t r i e s o f t h e r i g h t to p r o h i b i t I P R s o n life f o r m s a n d b y d i m i n i s h i n g t h e i r abi li t y to n e g o t i a t e a fair share o f bene fits arising fro m t h e use o f g en e tic resources ( G R A I N , 1998 a) . D u r i n g a 1 9 9 9 r eview o f T R I P S , a g r o u p o f l e a s t - d e v e l o p e d c o u n t r i e s p r o p o s e d , unsuc ce ssful ly, t h a t T R I P S s h o u l d c o n t a i n a p r o v i s i o n t h a t p a t e n t s m u s t n o t be g r a n t e d w i t h o u t t h e p r i o r i n f o r m e d c o n s e n t o f t h e c o u n t r y w h e r e t h e g en e t i c r es o ur ce s o r i g i n a t e d ( M a r t i n e z , 2 0 0 2 ) . I n 1 9 9 8 , a n O r g a n i z a t i o n o f A f r i c a n U n i t y ( O A U ) m o d e l law p r o p o s e d a p r o h i b i t i o n a ga i ns t p a t e n t s o n i n v e n t i o n s d er i v e d f r o m b iol og i ca l r c s o u r cc s o b t a i n e d f r o m m e m b e r c o u n t r i e s . In essence, d e v e l o p i n g c o u n t r i e s w e r e p r e s s u r ed i n t o a c c e p t i n g T R I P S in r e t u r n f or t h e p r o m i s e o f t h e e c o n o m i c a d v a n t a g e cr ea t e d b y i m p r o v e d o p p o r t u n i t i e s for t r a d e . S o m e d e v e l o p i n g c o u n t r i e s o b j e c t e d to t h e i m p o s i t i o n o f W e s t e r n n o t i o n s

102

BI.UE GENES

o f ‘in v e n tio n s ’ in parts o f the w o rld w here m a n y i m p o r t a n t in n o v a tio n s had o ccu rred in an ev o lu tio n ary an d in fo rm al m a n n e r in farm in g a n d o th e r local c o m m u n itie s . W h ile T R I P S has helped allay industrial c o u n tries’ conccrns ab ou t foreign piracy o f corporate inventions, it has simply fuelled conccrns in developing c ountries th a t Westernized p aten tin g law m ay simply accelerate biopiracy o f the types o f trad ition al in no vation s described in C h a p te r 4. Ind igenous groups have c o n d e m n e d T R I P S as flying in the face o f in digenous traditions o f treating c o m m u n it y know ledge as a shared resource and as essentially forcing in digenous peoples to a d o p t W estern p a te n t laws in order to prevent the c o m m ercial a p p ro p riatio n o f their ow n know ledge. In the o p in io n o f one group, T R I P S pushes in dig eno us peoples to ‘play in a gam e in w h ich th e rules are defined by the o p p o n e n ts ' (T auli-C orpuz, 1999).

W

h o

o w n s tr a d it io n a l k n o w l e d g e

?

W h a t h a p p e n s if, w i t h o u t a c o m m u n i t y ’s p e r m is s io n , a c o m p a n y p a te n t s a p r o d u c t or process m a d e possible by th e use o f th e c o m m u n i t y ’s tr a d itio n a l knowledge? W h ile it is true th a t m a n y in digen ou s co m m u n itie s have a history o f freely sh aring their kno w led ge a b o u t wild plants a n d anim als, they m ay have concerns ab o u t the u n a u th o riz e d use o f their know ledge th at have n o th i n g to do w ith c o m p en s atio n b u t a lot to do w ith issues such as a lack o f respect for a living creature or deceitful dealings w ith a c o m m u n ity , etc. P atent offices rarely require applicants to disclose w h e th e r an idea has been ap p ro p riated from a traditional c o m m u n ity . Even if a trad itio nal c o m m u n i t y w a n te d to seek recourse, using the avenues o f Western legal systems m ig h t be bo th c on tra ry to its beliefs and u n a f­ fordable (Box 4.2 below illustrates a notable exception, in w hich an indigenous gro up felt so betrayed th at it to o k the p a te n t h old er to court). Interest in access to trad itio n al know ledge a b o u t plan t genetic resources has grown by leaps and b o u n d s as the gene rush seeks o u t new sources o f potentially valuable in fo rm atio n - like th e gold rushes o f earlier centuries, m ak in g a valuable find may be a long shot, b u t the p otential rewards m ay be so high that it’s w o rth the effort and the risk. T h a t ’s w hy the question o f w ho ow ns tr aditional know ledge a n d h ow c o m m u n itie s can co ntrol its use has b eco m e such a big issue in recent years, as illustrated in the section below on biopiracy. It’s also w hy in ternational agreem ents like the C B D have placed so m u c h em phasis on using the d e m a n d for tr aditional know ledge as a rationale for the expansion o f c o m m u n i t y rights. As w e’ll see in the next chapter, while this may be a sensible ap proach in the p lant w orld, it may have little relevance for aquatic genetic resources.

WHOSE TO SHARE? OWNERSHIP AND CONTROL OF AQUATIC RESOURCES

103

B o x 3 . 2 T h e W a p i s h a n a G o t o C o u r t : T h e C a s e o f t h e Fish K i l l i n g P l a n t The W apishana are e xp e rie n cin g w h a t m a n y o th e r in d ig e n ou s g roups a n d lo ca l so cie tie s are s u ffe rin g w ith a la rm in g fre q u e n c y th ro u g h o u t the tro p ic s : the a p p ro p ria tio n o f tra d itio n a l k n o w le d g e b y p ira te s p a s s in g fo r s c ie n tis ts , re s e a rc h e rs , m is s io n a rie s , e n v iro n m e n ta lis ts , activists o f in d ig e n ou s p e o p le s rights, a n d o th e r disguises. J u l io C

esar

C enteno (C

enteno,

2000)

Several W apishana in d ig e no u s com m u n ities living in the A m azon basin along the BrazilG uyana bo rd e r have long used their k n o w le d g e of the toxic properties of the cunani bush to catch fish. When the c h e w e d leaves are thrown into a river, fish in the im m ediate vicinity reportedly leap out of the water and soon die. The fish can be eaten immediately, with no alteration in their taste and no side effects on humans. A British b io c h e m is t who had sp e nt years living with the W a pishana and studying their traditional uses of plants heard a b ou t the unusual properties of the cunani. After he left the country, he undertook extensive research to isolate active ingredients of some of the plants he had c o lle cted. He then registered patents in the US and Europe on active ingredients in cu n an i that are believed to act as powerful stimulants to the nervous system or as ne uro­ m u scula r agents that can prevent heart b lo c ka ge s. He also patented active ingredie nts of tipir, the nut of the g re enheart tree, which the W apishana had long used to stop bleeding and p revent infection and is being investigated for anti-m alarial properties. W hen W a p is h a na c h ie fs heard w h a t the b io c h e m is t had d o n e , they a c c u s e d him of stealing the k n o w le d g e of their ancestors and elders in order to sell it to p h a rm a ceutica l c om p an ie s. As one W apishana wom an put it, ‘This k n o w le d g e has always been with the W apishana. It's part of our heritage and now is being taken from us without any p a y m e n t’ . The bio ch em ist exp re sse d p u zzle m e n t at the uproar. He pointed out that his discoveries w ere the re sult of a lifetime s p e n t d e c o d in g the in g re d ie n ts in tra d itio n a l W a p is h a n a rem edies. The patents were justified, he argued, by the results of his own intellectual effort (Singh, 2000a; Veash, 2000). After an extensive c a m p a ig n , the W apishana people eventually s u c c e e d e d in overturning the cunani patent but not the tipir patent. In addition, at least one chief prohibited all future visits by researchers, w hatever their purp o se m ig h t be.

D raw b ack s o f IP R s p ro tectio n o f traditional k n o w le d g e T h e T R IP S a greem ent sparked considerable protest a m o n g advocates of in di ge no us a n d local c o m m u n i t i e s w h o believed t h a t it w o u l d erode the already fragile rights o f c o m m u n i t i e s to co ntr ol the use o f their knowledge. O n e o f the biggest issues has been w h e t h e r a p r o d u c t derived from traditional knowl ed ge can truly be callcd an i nve nt ion - o n e o f the prerequisites for the right to pate nt . After the T R I P S a g re e m e n t , the W o rl d Intellectual P r o p e rt y O r g a n i z a t i o n ( W I P O ) a t t e m p t e d to address the issue t h r o u g h its I n t e r g o v e r n m e n t a l C o m m i t t e e on Intellectual P ro pe rty and G e n e t ic Resources. T h e C o m m i t t e e looked at ways to take t ra di tio na l kn o w l e d g e systems into a c c o u n t in t h e d e v e l o p m e n t o f IPRs systems t h r o u g h su ig en eris a pp roa ch es - th at is, u n i q u e m ec h a n is m s for providin g legal pro te c tio n for holders o f traditional knowledge. S o m e in di ge no us m o v e m e n t s have been sharply critical o f the W I P O approa ch , arguing th at su i generis pro te c tio n o f traditional know le dge rights is n o t h i n g m ore t ha n an a t t e m p t to assimilate in di ge no us rights into ‘W e st e rn ’ p ro p er ty systems a n d bypass the real issue - the rights o f i ndi ge no us peoples to direct co ntr ol over lands and resources in traditional territories.

104

BLUE GENES

O p i n i o n s are divided a b o u t the usefulness o f IPRs in p r o te c tin g c o m m u n i t y interests. S o m e p eo p le believe t h a t IP Rs as they c u r r e n t ly exist can serve the p u rpose by allowing users o f gcnctic rcsourccs to generate revenues from their inventions and share the revenues w it h co untries o f origin or local c o m m u n i t i e s . O t h e r s believe th a t existing IPRs are n o t only in ad eq u ate to p r o te ct the rights o f indigenous peoples b u t also represent one o f the greatest threats to the co nser ­ v ation o f bio diver sity ( C r u c i b le G r o u p , 2 0 0 0 ) . I n d i g e n o u s a n d local peoples generally express a desire to link the p r o te c tio n o f indigenous a n d local knowled ge w ith territorial rights a n d the right to self -dete rm ination - a position t h a t has been reiterated in a wide variety o f inte rn a tio n a l a n d local peoples’ declarations a n d in s ta tem ents in inte rn a ti o n a l multilate ral fora ( H a le w o o d , 1999). Theoretically, IPRs cou ld be used to protect the k now le dge a n d in novati on s o f i n d i g e n o u s a n d local c o m m u n i t i e s . H o w e v e r , d i ff e r e n c e s in W e s t e r n a n d i n d i g e n o u s legal c o n c e p t s m a k e it i m p r a c t i c a l . C o m m u n a l p r o p e r t y is the prevailing system used in m o s t tra d it io n a l societies to c o n t r o l access to basic resources, an d even in cases w he re esoteric knowled ge is the exclusive intellectual p r opert y o f individuals, families, s ham ans , clans or lineages, these owner s c a n n o t necessarily com mer cialize the k now le dge w i t h o u t the permission o f the w ho le c o m m u n i t y or tribal elders (Posey a n d D utf ield, 1996). T h e use o f p a te n t law as it curre ntly exists is also p r oblematical because o f the difficulty o f def ining the source o f tr aditional knowled ge , a c c u m u la t e d over gen er ­ ations, a n d therefore its novelty. Use o f c u s to m a r y laws is a n o t h e r o p t i o n , b u t m a n y n ati ons do n o t recognize c u s to m a r y law a n d n ational legal systems m ay conflict w it h u n w r i t t e n c u s to m a r y laws. Finally, in d ig en o u s peoples view any use o f intellectual p r o p e rt y law with deep suspicion because o f its association w ith past e x p l o i ta tio n o f t r a d it i o n a l k n o w le d g e . Shiva ( 1 9 9 7 ) cha ra cter ize s intellectual p r opert y law as a m o d e r n form o f colonization exten ded to the interior spaces, the ‘genetic codes ’ o f life forms, m a d e possible by the t r e a t m e n t o f genetic resources as a c o m m o n heritage —a view th a t resonates w ith m a n y indigenous rights groups.

Sui generis p r o t e c t i o n o f c o m m u n i t y r i g h t s T h e in a d e q u a c y o f p a t e n t law as a m ean s o f p r o te c tin g traditiona l knowle dg e has led some c o m m u n i t y rights advocates to propo se the use o f sui generis alternatives to achieve the same end. ‘Sui generis refers to rights th a t are designed to be u n i q u e for a specific p u r p o s e and are n o t covered by existing legal systems. T h e T R I P S a g r e e m e n t requires W T O m e m b e r coun tr ies to p rote ct p lan t varieties either by paten ts or an effective sui generis system, b u t does n o t define w h a t t h a t means. T h e term has b e c o m e c o m m o n jargon w i t h o u t an y universal u n d e r s t a n d i n g o f its defi­ nition, p erhaps in large pa rt because sui generis systems are largely still in the f o rm a ti v e stages. C a n a d i a n l a n d claims a g r e e m e n t s w it h i n d i g e n o u s peoples, referred to in Case Studies 2 a n d 3, are o n e recent ex ample o f sui generis recog­ nition; reccnt laws in cou ntr ies like the Philippines th a t are specific deal to the p r o te c tio n o f c o m m u n i t y rights are another. O n e pr op ose d m o d e l for sui generis p ro te ction is a system o f c o m m u n i t y in tel­ lectual p r o p e r t y rights t h a t w o u l d establish the legal r ight o f c o m m u n i t i e s to

W H O S E T O SH A R E ? O W N E R S H IP A N D C O N T R O L O F A Q U A T IC R E S O U R C E S

105

protect knowledge developed co m m un a lly rather than by an identifiable indi­ vidual - primarily to protect farmers’ rights to control access to seed. T h e Crucible Gr ou p (1994) suggested that, in order to be cffcctivc, c o m m u n i t y intcllcctual property rights need to be entrenched in national legislation with reciprocal recog­ nition by oth er countries, supp orte d by an international database for tracing germplasm. Un de r such a system, plant varieties developed by comm uni ti es might be deposited in germplasm banks along with registration data (such as the date, place a n d c o m m u n i t y o f origin), e na b li n g the source to be d e t e r m i n e d if c o m p l a i n t s arose a b o u t a p p r o p r i a t i o n o f tra d i ti o n al kn o wl e d g e by ou tside interests. While there are no analogous issues in the use o f fish germplasm, a c o m m u n it y IPRs system could conceivably be useful for the protection o f other types o f tradi­ tional knowledge o f aquatic gcnctic rcsourccs - for example, by providing for the do cu me nt ati on of knowledge of medicinal uses. O n e model c o m m u n i t y intel­ lectual rights act, suggested by a T hi rd World Net work discussion paper, proposed meeting the patent law novelty requirement by describing indigenous peoples as innovators because they have developed knowledge u n k n o w n to the outside world (Singh Nijar, 1998). Posey and Dutfield (1996) suggest that such a law would be compatible with the T R IP S call for sui generis IPRs protection and with Article 8(j) re q u i r em e n ts . As discussed in the following cha pter, this type o f legal protection has far more relevance for terrestrial than for fishing c om m uni ti es because examples o f traditional innovations using aquatic genetic resources are far less frequent. Posey and Dutfield (1996) propose a more expansive system o f ‘traditional resource rig ht s’ th at moves b e y o n d the na rro w l im ita tio n s o f kn ow le dg e protection. In their view, existing international agreements (eg on h u m a n rights, right to self-determination, land and territorial rights, and intellectual and cultural p r o p e r t y rights) provide the basis for ove rla p p in g an d m u t u a l l y s up po rti ve ‘bundles o f rights’ that would encompass no t only IPRs protection b u t also the control o f resources, which indigenous peoples view as central to self-determi­ nation. Posey points out that while the privatization or co mmoditizing o f property is often contradictory to indigenous peoples’ spiritual beliefs, indigenous and traditional co mmuniti es arc increasingly involved in market economics, and that the right to development and conservation are mutually supportive. Traditional resource rights would also recognize the inextricable link between cultural and biological diversity. Posey suggests th at they could be i m p l e m e n t e d locally, nationally or internationally and could guide both international law and national legislation.

BlOPIRACY: P la in d e a lin g or p a te n t theft? T h e u rg enc y o f ad dressing the q u e s ti o n o f c o m m u n i t y rights over gcnctic resources has been heightened in recent years by a flurry o f complaints about biopiracy. T h e Crucible Gr o u p (2000) defines ‘biopiracy’ as the taking o f genetic or biological resources w it h o u t the prior informed consent o f local people or a

106 BLUE GENES com peten t state authority for access and benefit sharing un der mutually agreed terms. Most frequently, chargcs of biopiracy arc related to the use of plant gcnctic resources and often are spurred by patents of discoveries that are in some way related to the use of traditional knowledge of farmers or of indigenous c o m m u ­ nities. O n e much publicized example was the atte m pt by a US com pan y to patent Basmati rice. A n o th e r was the dispute between the pharmaceutical c o m p a n y researcher and the Wapishana people, described in Box 3.2. H a d there been an access and benefit-sharing law in place, the Wapishana might have negotiated an agreement with the biochemist to share in the profits from any future royalties or obtain some other more im m ed iate reward, or they might simply have denied him permission to make collections or refused to give him any information about their traditional uses. They might also have dem an d ed benefits that he felt unable to provide w ithout knowing whether his research might lead to a deal w ith a p h a rm aceutical c o m p a n y or the d e v e l o p m e n t o f a marketable product. Article 8 (j) o f the C B D is intended to deal with exactly this type of situ­ ation. Situations like the one involving the Wapishana have occurred many times in different parts of the world, as traditional communities attem pt to earn recog­ nition for the value o f their plant knowledge, and examples o f benefit-sharing agreements are beginning to occur with more and more frequency.

B iop iracy a n d a q u a tic g en e tic resources It's hard to imagine aquatic resources parallels for the biopiracy examples described above. O n e might have occurred if Aqua Bounty had developed and patented the ‘Super Salmon’ after learning from indigenous people about the anti-freeze p r o p ­ erties of the ocean pout, which were used to create the new strain. Even then, the co m pan y might have argued that the desirable characteristics of the p out were obvious to any observer. Traditional knowledge of aquatic biodiversity may be a b u n d a n t b ut is not necessarily relevant to uses of aquatic genetic resources such as aquaculture and the development of pharmaceutical products from animals that live in areas that are inaccessible to local people. Nevertheless, c o m p la i n ts a b o u t biopira cy o f m a r in e orga nism s arc n o t u n c o m m o n . Indeed, one o f the main catalysts for the passage of access legislation in the Philippines in 1995 (see Case Study 5) was a series of newspaper articles on biopiracy of marine invertebrates (and of plants) by foreign collectors. After the law came into effect, the complaints continued, and communities began targeting the government for not properly enforcing the law and for its lax requirements for obtaining co m m u n ity consent. W h e n the US-based pharmaceutical com pa ny Neurex Inc isolated and patented the toxin SNX -1 11, produced by the Philippine sea snail Conus magnus, civil society organizations took both the co m pan y and government to task. T h e stakes were large: sales o f the pain-killing drug derived from the toxin reportedly earned Neurex more than U S $80 million dur in g the first year of marketing. Critics charged that the government supported biopiracy by funding research by scientists at the Marine Science Institute (MSI) who collaborated with the University of

W H O S E T O SHARE? O W N E R S H IP A N D C O N T R O L O F A Q U A T IC RESO URC ES

107

U t a h in c o l l e c ti n g s p e c i m e n s , i s o l a t i ng t he t o x i n a n d f o r m i n g a p r i v at e c o m p a n y to ca pitalize o n t h e snail ( B e n g w a y a n , 2 0 0 1 ) . Previously, c ol lc c tor s f or t h e M S I w o u l d p u r c h a s e s p e c i m e n s f r o m f i s h e r m e n in several areas o f t h e c o u n t r y , w h o g a t h e r d i f f e r e n t varieties o f c o n e snail f or t h e i r o r n a m e n t a l val ue a n d h a v e n o use f or t h e m e a t . 1 P h i l i p p i n e s law ( E xe cu t i ve O r d e r 2 4 7 ) n o w r eq u ir es f or e i gn col lec t o r s to p a r t n e r w i t h P h i l i p p i n e s resear ch i n s t i t u ­ ti ons , w h i c h m u s t get c o m m u n i t y c o n s e n t f or co l l ec t i on s ( w h e t h e r o r n o t t r a d i ­ t i o na l k n o w l e d g e is n e e d e d b y co l lec t or s). T o c o m p l y w i t h r e g u l a t i o n s u n d e r t he law, M S I h o l d s p u b l i c i n f o r m a t i o n sessions in c o m m u n i t i e s w h e r e c ol l ec t i on s o f m a r i n e o r g a n i s m s ar e p r o p o s e d a n d m u s t also o b t a i n p e r m i s s i o n f r o m local g o v e r n m e n t r e p r e s e n t a t i v e s . C r i t i c s o f t h e pr oc e s s n o t e l o w t u r n o u t s at i n f o r ­ m a t i o n sessions a n d s ugg e s t t h a t local p e o p l e m a y n o t even be a wa r e t h a t m a r i n e b i o p r o s p e c t i n g is t a k i n g pl a cc in t he i r c o m m u n i t i e s ( B a t u n g b a c a l , 2 0 0 0 ) . M a k i n g i n f o r m e d c o n s e n t r e q u i r e m e n t s b o t h fair a n d feasible is a t o u g h c h a l ­ lenge. I f t h e c o n s e n t p r oc e s s is t oo c u m b e r s o m e a n d e xpe ns i ve , c ol le c tor s m a y s i m p l y go to o th e r , m o r e ‘f r i e n d l y ’ c o u n t r i e s i f t he o r g a n i s m s t h e y ’re l o o k i n g for c a n be o b t a i n e d el sewhe r e . F o r b o t h c o u n t r i e s a n d c o m m u n i t i e s , it’s a q u e s t i o n o f h o w to d e v e l o p effective r e g u l a t i o n s w i t h o u t kill ing t h e g o o s e t h a t m i g h t lay a g o l d e n egg. T h e P h i l i p p i n e s l aw d i s t i n g u i s h e s b e t w e e n c o l l e c t i o n s f o r a c a d e m i c a n d c o m m e r c i a l p u r p o s e s . G e t t i n g a fair s h a r e o f w h a t e v e r p r o fi t s m a y arise f r o m resear ch b y f or e i gn c o l lec t or s c o n t i n u e s to b e an issue f or c o u n t r i e s t h a t h a v e n o t y e t p a s s e d l a ws r e g u l a t i n g ac ce ss . I n t h e B a h a m a s , U n i v e r s i t y o f C a l i f o r n i a r ese ar che rs o b t a i n e d a p e r m i t for t he c o l l ec t i on o f soft coral, w i t h o u t c h a r g e a n d w i t h o n l y t h e c o n d i t i o n t h a t t h e y file r e p o r t s o n t h e i r w o r k . T h e u n i v e r s i t y s u b ­ s e q u e n t l y o b t a i n e d a p a t e n t o n a p r o d u c t i o n pr oce s s t h a t w a s in t u r n sold to a c o m p a n y t h a t m a r k e t e d it to t h e c o s m e t i c c o m p a n y Est é e L a u d e r, w h i c h u s e d it in t h e d e v e l o p m e n t o f b e a u t y p r o d u c t s . T h e B a h a m i a n g o v e r n m e n t u ns uc ce s s f u l l y a t t e m p t e d to n e g o t i a t e r o ya l t y p a y m e n t s f r o m t h e e x t r a c t i n g c o m p a n y , w h i c h r e s p o n d e d t h a t it m i g h t s i m p l y m o v e its c o l l e c ti o n activities to m o r e a c c o m m o ­ d a t i n g C a r i b b e a n c o u n t r i e s w h e r e t h e s a m e species is a b u n d a n t . T h e B a h a m i a n g o v e r n m e n t is n o w in t he pr oc e s s o f d e v e l o p i n g l egislation to g o v e r n access to g c n c t i c rcsour ccs. U n i v e r s i t y o f C a l i f o r n i a r ese ar ch e r s h a v e also b e e n cri t ici z ed f or p a t e n t i n g t he a n t i - i n f l a m m a t o r y a g e n t p s e u d o p t e r o s i n , a c o m p o u n d f o u n d in sea w h i p s in t he C a r i b b e a n a n d s u b s e q u e n t l y i n c o r p o r a t e d in a ski n c r e a m also m a r k e t e d b y Estée L au de r. T h e aver age a n n u a l r oyal t y i n c o m e received by t h e u n i v e rs i t y for p a t e n t e d p s e u d o p t e r o s i n s is r e p o r t e d to b e m o r e t h a n U S $ 7 5 0 , 0 0 0 ( Si ng h , 2 0 0 0 b ) . W h i l e b i o p r o s p e c t i n g f or m a r i n e i n v e r t e b r a t e s get s m o s t o f t h e a t t e n t i o n , b i o p i r a c y c o n c e r n s s o m e t i m e s e x t e n d to fish as well. T h e A m a z o n r egi on has b ee n h a r d h i t b y illegal t r a d e in wildli fe, a n d t h e Brazili an g o v e r n m e n t a t t e m p t s to be v i g i l a n t in s t e m m i n g its flow. H o w e v e r , gi ve n t h e size a n d r e m o t e n e s s o f t he r e g i o n , e n f o r c e m e n t o f e n v i r o n m e n t a l l aw is a s t u p e n d o u s t as k. I n a n o t h e r e x a m p l e o f s u s p e c t e d a q u a t i c bi op i r acy, a G e r m a n a q u a r i s t w h o p l a n n e d to b r ee d o r n a m e n t a l ci chl i d varieties ( cichlids i n c l u d e i m p o r t a n t f o o d fish s u c h as tilapias a n d t i n y o r n a m e n t a l s pr i zed f or t h e i r b r i g h t c o l o ur s) tr avelled to Brazil to col lect

108 BLUE GENES

B o x 3 . 3 B i o p i r a c y D e b a t e s in Brazil The c h ie f p ro s e c u to r for the Brazilian State of A m a z o n a s , w ho o p e n e d an inq u iry into b io p ira c y in 1997, estimates that a b ou t 20,000 individual plant samples are illegally removed from the c ountry every year. Scientific laboratories generally receive the sam ples and infor­ mation from third parties who d o n ’t say where they ca m e from. How is the inform ation o b ta in e d ? A re presentative from IB A M A notes: ‘The scientists co n g re g a te in small frontier towns. Then they ask the Indians what they would do if they had a he a d a ch e , muscle pains or a bad stom ach. The local peop le then take them into the jungle and show them w hic h plant they would use to cure those sym ptom s. The scientists pay the Indians a little money, then take the plant b a ck to their labs. There, they d is co v er the p rin­ ciple by w hich the plant w orks and sell their prelim inary research on to the p ha rm a c e u tic a l c o m p a n ie s for d e ve lop m e n t'. Robert Smeraldi, d irector of the Friends of the Earth A m azon pro g ra m m e , notes: ‘There is w id e sp re a d s m u g gling of genetic material by unauthorized co m p a n ie s . I'm not talking about res p ec ta ble p ha rm a ce u tic a l c o m p a n ie s being directly involved, but I do believe they could benefit from illegal research'. A Brazilian c a n c e r specialist was sharply criticized by the m ed ia after receiving close to US$1 million from the A m erican National C a n ce r Institute to analyse a n u m b e r of Amazonian plants. His c ritic s a rg u e d that if in form ation taken from in d ig e n o u s p e o p le s is used to develop the world's first a n ti-ca n ce r drug, the Indian tribes m ig h t lose out even if the ca n c e r specialist himself d oes not profit. In his defe nce, the researcher noted: 'While we continue to talk and w orry about biopiracy, fewer peop le are out there actually studying the A m azon, which is a serious form of scientific neglect. Of course b io p ira c y h a p p e n s , but we have to b a la n c e this a g a in s t not re se arch in g the rainforest at all. U ltim ately that is m u c h more d a m a g in g to m a n k in d ’ (Veash, 2000). We will return later to the su b je c t of ‘research chill’, particularly in C ase Study 5.

wild speci men s in the m id d l e Rio Negro. W h e n a p p r e h e n d e d by a representative o f I B A M A , the Brazilian Institute responsible for e n f o r c e m e n t o f p ro te c te d species laws, the collector was e x a m i n in g the viscera o f cichlids to d e t e r m i n e their natural diet. H e had ap pa re nt ly o bt ai ne d written permission from the nearest m u n i c i ­ pality b u t had n o t so u g h t the necessary approvals from IB AM A . H e was d e p o rt e d a n d ordered n o t to r e t u r n . 2 T h e m o n e y t h a t changes h a n d s in the collection o f o r n a m e n t a l fish can stymie the m o s t d e t e r m i n e d efforts at e nf o r c e m e n t, especially in areas like the A m a z o n the largest an d perhaps m os t ungove rna ble river basin in the world. R o h t e r (2001) reports th at zebra fish from the X in gu River are so valuable th at specimens are used as local currcn cy a n d that dealers’ profit marg ins are co m p a r ab l e to those in the cocaine trade, with a particularly rare speci men b rin gi ng as m u c h as U S $ 6 0 0 from a Japanese collector. A l t h o u g h Brazil has a t t e m p t e d to c on tro l sales to pr event rare species from being wi pe d out, black m ar k e t dealers c o n t i n u e to thrive. Ro h t e r quo tes a regional I B A M A representative as stating that, with only five agents to m o n i t o r all wildlife in an area twice the size o f N e w Jersey, little can be d o n e to pr otect illegal traffic. A tropical fish expert at the Emilio G oe ld i M u s e u m in Belem n o t e s t h a t t r o p i c a l fish dealers r o u t i n e l y file false c u s t o m s d e c l a r a t i o n s a n d sh ip p i n g waybills to get a r o u n d restrictions, yet that there is little public interest in the pr ob lem (Rohtcr, 20 01 ).

W H O SE TO SHARE? OW NERSHIP AND C O N TR O L OF AQUATIC RESOURCES

109

Stopping unauthorized collection of aquatic genetic resources is a challenge at the best of times. Access laws are unlikely to work unless government has the political will and provides the ncccssary funds for cnforccmcnt. This support may be absent in both developed and developing countries depending on the degree of cooperation am o n g different levels of bureaucracy and of coordination among policy structures. Bribery of officials may create an additional i m p e d im e n t in countries where it is a c o m m o n tradition.

O p p o s i n g views o n b io p ira c y Even when the approval o f national agencies and indigenous co m m u n ities is received, charges of biopiracy may still arise. Indigenous communities may grant permission for collections to occur w it ho ut understanding (or in some eases being adequately informed of) the true purpose of the collection, as in the case o f the Wapishana and the cunani plant. Collectors may take unfair advantage of c o m m u ­ nities that lack the capacity or the necessary information to negotiate fair deals. Even if the purpose o f collection is fully understood, agreements may be perceived to be grossly unfair. Indigenous people may receive a pittance for the right to collect or may be offered royalties that never come to pass or are minuscule in relation to profits. A 1998 estimate placed annual global sales o f pharmaceuticals at U S $300 billion, o f which between 25 and 50 per cent are derived from genetic resources (ten Kate and Laird, 1999). W i th almost 70 per cent of the total n u m b e r o f e th n o lin g u istic gro up s in the w o rld living in 22 5 regions o f the highest biological importance (WWF, 2000), it may be assumed that indigenous c o m m u ­ nities have been and will continue to be primary sources o f the genetic resources needed for pharmaceutical development. As the W a p is h a n a example illustrates, biopiracy applies b oth to physical resources and the know ledge th a t makes their value im m ed iat el y evident to collectors. C o m m u n i t i e s face challenges on b o t h fronts: p r o te c tin g their knowledge against misuse or appropriation und er foreign intellectual property laws; and protecting resources over which they may have no legal authority. Very often, in the eyes of communities, the greatest perpetrators o f biopiracy are not foreign interests but levels o f government in their own countries that exercise a u th o r ity over p u b lic ’ resources n a tionw ide and deny in di gen ous and oth er communities a say in who collects plants, fish and animals in co m m u n ity terri­ tories. In several countries, struggles for the right to self-determination are fuelled in large p a r t by frustra tion over lack o f access to tra d itio n al resources and exploitation by outside interests w h o have no obligation to seek c o m m u n i t y consent once having received the consent o f governments. Corporations may face accusations of biopiracy even when they have conscientiously complied with all gover nm ent regulations or have negotiated with communities in what they believe to be good faith. So may collectors from scientific institutions who depend on acccss to gcnctic rcsourccs for basic research, an d whose findings arc freely published. Accusations of biopiracy may relate to activities ranging from the collection of individual animals (eg rare Brazilian ornam ental fish) to the entire system of

110

BLUE GENES

collection o f biological and genetic resources - what Shiva (1997) describes as the sequel to colonization of countries, in which ‘colonies have now been extended to the interior spaccs, the ‘gcnctic codcs’ o f life forms from microbcs and plants and anim als, i n c l u d i n g h u m a n s ’. As D u tf ie ld (n.d.) po in ts out, n o t i n g that exploitation o f genetic resources has even been called ‘the slavery of the new millennium’, such rhetoric may in fact under m ine legitimate efforts to gain fairer tre atment for countries and com mun ities that seek a more level playing field. While the term ‘biopiracy’ may sound inflammatory to some, the issue raises legit­ imate questions ab o u t fair play for countries an d c o m m u n i t i e s th at provide aquatic genetic resources.

C

ase

St u d y 3. A

n i n d i g e n o u s c o m m u n i t y says n o

:

N e g o t i a t i n g access to c h a r r b r o o d s t o c k in n o r t h e r n C a n a d a C o u n t r i e s take m a n y app ro ac hes to the recognitio n o f i n digen ous rights of ownership and control over aquatic genetic resources. Can a da has been actively involved in the negotiation o f treaties with indigenous peoples. T h e Inuit, a people along the Arctic coast, recently completed an agreement that recognizes both land and resource rights. T h e Canadian D F O retains a role in the m an ag em en t o f sea­ going fish, b ut communities have the right to prior informed consent to collection o f fish broodstock. Arctic charr, the n orth e rn m os t species in the family Salmonidae, has long been a staple in the diet of Inuit peoples on the coast of the Arctic Ocean in Canada. While some charr inhabit landlocked lakes, most are anadromous, migrating in late s um m er from the occan to rivers and lakes to spawn, and reaching a weight of up to 11.3 kg. Dur ing recent years the popularity o f the fish in urban markets has increased, creating an additional source of income for Inuit fishers in northern Canada. But charr are slow growing, and the genetically unique subpopulations or stocks of charr are extremely sensitive to overfishing. Consequently, Inuit c o m m u ­ nities developing sustainable m an ag em en t plans have had to grapple with how best to conserve a diminishing resource while supporting local fishing economies (eg H o lm a n Hun ters and Trappers et al, 1994). T h e Northwest Territories Scientists’ Act requires consent o f local communities before any scientific research is undertaken in the Territory. Enacted in 1974, the Act was one of the earliest examples in a developed country of legislation that reflects emerging international principles for respecting indigenous knowledge and re turn ing benefits to knowledge holders and their c o m m u n iti e s (M a n n , 1997). In 1993, Canadian Inuit concluded negotiations of a land claim agreement with the government o f Canada. T h e N u n a v u t Land Claims Agreement estab­ lished principles of Inuit priority in the harvesting o f marine resources and of ownership over the resources in Inuit-owned land and marine areas. Soon after the 1993 land agreement came into effect, C an ada’s D F O began refusing fish harvesting, research and farming permits in the N u n a v u t region unless the prior consent of local communities had been obtained. Icy Waters, the

WHOSE TO SHARE? OWNERSHIP AND CONTROL OF AQUATIC RESOURCES

111

major charr farming co m pa ny in the Arctic, proposed a joint venture with Inuit comm uni ti es and an O n ta rio university research group to set up a new company, Suvaaq Inc., to improve the c o m p a n y ’s existing broodstock that were based on previous D F O collections. Un de r the proposal, each o f seven participating Inuit co mm un iti es wo uld receive a 5 per cent equity stake in the new co m p a n y in exchange for sperm from six male Arctic charr from two separate stocks found in waters near the c ommunities. Icy Waters suggested that Inuit co mmuniti es would also benefit through education and practical experience in fish farming and access to genetically improved stocks as these were developed. T h e business proposal provided that each c o m m u n it y would own its original fish contribution but that hybrid lines resulting from cross breeding would be owned by Suvaaq (Mann, 1997). T h e proposed project would result in Icy Waters gaining access to a total o f 14 genetically distinct charr stocks through local communities. Final approval of the proposed project required consent from the communities ( th r o u g h local H u n t e r s and Trappers Associations), D F O and the N u n a v u t Wildlife M a n a g e m e n t Board (Ma nn, 1997). T h e latter body, established under the land claims agreement to oversee the protection and wise use o f wildlife and wildlife habitat for the benefit o f the Inuit and other residents, advises the govern­ ments o f N u n a v u t and Canada, which maintain decision-making authority. Th e n i n e - m e m b e r bo a rd includes f o ur I n u i t representatives an d f o u r from the Cana dian and N u n a v u t governments. Several difficult issues emerged during negotiations on the proposal. Local fish­ ermen worried that the sale of genetically improved farmed fish would have a negative effect on markets and prices for wild caught fish ( N u n a v u t Wildlife M a n a g e m e n t Board, 1998). Icy Waters attempted to allay this fear by suggesting t h at successful farm ing could benefit local fisheries by reducing co mmercial ha rvesting pressure on wild stocks, e n s u ri n g a valuable spo rt fishery, an d increasing c o n s u m e r awareness o f charr.3 O w n e r s h i p issues adde d a fu rth er co mpl icat ion. Thes e included no t only c oncerns a b o u t Suvaaq ownership o f successive generations of charr hybrids b ut also the possibility that the university research group might try to obtain a process patent based on genetic m ap p in g o f ch arr ( M a n n , 1997). M a p p i n g w o u l d a c c o m p a n y the collection o f genetic rcsourccs and was ncccssary in order to ascertain whether the gcnctic differences between the collected populations were significant. Finally, some Inuit expressed concern that the project showed a lack o f respect for charr and that the spirit o f the charr migh t take revenge on the Inuit people if the project went ahead, a not u n u s u a l s e n t i m e n t a m o n g native people w h o may accept tec hno lo gie s as a necessary evil yet still feel uncomfortable with the spiritual implications o f altering nature. Ultimately, co mmuniti es withheld their consent and the Wildlife M an ag e m en t Board turned do w n the proposal. Icy Waters was later able to obtain broodstock from two charr stocks from one c o m m u n it y that had consented to their collection prior to the land claims agreement, and the c o m pa n y still pays royalties to that community. These broodstock were subsequently cross-bred with the c o m p a n y ’s base stock.4

112

BLUE GENES

Icy Waters described the failed neg otiations as expensive a n d ti m e - c o n s u m i n g , com pli cate d by the difficulty o f dealing w ith several different levels o f authority, the need to negotiate with several c o m m u n i t i e s over a vast land area, a high level o f c o n f u s io n a b o u t the im p li c a t io n s o f fish farm in g, a n d a long h is to r y o f local suspicion o f s o u th e r n interests. S o m e o f the issues th a t characterized the Icy Waters neg otiations - such as the p a t e n t i n g o f p r o d u c ts a n d processes - surface frequently in neg otiations o f agree­ m e n ts for access to genetic resources. However , the Icy W aters exa m ple also illus­ trates th a t collectors o f aquatic genetic resources m a y face extra c o m plications t h a t are unlikely to occ ur in ne goti ations for access to plant genetic resources. For example, the need for genetic diversity o f b r o o d s t o c k m ay necessitate neg otiations w ith several c o m m u n i t i e s over a wide area (because genetic differences, at least in s alm onids, usually rcflcct geographic sep ar ation) , a n d in different g o v e r n m e n t ju ri s d ic tio n s , a d d i n g to th e cost a n d c o m p l e x i t y o f n e g o tia t io n s . I n d i g e n o u s c o m m u n i t i e s m a y also hold spiritual beliefs th a t create significant con ce rns a b o u t the m o v e m e n t o f fish from their n atur al h a b it a t - in ad d iti o n to potential e n v i r o n ­ m e n t a l c o n c e r n s a b o u t i n t r o d u c t i o n o f fish i n t o areas w h e r e t h e y are n o t indig enous. Suspicion or confus ion a b o u t possible effects o f fish far m ing on local fishing ec on om ie s is c o m m o n , and will also h a m p e r negotiations. A n d because g o v e r n m e n t policies for fish conservation a n d use are still at the stage where the genetic fine s tr uctu re o f fish p o p u la t io n s is poorly represented (and, in fairness, usually n o t even k n o w n ) , the g r o u n d -r u l e s are often less clear th a n in the plant world. T h e Icy Waters case is typical in th a t gcnetic m a p p i n g o f the collected stocks w o u ld have taken place as they were collected. In o th e r wor ds, the genetic distinctness o f the resources in ques tion was n o t even k n o w n . W h a t chiefly distinguishes the c o m m u n i t i e s involved in the Icy Water s nego tia­ tions from m a n y others in the w or ld is t h a t they have substantial degree o f control over the o f use their genetic resources a n d the clearly recognized a u t h o r it y to w i t h h o l d consent. M o s t in dig enous a n d local c o m m u n i t i e s a r o u n d the w o r ld (and in C a n a d a , for tha t m atter) have no such authority. T h i s is o ne a m o n g m a n y factors c o m p licatin g the efforts o f cou ntr ies to develop access laws a n d policies th a t ack now ledge in a m ea n in g f u l way the i m p o r t a n c e o f involving local a n d indigenou s c o m m u n i t i e s in decisions regarding applications for access.

C h a p te r 4

Thinking Locally: Rights o f Indigenous and Local Communities

Sorting orn am ental fish after the night’s catch, Rio Negro, B razil (Photo by D a v id Greer)

114

BLUE GENES

T r a d it io n a l c o m m u n i t y p r a c t ic e s a n d BIODIVERSITY CONSERVATION T h e C B D cam e into being because the countries at the 1992 U n it e d N a t io n s C o n f e r e n c e on E n v i r o n m e n t a n d D e v e l o p m e n t ( U N C E D ) a c k n o w l e d g e d the nee d to c o n s e r v e g l o b a l b i o d i v e r s i t y for th e w e l l - b e i n g o f h u m a n i t y . T h e c o n v e n ti o n notes the im p o r t a n c e o f helpin g in d ig en o u s and local c o m m u n i t i e s m a in ta in tradition al knowled ge a n d practices relevant to con se rvation, a n d recog­ nizes the need to en co urag e the eq uitable sharing o f benefits derived from the use o f c o m m u n i t y k n ow ledge and innovations. A c k n o w le d g in g the rights o f c o m m u n i t i e s to c o ntrol access to genetic resources a n d receive m e a n i n g f u l benefits is n o t sim ply a q u e s ti o n o f fair t r e a t m e n t or political p r ag m atis m . T h e sim ple fact is th a t rural a n d in d ig e n o u s c o m m u n i t i e s also have the m o t i v a t i o n a n d the k n o w l e d g e to m a k e c o n s e rv a tio n h a p p e n provided they have the a u th o r ity to w at ch o u t for the health o f local ecosystems a n d the w h erew itha l to m ak e a sustainable living from th e m . A n d therein lies the p roble m . Studies in Latin America, Africa, and the Asia-Pacific region have not ed th a t global biodiversity is m o st highly c o n c e n tr a te d in areas i nhabited by long-term c o m m u n i t i e s , m a n y o f w h i c h have d e v e lo p e d stable a n d sust ain able resource m a n a g e m e n t systems (Posey, 1993). T h e same areas also c ontain a high c o n c e n ­ tration o f p o o r c o m m u n i t i e s . E c o n o m i c des peration is a powerful disincentive to cons erva tion where the choice is b etw een p rote ctin g nature a n d feeding the family. T h i s is n o w h e r e m o re true t h a n in fishing c o m m u n i t i e s , w h ic h figure p r o m i n e n t l y in any list o f the p o o r e s t c o m m u n i t i e s in the w o r l d ( F A O , 199 8). E a ti n g or b artering the last sea turtle egg is still preferable to starving, no m a tt e r h o w m a n y conservation N G O s w o u l d like you to stop. T h e r e are d ang ers to r o m a n t i c i z i n g th e historical re latio nship o f rural and indigenous c o m m u n i t i e s w ith their natural e n v i r o n m e n t, and to oversimplifying changes to th a t relationship. Nevertheless, it remains tr ue th a t m a n y indigenous a n d local c o m m u n i t i e s hold a rich store o f k now ledge a b o u t the m a n a g e m e n t o f biodiversity a n d h o w to sustain the ecosystems th a t s u p p o r t it. C o m m u n i t i e s tha t have been devastated by the loss o f a u t o n o m y a n d by s u b s e q u e n t poverty m a y still m a in ta i n practiccs th at m a k e an i m p o r t a n t c o n t r ib u t i o n to biodiversity co nser ­ v a t i o n . It is i m p o r t a n t also to r e m e m b e r t h a t c o m m u n i t y c o n s e r v a t i o n app ro ach es, m e t h o d s a n d priorities in conservation m a y be very different from t h o s e p r o m o t e d by n a t i o n a l agen cies . T h i s d o e s n o t m e a n t h a t t r a d i t i o n a l c o m m u n i t y conservation practices are less effective, b u t m a y sim ply reflect the fact t h a t local cus tom derives from a different knowle dg e base a n d is less subject to influence from com plex a n d c o m p e t i n g political agendas.

THINKING LOCALLY: RIGHTS OF INDIGENOUS AND LOCAL COMMUNITIES

115

B o x 4 . 1 M a n a g i n g F i s h er ie s A b u n d a n c e : T r a d i t i o n s o f t h e N u u - c h a h - n u l t h in Br i ti s h C o l u m b i a The N uu-chah-nulth people s of C a n a d a ’s west coast once enjoyed a stable and prosperous e c o n o m y b a s e d on an intricate k n o w le d g e , d e v e lo p e d over th o u s a n d s of years, of the natural cycle s of marine life. In February, families m oved into the inlets for the herring sp awn. Spring was the best time for halibut fishing and seal hunting and b ro u g h t the migrations of h u m p b a c k and gray whales, which the N uu-chah-nulth hunted by canoe. In mid sum m er, the focus turned to salmon returning to s paw n in the rivers and streams of C la yo q u o t Sound first the sockeye, and later chinook and chum. T hroughout the year, re gardle ss of what other foods were available, shellfish were always abu n da n t. The N uu-chah-nulth passed their k n o w le d g e of marine sp e cies from one generation to another through an elaborate system of songs, d a n ce s, m asks and m e dicin al arts that were prote cte d as inherited family rights. Equally im p ortan t in ensuring the careful m a n a g e m e n t of resources w as the system of p roperty rights. An e xtended family lived in a house under the leadership of a chief who acte d as custodian of salmon streams and other resources. Rather than conce n tra tin g wealth, the structure of rights was d e sig ne d to ensure the sharing of resources throughout the community. The position of chief w as consid ere d to be more a responsibility than a privilege. This was reflected in the potlatch ceremony, in which e la b ­ orate gift givin g d e m o n s tra te d the wealth and prestige of a chief, but more importantly, e n c o u ra g e d the continuing distribution of wealth throughout the community. By the late 19th century, the C an a dia n g o v e rn m e n t had ban n e d the potlatch, removed Nuu-chah-nulth children to residential schools to e n co u ra g e their assimilation into C anadian society, and confined the N uu-chah-nulth peo p le to small ‘reserves’, limiting their a c c e s s to the fisheries that had sustained their e c o n o m y for m a n y th ou sa n d s of years. Today the Nuuchah-nulth, like many other w est co a st ind ig enous people s, are involved in lengthy land claim s negotiations with the provincial and federal governm ents. These negotiations will help define the nature and extent of a b o rigin al rights already recognized by the co urts and in the C a nadian Constitution (Ecotrust C a n a da , 1997). In the meantim e, ind ige n o us com m unitie s remain, by and large, the poorest in C a n a da . Traditional practice s are far more prevalent in some com m unitie s, especially in d e veloping countries, than in others. In co m m o n with many other in d ig e no u s p e op les that d e p e n d on fisheries, the Nuu-chah-nulth in recent years have formed m a n a g e m e n t partnership s with other fisheries stakeholders to take a d v a n ta g e of m a n y of the scientific tools of fisheries m a n ag e m e n t, including sophisticated research te ch n iq u e s such as DNA fingerprinting and gene banking of salmon stocks. Hatcheries, which run counter to some in d ig e no u s beliefs, are nevertheless a tool used by several First Nations in the N uu-chah-nulth Tribal Council; even s a lm o n fa r m in g , c o n tr o v e rs ia l t h r o u g h o u t the w e s t c o a s t of C a n a d a , has b e e n a c c e p te d by some g ro u p s within the council. O bviously ind ige n o us co m m un itie s cann o t simply return to a simpler time when re sp e ct for nature h a p p e n e d to c o in cid e with a b u n ­ da n ce , and there is not always unanim ity on how to re s p e ct traditional beliefs and p ractices while living in m od e rn times.

T he poverty barrier in fishing communities T h e poverty o f m a n y traditional c o m m u n i t i e s is rooted in the loss o f ow ne rs hip or co ntrol over traditional lands, especially in developing countries. In m a n y cases, land held in c o m m o n by villagers or in dig en ou s peoples has t h r o u g h o u t history been taken over by g o v e rn m e n ts or lost to colonial powers, local elites or military juntas. O f t e n the result has been the loss o f traditionally sustainable livelihoods a n d a resulting d e p e n d e n c e on out side eco nom ies. T h i s in t ur n has often led to the b r eak -u p o f traditional c o m m u n i t i e s or the erosion o f traditional cultures as rural

116

BI.UE GENES

p eo ple m ig ra te to cities o r struggle to m a i n ta i n e c o n o m i c a n d c u ltu ra l stability against th e pressure o f d o m i n a n t cu ltu res a n d in th e face o f d e p le tio n o f or lack o f acccss to tr a d itio n a l rcsourccs. T h e p a tt e rn rccurs tim e a n d again. In the P h ilip p in e s, a 1 9 9 2 survey by th e N a tio n a l Statistics O ffice f o u n d that 9 5 .3 per c e n t o f 7 1 8 , 2 6 7 fishing families in the c o u n t r y were in th e lo w -in c o m e g r o u p ( H e r r i n a n d Racelis, 1 9 9 2 ). T h e w id e sp r e a d d e g r a d a t io n o f freshw ater, m a r in e a n d coastal resources, a low level o f e d u c a t io n , lack o f skills for p a rtic i­ p a tin g in altern ativ e livelihoods, a n d lack o f political e m p o w e r m e n t all c o n tr ib u t e to th e p o v e rty o f fishin g c o m m u n i t i e s . A n y a t t e m p t to ad d re ss p o v e rty m u s t address all o f these issues. In so m e cases, po verty m a y have origins in th e loss o f tr a d itio n a l lands; in o thers it m a y be a result o f o verfish ing by ro a m in g in d u s tria l fishing fleets th a t d e p o p ­ ulate local stocks in an y n u m b e r o f c o m m u n it ie s . O f t e n landlessncss a n d over­ f i s h i n g are li n k e d in a v ic i o u s cycle. In B a n g l a d e s h , m a n y ru r a l f i s h in g c o m m u n i t i e s have lost th e i r lan d s to c o n v e rs io n for a g ri c u lt u ra l p u r p o s e s by ‘p a tr o n classes’. T h i s loss o f land has led to a greater reliance on fish for fo od , a n d th e resulting overfishing has d ep le te d fish stocks in rivers, lakes a n d p o n d s , a n d d a m a g e d a q u a t i c e c o s y s te m s . I n c r e a s i n g la n d l e s s n e s s a n d p o v e r t y h av e also resulted in th e in c id e n ta l loss o f tr a d itio n a l p o n d a q u a c u ltu re , as p o o re r farmers can no lo ng er afford to grow th e larger carp species t h a t form th e m a in sta y o f the a q u a c u l tu re n e tw o r k (Lewis et al, 1996). F ro m o n e p erspe ctiv e, th e r e c u r rin g p a t t e r n o f p o v e rty a n d lan dlessness o f fishing c o m m u n i t i e s m a y s im p ly be a cold historical reality - the w a y o f the w o rld . O b v io u s ly issues o f poverty, d o m i n a t i o n a n d e x p lo ita tio n have n e it h e r easy ex pla ­ n a tio n s n o r easy so lu tio n s. The im p a c t o f trad e liberalization on p o v e rty has been th e su b ject o f in te n se d e b a te in recent years. A lth o u g h p r o p o n e n t s o f trad e liberal­ ization argue t h a t rural c o m m u n i t i e s will b e n e fit th r o u g h the trickle d o w n effect o f lower prices, o th ers (eg M adeley, 2 0 0 0 ) are equ ally a d a m a n t t h a t liberalizing trad e rules has re d u c e d food security a n d exacerb ated p ov erty in d e v e lo p in g c o u n ­ tries in a d d it io n to lo o s en in g e n v i r o n m e n t a l p ro te c tio n reg ulation s. T h e y argue th a t ra th e r t h a n m o v i n g the w o rld to w ard s sustain able d e v e lo p m e n t, trade liberal­ iza tio n has in fact h a m p e r e d it, a n d th a t th e real s o l u ti o n lies in revitalizing c o m m u n it ie s . O n 23 S e p te m b e r 2 0 0 0 , T h e E conom ist argu ed in an ed itorial t h a t trade liberal­ ization can o n ly b e n e fit the p o o r by a d v a n c in g th e s h a rin g o f te c h n o lo g y a n d e n c o u r a g i n g h ig h e r in c o m e s. It c o n c lu d e d t h a t reversing th e tr e n d s o f g lo b a l­ izatio n w o u l d b e ‘an u n p a r a l le l e d c a ta s tr o p h e for th e p l a n e t ’s m o s t d e s p e r a te p eop le, a n d s o m e t h i n g t h a t c o u ld be achie ved ... o n ly by t r a m p l in g d o w n in d i ­ vid ual liberty o n a d a u n t i n g scale’. T h e real q u e s tio n here is w h e th e r ind iv id u al lib erty o r th e lib e rty o f c o m m u n i t i e s to c o n t r o l th e i r o w n e n v i r o n m e n t a n d e c o n o m i c o p p o r t u n i t i e s is m o r e likely to alleviate poverty. C o m m u n i t y advocates w h o criticize th e i m p a c t o f g lo b alizatio n are q u ic k to p o i n t o u t th a t th e ro ots o f p ov erty o ften lie in th e loss o f c o n tr o l over resources a n d the loss o f susta inab le livelihoods as a result o f d e p e n d e n c e on a m a r k e t e c o n o m y a n d legal system th a t elevates in d iv id u a l rights over w h a t is g oo d for the c o m m u n it y . As Berlin (1 9 9 7 ) notes, p e o p le are b e in g asked to replace the idea o f th e c o m m o n w ith th e c o n c e p t

THINKING LOCALLY: RIGHTS OF INDIGENOUS AND LOCAL COMMUNITIES

117

o f individual well-being, rather t ha n simpl y giving o n e m o re emphasis t h an the other, with the result th at individual citizens feel estranged from their c o m m u n i t y to the d e t r i m e n t o f both. Providing in di ge no us a n d local c o m m u n i t i e s w it h the m ea ns an d incentive for effective biodiversity conservation c a n n o t be achieved unless the poverty cycle is br o k en . Sharing benefits from the use o f aquatic genetic resources can be a useful tool for i m p r o vi n g the e c o n o m i c and social well-being o f c o m m u n i t i e s provided that benefits are carefully designed to address the root causes o f poverty rather than the s y m p t o m s . Benefits th at achieve this objective m a y be n o n - m o n e t a r y - for e x a m p l e , p r o g r a m m e s to p r o m o t e a lt e r n a t i v e fisheries liv e li h o o d s t h a t are sustainable a n d stre ng th e n the social fabric o f a c o m m u n i t y . A c o m m u n i t y that has the right to i n fo r m e d c o ns ent to the collection o f aquatic genetic resources m u s t also have the right to dccidc w h a t type o f benefits it wishes to negotiate, b u t g o v e rn m e n ts designing benefit-sharing fram ewo rks sh ou ld take the initiative to plan for a broad range th at takes into a c c o u n t the relationship between poverty an d threats to conservation. T h e sustainable d e v e l o p m e n t deba te makes it clear t h a t the role o f traditional c o m m u n i t i e s m u s t be reconsidered for the sake o f fu ture e c o n o m i c a n d social security. Increasing their ability a n d incentives to ensure conservation o f aquatic genetic resources will ultimately d e p e n d on innovative solutions that d e p a rt from past practices, including: • • • • •

Re storation or e n h a n c e m e n t o f rights o f access a n d ow ne rs hip wher e possible. M e a n i n g f u l pa rti cip ati on in aq uatic genetic resource m a n a g e m e n t decisions an d policy d e v e lo p m en t. Ap p ro p ria te m ec h a n is m s for m a i n t a i n i n g a n d pr o te c ti n g traditional kn owledge o f genetic resources. Policies on i n fo r m e d c o n s en t for access to aquatic genetic resources an d e q u i ­ table benefits. C ap ac ity to develop sustainable fisheries livelihoods.

W om en’s participation in com m unity fisheries W o m e n d o m i n a t e key subsectors in fisheries (T o w n s e n d , 1998). A l t h o u g h the pa rticip ation o f w o m e n in c o m m u n i t y fisheries m ay be less visible t ha n th at o f the m e n w h o b r in g in the catch, it is usually significant, w h e t h e r it involves net m e n d i n g , processing, m ar k e ti n g or catch ing fish. In the freshwater o r n a m e n ta l industry, for example, w o m e n m ay play an active role in the collection o f fish. A s tu d y in Malawi f o u n d th at a b o u t 30 per ce n t o f fish processors along Lake Malawi are w o m e n a n d 21 per cent o f fish farmers in the c o u n t r y are w o m e n ( B r u m m e t t , 19 9 4 ) . In B a n g l a d e s h , n o t e s W h i t e ( 1 9 9 2 ) , t h e p a r t i c i p a t i o n o f w o m e n in m ar k e ti n g has c onsistently been und e re st im at e d; w o m e n s mo bil ity has restricted their pa rticipa tion in the marketplace b u t has n o t necessarily con str ain ed their activities in less visible m a r k e t t r a n s a c t i o n s , w h e r e t h e y m a y play an en trepreneurial role. In p o o r rural h ou se ho lds in co untries like the Philippines,

118

BLUE GENES

w o m e n in fishing villages may under take multiple fishing-related activities in addition to household m an ag em en t (Illo and Polo, 1990). Some critics o f globalization suggest that trade liberalization has acccntuatcd gender inequality in developing countries and has generally had a negative impact on the lives of w o m en involved in food production in developing co untry c o m m u ­ nities. Madeley (2000) notes that in most African countries, women produce 60 to 75 per cent o f food and have been disproportionately affected by the drying up of credit and the surge of food imports resulting from trade liberalization. Migration o f male workers in some countries has generally increased the workload o f wom en carrying both domestic and ec onomic responsibilities. Vandana Shiva (2000) c o m m e n t s that, u nder economic globalization, w o m e n w ho produce for their families and c o m m u n it ie s are treated as ‘n o n - p r o d u c t i v e ’ and ‘econo m ically’ inactive. In her view, the devaluation o f w o m e n ’s work, and o f work done in sustainable economies, is the natural outcom e o f a system constructed by a capi­ talist patriarchy. Because many wom en in the rural and indigenous communities work with nature’s processes, their work is often contradictory to the d o m in a n t market-driven ‘d e v e lo p m e n t’ and trade policies. ‘Feeding the w o r l d ’ becomes disassociated from the wom en w ho actually do it and is projected as dependent on global agribusiness and biotechnology corporations. Townsend (1998) notes that concerns about gender discrimination include the propensity ot development agencies to focus on male activities. He suggests that plans for development in any sector, including fisheries, must take account of differences in gender roles and the fact that the relative lack of influence of wom en in decision-making makes them particularly vulnerable. In the design of benefits for fishing com munities - especially benefits oriented towards the prom ot io n of sustainable livelihoods - it will be im p o rtan t to ensure that w o m e n ’s as well as m e n ’s livelihoods are taken into account. And in the end, it is probably less import an t that everyone involved in some aspect o f fishing on the Sao Francisco River in Brazil be called a ‘fisher’ than that the w om en processing and marketing the fish have their labour officially recognized as contributing to the pension that is every Brazilian’s right.

D i s tin c tiv e cu ltu re s o f fish in g c o m m u n i t i e s A study commissioned by FAO (2001) found that the degree to which fisheries m an ag em en t practices and policies strengthen or weaken small-scale co m m u n i ty fisheries is directly related to the level o f un der standing of c o m m u n i ty fishing cultures. T h e study found that communities that have relied on fishing through many generations generally share two characteristics: • Small-scale fish er m en develop i n t im a t e , detailed, a n d f u n c t i o n - o r i e n t e d knowledge ab ou t the aquatic systems in which they operate and a bout the specics of importance to them. • Participation in fishing often involves the entire community. While the primary producers are usually men, women play a dual role in household maintenance

THINKING LOCALLY: RIGHTS OF INDIGENOUS AND LOCAL COMMUNITIES

119

an d in fish processing, m arketing and d istrib utio n. T h e systematic division o f la bour also includes roles for children a n d the elderly. C o m m u n it ie s take a collective app ro a ch n o t only to the sharing o f lab o u r b u t also to the sharing o f the catch and the d e v e lo p m e n t o f systems o f co m m u n ity -b a se d m a n a g e m e n t, w h ich m ay be very different from ‘scientifically based’ m a n a g e m e n t by g o v e r n m e n t au tho rity. By focu sing on ind iv id u al ra th e r th a n c o m m u n i t y interests an d on conservation o f stocks o f im p o rta n c e to outside com m ercial fish­ erm en , g o v e rn m e n t policies m ay d is ru p t c o m m u n it y m a n a g e m e n t systems. A n y th in g th a t affects tr aditional fisheries systems is likely to affect the entire c o m m u n ity . Small-scale fishing cultures ad apt to risks and un certainties by taking a conservative ap p ro a ch to fishing, m a in ta in in g o ccu p atio n al pluralism , estab­ lishing share p a y m e n t o ccup atio nal systems, and developing beliefs, taboos and cerem onies th at s u p p o r t the m a in te n a n c e o f tr aditional fishing livelihoods. The d isru p tio n o f small-scale fisheries by h ig h-tech no lo gy co m p e titio n often leads to a vicious cycle o f fisheries depletion , poverty, and loss o f cultural identity. O v er harvesting by ‘ou tsid e’ fisherm en u n d e r state licensing frequently destroys tr aditional livelihoods. In a d d itio n , m a n y c o m m u n itie s lose access to their trad i­ tional fishing gro un ds. T h e progression o f industrial d e v e lo p m e n t tow ards isolated co m m u n itie s adds the threat o f po llution o f aquatic ecosystems in ad d itio n to o p e n in g up access routes from the o utside world. Even coastal tourism industries can co n tr ib u te to the d isru p tio n o f tradition al econom ies. T h e increasing d e p e n ­ dence o f fishing c o m m u n itie s on outside w o rk a nd d istan t markets can further erode lifestyles an d cultures. C o m m u n i t i e s dispersed alon g coastlines and m a in ly d e p e n d e n t on m arin e ecosystems close to h o m e are particularly vulnerable to resource d epletion. T h e limited political pow er o f small c o m m u n itie s makes th em particularly vulnerable to external threats, especially from large-scale fisheries th at m ay get substantial subsidies from the h o m e co u n tr y or m ay even be foreign vessels. T h e inability o f p o o r c o m m u n i t y fisherm en to o b ta in fin an cing for technological in no v atio n s c o n s t r a in s th e i r a b ility to re m a in c o m p e t it iv e a n d is o fte n a n o t h e r facto r c o n tr ib u tin g to poverty. T h e scenario o f fishing c o m m u n itie s being deprived o f tradition al, collcctive fishing lifestyles a n d cultures, an d lacking the m ea ns to ada pt to com p etitiv e m ark et econom ies is all too c o m m o n . Lewis et al (1996) shows how the p roblem o f m ain ta in in g tr aditional lifestyles is n ot restricted to capture fisheries. M a n y trad itio n al p o n d farmers in Bangladesh, one o f the p oorest countries in the w orld, have lost their livelihoods as a result o f state su p p o r t for ‘m ore valuable’ agricultural p ro d u c tio n o f m o n o c u ltu r e d crops. Rural fish farmers have had little say in the tran sfo rm atio n o f p o n d s to farm land, because they rarely ow n the land. T h o s e losing their livelihoods include n o t only p o n d farmers a nd their families b u t also the people w h o collect the wild fingerlings n e e d e d to s u p p ly th e m . P o n d farm s t h a t surv ive t e n d to be ru n by large landow ners a nd su pp ly m o re lucrative urb an markets rather tha n the needs o f rural local co m m u n ities . D e v e lo p m e n t projects to im prove fisheries livelihoods may have un an ticip ate d negative effects if tr aditional cultural practices are n o t taken into accou nt. A case

i 20

BLUE GENES

stud y by J Kurien (FA O, 2 0 0 1 ) describes the decline in the well-being o f c o m m u ­ nities in a coastal region o f India as a result o f policies s u p p o r tin g the expansion o f a m o d e r n shrim p ex po rting industry. Previously, acccss to fisheries and the allo­ cation o f fisheries resources had been regulated by c o m m u n a l traditions and in sti­ t u t i o n s t h a t e m p h a s iz e d th e s h a r in g o f se afo o d a n d o f in c o m e s , as w ell as p r o m o t i n g c o m m u n i t y - b a s e d p a r t i c i p a t i o n in fisheries m a n a g e m e n t an d pro vid ing an effective m eans o f conflict resolution. N o t only did sh rim p exporting provide com paratively little e m p lo y m e n t, b u t it resulted in the degradatio n o f m arin e ecosystems, a c o n s e q u e n t red u ctio n in trad itio n a l catches, an d loss o f e m p l o y m e n t for w o m e n in sea fo o d m a r k e ts . O t h e r d e v e l o p m e n t efforts, p ro m o tin g co m petitive individualism o rien ted to m arkets rather the c o m m u n itie s themselves, led to the erosion o f cultural traditions th at had long gu ided social and e co n o m ic life in the region, resulting in new social an d political divisions. T e chnological advances can be b lam ed for m u c h o f th e d a m a g e to aqu atic ecosystems in the past. Fisheries policy makers are gradually m ov ing towards an ecosystem-based ap pro ach rather th an sim ply focusing on com m ercially valuable species. However, pro tecting the interests o f c o m m u n itie s and small-scale fishing may be as i m p o r t a n t as protectin g aquatic ecosystems, and indeed will likely hold the key to ecosystem health in the long run . T h e real challenge for policy makers will be how to do so in the face o f pressures from large-scale fisheries operations a n d in political systems th at are driven by the g u idin g principles o f individual c o m p e titio n a n d e c o n o m ic grow th. T h e im p o r t a n t role o f tr aditional c o m m u n i t y practices in m ain ta in in g aquatic biodiversity has been clearly recognized in the C B D and oth er intern atio nal agree­ m ents, and it is arguable that future fisheries policies sh ou ld m ake the p r o m o tio n o f the well-being o f small-scale fishing c o m m u n itie s their first priority. Even if this d o e s n ’t o cc u r, it will be c ru cia l to design po licies ( b o t h for b io d iv e rsity m a n a g e m e n t and for access to genetic resources) th a t are beneficial to small-scale c o m m u n it y fisheries. A t the very least, this will require paying close a tten tio n to the cultural characteristics o f fishing c o m m u n itie s , m a k in g every effort to revi­ talize tr aditional m a n a g e m e n t practices an d know ledge systems, an d p r o m o tin g participation in policy making. A few o f the new n ational laws and regional guidelines on acccss to gcnctic resources (discussed in C h a p t e r 5) m a k e a p o i n t o f g u a r a n t e e in g access for in d ig e n o u s an d local c o m m u n it ie s to biological resources in th e ir territories. C o n stra in ts on access have long been a sore p o in t in fishing c o m m u n itie s th a t have effectively been denied access u n d e r fisheries regulations. C o m m u n i t i e s w hose tr aditional fishing cultures and practices have erod ed d u rin g recent decades may also need assistance restoring and e n h a n c in g small-scale fisheries. N a tio n a l access policies and access agreem ents can help the d e v e lo p m e n t o f sustainable fisheries livelihoods in con cert w ith oth er benefits such as the im p ro v e m e n t o f c o m m u n it y health an d education.

THINKING LOCALLY: RIGHTS OF INDIGENOUS AND LOCAL COMMUNITIES

In d ig e n o u s

view s o n

121

t h e c o llec tio n a n d use of

A Q UA T I C G E N E T I C RE S O UR CE S:

A workshop in Canada

If the right o f indigenous co m m u nities to provide or w ithhold acccss to gcnctic resources is taken for granted, as it is in several emerging national laws, then access policies and parties seeking to obtain access will need to respect indigenous views on the use o f aquatic genetic resources. O b ta in i n g c o n se nt from indigenous com m unities is n ot simply a matter o f negotiating acceptable benefits. Negotiators and policy makers need to be aware that, while indigenous peoples may bring a variety o f different perspectives to the negotiation table, their views on the use o f fish may be different from the ‘W estern’ concept o f resources to be gathered, b o u g h t and sold. In add itio n, indigenous approaches to negotiations may be complicated by broader concerns about indigenous rights. T h e tension between indigenous peoples and the C anadian governm ent is instructive in this respect. To date, collection o f aquatic gcnctic rcsourccs in the waters o f western and n orthern C anada has largely been restricted to obtaining broodstock for salmon farming and e nh anc em e nt o f wild stocks, with limited collection o f samples o f m arine organism s for screening by ph arm ac eutical c om panies. T h e rules for collection in traditional territories of indigenous peoples (now know n as First Nations) can be complicated. T h e federal governm ent has the authority to manage ocean resources (as well as sea-going fishes and their inland habitat), while other inland fisheries are the bailiwick o f provincial governments. A nyone (including First N ations people) wanting to collect fish germplasm or broodstock for aquaculturc or wild stock en han cem en t must: • Apply for and obtain a scientific collection p erm it from D F O , Canada. T h e p erm it identifies the stock or species that may be taken, where and when it may be collected, and the objectives o f the collection. • O b t a i n a p e r m it from the federal/p rov incial I n t r o d u c ti o n a nd Transfers C o m m itte e if the collector intends to move broodstock or germ plasm from one watershed to another. Although there is no formal requirem ent for collectors to consult with indigenous peoples before applying for a scicntific collcction perm it, D F O , C anada cxpccts them to do so. If a collector fails to provide p ro o f o f adequate consultation, it is unlikely that a perm it will be p rovided.1

H ow land claims negotiations affect access C anad a was the first country to ratify the C B D and soon afterwards established an ‘ad hoc op en -en d ed w orking g ro u p ’, including strong First N ation s represen­ ta tio n , to discuss ways o f i m p le m e n ti n g Article 8(j) - the re q u i r e m e n t for indigenous c o m m u n ity consent and benefit sharing. As First N ations become more familiar with C an ad a’s legal c o m m itm e n t to im plem ent the convention and

122

BI.UE GENES

Article 8(j), it is possible th a t they m ay use it as a bargain ing chip d u rin g treaty negotiations. T h e cu rre n t abscncc o f formal policy requiring First N a tio n s co nsen t to collec­ tions is in large p a rt a result o f the un certain ty s u r ro u n d in g these negotiations. W ith few exceptions, representatives o f colonial g ov ern m en ts did n o t negotiate treaties w ith ind igenous peoples in western C an a d a . Instead they a p prop ria ted in digenous lands a nd designated small 'reserves’ for First N atio n s peoples to live on. For the past several decades, the federal a nd provincial g ov ern m en ts have been engaged in a rdu ou s negotiations with m a ny First N a tio n s to negotiate treaty rights for ow nership a nd control o f tr aditional lands an d natural resources. C o n tr o l over access to fisheries in trad itio nal territories is alm ost always an issue on th e table. T h e first successful land claims agreem en ts were i m p le m e n te d in th e early 1990s w ith the In u it peoples o f n o rth e rn C a n a d a . T he se agreem ents provide for fisheries c o - m a n a g e m e n t b etw ee n the federal g o v e r n m e n t a n d the I n u i t and require prior inform ed c o nsent from ind igen ou s c o m m u n itie s for access to aquatic genetic resources. S u b seq u e n t n egotiations w ith o the r First N atio n s have proven to be far m o re c o m p l ic a t e d , pa rtially b ecause o f the c e n tral i n v o l v e m e n t o f p ro v in c ia l g o v e r n m e n t s ( n o r t h e r n C a n a d a , h o m e o f th e I n u i t, has always rem ain ed u n d e r the sole jurisdiction o f the federal g o vernm ent). T raditional terri­ tories claimed by First N a tio n s in British C o lu m b ia for th e purposes o f treaty negotiations, for example, cover alm ost the entire area o f C a n a d a ’s w esternm ost province.

First N a t i o n s priorities In 1999, W F T hosted a First N atio n s w o rk sh o p in Victoria, British C o lu m b ia , to discuss p rin cip les t h a t need to be tak en in to a c c o u n t in th e f o r m u la t io n of c o m m u n it y and g o v e rn m e n t policies on aquatic genetic resources m a n a g e m e n t an d access. Participants in clu ded fisheries co m m issio n representatives from seven First N a tio n s in British C o lu m b ia , Yukon Territory and the N o rth w e st Territories: C arrier-Sekani, G itxsan, Haisla, N isga’a, Shusw ap, Teslin-Tlingit and Inuviaiuit. Also a t t e n d i n g w ere re p r e se n ta tiv e s o f th e Y u ko n S a lm o n C o m m i t t e e a n d N o r th w e s t T e rrito ry Fisheries J o i n t M a n a g e m e n t C o m m i t t e e , b o th o f w h ich include ind igenous m em bers. W h i l e th e re was c o n s e n s u s o n s o m e issues, w o r k s h o p p a r t i c i p a n t s w ere re lu c ta n t to agree on a set o f princip les w i t h o u t th e approval o f th e ir elders. Instead, they suggested th a t the w o rk sh o p be used as an o p p o r t u n it y to identify starting points for furth er discussion a m o n g First N atio n s a b o u t access policies. T h e w o rk sh o p focused primarily on five questions: • • • • •

W h a t are aquatic genetic resources? H o w sho uld they be used? Sho uld they be m oved from their place o f origin? H o w sho uld tr aditional know ledge be treated? H o w should First N atio n s deal with requests for access?

THINKING LOCALLY: RIGHTS OF INDIGENOUS AND LOCAL COMMUNITIES

123

T h e fo ll o w i n g is a s u m m a r y o f key p o i n t s m a d e by p a r t i c i p a n t s , a n d pr ov id e s a va lua bl e in si gh t in to th e i n d i g e n o u s view o f ge ne tic resources.

W hat are aquatic genetic resources? •

• •

A q u a t i c g e ne tic resources i n c l u d e all a q u a t i c b iological diversity, fr e s h w a t er a n d m a r i n e , living a n d n o n - li v in g . T h e elders say we c a n ’t sep ara te th e living f ro m the n o n - l i v i n g in th e w e b o f life. D i s t i n g u i s h i n g b e t w e e n ‘l iv i n g ’ a n d n o n - l i v i n g ’ r es o u r c es is artificial - we c o n s i d e r all t h i n g s to have life; even th e e a rt h is alive w i t h m i c r o - o r g a n i s m s . C a l l i n g a q u a t i c c rea tur es ‘resou rc es’ suggests a h i e r a r c h y t h a t is n o t p a r t o f o u r beli efs . W e c o e x i s t w i t h all c r e a t u r e s a n d l o o k o n t h e m as e q u a l s - n o t ‘resources'. I ns te a d o f b e i n g asked to a d a p t o u r t h i n k i n g to th e ‘E u r o p e a n ’ way, we s h o u l d ask th e i n t e r n a t i o n a l c o m m u n i t y to a d a p t t h e i r t h i n k i n g to th e i n d i g e n o u s way. I m a g i n e r e pl a ci ng ‘a q u a t i c g e ne tic r es ou rc es ’ w i t h ‘p e o p l e ’ —we d o n ’t p u t o n e in a u t h o r i t y over th e ot her . T h a t c o n c e p t ne e ds to be fully u n d e r ­ s to o d .

W hat uses o f aquatic genetic resources are acceptable? •

•

• •

•

•

•

T h e f u r t h e r y o u m o v e t o w a r d s D N A i d e n t i f i c a t i o n , th e f u r t h e r y o u m o v e f ro m a n i n d i g e n o u s p e r s p e c t i v e . C a t e g o r i z i n g o r g a n i s m s i n t o s m a l l b o x e s is a ‘E u r o p e a n ' , n o t a n i n d i g e n o u s , a p p r o a c h . E c o s y s te m s are c o m p l e x , a n d policies for m a n a g i n g c rea tur es m u s t s h o w an u n d e r s t a n d i n g o f th e w h o l e - n o t j u st the pieces. W h e n p e o p l e talk a b o u t s p e rm cells a n d ge ne tic resources, w e see fish. T h e e n v i r o n m e n t is like a w h o l e b o d y - if y o u r e m o v e a toe, t h e n yo u ha ve to learn to wa lk again. Us es o f a q u a t i c g e n e t i c r e s o u r c e s m u s t r e s p e c t all c o m p o n e n t s o f a q u a t i c bi ological diversity. G e n e t i c resources c o m e f ro m living be ings, a n d we have b e e n t a u g h t n o t to in te rfe re w i t h a n i m a l s at t h a t level. A n i m a l s a n d fish m u s t be t r e a t e d w i t h respect. T h i s ha s i m p l i c a t i o n s for e v e r y t h i n g f r o m h a n d l i n g fish to g e n e tic t ra n s fe r s . M a n y i n d i g e n o u s p e o p l e be lie ve t h a t g c n c t i c m a n i p u l a t i o n a n d m o v i n g fish a w a y f ro m th ei r n a t u r a l t e r r it o ry is th e h i g h e s t f o r m o f disrespect. R e m o v i n g g e n e tic resources a n d raising fish in c u l t u r e is ag ain st th e beliefs o f th e elders be c au s e t h e y d o n ’t have th e p o w e r to ‘give a w a y ’ g e n e ti c resources. If t h e y go a l o n g w i t h it a n d receive s o m e b e n e fi t, it’s o n l y be c au s e it m i g h t h a p p e n b e h i n d t h e i r ba cks if t h e y d i d n ’t. G e n e b a n k i n g is a u s e f u l w a y o f r e h a b i l i t a t i n g d e c l i n i n g s t o c k s , b u t t h e e m p h a s i s s h o u l d be o n c o n s e r v a t i o n - b a s e d fish m a n a g e m e n t , based o n g e n e tic d i v e r s it y , r a t h e r t h a n o n t h e y i e l d - b a s e d m a n a g e m e n t a p p r o a c h t h a t g o v e r n m e n t uses. M a i n t a i n i n g g e ne tic diversity is in tegral to i n d i g e n o u s rights a n d title. W e n e e d to increase e s c a p e m e n t o f stock s to t r a d i t i o n a l fisheries areas i nst ea d o f f o c u s i n g o n l y o n areas o f hea vy c o m m e r c i a l use. W h i l e s u p p l e m e n t a t i o n o f

124

BLUE GENES

stocks is acceptable, o u r people are o p p o sed to genetic alteration or m a n i p u ­ lation. • It is questionable w h e th e r gcnctic m aterial sh ou ld be used to restore an extinct species. Species evolve naturally to a d ap t to chan gin g co n d itio n s - a nd som e n a tu rally disappear. To u n d e r s t a n d the tr a d itio n a l persp ectiv e we need to include ourselves. W e are n o t above the salm on - yet we w o uld n't store o u r own D N A in case o u r people b eco m e extinct. • It is im p o r t a n t to consider w h e th e r genetic materials should be collected at all. As soon as we start collecting th e m , we create the po tential for c om p an ies to co m e in and scoop th em up.

S h o u ld g e n e tic reso u rces b e m o v e d f r o m th e ir p la c e o f o rig in ? • •

•

G e n e tic resources are inextricably linked to their origins. G en etic materials sh ou ld n o t be used anyw here outside the w atershed from w hich they are taken. G o v e r n m e n t agencies a nd gro up s that collect fish m ake decisions on where to tr a n s p la n t stocks based solely on m a n a g e m e n t perspectives w ith o u t always considering genetic im plications. In d ige no us c o m m u n itie s m u s t have a say in where the material goes. T h o s e w h o co ntrol access have a responsibility to people elsewhere. G reat Lakes natives say we have a responsibility to m ake sure no m o re Pacific salm on stocks get into A tlantic areas. W e also hear concerns a b o u t A tlantic salm on being moved into the Pacific. T h e position of First N ation s, as articulated by the British C o lu m b ia Aboriginal Fisheries C o m m iss io n , has been to op pose the i n t r o d u c t io n o f exotics. W i t h i n th e freshw ater d o m a i n , sim ilar o p p o sitio n could reasonably be expected with respect to Arctic charr.

H o w s h o u ld t r a d i t i o n a l k n o w le d g e b e re sp e c te d a n d p r o te c te d ? •

•

•

•

M a n y people assume tradition al know ledge is from centuries ago, b u t it can also m ean cu rre n t practices. It’s n o t just an old way o f do in g things b u t a very successful base o f know ledge th at has allowed people to survive and flourish for th o u s an d s o f years. In som e cases genetic rcsourccs m ay have no d e a r link to c o m m u n it y uses. H ow ever, it m a y be w r o n g to assum e th a t th ere is no local or tr a d itio n a l kn ow ledg e o f m a rin e anim als collected for pharm aceu tica l research. It may sim ply be th at in dig en ous peoples are reluctant to share their know ledge, even th o u g h they have uses for a creature. Even if they d o n ’t, it is still necessary to tell th em h ow a genetic resource will be used in order to get prior in fo rm ed con sent for its collection. Elders are often reluctan t to share in fo rm atio n with outsiders w hen they see their know ledge exploited an d distorted. T h e y w an t to ensure th at tr aditional know ledge is n o t misused. T raditional know ledge can e m p o w e r ind igen ou s people to dictate their own policies based 011 their tr aditional needs. G o v e r n m e n t fails to recognize the im p o rta n c e o f tr aditional know ledge in the m a n a g e m e n t o f resources and often

T H IN K IN G LOCALLY: R IG H TS O F IN D IG E N O U S A N D LOCAL C O M M U N IT IE S

125

c o n d u c t s s t u d i e s a n d resear ch w i t h o u t c o n s u l t a t i o n . P r o p e r c o n s u l t a t i o n a n d r espe ct for t r a d i t i o n a l k n o w l e d g e are essential. •

W c s h o u l d n ’t filter t r a d i t i o n a l k n o w l e d g e t h r o u g h scicncc. T r a d i t i o n a l ecological p r i n ci p l es are s pi r it u al in n a t u r e , a n d w e c a n ’t l o o k at t h e m scientifically. W e s e n d o u r y o u n g p e o p l e to u niversi ties to try to u n d e r s t a n d t he E u r o p e a n view, a n d it’s j us t as i m p o r t a n t for g o v e r n m e n t s to learn a b o u t a n d u n d e r s t a n d t h e vi ew o f i n d i g e n o u s peo pl es. S c i e nc e has h e l p e d p r o v i d e a n u n d e r s t a n d i n g o f ec os y s t e ms , b u t t hi s n ee ds to be r e c on ci l e d w i t h t h e h olistic u n d e r s t a n d i n g t h a t i n d i g e n o u s p e o p l e have.

How should access to genetic resources be controlled? • •

N o o n e o w n s g e n e t i c r esour ce s — o n l y t h e C r e a t o r . G e n e s a n d c a n ’t be o w n e d - p a t e n t law isn’t rel e vant . N o r is p a t e n t law m e a n t to a p p l y to m a t e r i a l w e p r oc e ss w i t h o u t k n o w i n g its a p p l i c a t i o n s . W i t h m a n y d i f f e r e n t g r o u p s i n v o l v e d in t h e m a n a g e m e n t o f g e n e t i c r esour ce s, a d e q u a t e p l a n n i n g is n e e d e d to a v o i d a d h o c r es p o n se s to p r op o s a l s . I n d i g e n o u s p eo pl e s are in t h e bes t p o s i t i o n to e n s u r e r e s p o n s i b l e uses o f r es ou r ce s in t h e i r t e rr i ­ tories. In t h e a b s e n c e o f tool s to d e a l w i t h o w n e r s h i p o f g e n e t i c r cs o ur cc s, i n d i g e n o u s p e o p l e s are in t h e best p o s i t i o n to ex e r t f i d u c i a r y c o n t r o l .

•

I n d i g e n o u s p e o p l e s h o u l d ha v e t h e first r i g h t to say w h a t is d o n e w i t h g en e t i c

•

T h e r i gh ts h e l d b y i n d i g e n o u s a n d local c o m m u n i t i e s are p r i m a r y b u t n o t exclusive. In t h e I n u v i a l u i t T er ri t or y, f or e x a m p l e , t he h i e r a r c h y o f r i g ht s a n d

ma t er ia l s. T h e y s h o u l d ha v e c o n t r o l over access, use a n d d i s t r i b u t i o n .

r es pon s i bi l i t ies is as follows: c o m m u n i t y , I n u v i a l u i t p e o p l e , p e o p l e o f C a n a d a , •

world. S o m e c o m p a n i e s p u t p r e s s u r e o n g o v e r n m e n t s to p r o v i d e access b y w h a t is essenti all y b l a c k m a i l - eg b y t h r e a t e n i n g to s t o p r esear ch. Befor e p e r m i t t i n g access, c o m m u n i t i e s m u s t k n o w w h a t will b e d o n e w i t h a g e n e t i c r esour ce . C o m p a n i e s s u c h as p h a r m a c e u t i c a l f ir ms m a y o n l y care a b o u t t h e p r o d u c t , w h e r e a s i n d i g e n o u s c o m m u n i t i e s m a y give p r i o r i t y to pr ocess. I f t h e int e g r al n a t u r e o f ph y s i c a l a n d s pi r it ua l h e a l i n g is i m p o r t a n t , t h e y m a y n o t wi s h to let r esour ce s f r o m t h e i r t e r r i t o r y be t u r n e d i n t o p h a r m a c e u t i c a l p r o d u c t s .

• •

I n d i g e n o u s p e op l e s s h o u l d c o n s i d e r c r e a t i n g c o r p o r a t i o n s t o p r o t e c t t h e i r rights t o c o n t r o l access. R e s o u r c e s s h o u l d n o t be b o u g h t , so l d o r t r a d e d w i t h o u t c o m m u n i t y a p p r o v a l . A p p l i c a t i o n s f or use o f g e n e t i c r es o ur ce s s h o u l d go t h r o u g h e a ch First N a t i o n ’s r cs o ur cc c o u nc i l .

•

M a n y i n d i g e n o u s c o m m u n i t i e s a r e r e l u c t a n t to a p p r o v e access to g e n e t i c r es o ur ce s w i t h o u t h o n o u r a b l e a g r e e m e n t s , b as e d o n t h o r o u g h c o n s u l t a t i o n , t h a t e n s u r e a n a d e q u a t e r e t u r n o f a p p r o p r i a t e b en e f i t s to c o m m u n i t i e s .

•

I n d i g e n o u s c o m m u n i t i e s n e e d to d e v e l o p p ol i c y p r i n c i p l e s especiall y to deal w i t h p r o b l e m s a s s oci a t e d w i t h b i o p r o s p e c t i n g , c o l l e c ti o n o f b r o o d s t o c k a n d outplanting.

126

BI.UE GENES

M a n y o f th e views expressed by p a rtic ip a n ts in th e w o r k s h o p are p ro b a b ly typical o f in d ig e n o u s c o m m u n i t i e s an y w h e re in th e w o rld . G o v e r n m e n t policy m akers settin g gu idelin es for acccss to a q u a tic g cnetic rcsourccs in in d i g e n o u s c o m m u ­ nities n eed to take in to a c c o u n t sign ifican t differences b etw een the w orldv iew s o f in d ig e n o u s an d m a i n s t re a m societies. T h is is n o t an easy task, a n d th e p ro p e n s ity for rh eto ric is stro n g , o n b o th sides o f th e table. In th e w o r k s h o p s u m m a ri z e d above, for ex am ple, th e stated a b h o r r e n c e o f D N A id en tificatio n te c h n iq u e s needs to be reconciled w ith o n e British C o l u m b i a First N a t i o n ’s in terest in using th ose sa m e te c h n iq u e s to analyse a n c ie n t sa lm o n re m a in s in o rd e r to establish territorial use p a tte rn s a n d so s t re n g th e n its treaty case. First N a t i o n s are c a u g h t b etw e en s t r o n g tr a d it io n a l beliefs a n d a d e lu g e o f te c h n o lo g ie s th e ir elders n ever e n v i­ sio n ed , a n d these k in d s o f incon sisten cies n eed to be tak en in g o o d faith if any progress is to be m ad e. T h e w orld view s o f in d ig e n o u s p eop les are s h a p e d by th eir c o n t i n u o u s o c c u ­ p a t i o n o f t h e s a m e e c o s y s te m s s in c e t h e e a rlies t tim e s . T h e y tak e a h o lis tic a p p r o a c h to th e m a n a g e m e n t o f a q u a ti c e cosystem s, based o n th e b e li e f t h a t h u m a n s are eq ual to a n d d o n o t rule over o th e r species. C o n s e q u e n tly , the c o n c e p t o f species as resources’ for h u m a n use is a foreign n o ti o n . So are th e c o n c e p t o f private o w n e rs h ip o f resources a n d o f ideas p e r t a in i n g to th e ir use. Historically, th e survival a n d p ro s p e rity o f in d ig e n o u s p eo p les d e p e n d e d o n s h a r in g ecological k n o w le d g e w ith i n an d a m o n g c o m m u n i t i e s a n d o n respecting th e n a tu r a l b alan ce o f e c o s y s te m s w i t h o u t p l a c i n g h u m a n uses first. T o i n d i g e n o u s p e o p le s , ‘s u s ta in in g ’ ecosystem s does n o t m e a n d e t e r m i n i n g h o w m u c h y ou can take o u t w i t h o u t d o i n g d a m a g e b u t r a t h e r li v in g h a r m o n i o u s l y w i t h o t h e r sp ecies, receiv ing n a t u r e ’s s u r p lu s as a gift. In th is sense, th e ‘ecosystem a p p r o a c h ’ to c o n s e r v a t i o n t h a t is in c r e a s i n g ly g a i n i n g f a v o u r o r i g i n a t e d w i t h i n d i g e n o u s peoples. H e n c e th e value o f m a i n t a i n i n g a n d p r o m o t i n g tr a d itio n a l ecosystem m a n a g e m e n t practices. T rad itio n al kn o w led g e o f ecosystem m a n a g e m e n t was preserved t h r o u g h ge n e ra ­ tions by in c o r p o ra tin g it into cultures - th r o u g h son g, d an ce an d art, for example. Today, in d ig e n o u s peoples m ay be re lu c ta n t to share tr ad itio n al kn o w led g e w ith ou tsiders (or to provide c o n se n t to access to resources) n o t only because they w a n t to ensure reasonable c o m p e n s a ti o n b u t also because o f cultural beliefs a b o u t rcspcct for species a n d a b o u t treating th e m sim ply as raw m aterial for h u m a n inv e n tio n . T h e s e beliefs also m a y explain in large p a rt in d ig e n o u s p eop les’ scepticism a b o u t scientific research in th eir territories and a b o u t th e validity o f scientific kn o w led g e based on red u cin g ecosystems to th e ir basic e lem en ts. M o n e t a r y (or n o n - m o n e ta r y ) benefits m a y seem m eaningless to a c o m m u n i t y th a t objects to the basic prem ise o f tr eating fish as genetic resources. All to o often th e real incentive for in d ig e n o u s c o m m u n it ie s to c o n se n t to the ta k in g o f genetic resources is d esp eratio n to find ways o u t o f po verty b r o u g h t o n by th e erosion o f th eir cu ltures a n d loss o f tr a d i­ ti on al livelihoods. In d ig e n o u s peoples o f the w o rld c o n ti n u e to pu sh for th e recog­ n itio n o f their rights to s e lf-d e te rm in a tio n a n d co n tro l over gcnetic rcsourccs in th eir tr ad itio n al territories. Even w h ere this reco gn itio n has n o t been achie ved, it is i m p o r t a n t th a t n atio n al g o v e rn m e n ts p r o m o t e be n e fit-sh arin g a rr a n g e m e n ts th a t are acceptable to in d ig e n o u s c o m m u n it ie s .

T H IN K IN G LOCALLY: R IG H TS O F IN D IG E N O U S A N D LOCAL C O M M U N IT IE S

127

THE KNOWLEDGE KNOT: Traditional know ledge and access to aquatic genetic resources Ar t ic l c 8(j) o f t he C B D r eq ui r es n a t i o n a l g o v e r n m e n t s to e n c o u r a g e t h e e q u i t a b l e s h a r i n g o f b en ef i t s ar is i ng f r o m t he use o f t h e k n o w l e d g e , i n n o v a t i o n s a n d p r a c ­ tices o f t r a d i t i o n a l c o m m u n i t i e s . T r a d i t i o n a l k n o w l e d g e is especiall y i m p o r t a n t for t h e use o f p l a n t g e n e t i c resour ces. N e w c r o p varieties d e v e l o p e d b y seed c o m p a n i e s m a y be b as ed o n str ai ns p r o d u c e d by g e n e r a t i o n s o f t r a d i t i o n a l f ar me r s . Similarly, t r a d i t i o n a l k n o w l e d g e o f m e d i c i n a l uses o f p l a n t s m a y p r o v i d e a s h o r t c u t for p h a r ­ m a c e u t i c a l c o m p a n i e s m a k i n g d ec i s i o n s to invest in research a n d d e v e l o p m e n t o f n e w p r o d u c t s , e i t h e r b y s y n t h e s i z i n g o r m o d i f y i n g c o m p o u n d s f o u n d in p l a n t s us e d by i n d i g e n o u s p e o p l e s o r by m a r k e t i n g b ot a n i ca l s . A l t h o u g h s o m e co un trie s have a le ngthy histo ry o f p o n d aq ua cu lt ur e , industrial a q u a c u l t u r e is a relatively n e w activity, a n d t h e e n h a n c e m e n t o f f a r m e d fish str ai ns relics a l m o s t exclusively o n c o l l e c ti o n o f w i l d b r o o d s t o c k . T h e r e is n o real parallel in fish f a r m i n g to t h e s i t u a t i o n in t h e p l a n t w o r l d , w h e r e t h e e x p e r i e n c e a n d k n o w l e d g e o f t r a d i t i o n a l f a r m e r s m a k e s a m a j o r c o n t r i b u t i o n to c r o p d e v e l ­ o p m e n t . N o r is t h e r e a n y s t r o n g parallel in m a r i n e b i o p r o s p e c t i n g to t h e n e e d for i n d i g e n o u s k n o w l e d g e in d e v e l o p i n g d r u g s b a s e d o n t r a d i t i o n a l uses o f m e d i c i n a l plants. As f o l l o w i n g s e ct i on s in thi s c h a p t e r i n d i c a t e , t r a d i t i o n a l c o m m u n i t i e s h ave e x t ens i ve k n o w l e d g e o f a q u a t i c g e n e t i c resour ce s. I t s n o t a q u e s t i o n o f w h e t h e r t he k n o w l e d g e exists b u t w h a t t yp e it is a n d w h e t h e r c ol le c to r s n e e d it for t h e m o s t p r e d o m i n a n t uses o f a q u a t i c g cn c t i c r cs ou r cc s - a q u a c u l t u r c a n d p h a r m a c c u t i c a l s d e v e l o p m e n t . Fish br e e d e r s m a y l o o k to local c o m m u n i t i e s for h e l p in f i n d i n g a n d c a t c h i n g b r o o d s t o c k . In s o m e cases as well, t h e y m a y t a p i n t o local k n o w l e d g e o f ph ysi c al cha ra c t er is t i cs - f or e x a m p l e , c o l o r a t i o n s a n d m a r k i n g s o f p r ize d o r n a ­ m e n t a l s in r e m o t e j u n g l e rivers. H o w e v e r , t h e b o t t o m l i ne is t h a t t h e r e s no c o m p a r i s o n b e t w e e n a q u a t i c a n d p l a n t g e n e t i c r esou r ce s uses in t h e t y p e a n d level o f d ependence on traditional knowledge. T h e r e a so n t hi s d i s t i n c t i o n is so s i g n i f ic a n t is t h a t Ar t icl e 8 (j) o f t h e C B D has b e c o m e t h e b a s el i ne f or t h e d e v e l o p m e n t o f several n a t i o n a l laws r e g u l a t i n g access to g e n e t i c r esour ce s in i n d i g e n o u s a n d local c o m m u n i t i e s . T h e i m p l e m e n t a t i o n o f A r t i c l c 8( j ) h a s f or m a n y ye a r s b e e n t h e s u b j c c t o f m a n y a t C B D m e e t i n g s i n v o l v i n g n o t o n l y n a t i o n a l g o v e r n m e n t s b u t also a d v o c a t e s for i n d i g e n o u s a n d local c o m m u n i t i e s . D i s c u s s i o n s ha v e f o cu s e d p r i m a r i l y o n h o w to set u p effective g u i d e l i n e s f or c o m m u n i t y c o n s e n t a n d b e n e f i t s h a r i n g , w i t h little a t t e n t i o n pa i d to t h e issue o f h o w g o v e r n m e n t s will d e f i n e w h a t t ype s o f k n o w l e d g e c o n f e r t h e r i gh t f or b e n ef i t s o r w h a t h a p p e n s w h e n c o m m u n i t y k n o w l e d g e is n o t r el e v an t t o t h e use o f g e n e t i c r esour ces. As C h a p t e r 6 d e m o n s t r a t e s , lack o f cl ar ity a b o u t t he s e issues c o n t i n u e s in t h e laws t h a t h a v e b e e n d e v e l o p e d to dat e. W i t h p l a n t i s s ue s d o m i n a t i n g t h e d e b a t e o v e r A r t i c l e 8 ( j ) , c o m m u n i t y k n o w l e d g e o f fish g e n e t i c r es ou r ce s h a s n ’t m a d e it i n t o t h e a g e n d a . T h a t will u n d o u b t e d l y c h a n g e o n c e c o l l e c ti o n o f b r o o d s t o c k f r o m c o m m u n i t i e s b e c o m e s m o r e c o m m o n a n d t he q u e s t i o n arises: i f c o m m u n i t y k n o w l e d g e isn’t es senti al for

128

BI.UE GENES

the actual use o f aquatic genetic resources, w h a t rights do c o m m u n itie s have to provide info rm ed con sen t for access or to receive benefits? In the m e a n tim e , those involved in the m ak in g o f access policy need to be aware o f fish and p lan t distin c­ tions an d ensure that policies take those distinctions into account.

T r a d it io n a l k n o w l e d g e o f aq ua tic bi odiversity T raditional ecological know ledge (som etim es referred to as in d igen ou s know ledge or local knowledge) is a term c o m m o n ly used to describe c o m m u n it y knowledge, in som e cases evolving over h u n d re d s or tho u san d s o f years, o f local ecosystems. It may form the basis for local d ecisio n-m ak ing for all facets o f c o m m u n it y life, in c lu d in g n a tu r a l resource m a n a g e m e n t, n u t r i t i o n , food p re p a r a tio n , h ealth, e d uc atio n, an d c o m m u n it y a nd social org anization (W arren ct al, 1995). I n dig en ou s kno w led g e o f aquatic resources an d ecosystem relationships has been passed orally from generation to generation and m a y be in corp orated into cultural practices (eg songs, dances and art) th at ensure its preservation and c o n ti­ nuity. Typically, ind igenous know ledge o f aquatic resources includes fish location, m o vem ents, and o th e r factors explaining spatial p atterns a nd tim in g in aquatic ecosystems, in clud in g sequences o f events (such as fish catches, m arine m a m m a l sightings, aquatic b lo om s), cycles (eg fish m ig ra tio n , spaw n in g, tidal changes, lun ar influences), a nd trends (eg decreases in catches, early thaws, rainfall patterns, and changes in m igratio n and sp aw n ing patterns; Posey, 1999). A lth o u g h discus­ sions o f trad itio nal know ledge often focus on ind igen ou s peoples, the ecological kn ow ledg e developed by n o n -in d ig e n o u s fishing c o m m u n it ie s w ith a lengthy history is also substantial.

T h e relevance o f t r a d i ti o n a l k n o w l e d g e to c o n s er v a tio n M a n y fisheries m anagers (as well as scientists and policy makers) have been scep­ tical a b o u t tr aditional knowledge. In d ige no us know ledge tends to be holistic in n atu re (in co ntrast to the red uc tion ist scientific ap p ro ach ) a n d closely tied to beliefs a b o u t the u n ity o f n a tu r e a n d spiritu al qualities o f an im al life. M a n y ind ig enou s peoples strongly object to describing aquatic life as ‘resources’ because the term justifies h u m a n d o m i n a ti o n o f n ature and implies a lack o f appreciation o f living creatures as equals w ith a spiritual life o f their own. Scientific scepticism a b o u t th e m in gling o f practical know ledge and spiritual beliefs has been h eig h te n e d by the ro m a n tic iz in g o f trad itio n a l kn ow le dg e in s u p p o r t o f in d i g e n o u s righ ts m o v e m e n ts . C o m m e n t a t o r s u n c o n c e r n e d w ith p olitical co rrec tn ess have asked, d id in d ig e n o u s p eo p les practise s u s ta in a b le m a n a g e m e n t because they purposefully lived in h a r m o n y w ith nature, or simply because they lacked the technology to exploit natural resources b eyo nd sustainable limits? A n d has the level o f tr aditional fisheries know ledge been exaggerated to increase its effectiveness as a n ego tiatio n tool? Jo h an n es an d R ud dle (1 99 3) noted th at env iro n m en tally destructive practices coexisted w ith conservation efforts in in digenous societies just as they did in all o th e r societies. Blench (1998) rejects the im age o f in d ig e n o u s peoples as n a tu ra l co n se rv atio n ists, an d cites n u m e r o u s

T H IN K IN G LOCALLY: RIGHTS OF IN D IG EN O U S AND LOCAL C O M M U N ITIES

129

instances where the disappearance of megafauna in recent prehistory was the direct result o f h u m a n activities. For example, fossil evidence suggests to some rcscarchcrs that the Polynesians had severe impacts on local fauna as they colo­ nized the Pacific (Pimm, 1995). Some anthropologists reject the notion of the ‘ecologically no ble savage’ an d argue th a t expec ting in d ig e n o u s peoples to continue using only traditional technologies and low-impact subsistence strategies places an unfair responsibility on them and denies their right to develop according to their own preferences (Dutfield, 1999). Nevertheless, m an y indigenous and traditional societies do have a history of living sustainably, in part as a result of the perception that all c o m ponents of natural landscapes are directly useful or usable resources - in contrast to the prevailing ec onom ic view tha t few resources have p r o d u c tio n value (Toledo, 1991). From that perspective, the effectiveness o f some indigenous peoples in conserving aquatic genetic resources, while it may be linked to spiritual beliefs, is rooted in a very practical u n d e r s t a n d i n g o f the i m p o r t a n c e o f p r o te c t in g ecosystems. T h e suddenly popular ‘ecosystem approach’ to resource man ag em en t - basing man ag em en t decisions on the ability o f ecosystems to support resource use w ithout damage - is not so different from long-standing principles held by indigenous peoples (although it is exceptionally difficult to achieve in practice). These principles in turn are based on and su pport an under standing of aquatic resources and ecosystems that, while n ot scientific in nature, can nevertheless be comprehensive. T h e simple truth is that, to live sustainably from resources that are n ot pushed to the limit requires little more than experience and c o m m o n sense; it’s only when multiple users push resources to the breaking p o in t that science needs to be enlisted. Fisheries m anagem ent that emphasizes commercially im p o rtan t species over ecosystem interactions bears m u c h o f the responsibility for d i m in ish in g fish stocks. T h e more recent move to ‘ecosystem-based m an a g e m e n t’ has produced some innovative results. Protected areas have proved a useful conservation tool, although limited by the fact that they tend to be small and scattered. T h e highest aquatic genetic diversity is often located in tra dit io nal c o m m u n i t i e s simply bccausc people naturally set their roots down in areas with the greatest natural abundance. It therefore stands to reason that p rom oting the restoration and m a i n ­ tenance of traditional knowledge and practices, as Article 8 (j) seeks to do, is a useful conservation objective. W h ile m u c h attention has been focused on the im p o rt a n c e o f traditional knowledge for conservation, its economic value to com munities is also vital. M an y activities and products based on traditional knowledge are im port an t sources of income, food, and health care for large parts of the populations in developing countries ( U N C T A D , 2000). Moreover, m an y of the cultures from which tradi­ tional knowledge is collected are more endangered than the ecosystems in which they reside (Reid et al, 1993), and there is increasing recognition that the loss of cultural diversity is intricately linked with the loss of biological diversity (Crucible G r o u p , 2 0 0 0 ) . C ons equently, conservation o f aquatic genetic resources and conservation of communities can no t be considered in isolation from one another.

130

BLUE GENES

T h e continued availability of aquatic genetic resources will depend on conser­ vation at the c o m m u n it y level. As Dutfield (1999) has pointed out, there is no need to provide moral justification for compensation, as industrial users o f gcnctic resources would benefit, as would the biosphere and h u m a n k in d . W h e n genetic resources in com munities are treated as a c o m m o n heritage while those in indus­ trial laboratories are treated as private property, the burden o f conservation falls unfairly on co mm unities; in this context, compens ation should be defined as payment not for past services b ut for future options (Brush and Stabinsky, 1996). While such arguments are generally made on behalf o f rural farmers, they are just as valid for fishing communities.

T h e relevance o f t r a d i t i o n a l k n o w l e d g e for collectors Collections fo r ph arm aceu tical a n d in d u stria l use In inland indigenous com munities, medicinal uses of plants have always been vital to the well-being of local people. T h e same holds true for uses of plants by fishing communities. However, for obvious reasons, fishing communities may have little familiarity with the types o f m a r in e organism s s o u g h t by p h a r m a c c u tic a l companies. In the first place, the organisms may inhabit relatively inaccessible sea beds. Second, while m a n y m a r in e organ ism s have e n o r m o u s p o te n tia l for medicinal uses, it usually takes sophisticated scientific knowledge to tap into them. Familiarity with the toxic characteristics of cone snails or corals doesn’t necessarily lead to the knowledge needed to use them for healing.

Collections o f orn am en tal fish Traditional knowledge is more relevant to the ornamentals trade than for any o t h e r use o f aq uat ic genetic resources. M a n y o r n a m e n t a l stocks are highly localized in remote areas and because their activity is often nocturnal, they can only be captured by local people thoroughly familiar with their habits and habitat. In addition, aquarium hobbyists are prepared to pay high prices for wild spec­ imens from strains that haven’t previously been distributed. Collectors, whether their purpose is breeding or distribution o f wild specimens, need information ab ou t the characteristics of local populations (such as coloration patterns, shapes and growth characteristics) that may make them attractive to buyers. They also need information about where to find the fish. Breeders o f some species may collect all the broodstock they need from the live trade in ornamental fisheries. Or, as in the case of species such as guppies, mollies and neon tetras that have been cultured for years, breeders may never need to collect more specimens from the wild. T h e biggest d em an d for wild specimens for breeding - and for the traditional knowledge that facilitates collections - will likely occur for species or populations previously u n kn ow n to collectors or previ­ ously considered too difficult to breed. As Case Study 1 illustrates, the n u m b e r of species being cultured is constantly expanding as a result of advances in breeding technologies.

T H IN K IN G LOCALLY: R IG H TS O F IN D IG E N O U S A N D LOCAL C O M M U N IT IE S

131

O n e f ea t ur e t h a t d i s t i n g u i s h e s t h e o r n a m e n t a l s t r a d e f r o m c ol l ec t i on s o f p l a n t g e n e t i c r eso ur ce s is t h e c o ex i s t e n c e o f c ol l e c t i on s f or b r e e d i n g a n d for t h e t r a d e in live fish. N e i t h e r g o v e r n m e n t a g c n ci cs in p r o v i d e r c o u n t r i e s n o r local fishers m a y ha v e a n y w a y o f k n o w i n g w h e t h e r c ol lec t e d s p e c i m e n s will be u se d for c u l t u r i n g or s i m p l y sold to h o b b y i s t s t h a t h a v e n o i nt e r es t in b r e e d i n g fish. Similarly, t h e r e m a y be n o w a y o f te l l i ng w h e t h e r col lec t o r s are s e e k i n g o u t local k n o w l e d g e w i t h t he i n t e n t i o n o f t r y i n g to b r e e d fish c o ll ec t e d f r o m t h e wi l d . T h i s s i m p l e reality creates a di f fi cu l t h u r d l e for policies t h a t w o r k o n t h e a s s u m p t i o n t h a t t h e p u r p o s e s o f c ol l ec t i on s o f g e n e t i c r eso ur ce s are well u n d e r s t o o d a n d t h a t t h e o n l y c h a l l e n g e is d e t e r m i n i n g w h e t h e r access to t r a d i t i o n a l k n o w l e d g e is n e e d e d f or t h e i r use. In t he case o f t h e o r n a m e n t a l s t r ad e, n e i t h e r o f t he s e facts c a n b e easily a s c e rt a i ne d.

Collections fo r fo o d fish farm in g W h i l e i n d u s t r i a l a q u a c u l t u r e has a v er y b r i e f hi s t or y , r u ra l p o n d f a r m i n g has o c c u r r e d for h u n d r e d s o f years in s o m e d e v e l o p i n g c o u n t r i e s - t h o u s a n d s in t he case o f c a rp in C h i n a . E v e n t h o u g h local c o m m u n i t i e s i n v o l v e d in p o n d f a r m i n g m a y h a v e d e v e l o p e d a s u b s t a n t i a l b o d y o f k n o w l e d g e , a s h o r t e r h i s t o r y is n o t t he o n l y f a c t o r d i f f e r e n t i a t i n g t r a d i t i o n a l k n o w l e d g e in fish f a r m i n g c o m m u n i t i e s f ro m t h a t in c r o p f a r m i n g c o m m u n i t i e s . W h i l e it is po ss i bl e for n e w st r ai ns to evol ve in p o n d f a r m i n g , t h e i r a p p e a r a n c e m a y j u s t as easily o c c u r by a c c i d e n t as by d es ign. A t a n y rate, it is h i g h l y u n l i k e l y t h a t b r e e d e r s i n v o lv e d in i n d u s t r i a l a q u a ­ c u l t u r e w o u l d c h o o s e t o col l ect b r o o d s t o c k f r o m p o n d f a r m e r s r a t h e r t h a n s i m p l y co l l ec t i ng fish f r o m t h e wild. C o l l e c t o r s o f w i l d b r o o d s t o c k f o r f o o d fish f a r m i n g m a y b e l o o k i n g f o r a d i f f e r e n t t y p e o f k n o w l e d g e t h a n t h a t s u p p l i e d by o r n a m e n t a l s fishers. In a d d i t i o n to k n o w l e d g e o f fish h a b i t a t , m i g r a t i o n r o u t e s , life cycles a n d f i s h i n g t e c h n i q u e s , c o m m u n i t i e s w i t h a l e n g t h y h i s t o r y o f fisheries d c p c n d c n c c m a y also s u p p l y useful i n f o r m a t i o n a b o u t cha ra c t e r i s t i cs s u c h as n u t r i t i o n a l val ue (taste a n d oil c o n t e n t , f or e x a m p l e ) , rate o f g r o w t h , a n d h ar d i ne ss . H o w e v e r , as in t h e case o f t h e o r n a ­ m e n t a l s i n d u s t r y , f o o d fish b r e e d e r s are far less likely t h a n co l l ec t o r s o f p l a n t g e n e t i c r e s o u r ce s to a c t u a l l y n e e d access to t h is local k n o w l e d g e . T h e Br iti sh C o l u m b i a s a l m o n f a r m e r ( Ca s e S t u d y 2) w h o p l a n n e d to e n h a n c e his s t oc ks w i t h b r o o d s t o c k f r o m t h e Y u k o n Ri v e r d i d n ’t n e e d a n y o n e to tell h i m t h a t a s a l m o n p o p u l a t i o n f r o m co l d n o r t h e r n w a t e r s w o u l d ha ve t h e h i g h oil c o n t e n t t h a t he n e e d e d f or t h e J a p a n e s e m a r k e t . Similarly, w h e n A q u a B o u n t y i n s e r t e d a g e n e f r o m t h e o c e a n p o u t to d e v e l o p t h e ‘S u p e r S a l m o n ’, it was a l r e ad y o b v i o u s t h a t t he p o u t was c a p a b l c o f s u r v i v i n g in f re ez i ng wat e r s. A n d t he Icy W a t e r s C o m p a n y ( Ca s e S t u d y 3) h a d n o real n e e d to tap i n t o t h e k n o w l e d g e o f I n u i t c o m m u n i t i e s o f local p o p u l a t i o n s o f A rc t i c c h a r r t h a t t he c o m p a n y w a n t e d to col l ect to i m p r o v e its f a r m e d stocks. T h e r e are t h r e e bas ic r ea s on s w h y t h e n e e d f or access to t r a d i t i o n a l k n o w l e d g e f or t h e e n h a n c e m e n t o f f a r m e d s t o c ks is likely to b e l i mi t e d: •

C o m m u n i t y k n o w l e d g e o f w i l d p o p u l a t i o n s p r i m a r i l y relates to fish h a b i t s r a t h e r t h a n t h e ch a ra c t e r i s t i cs o f i n t e r e s t to b r ee d er s.

132

• •

BI.UE GENES

S cientific k n o w le d g e o f d esirab le ch a rac teristics o f w ild p o p u l a t i o n s m ay already be well developed. C o m m u n it ie s m ay have no tr aditional use for som e species or po p u la tio n s o f cu rren t or future interest to farmers (eg som e m arin e species th at in ha bit waters far rem oved from any tr aditional co m m u n ities).

T h e type o f tr aditional know ledge m o s t likely to be useful to breeders is how to catc h an d collect b ro o d s to c k . For ex am p le, som e large-scale p o n d ow ners in Bangladesh hire people in tr aditional fishing c o m m u n itie s to collect fish from the wild because they know where a nd how to set nets for hatchlings a nd w h at types o f hatchlings are m o st desirable for farm in g (Lewis et al, 1996). B ro od stock sought for selective b reeding are also often m ore easily fo u n d by local people. T h e situ­ ation is so m ew h at parallel to the o rn a m e n ta l in d u s try ’s reliancc o n the traditional know ledge o f local fisherm en a b o u t catchin g fish for breed ing an d sale. Does this type o f know ledge co n tr ib u te to the use o f aquatic genetic resources? T h a t m ig h t be considered a stretch, b u t the question is i m p o r t a n t for three reasons: •

W it h few exceptions, it’s the only type o f tradition al know ledge t h a t’s p a rtic u ­ larly relevant to the collection o f aquatic genetic resources. • Article 8(j) can be read to m ean th at countries only need to share benefits from the use o f genetic resources w ith c o m m u n itie s whose trad itio nal know ledge has m ad e their use possible. • C o n se q u e n tly , if n a tio n a l access laws base the c o n s e n t a n d b ene fit-sh aring rights o f c o m m u n itie s on provision o f know ledge associated w ith the use o f genetic resources, fishing c o m m u n itie s could be sh u t o u t o f the benefit-sharing equation.

W h o n eed s t r a d i t i o n a l k n o w le d g e ? A d o - it- y o u r s e l f g u id e to b io d iv e r s ity Years ago, w h en in te rn a tio n a l travel was th e province o f th e wealthy, tourists needed a local guide to find the best hotels, the m ost interesting hikes, an d the special restaurants w here only the locals ate. N o w th a t air travel is affordable, bookstores have entire sections devoted to local lore; some, like the very successful Lonely P lanet a nd R ou gh G u id e series, even specialize in taking the tourist o ff the beate n track. T h e new gu id eb ook s are a direct result o f m arke t de m an ds. Local people know their way aro u n d ; n o b o d y w o u ld argue w ith that. Tourists a n d h u n te rs do better if they have gu id eb ook s or guides. It’s n o t surprising that, w hen it com es to biodiversity coveted by ‘o utsiders,’ local people arc p resum ed to be the fastest way to the source. T h e y ’ve been h u s b a n d in g or harvesting obscure p lan ts a n d a n im a ls for g e n e ra tio n s , th e a r g u m e n t goes, a n d th eir trad itio n a l kno w ledg e o f w h ic h org anism s do w h at, an d w h ere to find th e m , is the best possible d a ta b a se for a n y o n e w a n t i n g access to t h a t bio div ersity . T h a t ’s th e reasoning o f the C B D , whose Article 8(j) has established tr aditional know ledge as the linch pin o f access an d b enefit-sharing arran gem en ts. T raditional knowledge,

THINKING LOCALLY: RIGHTS OF INDIGENOUS AND LOCAL COMMUNITIES

133

says the C B D , is the key. Bioprospectors need to work with traditional knowledge. From traditional knowledge flow the benefits. But w hat if there is no traditional knowledge o f an interesting piccc o f bio­ diversity? Or, w hat if there is, b ut it’s n ot the only knowledge? Does that m ean the plant or animal can’t be collected, analysed, copied? N o t at all - b u t it may mean that, since benefit sharing is so closely wedded to traditional knowledge by the C B D , and since national governments are all tailoring their access policies to the same pattern, the c o m m u n ity can be bypassed. Collecting biodiversity by relying on traditional knowledge is like turning back the clock on international tourism. It assumes that local guides are the only ones. T h ey aren’t. For a h un d red years, scientists have been studying plants and animals in faraway places. Enthusiastic academics captivated by nature’s infinite variety have spent entire careers collecting and describing biodiversity. T here is m uch that they d o n ’t know, b ut the cumulative body o f academic knowledge o f biodiversity should n ot be underestimated. G raduate students w ith ou t the slightest interest in profiting from their research have crawled th rough the rainforest and dived on tropical reefs for decades and continue to do so for the simple reason that the eating habits o f a fire ant or the defence mechanisms o f a rare n udibranch are fasci­ nating to them . Financial gain doesn't enter into it. So if the bioprospector - the ‘biodiversity tourist’ - is looking for, say, a tropical plant th at produces a po ten t insecticide, or a wild tilapia strain that could be used to breed a superior animal for farming, does he have to go to the local village authority or medicine man in T hailand, or to the family in G ha na who knows abo ut the tilapias that have been there for centuries? N o t really, because there’s an American botanist in H a t Yai who w ent native years ago and knows every plant in the forest; and there’s a professor from a university in Europe w ho ’s been studying those native African tilapias for 30 years. By now, these people are the local knowledge. T his is the situation policy makers need to grapple with w hen designing access an d benefit-sharing policies. If outside experts are capable o f collecting b io ­ diversity w ith ou t local help - if, in other words, traditional knowledge can be dispensed with - then invoking Article 8(j) o f the C B D in order to restrict access to gcnctic rcsourccs leaves a loophole big enough for a Land Rover full o f samples to drive through. As m ethods for building biologically active molecules and transferring genes become more sophisticated, the role o f wild biodiversity will change. Wild bio­ diversity will become more and more o f a starting p o in t for a drug or chemical or high-yielding broodstock, not a pilot-scale factory th at simply needs to be scaled up. A nd the role o f traditional knowledge will decrease accordingly, because the piece o f biodiversity that proves useful may have no traditional interest whatever. It is risky to establish the value o f som ething against a shifting baseline. If access and benefit sharing are tied to traditional knowledge as part o f a strategy to p ro m o te and pro tect that know ledge, the strategy may backfire. T raditional knowledge is a cultural legacy that should be preserved and perpetuated, b u t its advocates c annot afford to link its survival to a market that may n ot exist much

134

BLUE GENES

longer. In m a n y cases, for ex ample a b o tt o m - li v in g m ar in e anim al offshore from a fishing village, the p r e s u m p t i o n o f local knowled ge verges on the ludicrous. Benefits to tr a d it io n a l c o m m u n i t i e s can play a vital role in p r o m o t i n g the cons ervation o f aq uat ic genetic resources, especially w h e n tied to the b uil d in g o f sustainable local e cono m ies. But if the right to receive these benefits is based solely on the c o n t r ib u t i o n o f traditional kno wled ge , th en pr ovider c o m m u n i t i e s m a y be able to claim no right at all. O t h e r access a n d be ne fit-sharing rules need to apply.

N O KNOWLEDGE, NO BENEFITS?

The shortcomings of Article 8(j) As discussed in the following chapter, m a n y coun tr ies are in the early stages o f de veloping access a n d benefit-sharing laws to m e e t their C B D c o m m i t m e n t . H o w to draft provisions related to c o m m u n i t y c o n s c n t and benefit sharing rem ains one o f the m o s t difficult issues to address. T h e h a n d f u l o f countries th a t to date have developed or i m p l e m e n t e d legislation have taken d iff erent a p p r o a c h e s to the ques ti on o f w h e t h e r c o m m u n i t y rights to c o n s e n t to the collection o f genetic resources d e p e n d s on the c o n t r i b u t i o n o f traditional knowle dg e to their use o f genetic resources. T h e P hilippines and C o s ta Rica require c o m m u n i t y c o n s e n t for all requests for access to genetic resources. By contr ast, Brazil a n d Peru tie the right o f c o n s e n t to the provision o f tr a ditiona l knowledge. At m eetin gs on the i m p l e m e n t a t i o n o f the C B D , Parties to the C o n v e n t i o n have wrestled for years with h o w to i nterp ret Article 8(j) in nation al legislation a n d w h a t r e q u ire m e n ts to m a k e for i n f o r m e d c o n s c n t by c o m m u n i t i e s . Finally, in 2 0 0 1 , the Sixth C o n f e r e n c e o f the Parties ( C O P ) to the C B D appr ov ed the ‘Bo nn G u i d e l i n e s ’ o n access a n d b e n e f i t s h a r i n g . T h e g u i d e l i n e s r e c o m m e n d t h a t in fo r m e d c o n s e n t o f in d ig en o u s and local c o m m u n i t i e s be required for collection o f genetic resources with or w i t h o u t associated knowledg e, ‘in accor dan ce with their tra ditional practices, national access policies a n d subject to d o m e st ic laws’. T h is is en co u r ag in g news for fishing c o m m u n i t i e s whose a quatic genetic resources m ay be s o u g h t by collectors in the future. However , as n either the C B D n o r the guidelines are b i n d i n g on Parties to the C o n v e n t i o n , it remains unce rtain w h e t h e r different g o v e r n m e n t s will follow the Philippines or the Brazilian route. M a n y co un tr ies fear that the r ight to i n f o r m e d c o n s e n t to access m ay be the thin e n d o f the wedge for c o m m u n i t y d e m a n d s (especially a m o n g indigenous peoples) for ex tend ed rights o f o w nership and contr ol o f lands and biological resources an d a c o n s e q u e n t erosion o f n ational sovereignty and control. W h i l e such co ncerns m ay be justified (especially in light o f i n te rn a ti o n a l h u m a n rights agreem ents s u p p o r t i n g such an extension in the case o f in d ig en o u s peoples), the m ai n reason for e n s u r i n g t h a t c o m m u n i t i e s hav e t h e r i g h t o f c o n s e n t w i t h or w i t h o u t k now ledge associated with the use o f genetic resources is th a t the objectives o f the C B D w o n ’t be achieved if coun tr ies d o n ’t ack now led ge t h a t right. T h i s is the m ajor s h o r t c o m i n g o f Article 8 (j) - by im p l y in g t h a t benefit sharing s h o u ld be lim ited to c o m m u n i t i e s pr ovid in g knowled ge , it fails to rccognizc tha t the con se rvation an d sustainable use o f genetic resources will be attained only if in d ig en o u s an d local

T H IN K IN G LOCALLY: R IG H TS O F IN D IG E N O U S A N D LOCAL C O M M U N IT IE S

135

c o m m u n i t i e s ha ve t h e i n c e n t i v e a n d w h e r e w i t h a l to ca r ef ul l y m a n a g e bi o l o gi ca l diversity. B u t c o n s e n t a n d w h e r e w i t h a l d e p e n d o n b e i n g abl e to n e g o t i a t e bene f it s t h a t al leviate p o v e r t y a n d b u i l d t h e c a p a c i t y to d e v e l o p s u s t a i n a b l e l i v el i h o od s a n d h e a l t h y e c o n o m i e s a n d c u l t ur es . T h i s is especiall y t r u e for f i sh i ng c o m m u n i t i e s a n d t h e c o n s e r v a t i o n a n d s u s t a i n a b l e use o f t h r e a t e n e d a q u a t i c biodiversity.

C

ase

Study 4. G

e n e t ic im p r o v e m e n t o f farm ed tilapia:

Lessons f ro m th e G I F T pr o je c t I C L A R M , n o w t h e W o r l d Fish C e n t e r w o r k s w i t h f ar me r s , s c ient ists a n d p o l i c y m a k e r s to h e l p t h e r u ra l p o o r i nc r e ase t h e i r i n c o m e , p r es e r v e t he i r e n v i r o n m e n t , a n d i m p r o v e t h e i r lives t h r o u g h t h e s u s t a i n a b l e use o f a q u a t i c r e s o u r c e s . A n I C L A R M p r o j ec t f or t h e d e v e l o p m e n t o f i m p r o v e d st r ai ns o f ti l api a for r u r a l p o n d f a r m e r s reveals t he c o m p l e x i t y o f issues t h a t p ol i c y m a k e r s face w h e n d e v e l o p i n g r e g u l a t i o n s f or acccss to a q u a t i c g c n c t i c r csour cc s. It also ill ustrates t he l i m i t a t i o n s o f t h i n k i n g o f b e n ef i t s s tr ictly in m o n e t a r y t e rm s .

Background T r o p i ca l finfi sh c u r r e n t l y a c c o u n t f or a b o u t 9 0 p e r c e n t o f g l ob a l a q u a c u l t u r e p r o d u c t i o n f or f o o d . M o s t species c u r r e n t l y f a r m e d are ge n e ti c al ly ver y s i m il a r to w il d, u n d o m e s t i c a t e d stocks. F o r a q u a c u l t u r e to b e a b l e to m e e t t h e e x p e c t e d g l ob al i n crease in d e m a n d f or fish p r o t e i n , t h e r e is a n e e d f or i m p r o v e d st r ai ns t h a t are faster g r o w i n g , r es i s tant to disease, a n d s u i t e d to a var i e t y o f p o n d f a r m i n g c o n d i t i o n s . T h e s i t u a t i o n is a n a l o g o u s to t h e early da ys o f a g r i c u l t u r e. In d e v e l o p i n g c o u n t r i e s , s ma ll- scale p o n d f a r m i n g c a n p r o v i d e n u t r i t i o n a n d i n c o m e in a d d i t i o n to r ec ycl i ng o t h e r w i s e w a s t e d n u t r i e n t s to i m p r o v e soil fertility a n d s u b s e q u e n t c r o p p r o d u c t i o n . M a n y a t t e m p t s at p o n d f a r m i n g fail b e c a u s e o f i n a d e q u a t e k n o w l e d g e o f s o u n d f a r m i n g pr ac t i ce s, p o o r w a t e r qual ity, a n d lack o f access to fish t h a t are a d a p t e d to p o n d f a r m i n g c o n d i t i o n s . T i l a pi a s , f or e x a m p l e , m a t u r e a n d r e p r o d u c e so q u i c k l y t h a t , even if a f a r m e r o v e r c o m e s o t h e r obstacl es, he m a y e n d u p w i t h a large p o p u l a t i o n o f fish t o o s m a l l to be m a r k e t a b l e . A l t h o u g h t h e m a j o r i t y o f A f r i c an s rely o n fish as t h e i r p r i m a r y s o u r c e o f a n i m a l p r o t e i n , p o n d f a r m i n g has g e n e r a l l y fail ed to f l o u ri s h in Afr i c a. Yet til api a , a s pccics n a t iv e to t h e c o n t i n e n t , has p r o v e n to be o n e o f t h e bi gg e st succcss stories in p o n d f a r m i n g in m a n y A si a n c o u n t r i e s ( p a r t ic u l a r l y t h e P h i l i p p i n e s , C h i n a a n d T h a i l a n d ) . T i l a p i a s are a m a j o r s o u r c e o f p r o t e i n f or t he p o o r in T h a i l a n d b e c au s e t h e y c o s t h a l f as m u c h as o t h e r f r e s h w a t e r species s uc h as catfish a n d s n a k e h e a d . T h e fish is also w i d e l y a n d p r o f i t a b l y f a r m e d in t h e s o u t h e r n U S . S o m e o f t he r e c e n t success o f f a r m e d til apia p r o d u c t i o n in Asia is a r esult o f a b r e e d i n g p r o g r a m m e b y I C L A R M . In t h e early 1 9 9 0 s , I C L A R M d e v e l o p e d a n e w s t r a i n o f t i l a p i a b y c r o s s - b r e e d i n g s ever al s t r a i n s o f N i l e t i l a p i a ( O reoch rom is n iloticu s). N e i t h e r g e n et i c al l y m o d i f i e d n o r t r a n s g e n i c , t h e n e w s t r ai n has b e e n d e v e lo p e d usin g tr a d itio n a l selective b r e e d in g m e t h o d s u n d e r th e G e n e tic

136

BI.UE GENES

Im p ro v e m e n t o f Farm ed Tilapia (G I F T ) p ro g r a m m e . Tilapias were first i n t r o ­ d u c e d from Africa to S o u th e as t Asia in the 1970s, a n d the G I F T strain was developed from collections m ad e in four African countries in the late 1980s and from four existing collections in the Philippines. Two decades later, following a furth er series o f IC L A R M projects, tilapia farm in g in rural Africa m ay finally be a b o u t to get a fresh start.

T h e b e g in n i n g s o f G I F T In the m id -1 9 8 0 s, IC L A R M developed an a q u aculture p ro g r a m m e based on the recognition th at m o re productive and profitable a q u acu lture in developing c o u n ­ tries w o u ld d e p e n d on d e v elo p m en t o f better breeds o f farm ed aquatic organisms a n d better farm en v iro n m en ts. Tilapias were choscn as test species becausc o f their im p o rtan ce in w arm w ater aqu acu ltu re an d their usefulness in investigating the a p p li c a ti o n o f g en etics in a q u a c u l t u r e . T h e p r o p o s e d p r o g r a m m e , w h ic h e m p lo y e d b o th in situ an d ex situ c o n se r v a tio n o f g enetic resources, w o u ld proceed in three phases: d o c u m e n ta tio n o f genetic resources (wild an d farmed); evaluation o f their culture p erform ance; a nd the use o f germ plasm in breeding p ro g r a m m e s. T h is p r o g r a m m e b eca m e th e f o u n d a t io n for th e G I F T project, w hich was started in 1988 with the objective o f developing m ore prod uctiv e stocks o f tilapia by selection for high grow th rate and o th e r econom ically i m p o r t a n t traits (eg disease resistance and m a tu ra tio n rate), an d providing th e im p ro ved strains to nation al an d regional testing p ro g ra m m e s an d th ence to fish farmers (Pullin et al, 1991). T h e G I F T project involved a co llabo ration betw een I C L A R M , In s titu te o f A q uacu ltu re Research o f N o rw a y (A K V A F O R S K ), and three P hilipp ine in stitu ­ tions: the Freshwater A qu aculture C e n tre o f C en tral Luzon State University, the M arin e Science In stitute o f the University o f the Philippines, an d the Bureau o f Fisheries an d A quatic Resources. T h e Philippines was chosen as the site for G I F T because o f farmers’ need for m ore pro du ctive fish, a well developed n ational seed s u p p l y sy s te m , a n d av ailab ility o f te c h n ic a l s u p p o r t . A K V A F O R S K w o u ld co n tr ib u te practical experience in fish breeding p ro gram m es. Initial steps in the G I F T projcct in clu ded the d o c u m e n t a ti o n o f tilapia gcnctic resources in Asia and Africa, estab lishm en t o f a collection o f p rom ising strains o f Nile tilapia from Africa a n d from existing Asian cultured stocks, an d evaluation o f the wild N ile tilapia germ plasm from Africa, along w ith existing cultured stocks in the Philippines in a wide range o f farm in g systems an d agroclim atic conditions. In 1 9 8 8, the G I F T team travelled to Africa to collect breeders a nd fingerlings o f N ile tilapia in Egypt, G h a n a , Kenya a nd Senegal. T h is was d o n e in collaboration w ith n ational research institu tion s in each o f the four countries (G u p ta et al, 20 00 ) as well as the University o f H a m b u r g ; the M usée Royale de l’A frique C entrale in T e rv u re n , B elgium ; th e G h a n a I n s titu te o f A q u a tic Biology; the Suez C a n a l University in Egypt; an d B aobob Farm s in M o m b a sa , Kenya. T h e eight tilapia strains eventually used for the G I F T study included four African wild strains and four d o m e s tic a te d strain s from th e P h ilip p in e s. T h r e e o f th e African strains (E gypt, K enya and Senegal) were fo u n d to p e rform as well as or b e tte r tha n

T H IN K IN G LOCALLY: R IG H TS O F IN D IG E N O U S A N D LOCAL C O M M U N IT IE S

137

d o m e s t i c a t e d st r ai ns u s e d by P h i l i p p i n e fish f ar me r s . C o m b i n i n g g e r m p l a s m f r o m t h e A f r i c a n s t r a i n s w i t h t h e f a r m e d P h i l i p p i n e s s t r a i n s f o r m e d t h e b asis f or c r e a t i o n o f a g e n e p o o l f or sclcctivc b r e e d i n g , w i t h p os i t ive result s ( Pul l in ct al, 1 9 9 1 ; E k n a t h et al, 1 9 9 1 , 1 9 9 3 ) .

I n t e r n a t i o n a l c o n c e r n s a b o u t th e use o f a q u a tic g e r m p la s m In 1 9 9 2 , I C L A R M o r g a n i z e d a m e e t i n g o n I n t e r n a t i o n a l C o n c e r n s in t h e U s e o f A q u a t i c G e r m p l a s m , w i t h t h e ob je ct i ve o f p r o v i d i n g cl ear p r ior i ti e s a n d d i r e c t i o n s in f i s h - b r e e d i n g r esear ch a n d a p p r o a c h e s t h a t w o u l d b e n e f i t small- scale, r e s ou r ce p o o r fish f a r m e r s in d e v e l o p i n g c o u n t r i e s ( I C L A R M , 1 9 9 2 ) . T h e g r o u p r e c o m ­ m e n d e d t h a t G I F T u n d e r t a k e a f u r t h e r s a m p l i n g o f wi l d til apia p o p u l a t i o n s in Africa, w ith g u id a n c e from the F A O C o d e o f C o n d u c t for p la n t g e n o ty p e c o l l e c t io n , in o r d e r to r e e x a m i n e t he p o t e n t i a l b e n e f i t o f cross b r e e d i n g . It n o t e d t h e p o t e n t i a l o f G I F T to s ig n i fi c an t ly i m p r o v e t he p r o d u c t i v i t y o f til apia f a r m i n g a n d t h e i n t e n t i o n o f G I F T t r us t e es t h a t t h e i m p r o v e d s t r a i ns be freely p r o v i d e d , t h r o u g h t h e a p p r o p r i a t e n a t i o n a l a u t h o r i t y , to t il ap i a f a r m e r s in p a r t i c i p a t i n g c o u n t r i e s . T h e p r i m a r y ben e f ici a r ies w o u l d be five Asian c o u n t r i e s w i t h s i g n i f i c an t ti l api a p r o d u c t i o n . As A f r i c an access to t h e G I F T s t r ai n w o u l d n o t b e likely in t h e s h o r t t e r m , t he g r o u p s u g g e s t e d t h a t I C L A R M r ec og n i ze t h e A fr i ca n c o n t r i b u t i o n b y i n c re a si n g its c o m m i t m e n t to A f r i c an a q u a c u l t u r a l d e v e l o p m e n t , a l t h o u g h t h e r e was m u c h u n c e r t a i n t y a b o u t h o w t hi s m i g h t b e d o n e ( I C L A R M , 1 9 9 2 ) . O n e m e e t i n g p a r t i c i p a n t l at er c o m m e n t e d : ‘T h e B i o d i v e r s i t y C o n v e n t i o n d o e s n o t p r o v i d e r e g u l a t i o n s f or c o m p e n s a t i o n f or p a s t c o n t r i b u t i o n s . H o w e v e r , as it is i m p o r t a n t t h a t Africa c on se r ve s wi l d til apia relatives to k ee p t h e m available f or f u t u r e use, s o m e b en e f i t s a c c r u i n g f r o m u t i l i z a t io n o f til apia g e r m p l a s m m u s t b e r e t u r n e d ’ ( R o s e n d a l , 1 9 9 2) . T h e g r o u p c o n s i d e r e d t h e n e e d to s a f e g u a r d i n n o v a t i o n s t h r o u g h p a t e n t i n g b u t c o n c l u d e d it was n o t likely to b e c o m e a n issue in t h e f oreseeabl e f u t u r e ( I C L A R M , 1 9 9 2 ) . It also n o t e d t h e la ck o f r e c o g n i t i o n b y r es e ar che r s o f t h e i m p o r t a n c e a n d r el e vanc e o f local k n o w l e d g e o f fish g e n e t i c r es our ce s a n d h a b i t a t s a n d s u g g e s t e d t h a t I C L A R M e x p l o r e w ay s to d i s s e m i n a t e i n f o r m a t i o n o n t h e c xi s t c n c c a n d p os s i bl e us e ful ne ss o f local k n o w l e d g e .

D i s t r i b u t i o n o f G I F T strai n to f arm ers By t he fifth g e n e r a t i o n o f s e le c ti o n, t h e G I F T fish h a d a c h i e v e d a n aver age g en e t i c g a i n o f 1 2 - 1 7 p e r c e n t p e r g e n e r a t i o n a n d a c u m u l a t i v e i ncrease o f 8 5 p e r c e n t in g r o w t h c o m p a r e d to base p o p u l a t i o n s . T e s t i n g o f t h e s e c o n d g e n e r a t i o n in f o u r o t h e r c o u n t r i e s ( B a n g l a d e s h , C h i n a , V i e t n a m a n d T h a i l a n d ) also reve al e d h i g h e r g r o w t h rates a n d b e t t e r sur vi val rates t h a n in local strai ns. D e y ( 2 0 0 0 ) c o n c l u d e d t h a t ‘t h e a d o p t i o n o f t h e i m p r o v e d s t r a i n will i n c re as e ti l api a p r o d u c t i o n a n d c o n s e q u e n t l y t h e t ot a l fish p r o d u c t i o n in a c o u n t r y , e n h a n c e p r o f i t a b i l i t y o f fish f a r m i n g , d e c r eas e til apia prices, i n c r e ase c o n s u m p t i o n o f til apia a n d o t h e r fish for

138

BI.UE GENES

non-fish farm ing p roducers and G I F T a d o p tin g farmers an d increase the welfare o f the c o u n tr y ’s eco n o m y as a w h o le ’. Prior to the official te r m i n a ti o n o f th e G I F T p roject in 19 97 , its p artn e rs decided to establish a private, n o n -p r o fit fo u n d a tio n called the G I F T F o u n d a tio n In tern ation al to comm ercialize the G I F T strain in the Philippines th ro u g h p a r t­ nerships w ith the private sector, thus generating fu n d in g to c o n tin u e w ith selective b r e e d i n g a n d research on G I F T fish. IC L A R M p ro v id e d g e rm p la s m to th e F o u n d a tio n and to a P h ilip pin e institutio n. Later IC L A R M provided breeders from the sixth generation to a N o rw eg ian aqu aculture com pany, G e n o M a r ASA, for fu rth er im p ro v e m e n t an d m arketing. At the same time, the G I F T F o u n d a tio n was selling/dissem inating the G I F T strain in the P hilippines and IC L A R M was p ro v id in g it, th r o u g h th e I n te rn a tio n a l N e tw o r k on G ene tic s in A q u a c u ltu r e (I N G A ), to o th e r Asian countries th at requested it.2 T h e G I F T F o u n d a tio n established six accredited hatcheries in the Philippines near the greatest c o n cen tratio n o f tilapia grow o u t p ro d u c tio n farms. Small-scale farmers (operating p o n d s ranging from 2 0 0 0 to 3 0 0 0 m 2) can now b uy G I F T fingerlings from these hatcheries, alth ou gh the cost is higher than o th e r available tilapia strains.■ ’ As p o o r farm practices or e n v iro n m e n ta l p ro blem s can in h ib it the effective use o f the im proved G I F T strains, the F o u n d a tio n has beg un providing technical s u p p o r t to P hilipp ine farmers o f the G I F T strain. Farm ers in o th e r c o u n ­ tries can ob tain the G I F T strain th ro u g h g o v e rn m en t agencies th at have received b r e e d i n g m a te ria l fro m th e G I F T p ro j e c t o r t h r o u g h I N G A at no cost. In a d d i t i o n , th e F o u n d a t i o n has e n te r e d in to a c o m m e r c i a l re la ti o n s h ip w ith G e n o M a r, w hich is expected to m ake the G I F T strain available in o th e r countries t h r o u g h h a tc h e rie s set u p for th e p u r p o s e . 4 In 1 9 9 9 , G e n o M a r o b ta i n e d c o m m ercial rights for fu rth er im p ro v e m e n t o f the G I F T strain, an d th e b ran d na m e ‘G I F T Super Tilapia’ was registered in the P hilippines.5 IC L A R M retained the right to d istribute the germ plasm it had im p ro ved th ro u g h the G I F T project.

R e t u r n i n g benefits to Africa In 2 0 0 0 , IC L A R M began a project to transfer G I F T ’s selective breeding tech ­ nology from the Philippines to sub-S aharan Africa an d Egypt. T h e objectives o f the new project were to train African scientists on the use o f the selective breeding technology th at is the basis for G IF T , initiate national breeding p rog ra m m e s, and develop strategies for the d issem ination o f the G I F T tec hnology and the g ene ti­ cally im prov ed fish resulting from it. W it h th e assistance o f I N G A , natio n al research institution s in 13 developing countries in Asia, Pacifica an d Africa have now used the selection m e th o d s developed th ro u g h the G I F T project to initiate n a tio n a l b re e d in g p r o g r a m m e s for g enetic im p r o v e m e n t o f th eir in d ig e n o u s cu ltured species (G u p ta et al, 2 00 0). U n d e r its Biodiversity an d G e n e tic Resources Research Program (B G R R P ), IC L A R M followed the G I F T project w ith a n o th e r in the coastal zone o f West Africa to facilitate the c onservation a nd sustainable use o f the brackish w ater b la c k - c h i n n e d tilap ia (Sarotberodon m ela n o th ero n ), w ith th e o b jectiv e o f im prov ing fish supply and pro vid in g livelihood o p p o rtu n itie s for fisherm en an d

THINKING LOCALLY: RIGHTS OF INDIGENOUS AND LOCAL COMMUNITIES

139

farmers. S. m elanotheron has lo n g been an i m p o r t a n t resource for p o o r fish erm en using a variety o f fishing gear a n d tr a d itio n a l m e t h o d s o f fisheries e n h a n c e m e n t , the so-callcd ‘b r u s h p a r k s ’. H ow ever, in d ig e n o u s k n o w le d g e a n d th e m a n a g e m e n t practices th a t have trad itio n a lly been used to conserve its p o p u la t io n s are bre ak in g d o w n because o f h u m a n p o p u la t io n increases a n d h a b it a t d e g ra d a tio n . S. m e la n ­ otheron is n o t c u r r e n t l y f a r m e d , b u t t h e n a t i o n a l i n s t i t u t i o n s in G h a n a a n d I C L A R M believe it has p o te n t ia l for b o th b rackish w a te r an d fresh w ater fa r m in g a n d t h a t its d e v e l o p m e n t for this p u rp o s e w o u ld reduce im p o r t a t i o n o f exotic species for a q u a c u ltu re , w h ic h c o u ld have adverse e n v i r o n m e n t a l im p acts. Activities u n d e r th e S. m elanotheron p ro je c t in 1998 in c lu d e d : co llection o f m o r e t h a n 4 0 0 tissue s a m p le s in several c o u n tr ie s by n a t i o n a l in s t i t u t i o n s to d e t e r m i n e th e genetic diversity o f the subspecies; o b ta i n in g in d ig e n o u s k n o w le d g e o n the biology, ccology an d use o f th e brackish w a te r tilapia; id e n tify in g lo cation s in G h a n a w ith the p o te n tia l for c o m m u n i t y - b a s e d su staina ble a q u a c u l tu re a n d / o r fisheries d e v e lo p m e n t; a n d sta rtin g an a q u a c u l tu r e d e v e lo p m e n t p r o g r a m m e in o n e o f these lo cation s ( I C L A R M , 1 9 99 ). T h e live g e rm p la s m is b ein g m a in ta i n e d by th e n a tio n a l in s titu tio n s.

Case study conclusions For certain pu rp o s es, g enetic resources m a y be collected fro m - a n d ben efits m ay flow to - m a n y c o m m u n i t i e s in m a n y c o u n trie s. In th e case o f G I F T , IC L A R M h a d great a m b i ti o n s to im p ro v e c o n d it io n s for raising farm e d fish a n d increasing food su pp lies in d e v e lo p in g c o u n tr ie s, a n d to a large e x te n t s u cceed ed. W h il e there is no in d ic a tio n t h a t th e c o m m u n i t i e s from w h ic h tilapia were collected received a n y d ire c t benefits, A frican c o u n tr ie s did e v en tu a lly b en e fit fro m th e research c o n d u c te d u n d e r G I F T a n d s u b s e q u e n t projects. W h il e n o n e o f this o cc u rred u n d e r th e types o f access a n d b e n e fit- s h a rin g a r r a n g e m e n t s en v is io n e d by th e C B D , it provides a useful illu stration o f th e types o f n o n - m o n e t a r y b enefits t h a t m a y be useful to c o m m u n it ie s .

A c ce ss to b r o o d s to c k in c o m m u n iti e s W h e n the original G I F T c ollections o c c u rre d , several years p rio r to th e C B D , g enetic resources were co n sid e re d c o m m o n p r o p e r ty a n d it w o u ld have been rare in d e e d for collectors to seek th e c o n s e n t o f p ro v id er c o m m u n it ie s . N a tio n a l in s ti­ tu t io n s in th e p ro v id er c o u n trie s m a d e th e co llection s o n I C L A R M 's behalf, a n d n o n e o f the c o u n tr ie s involved h a d r e q u ire m e n ts for o b ta i n in g the c o n s c n t o f or s h a r in g ben efits w ith c o m m u n i t i e s from w h ic h a q u a tic g cn ctic rcsourccs were o b ta in e d . Ten years later, w h e n IC L A R M re tu rn e d to Africa to o b ta in b r o o d s to c k for the B G R R P p ro ject, n o t m u c h h ad c h a n g e d . O n c e again g o v e r n m e n t in s ti tu t io n s f ro m A frican c o u n t r i e s m a d e t h e c o lle c tio n s, a n d n o n e o f t h e c o u n t r i e s h a d d ev elo p e d access laws. As a C G I A R centre, I C L A R M is ob lig ed to follow C G I A R co llectio n policies, w h ic h state t h a t centres m u s t o b ta in fo rm a l p e rm iss io n from the relevant a u th o r iz e d g o v e r n m e n t b o d y p rio r to m a k i n g a collection ( C G I A R ,

140

BLUE GENES

2001). Although the O A U model law clearly confirms the need for laws requiring collectors to obtain consent from local comm un ities (OAU, 2000), no African co untry has yet made it a legal requirement. T h e few access and benefit-sharing laws already in existence generally require c o m m u n i ty consent for collections - w ithout saying how to obtain it. W h a t are the implications when projects require collections in many communities scattered over several countries? As in the case of the ICLA RM projects, organizations planning to select fish populations suitable for aquaculture may need to make nu m er ou s collections to determine genetic variability and identify desirable char­ acteristics for br ee ding. In this respect, collections for a q u a c u ltu r e are like bioprospecting for marine organisms - they may require collections from a variety o f populations over a wide area. Collections for aquaculture development require m u ch greater effort than collections for crop breeding, which often have the benefit of generations of farmers’ experience and knowledge. T h e fish farming industry is starting from scratch - attem pting to accomplish in a few decades what crop farmers may have taken thousands of years to achieve. M an y fish species currently being tested for aquaculture potential have never been farmed before. As more and more national access laws come into being, organizations like I CLA RM may need to obtain consent from nu m erous local com m un ities for collections o f b r o o d s t o c k or even D N A samples. T h e i m p a c t o f such a requirement on research and development can be imagined.

A cadem ic versus com m ercial collections Even if laws distinguish between academic and commercial research, the consent process is still likely to be onerous. T h e only distinction the O A U model law makes is that academic users may pay lower permit fees. T h e n there’s the difficult question of the potential for overlap between acadcmic and commercial research purposes. P h ilip p in e law requires in stit u ti o n a l collectors to switch from an academic to a commercial permit if it becomes apparent that research may lead to commercial prospects. T h e O A U model law prohibits collectors from applying for IPR protection over biological resources or their derivatives w it h out the consent of provider communities. In the G I F T case, ICLA RM had no direct commercial objectives when the project started yet, ten years after the initial collections, a private co m pan y obtained the right to commercial activities made possible by the G I F T development of a new tilapia strain. As the G I F T example illustrates, the link between the collector (national institutions) , the user ( I C L A R M ) , and eventual commercial use (by G c n o M a r) can covcr a lot o f time and territory. Clearly, social benefits do arise from G c n o M a r s work, which could not effectively proceed w itho ut some form o f intellectual property protection. More than anything else, the G e n o M a r link illustrates the complexity of issues that policy makers must take into account when developing laws on access to genetic resources and their commercial use. Laws that are too zealous can severely impede the work o f institutional collectors whose ultimate goal is to improve conditions in local communities, and they can also ham per commercial o p p o r t u ­ nities which may be in the public interest. Nevertheless, if governments are serious

T H IN K IN G LOCALLY: RIGHTS OF IN D IG EN O U S AND LOCAL C O M M U N ITIES

141

about ensuring benefits to communities that provide broodstock, they will need to carefully consider how far reaching laws will be with regard to commercial profits that may be only tenuously linked to initial collections and may not occur until the distant future.

Benefits to com m unities O b ta ining the conscnt o f cach co m m u n ity providing aquatic gcnctic rcsourccs could be relatively straightforward if fair and efficient processes are developed with national assistance. T h e most difficult obstacle may ultimately be the negotiation of benefits acceptable to co mmunities. T h e O A U model law, like some other proposed or existing laws, makes only one requirement: the pay m en t of royalties. T h is provision pr oba bl y orig inated with concer ns a b o u t b io p ro s p e c tin g for medicinal plants or the use o f the traditional knowledge of agricultural c o m m u ­ nities for commercial gain. However, the narrow legislative focus on monetary compensation may be both short-sighted and counterproductive. N o n - m o n e ta ry benefits directed towards i m p r o v in g the e c o n o m ic an d social well-being of com m un ities may be far more useful in the long run not only for the communities themselves but also for the prom oti on of sustainable development - the ultimate objective of the C B D . T h e ICLA RM projects provide an innovative example of how access to genetic resources in a variety o f co m m u n ities can result in the creation of sustainable fishing and fish farming livelihoods on a broad scale, p o t e n ­ tially resulting in far greater benefits for rural com m un ities and countries than cash payment. T h e G I F T example has no clear parallel in the collection of plant genetic resources. Although Asian rather than African farmers were the initial beneficiaries of the development o f improved tilapia strains, the G I F T project provides a useful model for innovative uses of farming technologies for the benefit o f local communities. A legislative focus on b e n efit-s hari ng ag reem ents betwee n a prov ider c o m m u n i ty and a collector may be too narrow to accom mod ate projects such as those con duc ted by IC L A R M and those that will be needed in the future to improve the productivity of rural po n d farms in developing countries. It may be that national governments need to facilitate broader-scale agreements involving groups of co mm unities. In the case o f GIFT, n ot every c o m m u n i t y in which collections were made directly benefited from the results o f the ICLA RM devel­ o p m e n t o f new strains and training for rural fish farmers. T hey may benefit in the long run, however, through the efforts o f national breeding programmes assisted by GIFT. Alternatively, governments could take steps to ensure that com munities providing aquatic genetic resources share in revenues created in other c o m m u ­ nities - for instance, through the establishment of national trust funds to help pro vid er c o m m u n i t i e s e n h a n c e susta inab le fishing livelihoods (eg t h r o u g h restoration of fish habitat, revival o f traditional fisheries practices, improvem ent of marketing skills, etc).

i 42

BLUE GENES

P o n d f a r m i n g a n d c a p tu r e f is h e r ie s In som e n o rth e rn countries, c apture fisheries organizations fiercely o ppose c o m p e ­ tition from industrial aq uacu lture, arguing th at it will n o t only p u t them o u t o f business b u t also have an adverse effect on aquatic biodiversity. B ut equ ating the industrial aq u acu ltu re o f species like salm on with rural p o n d farm in g o f species like tilapia is c o m p a r in g apples a n d oranges. T h e need for a massive increase in the availability o f fish p rotein to feed grow ing p o p u latio n s in developing countries is u n d is p u te d , and to ensure food security, go vern m en ts will need to do everything they can to p r o m o te b o th sustainable capture fisheries and p o n d farming. Smallscale p o n d farm ing can substantially benefit the econ om ies o f the smallest villages and c o m m u n itie s , som e o f w h ich may rely on capture fisheries as well.

Chapter 5

Acting Globally: National Laws on Access to Aquatic Resources

Farmed Atlantic salmon broodstock, British Columbia (Photo by Monica Maclsaac)

144 BLUF. GENES

T h e COLLECTOR’S CONUNDRUM: W h a t ’s the law? In May 2002, the US D e p a r tm e n t o f State (2002) issued the following guidelines to American researchers collecting plant, animal and microbial genetic materials in other countries: Before collecting any genetic resources abroad, a researcher should have a written agreement that includes these key provisions: • prior informed consent o f the national government; • access to the genetic resources or 'traditional knowledge* o f an indigenous com m unity or com m unities w ill norm ally require obtaining the p rio r informed consent o f that community(ies); • the non-monetary and/or monetary benefits the collector w ill provide, and whether, and under what conditions, the collector may transfer the collected genetic resources to another party. Basically, the guidelines sum up the essence o f the access provisions o f the C B D no more collection o f genetic resources w i t h o u t a solid ag reem ent with the co untry and co m m u n i ty where you’re collecting them. T h e US D e p a r t m e n t of State noted that m an y countries have either introduced or are developing national access regimes a n d th a t the C B D creates an oblig atio n to o b tain the prior informed conscnt of sourcc countries whether or not they have such regimes in place. Somewhat ironically, the US is one o f a handful of countries that have yet to ratify the C B D . Imagine you’re a researcher hired by an aquaculture co m pan y to collect, say, tilapia broodstock from several locations in Africa or catfish broodstock from different rivers in Asia. O r let’s say you’re with an ornamental fish consortium in Florida and you want to enlist the help of villagers in a South American country to collect live specimens so you can transport them back to the US and try breeding them. O r perhaps, as a researcher for a pharmaceutical company, you know that a new type of sponge has been discovered in Caribbean waters, and you want to collect samples for testing. O r you’re doing a P h D study on genetic variability in freshwater turtles, and you’d like to travel to remote areas catching turtles in the wild, scraping off D N A samples, and freezing them for later analysis back home. At present, you or an intermediary might just go and collect the animals or genetic material, pay whomever helped you catch them, make the appropriate arrangements for safe transportation, maybe buy a gift for a m inor official or two if necessary and if your conscience would allow it, and go ab ou t your business. But all t h a t has c h a n g e d with the C B D , a n d you w a n t to m ak e sure y o u ’re in compliance with the US D e p a r tm e n t of State guidelines. W her e to start?

W a n te d : A g u i d e b o o k for collectors It would make the job o f researchers a lot easier if there were the equivalent of a Lonely Planet Guide to access and benefit-sharing laws in every country. T h e guide mig ht answer such questions as:

ACTING GLOBALLY: NATIONAL LAWS O N ACCESS TO AQUATIC RESOURCES

• • • • •

•

•

•

•

• • •

145

Does the c o u n t r y have any laws regulating the collection o f aquatic b io ­ diversity? W h a t ’s the scopc of the law? Docs it make any distinction between biological and genetic resources? Whose permission do I have to get and how do I get it? If I need to get the prior informed consent o f an indigenous community, how do I tell what the co m m u n it y is and who speaks for it? W h a t happens if the c o m m u n ity has no knowledge o f the fish I ’m collecting or at least no knowledge that I need for breeding or other research? Do I still need to get its consent? W h a t does prior informed consent mean, anyway? H o w m u c h information do I have to reveal and how can I make sure the c o m m u n ity understands what I ’m talking about? W h a t kinds o f ‘benefits’ will I be able to and need to provide? W h a t if I’m not planning to use the material commercially or, if I am, I w o n ’t know whether there’s likely to be any m one y it for years? If I do pay the co m m u n ity something for the right to collect fish broodstock, can I patent the new strain I develop and be done with any future obligations to the community? I ’m a scientist, not a negotiator. I know nothing about the indigenous c o m m u ­ nities in the region where I ’ll be working and I d o n ’t even speak the language. H ow can I get help negotiating an agreement? W h y can't I just buy the fish or marine organisms I need from a local fisherman? If I do get consent, what am I allowed to do with the material I collect? W h a t if a co m m u n i ty says no? Can I just move to another part o f the river inhabited by the fish I ’m looking for and make a deal with another community?

If such a guidebook did exist right now, it would be a very slim volume. T h e C B D obligates all its m em ber countries (188 in 2004) to develop access and benefitsharing measures. Ten years after the coming into force of the C B D , not a single developed co untry has such a law in place. This may not be surprising given that southern countries are where genetic resources are in greatest d e m a n d - though it is a matter of some concern to indigenous peoples in northern countries. In the South, as we’ll see below, several countries are exp er im en tin g with new laws g o verning access to genetic resources, c o m m u n i t y rights, an d biodiversity man ag em en t generally. At the m o m e n t , th a t’s largely all they are - experiments in the form of regional model laws that countries might draw upon (eg OAU), provi­ sional presidential decrees (eg Philippines and Brazil) that lack the weight of congressional statutes, and innovative but u n im plem ented proposals (eg Peru’s law for the protection of indigenous knowledge). In essence, the world has been adopting a wait-and-see attitude towards making clear rules regarding the conservation of biological diversity, the sustainable use of gcnetic rcsourccs, and sharing the benefits from their use - the three goals of the C B D . Certainly the objectives of the C B D are no less im p o rtan t than they were at the time o f the Earth S u m m it in 1992 - quite the contrary. So why the delay?

146

BLUE GENES

T h e h o l d - u p in de ve lo pi ng access laws O n e body o f o p in io n has it th at industrialized countries, th ro u g h the A gre em en t on T R I P S , have hijacked the C B D . From this perspective, developing countries p u t all their effort into gainin g C B D recognition o f nation al sovereignty over genetic resources, only to find that w h a t really m a ttered was ow nership o f the ideas th a t m ak es possible p a rticu lar uses o f gen etic resources. In o th e r w o rd s, if a so u th e rn c o u n tr y has sovereignty over a medicinal plan t or toxic m arine organism , b u t a transn ation al c o m p a n y holds the p a te n t on the process o f using the genetic resource to m ake a m edicine - or, indeed, a p a ten t on a naturally o ccu rring gene th at enables a fish or p lan t to live in icy c o n d itio n s —then sovereignty over natural resou rces m a y be v irtu a lly valueless c o m p a r e d to th e r i g h t to p ro f it from invention. D ev elop ing co un tries th a t t h o u g h t th a t the C B D was merely setting the stage for new rules have discovered to their c o n sterna tio n th at the playing field has shifted u n d e r their feet thanks to the pressures o f co rp orate globalization. T h e T R I P S s y n d ro m e is certainly n o t the only factor h o ld in g back the devel­ o p m e n t o f access an d benefit-sharing laws, b u t it has m ad e developing countries th in k very carefully a b o u t how to get the m o s t b an g from their legislative buck w hen it com es to regulating genetic resources. Som e countries are also taking it slow an d easy in order to learn from the painful experience o f the Philippines, the first c o u n try o u t o f the starting blocks in the initial eagerness to translate C B D theory into legislative action (see Case Stud y 5 at the end o f this chapter). T h e app ro xim ately 50 countries currently in the process o f developing access and benefit-sharing laws are asking themselves questions such as the following: •

•

•

• •

•

H o w do we define the right o f in digen ou s and local c o m m u n itie s to negotiate access to genetic resources? D o we base th a t right on their c o n tr ib u tio n o f trad i­ tional know ledge, or should any c o m m u n it y have the right? H o w do we balance o u r C B D obligations to p ro tect tradition al know ledge against ind ustrial c o u n tr y pressures to p ro te c t th e IPR s o f users o f genetic resources? H o w do we give c o m m u n itie s a right to negotiate access to genetic resources w ith o u t bring in g com m ercial and academ ic research to a virtual halt? H o w do we distinguish betw een com m ercial an d academ ic research? H o w do wc build an d finance the in frastructu re needed to i m p le m e n t an d enforce new laws? W h a t k inds o f benefits should be negotiated w ith collectors at the n ational and c o m m u n it y levels? W h a t kinds o f benefits are m ean in gfu l and achievable, and h o w can the y p r o m o t e th e co n se rv a tio n and su s ta in a b le use o f biological diversity? S h ou ld there be broad stakeholder p articipation in the d ev e lo p m e n t o f access laws, or will th a t just lead to gridlock an d no result at all? If we w an t to get stakeholder in p u t, how sh o uld we go a b o u t it?

In the m e a n tim e , while the parties to the C B D try to dccide how to im p le m e n t access and benefit-sharing laws, co nfusion reigns. Ten Kate and Laird (1999) note

A C T IN G GLOBALLY: N A TIO N A L LAWS O N ACCESS T O A Q UATIC RESOURCES

147

t h a t t h e m o s t c o m m o n i n d u s t r y c o m p l a i n t a b o u t t h e C B D a n d its i m p l e m e n ­ t a t i o n is t he lack o f cl ar ity a b o u t access p r o c e d u r e s . C o m p a n i e s say t h a t w h i l e t he C B D ( a n d e x i st i n g acccss laws) m a y b e f ine in t he or y, t h e r e is n o p ra c t i ca l w a y to i m p l e m e n t , m o n i t o r a n d e n f o r c e t h e m . As o n e r es e ar ch e r p u t it, ‘T h e access a n d b e n e f i t s h a r i n g d i s c us s i on is n o t really m o v i n g , a n d c o m p a n i e s a n d c ol le c tor s are o p e r a t i n g in a v a c u u m . ’ W h a t m a k e s t h e s i t u a t i o n even w o r s e for c o ll ec t o r s o f a q u a t i c g e n e t ic r esour ces is t h a t t h e d e v e l o p m e n t o f n e w access laws is a l m o s t exclusively s h a p e d b y p l a n t issues s u c h as t h e use o f f a r m e r s ’ t r a d i t i o n a l k n o w l e d g e a b o u t c r o p lines o r access to p l a n t s t h a t m a y h a v e m e d i c i n a l values. In c o u n t r i e s s u c h as t h e P h i l i p p i n e s , c o l l e c t i o n o f m a r i n e o r g a n i s m s f or s a m p l i n g b y p h a r m a c e u t i c a l c o m p a n i e s has c e r t a i n l y b e e n in t he m i n d s o f p o li c y m a k e r s , b u t t h e r e ’s little e v i d e n c e o f m u c h t h o u g h t b e i n g given a n y w h e r e to t h e a p p l i c a t i o n o f acccss laws to c ol l ec t i o n s for a q u a c u l t u r e , w h e t h e r f or f o o d fish o r o r n a m e n t a l s . T h i s will u n d o u b t e d l y c h a n g e d u r i n g t h e n e x t t w o d e c a d e s f or t w o p r i m a r y reasons: in c re as e d pr essu r es f or r a p id g l o b a l g r o w t h in f o o d fish a q u a c u l t u r e t o p r o v i d e f o o d se cur i t y, e s p e c ia l l y in s o u t h e r n c o u n t r i e s , a n d t h e c o n t i n u i n g m o m e n t u m o f t h e i n d i g e n o u s r i gh t s movement. T h i s c h a p t e r a n d t h e t w o s u c c e e d i n g c h a p t e r s discuss: •

P r ogr ess to d a t e in t h e d e v e l o p m e n t o f laws r el a te d to t h e ava i labili ty a n d use o f a q u a t i c g e n e t i c r esour ces.

•

P os s i bl e f r a m e w o r k s f o r t h e n e g o t i a t i o n o f access a g r e e m e n t s w i t h f i s h i n g communities.

•

F u n d a m e n t a l p r i n c i p l e s t h a t m a y n e e d to be m e t to e n s u r e t h e effective s h a r i n g a n d c o n s e r v a t i o n o f a q u a t i c b i o d i v e r s i t y in t h e f u tu re .

FINE-TUNING TH E

C B D : T h e B onn guidelines

T h e U S D e p a r t m e n t o f State m e m o d e s c r i b e d a b o ve a p p e a r e d s h o r t l y af ter t he par ti es to t h e C B D h a d ag re ed o n a set o f g e n e r a l g u i d e l i n e s for access a n d b en e f i t s h a r i n g l egislation. By N o v e m b e r 2 0 0 1 , 58 par ti es h a d s u b m i t t e d t he i r s e c o n d n a t i o n a l r e p o r t s o n t he i r p r og r e ss in i m p l e m e n t i n g t he C B D . W e h a v e a l re a d y seen in C h a p t e r 3 w h a t a g e n er al l y low i m p o r t a n c e t he s e n a t i o n a l r e p o r t s p la c e d o n a q u a t i c biodiver sity. R e g a r d i n g Art icl e 8 (j), 2 5 p la c e d a h i g h p r i o r i t y o n i m p l e ­ m e n t a t i o n . S e v e n t e e n o t h e r s d e s c r i b e d it as a m e d i u m priori ty, a n d 13 called it a low pr iori ty. S li gh t l y m o r e t h a n h a l f o f t h e c o u n t r i e s t h a t s u b m i t t e d r e p o r t s i n d i ­ c a t e d t h a t s o m e a c t i o n s w e r e e i t h e r b e i n g t a k e n o r c o n t e m p l a t e d to i m p l e m e n t A rt ic l e 8(j). O t h e r s i n d i c a t e d t h a t t h e y we r e w a i t i n g f or f u r t h e r g u i d a n c e f r o m t he C B D W o r k i n g G r o u p o n A r t ic l e 8(j) be f or e p r o c e e d i n g ( W o r l d Fisheries T ru s t , 2002b). In the sp rin g o f 2 0 0 2 , the Sixth C O P o f the C B D a p p r o v e d the B o n n G u i d e l i n e s o n Access to G e n e t i c R e so u r c e s a n d Fair a n d E q u i t a b l e S h a r i n g o f t he Benef i t s A r i s i n g o u t o f t h e i r U t i l i z a t i o n ( C B D , 2 0 0 2 ) . Like o t h e r C B D p r o d u c t s , the g uidelines represent a h ard w o n co n s en su s a m o n g c o u n trie s w ith very

148

BLUE GENES

diver gent interests a n d c o n s e q u e n tly take the form o f general principles rather tha n a detailed policy f ra m ew ork. It can be expected th at coun tr ies m a y take very different appr oac hes on specific legislative provisions. T h e B o n n G uideli nes address the q ues tion o f access to genetic resources in indigenous a n d local c o m m u n i t i e s in several sections dealing w ith prior i n fo r m e d co n s e n t and benefit sharing.

P rio r in fo rm ed consent •

Respecting the established legal rights o f indigenous and local c o m m u n i t i e s as so ciated w i t h t h e g e n e t i c res our ce s b e i n g accessed o r w h e r e t r a d i t i o n a l knowled ge associated with these genetic resources is being accessed, the prior i n fo r m e d c o n s e n t o f in d ig en o u s a n d local c o m m u n i t i e s and the approval an d in v o lv em en t o f the holders o f tradition al knowled ge s h o u ld be ob ta in e d , in accord an ce w ith their tra dition al practices, national access policies a n d subject to d om estic laws (31). • Access to genetic resources s h o u ld be facilitated at m i n i m u m cost (26). • A n y ch an ge in use for w h ic h c o n s e n t has been g ran ted, in c lu d in g transfer to third parties, m a y require a new applicatio n for prior in f o r m e d c o n s c n t (34). • C o u n t r i e s o f origin sh o u ld s u p p o r t measures to e n h a n c e indigenous a n d local c o m m u n i t i e s ’ capacity to represent their interests fully at negotiations (16).

B en efit sharing •

•

•

C o u n t r i e s o f origin, or o th e r cou ntr ies th a t have acquired genetic resources in accordance w ith the C B D , s h o u ld ensure the fair a n d e quitable s har ing o f benefits in c o n f o r m i t y with m u t u a ll y agreed term s established with indigen ou s a n d local c o m m u n i t i e s (16). Benefits s hou ld be shared fairly and eq uitably wit h all w h o have c o n t r ib u t e d to the resource m a n a g e m e n t , scientific a n d / o r c o m m e r c ia l process — including g o v ernm ental, n o n - g o v e r n m e n t a l or a ca de m ic in stitutions a n d in d ig en o u s a n d local c o m m u n i t i e s . Benefits sh o u ld be directed in such a way as to p r o m o t e con se rvation a n d sustainable use o f biodiversity (48). Benefits m a y be m o n e t a r y or n o n - m o n c t a r y ( A ppen di x II o f the guidelines includes an extensive list o f each type).

T h e B o n n G u i d e l i n e s a p p e a r to m o v e b e y o n d A r t ic le 8(j) o f th e C B D by suggesting th a t t he right o f c o m m u n i t i e s to prior in f o r m e d c o n s e n t exists w h e t h e r or n o t collectors o f genetic resources rely on the use o f traditional knowledg e, an d t h a t benefits sh o u ld be shared w ith any c o m m u n i t y th a t has c o n t r i b u t e d to the m a n a g e m e n t o f the genetic resource. T h i s provision, if translated into national legislation, m a y prove particularly relevant for fishing c o m m u n i t i e s th a t m a y n o t c o n t r ib u t e k now le dge vital to collectors b u t m ay nevertheless have a long history o f sustainable m a n a g e m e n t o f aquatic ccosystcms.

ACTING GLOBALLY: NATIONAL LAWS O N ACCESS TO AQUATIC RESOURCES

¡49

W h a t legal rights do communities have? T h e B o n n G u i d e l i n e s ’ s u g g e s tio n t h a t th e r i g h t to p r i o r i n f o r m e d c o n s e n t be b ased o n 'e sta b lis h e d legal rig h ts ’ o f c o m m u n i t i e s is likely to be c o n t e n t i o u s in m a n y c o u n t r i e s . M u n i c i p a l i t i e s m ay , fo r e x a m p l e , i n c l u d e a r a n g e o f d i s t i n c t fish in g villages t h a t m a y o b je c t i f th e ri g h t to c o n s e n t to access rests w i t h a d i s t a n t m a y o r - as i n d e e d th e y have u n d e r P h i l i p p i n e access leg islatio n. In th e case o f i n d i g e n o u s c o m m u n i t i e s , w h a t th e state re cog niz es as e sta b lish e d legal rig h ts m a y d iffer w id e ly fr o m th o s e c la i m e d b y in d i g e n o u s p e o p le s . U n d e r C a n a d i a n law, for e x a m p l e , m a n y i n d i g e n o u s fish in g c o m m u n i t i e s ( a n d First N a t i o n s ) h a v e n o legal r i g h t even to be c o n s u l t e d in th e c o lle c tio n a n d use o f a q u a t i c g e n e tic resources. T h e S u p r e m e C o u r t o f C a n a d a has re c o g n iz e d th e e x is ten ce o f a b o r i g in a l rig h ts in areas w h e r e n o treaties w ere s ig n e d b e fo re C a n a d a b e c a m e a n a t i o n . As a res u lt th e fed eral a n d p ro v in c ia l g o v e r n m e n t s h a v e b een e m b r o i l e d fo r years in n e g o t i a t i o n s w ith d o z e n s o f First N a t i o n s to c rcate treaties th a t will d e fin e th e n a t u r e a n d e x te n t o f a b o r i g in a l rig h ts, i n c l u d i n g o w n e r s h i p o f l a n d a n d c o n t r o l ov er b io lo g ic a l a n d g e n e tic re sou rces. W h i l e a few treaties h av e b een s ig n e d (C ase S tu d ie s 2 a n d 3 refer to t w o o f t h e m ) , m o s t are y e a rs a w a y f r o m b e i n g f i n a l i z e d . As C a n a d a h as d is c o v e re d , n e g o t i a t i n g th e legal rig h ts o f in d i g e n o u s p e o p le s m a y be th e b e st w ay to se cu re a fair a n d stab le result, b u t th e p a t h is lo n g a n d a r d u o u s . S o m e c o u n tr ie s , su c h as th e P h il ip p i n e s a n d I n d i a , h a v e o p t e d in s te a d to d e fin e c o m m u n i t y a n d / o r i n d i g e n o u s rig h ts by s t a tu t e . O t h e r s are still e x p lo r in g o t h e r o p t i o n s for su i generis p r o t e c t i o n o f c o m m u n i t y rig h ts a n d t r a d i t i o n a l k n o w le d g e . T y p ic a lly , t h e few n a t i o n a l la w s o n c o m m u n i t y r i g h ts e m p h a s i z e i n t e l l e c t u a l p r o p e r t y p r o t e c t i o n . In m o s t n a t i o n s , i n d i g e n o u s a n d local c o m m u n i t y rig h ts r e m a in il l-d e fin e d a t b est, a n d n a t i o n a l g o v e r n m e n t s are a p p r o a c h i n g th e issue w ith e x tr e m e c a u t i o n . T h e c o n c e p t o f e sta b lish e d legal r ig h ts ’, w h ile it m a y s o u n d relatively s t r a i g h t f o r w a r d , c o u l d b e a p o w d e r keg w h e n it c o m e s to w o r k i n g o u t th e d etails o f p r i o r i n f o r m e d c o n s e n t r e q u i r e m e n t s in n a t i o n a l leg islatio n.

N

a tio n a l a n d

r e g io n a l a ppr o a c h es

t o

a c cess laws

C o u n t r i e s d e v e l o p i n g access a n d b e n e f i t - s h a r i n g la w s are lik e ly to l o o k fo r g u i d a n c e b e y o n d th e g c n c ric p ro v is io n s o f th e B o n n G u i d e l i n e s to th e c x p c ric n c c o f th e few c o u n t r i e s th a t h a v e a lr e a d y e m b a r k e d o n le gisla tion . C o u n t r i e s th a t h ave d r a f te d o r e n a c t e d legislation h ave ta k e n w id e ly v a r y i n g a p p r o a c h e s to access. F o r ex a m p le : •

•

C o s t a R ica a n d I n d i a h a v e e m b e d d e d access a n d b e n e f i t p r o v i s io n s in c o m p r e ­ h e n siv e b io d iv e rs ity m a n a g e m e n t laws r a t h e r t h a n as s e p a r a te le gisla tion . T h e a d v a n ta g e o f this a p p r o a c h is t h a t it re cog niz es th e in te g ra l r e l a ti o n s h ip b e tw e e n acc ess p o l i c i e s a n d t h o s e f o r t h e m a n a g e m e n t o f b i o l o g i c a l a n d g e n e t i c resou rc es generally. T h e P h i l i p p i n e s a n d Brazil h a v e e n a c t e d laws sp ecific to acccss a n d b e n e fi t sh a r in g .

150

•

BI.UE GENES

Peru has prop osed a separate law that deals specifically w ith the protectio n o f know ledge o f ind ig eno us peoples a n d recognizing their rights to control the use o f their knowledge.

T h e only countries w ith access a nd benefit-sharing laws cu rren tly in force are Costa Rica, the Philippines and Brazil. O f these, only the C osta Rican law has been approved by the national legislature. T h e Philippine and Brazilian laws are presidential decrees th a t can be term in a te d by o rde r o f the president; in b oth countries, bills have been presented to congress b u t n o t yet passed. S om e s o u th e rn c o u n trie s have been h e sita n t a b o u t p u t t i n g rigorous access requ irem ents in place simply because o f the fear o f losing business an d potential revenues. If a desired species or p o p u la tio n is widespread, collectors faced with w h at they pcrceivc to be o n ero us regulations m ay simply m ove their op eration s to m o re ‘frie n d ly ’ ju risd ictio n s. Partially to avoid such scenarios, th ree regional gro up s o f so u th ern countries have prepared guidelines for m e m b e r states b oth to e n c o u ra g e c o n s is te n c y in a p p r o a c h e s a n d to jo in forces in th e c h a lle n g e o f p re p a rin g very co m p lex legislation w ith n u m e r o u s possibilities for error. T h e regional groups an d the guidelines they have a d o p ted include: •

T h e A S E A N : includes all S o u th east Asian co untries: Ind on esia, Malaysia, Singapore, Philippines, T h a ila n d , Brunei D arussalam , Lao People’s D e m o cra tic R e p u b li c , M y a n m a r a n d C a m b o d i a . (M o d e l law: A S E A N F r a m e w o r k A g reem ent on Access to G c nctic Resources.) • T h e A n d ea n Pact: Bolivia, C o lo m b ia , E cuador, Peru an d Venezuela. (M odel law: Decision 391 - C o m m o n Regim e on Access to G en e tic Resources.) • T h e O A U (predecessor o f th e African G ro u p ), in clud ing m ore th a n 50 African countries. (M od el law: African M o d el Legislation for the Protection o f the Rights o f Local C o m m u n it ie s , Farm ers and Breeders, an d for the Regulation an d Access to Biological Resources.) T h e reg io n al g u id e lin e s set m i n i m u m s t a n d a r d s for n a ti o n a l laws a n d take s o m e w h a t different ap proaches to the recognition o f c o m m u n it y rights: •

•

•

T h e O A U m o d e l law specifically recognizes c o m m u n i t y rights over biological resources and tr aditional know ledge and practices as expressed in custo m a ry c o m m u n it y law. T h e principles established u n d e r the A SEA N F ram ew ork A g ree m en t (2000) echo the language o f Article 8(j) on tradition al know ledge and practices and call for ‘the fair and equitable sharing o f benefits arising from the utilization o f biological an d genetic resources at the co m m u n ity , n ational and regional levels’. T h e A n d e a n Pact D ecision 391 deals w ith agreem ents betw een th e state and collectors a n d makes no specific reference to con sen t by co m m u n ities .

ACTING GLOBALLY: NATIONAL LAWS O N ACCESS T O AQUATIC RESOURCES

151

COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS: H ow the new laws deal w ith access to genetic resources in c o m m u n itie s N o t surprisingly, southern countries have been first off the mark to embark on the development o f access and benefit-sharing legislation. As the primary providers of genetic resources, they have the most to gain by negotiating benefits in return for permitting access. N orthern countries have a far bigger stake in expanding patent protection for users o f genetic resources and consequently have been much more actively involved in pushing for global standards for the other half of the equation, namely for IPRs. T h e three regional associations described above and several countries in Asia, Africa and South Amcrica have taken different approaches to the regulation of access to genetic resources in indigenous and local communities. Some countries appear to limit the right to informed consent and benefit sharing to those c o m m u ­ nities whose traditional knowledge is needed for the use of genetic resources, while others assume the right o f com munities to grant or withhold consent regardless of whether such knowledge is a factor. As the previous chapter noted, this distinction is far more crucial for traditional fishing com mun ities than for farmers and for indigenous groups familiar with medicinal uses o f plants. Assuming that the law does require c o m m u n ity consent for access to aquatic genetic resources, several other issues are im port an t for both communities and collectors: • W h a t procedures should be followed to obtain consent? • Should academic researchers be treated differently from commercial collectors? • W h a t types o f benefit are most appropriate? T h e following synopsis compares how the three regions and several countries (Brazil, Costa Rica, India, Peru and the Philippines') have addressed these ques­ tions. T h e Philippines - the first country to pass access and benefit-sharing legis­ lation after the C B D cam e into force — has the m o s t experience with implementation. Case Study 5 at the end o f this chapter provides a detailed look at the challenges the P h ilip p in es has faced. T h e P h ilip p in e experience holds im p o rta n t lessons for other countries - and for com munities and collectors abo ut what works and what doesn't. N umber s in parentheses refer to the article or section n u m b e r of regional model laws and national laws.

T h e scope o f access laws: Biological a n d gen etic resources As Glowka (1998b) notes, drafters o f legislation should be cncouragcd to use defi­ nitions that already appear in international agreements such as the C B D , since the terms and def in itions used in such d o c u m e n t s reflect a broad in tern a tional consensus. T h e C B D defines biological resources as including ‘genetic resources, organism s or parts thereof, p o p u la t io n s , or any o t h e r biotic c o m p o n e n t of ecosystems with actual or potential use or value for h u m a n ity ’. Genetic resources are defined as ‘genetic material of actual or potential value’, and genetic material

152 BLUE GENES

B o x 5. 1 C o m p a r i n g Laws: D e f i n i n g t h e S c o p e Do a c c e s s laws and g u idelines a p p ly to genetic resources, biolo g ica l resources and/o r k no w led g e ? As the following sum m ary shows, different countries and regions take different ap p ro a ch e s:

OAU A p plies to biolog ica l resources and k n o w led g e or te ch n o lo g ie s of local com m u n ities in any part of the country (s. 3). Biological resources are defined to in clu de genetic resources, orga n ism s or parts thereof, popula tio ns, or any other c o m p o n e n t of e co syste m s (s. 1).

A n d ea n C o m m u n ity A p plies to in situar\6 ex situ genetic resources, defined as all material that contains genetic information of value or of real or potential use (1).

ASEAN Defines b io p ro s p e c tin g ’ as the search for wild sp ec ies with g enes that p ro d u c e better crops and m e d ic in e s , or the exploration of biodiversity for co m m e rc ia lly valuable genetic and biolo gica l resources (3).

B r a z il A p plies to acc es s to c o m p o n e n ts of ‘genetic h e rita g e ’, d efined as ‘information of genetic origin'.

C osta Rica A p plies to sam ple s of c o m p o n e n ts of biodiversity, w h ether in situ or ex situ. Biodiversity includes the variability of living o rg a n is m s of any source, w h ether found in terrestrial, air or marine or aquatic e co sy ste m s or in other e c o lo gic a l c o m p le x e s (s. 7). A c c e s s sections (ss. 6 2 - 8 5 ) a p p ly only to g e n e tic c o m p o n e n ts (c o ntain in g fu n ctio n al units of heredity) and b iochem ic als.

P h ilip p in e s A p plies to biolo g ical and genetic resources.

m ean s ‘any material o f plant, an imal, microbial or o t h e r origin c o n ta i n in g f u n c ­ tional units o f he red ity ’. M o s t laws do n o t distinguish betw een biological and genetic resources, or, as in the case o f the O A U m o d e l law, define biological resources to include genetic resources. T h e access provisions o f C o s t a Rica’s biodiversity law apply only to gcnctic c o m p o n e n t s (co nt ain in g fun cti ona l units o f heredity) and biochcmicals. In all cases, the scope o f the laws is broad e n o u g h to in clude all forms o f aquatic genetic resources, a lt h o u g h no wh e re is it a p p a r e n t t h a t collection for aq ua cul tur e has b e e n c o n t e m p l a t e d . F or e x a m p l e , t h e A S E A N f r a m e w o r k de fin es ‘b i o pr os pe c tin g’ as the search for wild species with genes th at p r o d u c e better crops a n d m e d i c in e s , or t he e x p l o r a t i o n o f bi od iv e r si ty for c o m m e r c i a l l y va luable genetic a n d biological resources. Co llections o f br oo d st o c k for industrial a q u a ­ culture hav en ’t yet be c o m e an issue in deve lopin g countries.

A C T IN G GLOBALLY: N A TIO N A L LAWS O N ACCESS T O A QU ATIC RESOURCES

153

Prior inform ed consent by co m m unities T h e p r i m a r y a u t h o r it y for ap p r o v in g applications for access lies w i th nationa l g o v e r n m e n t s , w h i c h t h e C B D reco gn izes as h a v i n g s overe ignty over gen et ic resources. Each c o u n t r y designates a ‘C o m p e t e n t N a tio n a l A u t h o r i t y ’ to oversee the a pproval process. Typically, u n d e r p r o p o s e d a n d existing access laws, the national au th o r ity requires p r o o f o f c o n s e n t by in d ig en o u s and local c o m m u n i t i e s , a lth o u g h specific req u irem en ts vary considerably. But w h a t is a local c o m m u n i t y ? Brazilian law defines it as a ‘h u m a n grou p, differentiated by its cultural c o n d i tio n s , w h ich is traditionally organized along successive gen erations a n d with its o w n c u s to m s , a n d conserves its social a n d e c o n o m i c in stit u ti o n s ’ (Article 7). Philippine law describes it sim ply as ‘the basic political u n i t where biological a n d genetic resources are located’ (2). T h e O A U m o d e l law describes it as ‘a h u m a n p o p u l a t i o n in a d istinct geographical area, with o w n e r sh ip over its biological rcsourccs, in n o v atio n s, practiccs, k n o w le d g e a n d technologies governed partially or co m pletely by its ow n cu s to m s , tradition s or laws’ (1). It is n o t yet clear how different coun tr ies will translate such broa d defini­ tions in to practice b o t h in r eg ulat ory fra m ew orks a n d in dealing w it h group s w hos e c o n c e p t o f themselves as a c o m m u n i t y m ay differ a great deal from th a t o f a g o v e r n m e n t agency. T h e r e is no consistency a m o n g cou ntr ies on the issue o f w h e t h e r collectors need c o n s e n t for all collections o f genetic resources o r only w h e n seeking access to tra di­ ti on al k n o w led g e. Peru a n d Brazil specifically link the r e q u i r e m e n t to o b t a i n i n d i g e n o u s c o m m u n i t y c o n s e n t to access to tra d it io n a l know le dge. C o u n t r i e s such as the Philippines require c o n s c n t for acccss to gcnctic resources w i t h o u t lim iting the right to c o m m u n i t i e s w ho se k now ledge is required for the use o f genetic resources. T h e O A U m o d el law recognizes the rights o f c o m m u n i t i e s over their biological resources, inn ov ations, practices, knowled ge and technologies and the right to benefit from their use (16). N o ta b le in some laws are the restrictions on the a u th o r it y o f c o m m u n i t i e s to w i t h h o l d consent. T h e C o s ta Rican law recognizes the right o f c o m m u n i t i e s to o ppos e any access to th eir resources or associated know ledg e, w h e t h e r for cultural, spiritual, social, e c o n o m i c or o t h e r motives (66). In Brazil, however, access m ay be p e r m i t t e d w i t h o u t c o n s e n t ‘in instances o f relevant public intere st’ (17). U n d e r the O A U m o d e l law, c o m m u n i t i e s can refuse acccss if it will be ‘d e t r im e n ta l to the integrity o f their n atural or cultura l her ita ge ’ (19). It r em ains to be seen h o w different cou ntries will h a ndle refusals o f c o n s e n t by c o m m u n i t i e s t h a t are simply unsatisfied with the benefits offered to th e m , or give no reasons for refusal, and w h a t im p a c t such refusals are likely to have on b o th academ ic a n d com m er ci al research. T h e r e are still too few instances o f negotiations w ith c o m m u n i t i e s to d e t e r m in e w h e t h e r the w i t h h o l d i n g o f c o n s e n t is likely to be a c o m m o n tre nd. As discussed below, b u r e a u c ra ti c hurdles u n d e r th e new laws have already led to ‘research chill’ even before nego tiations w ith c o m m u n i t i e s b e c o m e a reality. Regional guidelines a n d nationa l laws spell o u t principles b u t generally d o n ’t pr ovide specific g u idance on pr oc ed ure s for o b ta i n i n g c o m m u n i t y c on scn t. As the m ajority o f laws discussed here are either in draft form or very new, regulations

154 BLUE GENES

B o x 5 . 2 Comparing Laws: Community Right to Consent OAU A c c e s s to biolog ica l resources, k n o w le d g e a n d /o r te ch n o lo g ie s of local co m m u n itie s is su b je c t to the written prior inform ed co n se nt of the C o m p e te n t National Authority as well as that of c o n c e rn e d local c om m unitie s, ensuring that w o m en are also involved in d e c is io n ­ m a kin g (s 5). An a c c e s s p e rm it is g ra n te d th ro u g h a w ritten a g re e m e n t b e tw e e n the C o m p e te n t National Authority, c o n c e rn e d local com m u n ities and the a p p lic a n t or colle ctor (7). Local co m m un itie s can refuse a c c e s s if it will be detrim ental to the integrity of their natural or cultural heritage (19) and can w ithdraw c on se n t or place restrictions on activities relating to a c c e s s if they are likely to be detrim ental to their so cio -e c o n o m ic life or their natural and cultural heritage (20). W omen are to fully and equally p a rtic ipate in decisio ns a b o u t prior inform ed c on se n t for a c c e s s (18).

A n d e a n C o m m u n ity Parties to a c c e s s a greem ents are the state and the a p p lic a n t (32). A pp lic a nts may make ancillary c on tra cts with the owner, p ossessor or m a n a g e r of the land where the biolo gical resource containin g the genetic resource is located (41). No specific mention of c o m m u ­ nities.

B r a z il The state recognizes the right of the in dig en o u s com m u n ities and of the local co m m u n itie s to d e c id e on the use of their traditional kno w le d g e related to the genetic heritage of the country ( 1 ).

Peru Collectors wishing to obtain ac ce ss to collective k n o w le d g e for scientific, c o m m e rc ia l or industrial p urpo se s must request the prior inform ed co n se n t of one or more ind ig enous p e o p le s posse ssing the collective k n o w le d ge (7).

C osta Rica Prior inform e d c o n s e n t for a c c e s s to g e n e tic c o m p o n e n t s and b io c h e m ic a ls m u s t be o b ta in e d from re p re s e nta tiv e s of the p la c e w here a c c e s s will o ccu r, w h e th e r re g ional councils of Conservation Areas, owners of farms, or in dig en o u s authorities (s 63). Local co m m u n itie s and in d ig e n ou s pe o p le s can o p p o se ac ce ss to their resources and associated k n o w le d g e for cultural, spiritual, social, e c o n o m ic or other reasons (s 66).

P h ilip p in es P ro sp e c tin g within an ce stra l lands and d o m a in s of in d ig e n o u s c u ltural c o m m u n itie s is allowed only with their prior inform ed consent, o btained in a c c o rd a n c e with c us tom a ry laws. Prior inform ed c o n se n t must also be o btained from c o n c e rn e d local com m unitie s, defined as basic political units w here the biological and genetic resources are located (2). Research proposals m ust be su b m itte d to the recognized head of any affected local or in dig enous cultural co m m u n ity (4).

ACTING GLOBALLY: NATIONAL LAWS ON ACCESS TO AQUATIC RESOURCES

155

im p le m e n ti n g nation al laws are virtually n o n -ex isten t ou tside the Philippines. U n d e r the P h ilippine regulations, a collector m u s t ob tain c o nsen t from the mayor o f a local c o m m u n i t y or h e ad o f an in d i g e n o u s p eo p le , h o ld a c o m m u n i t y assembly, fully describe the research prop osal in a language or dialect u n d e r ­ standable to local people, and describe proposed benefits. As Case S tud y 5 illus­ trates, c o m m u n i t y advocates have criticized these provisions for n o t requiring sufficient co nsultation with c o m m u n itie s th at d o n ’t believe a m un icipal m ayor represents their interests. In ad d itio n , local people m ay n o t fully u n d e rs ta n d the im plications o f prop osed activities and uses o f genetic resources, a nd m ay lack the capacity to c o n d u c t negotiations effectively w ith o u t assistance.

P r o te c t io n o f t r a d i ti o n a l k n o w l e d g e In so m e cases, access a n d b e n e fi t- s h a ri n g laws have m a d e efforts to address p oten tial conflicts over rights to know ledge by providing for sui generis protection o f tr aditional know ledge. T h e advantages o f u n iq u e legal forms o f p ro tec tion for c o m m u n i t y p ro p e r ty rights have been m u c h discussed, b u t h o w they will be crafted to fit into existing legal systems remains to be seen. C o sta Rica’s biodiversity law recognizes an d protects sui generis c o m m u n it y intellectual rights over know ledge, practices an d in no vatio ns related to the use o f c o m p o n e n t s o f biodiversity a nd associated know ledge (82), a nd provides that no form o f intellectual or industrial p rop erty rights protectio n can affect these historic practices. T h e law provides for a p artic ip a to ry process w ith sm all farm er and ind igen ou s c o m m u n itie s to d e term in e the n atu re an d scope o f sui generis rights (s 83). T h e O A U m o del law also takes a step towards the e n sh r in e m e n t o f sui generis rights by p rov id ing th a t the C o m m u n i t y Intellectual P rop erty Rights o f local c o m m u n itie s are inalienable (23). C o m m u n i t y Intellectual P roperty Rights are defined as those rights held by local c o m m u n itie s over their biological resources or parts or derivatives thereof, an d over their practices, innovations, know ledge and technologies. T h e state recognizes a nd protects c o m m u n it y rights as enshrined u n d e r the n o rm s, practices an d custo m a ry law, w h e th e r w ritten or n o t (17). T h e Philippines, in ad d itio n to its bio prosp ecting law, has a d o p te d separate legislation for the p ro tec tio n o f C o m m u n i t y Intellectual P rop erty Rights. S om e c o m m u n it y advocacy groups have criticized the con cep t o f sui generis rights for trying to fit tradition al know ledge into a p ro p erty rights m o del th at has no relevance to trad itio nal c o m m u n it y governance systems. Ind ig eno us c o m m u ­ nities w ith lo n g t r a d i t i o n s o f s h a r in g all c o m m u n i t y reso urces, i n c l u d in g know ledge, may be suspicious o f sui generis initiatives based on IPRs models based on individual rights. For som e groups, recognition o f rights over genetic resources can only be settled th r o u g h a ck n o w le d g em en t o f full rights to m anage a nd control local ecosystems and the biological an d genetic resources w ith in th em . T h e C osta Rican a nd O A U initiatives arc the m ost progressive a m o n g access a nd benefitsharing laws to date, b u t it rem ains to be seen h ow they will w ork in practice. Bangladesh a nd the Philippines have m oved a step furthe r by drafting stand alone c o m m u n i t y rights legislation.

156 BLUE GENES O n e of the pr imary incentives for national initiatives to protect traditional knowledge is to provide a legal barrier against its unauthorized use by collectors of gcnctic rcsourccs. As discusscd in previous chapters in this book , sui generis protection of traditional knowledge bolsters the rights of plant communities but may be largely irrelevant to the collection o f aquatic genetic resources in fishing communities. This is because, while dependence on traditional knowledge may be the rule in the use o f plant genetic resources, it’s the exception in the use o f aquatic genetic resources. Consequently, drafters of laws that apply to the collection of genetic resources in general need to consider very carefully the implications for both plant and aquatic collections.

In te lle c tu a l p r o p e r t y rig h ts p r o t e c t i o n Most developing countries are am en ding their patent laws to comply with the W T O T R IP S Agr eement, which requires all countries to extend their pa te nt systems to include all technologies and all inventions. Th is includes the patenting o f micro-organisms and microbiological processes, although countries can exclude plants and animals. In addition, developing countries are facing pressure to go beyond the TR IP S agreements. For example, preferential trade, aid, investment or technical assistance privileges may be tied to a c o m m i t m e n t from developing countries to adopt more hard line standards for IPRs on life forms, including International Union for the Protection of Ne w Varieties o f Plants ( U P O V ) stan­ dards of plant variety rights or industrial patent rules over plants and animals (G R A IN , 2002a). T h e tension between TR IP S and C B D c o m m itm en ts is reflected in differing approaches taken by access and benefit-sharing laws. T h e Brazilian law notes that protection o f traditional knowledge ‘shall not affect, damage or limit rights related to intellectual property’ (8) and requires that access and benefit-sharing contracts include provision for IPRs (28). By contrast, the O A U model law provides that collectors m u s t agree n ot to apply for intellectual property protection over a biological resource or its derivatives w i t h o u t c o m m u n i t y consent (8); it also prohibits patents on life forms and biological processes (9). Costa Rica provides for the protection of IPRs with several cxccptions, including the prohibition of IPRs for ‘inventions which, to be commercially exploited through a monopoly, can affect farming or fishing processes or products which are considered basic for the food and health o f the inhabitants of the co un tr y’ (78). T h e question of IPRs is a sore point for many indigenous peoples, not only because o f understandable suspicions ab out the unauthorized appropriation of traditional knowledge, but also because the concept of private ownership o f ideas directly contradicts indigenous traditions o f sharing knowledge for the benefit of all members of a community. Case Study 3 describes negotiations for access to charr broodstock that failed in large part because of indigenous com m unities’ discomfort with proposals to patent processes for gene mapping. In this example, there was no relationship whatsoever between the IPRs sought by the user and the traditional knowledge held by Inuit communities. W h a t will happen if indigenous communities dem an d a prohibition on IPRs as a condition for providing consent

ACTING GLOBALLY: NATIONAL LAWS O N ACCESS TO AQUATIC RESOURCES

157

for access, even th o u g h the collectors invention owes no debt to traditional knowledge? It’s a stalemate that is especially likely to happen during negotiations for access to living creatures as opposed to plants, and policy makers would do well to anticipate such scenarios. T h e right to intellectual property protection to inven­ tions is frequently one of the key benefits collectors expect to take away from what may prove to be very expensive negotiations.

T re a tin g ac ad em ics like c o m m e r c ia l collectors: A recipe for research chill Some laws distinguish between applications for commercial and academic research purposes. T h e OA U model law simply provides that applications must state the relationship o f the applicant with industry (11) and that per mit fees may differ depending on whether the research is for commercial or academic purposes (12). Brazilian law appears to require an access and benefit-sharing contract only when there is a possibility o f commercial use (16). T h e Philippine law uniquely provides for separate commercial and academic research agreements - the latter being restricted to institutions within the country (3). Academic research agreements can be broader and more general in character (4), with each agreement covering all scientists and researchers at an i n s t itu tio n . I f it later b ec om es ev iden t tha t academic research resulting from collections has commercial prospects, a scientist must reapply for a commercial agreement (5). Under either type of agreement, collectors must obtain the prior informed consent of communities where collec­ tions take place; under academic agreements, collecting institutions can develop their own internal guidelines for obtaining prior informed consent. Drawing meaningful distinctions between academic and commercial research is one o f the most difficult challenges that policy makers face. Obviously, encouraging pure academic research is absolutely vital for countries that are serious about developing the comprehensive knowledge needed not only to conserve biological and genetic diversity b ut also to explore new uses that may be either commercially valuable or in the public interest. Th is is even more im p o rta n t in the aquatic than in the plant world given the current state o f u n d erstanding o f (and growing commercial interest in) aquatic ccosystcms. T h e very activity o f rcscarch also builds im p o rta n t technical capacity in the country. Unfortunately, the days o f i n d e p e n d e n t research institutions appear to be numbered and the boundaries between academic and commercial activities are becoming less and less clear. In these days of downsizing, many research institu­ tions both in government and in the academic world are forced to become ever more d ependent on corporate support just to survive - and consequently may face pressure to focus on research with promising commercial applications. A scientific in s ti t u t i o n th a t collects sponges for ta x o n o m i c p urposes m a y also have an agreement with the American Cancer Institute to provide samples for screening. T h e c o n u n d r u m for policy makers is how to design processes for approval for access to genetic resources that ensure a fair return from commercial applications with out being so onerous that they shut down scientific research altogether. As Case Study 5 at the end o f this ch ap ter illustrates, the distinctions between

158 BLUE GENES

B o x 5 . 3 C o m p a r i n g L aws : A c a d e m i c vs C o m m e r c i a l Uses OAU Research a p p lic atio ns must state the objective of the research and the relationship of the a p p lic a n t to industry (s. 11). Permit fees may differ d e p e n d in g on w hether research is for co m m e rcia l or a c a d e m ic p urpo se s (s. 12).

P h ilip p in es Research for co m m e rc ia l pu rposes, directly or indirectly, requires a C om m e rc ial Research A g re e m e n t (CRA). A pp licatio n for A c a d e m ic Research A g re e m e n ts (ARAs) is restricted to Philippines universities and a c a d e m ic institutions, d om e stic g ov e rn m en tal entities and inter­ gove rn m en tal entities (3). ARA proposals can be b ro a d e r and more general in ch a ra c te r than CRA proposals (4). One ARA can co ve r all scientists and researchers at an institution (5). Scientists operatin g un der an ARA must later a p p ly for a CRA if it b e c o m e s clear that research and collection has co m m e rcia l p rosp e cts (5).

acad em ic an d c o m m e rc ia l research u n d e r Phi lippine law ap p e ar to have d o n e little to facilitate a c ad em ic research a n d indeed have hi nde re d it. In a d d it io n to d is t i n g u is h in g be tw e en a c a d e m ic a n d c o m m e r c i a l p ur po ses , so me laws also differentiate between nationals a n d foreigners. India’s law specifi­ cally notes that no n o n - I n d i a n person can ob tai n any biological resource or asso­ ciated kno wl ed ge w i t h o u t approval o f the N a t io n a l Biodiversity A u t h o r it y (3). U n d e r Phi lip pin e law, foreign applicants m u s t apply for collection in part ne rsh ip w it h a Ph ili pp in e nati on al research institute or university. T h e i r research applica­ tions m u s t include a proposal stating the p u rp ose , source o f funds, d u r a t i o n a n d a list o f biological an d genetic materials an d a m o u n t s to be taken (4).

Sharing benefits with communities D e f in i n g the nature, a m o u n t a n d m e t h o d o f delivery o f benefits to c o m m u n i t i e s will likely be the greatest challenge o f all for b o t h policy makers a n d those involved in access ne gotiations. S o m e laws m e n t i o n benefits in the m o s t general terms w i t h o u t elaboration; others, such as Philippines Executive O r d e r 2 4 7 , specifically m e n t i o n benefits such as royalties. From the vi ew p o in t o f c o m m u n it i e s , the d r a w ­ backs o f limiting benefits to royalties have long been a p p a re n t because the like­ lihood o f developing a marke tabl e p r o d u c t from a single collection (at least in the pharm ace ut ica ls field) is so low. T h e Philippines legislation has been sharply criti­ cized by civil society organizations for providi ng only for royalties a n d for n o t specifying ho w they will be divided between c o m m u n i t i e s a n d g o v e rn m e n t. T h e O A U m o d e l law, w h i c h a p p e ar e d three years later, addressed this c o nc er n by requi ring at least a 50 per cent share for c o m m u n it i e s . N o n - m o n e t a r y benefits, such as t ec hno lo gy transfer, training a n d e m p l o y m e n t can ultimately be n o t only far m o re useful to c o m m u n i t i e s b u t also m o r e cffcctivc in f a c i li ta t in g s u s t a i n a b l e , c o n s e r v a t i o n - b a s e d e c o n o m i e s . G e n e r al ly , u n d e r existing and prop ose d laws, the responsibility to d e te r m i n e a p p ro p r ia te types o f

ACTING GLOBALLY: NATIONAL LAWS O N ACCESS TO AQUATIC RESOURCES

159

benefits and the m an n er of ensuring their delivery lies primarily with national authorities. T h e effectiveness of access and benefit-sharing legislation will conse­ quently depend to a large extent on the ability and motivation of governments to work with communities and collectors alike to facilitate creative solutions. O n e im p o rta n t question that appears to remain largely unresolved is whether benefits should be distributed only to those com munities in which collections occur, or on a broader scale. Peru, recognizing that collective knowledge may be shared amon g a variety o f indigenous groups, takes the approach o f providing for the transfer o f m o n e t a r y benefits to a general f u n d for the d e v e lo p m e n t of indigenous peoples. (This in some ways resembles a similar approach taken in the corporate world by Shaman Pharmaceuticals, which decided to divide a portion of its profits am o n g all communities where collections took place, whether or not any given c o m m u n i t y ’s contribution led to the development o f a marketable product.) Gover nments that ad op t such an approach could follow up with institutional arrangements for pr omoting c o m m u n it y development and biodiversity conser­ vation through, for example, transfer of small-scale technologies (and training in their use) to su pport sustainable livelihoods, help in the development of marketing skills a n d m e c h a n i s m s , a n d assistance in the d e v e l o p m e n t o f conser vatio n strategies that contribute to economic well-being. In fishing communities, this might include, for example, providing help with the development of sustainable fisheries that may or may n ot have been traditionally practised. Costa Rica’s bio­ diversity law p r o m o t e s c o m m u n i t y p a r tic ip a ti o n in the conserv ation an d sustainable use of biological diversity through technical assistance and special incentives, especially in areas with rare, endemic or endangered species. To this end, it requires the M inistry o f E n v i r o n m e n t and Energy to give priority to projects for c o m m u n ity m an ag em en t o f biodiversity (102). Using this type of model, governments elsewhere might channel a portion of benefits received at the national level to local and indigenous c o m m u n ities, to the advantage o f the country as a whole. Such a broad-based approach to benefit sharing makes sense because it can enable national authorities to use the proceeds from the use of genetic resources for the benefit of many com munities rather than just the few that may be involved in negotiating agreements. It may also help avoid the detrimental effects that might arise if one c o m m u n i t y ’s benefits place it at a significant advantage over neigh­ bours who may share similar genetic resources (and knowledge) but weren’t party to an agreement. This could conceivably happen to com munities that negotiate in good faith, only to discover that the collector moves to another co m m u n i ty that can meet his needs with fewer deman ds —just as collectors may avoid a country with strict regulations (like the Philippines) in favour o f a nation with fewer restrictions. As discussed earlier, while the general trend in access legislation has been to require prior informed consent of communities whether or not their knowledge contributes to the use o f a gcnctic resource, not all countries take this approach. T h e effect of some current laws could be to leave fishing com munities entirely out of the benefit-sharing equation and to create an imbalance in which objectives for the conservation o f terrestrial biodiversity are m et at the expense o f aquatic

160 BLUE GENES

B o x 5 . 4 C o m p a r i n g L aws : S h a r i n g Be n e f i t s w i t h I n d i g e n o u s a n d L oc a l Com m unities OAU U n d e r the ag re e m en t with the C o m p e te n t National Authority and com m unitie s, the colle ctor u n d e rta ke s to: provide for the sharing of benefits: inform c o n c e rn e d co m m u n itie s of all research and d e ve lo p m e n t findings: contrib ute e co n om ica lly to co m m u nity efforts to re g e n ­ erate an d c o n s e rv e the b io lo g ic a l re s ou rce c o lle c t e d and to m a inta in the inno vatio n , p ra c tic e , k n o w le d g e or te c h n o lo g y to w h ic h a c c e s s is s o u g h t (s. 8). C o m m u n itie s are entitled to a share of e a rnings derived when any biolog ica l resource a nd/or k n o w le d g e generates a p ro d u c t used in a p ro ductio n process (12). The state m ust ensure that at least 50 per ce n t of benefits so derived are channelled to c o n c e rn e d local c om m un itie s in a m an n e r that treats men and w om en equ ita b ly (22).

A n d ea n C o m m u n ity A pp lic a tio n s for ac ce s s and a c c e s s contracts shall include c o nditions for strengthening and d e v e lo p m e n t of the c a p a cities of the native, Afro-Am erican, and local c o m m u nitie s with relation to the associated intangible c o m p o n e n ts (know how, innovations, practices), the genetic resources, and their b y -pro ducts (17). A c c e s s co n tra cts shall stipulate fair and e q u i­ table distribution of profits from the use of genetic resources or b y -p ro d u cts with an intan­ gible c o m p o n e n t (35).

B r a z il In d ig e n o u s and lo c a l c o m m u n it ie s th a t cre a te , d e v e lo p , ho ld or c o n s e r v e tra d itio n a l k n o w le d g e a sso c ia te d with g en e tic heritage have the right to receive benefits from the ec o no m ic use by third parties of associate d traditional k n o w le d g e to which they hold rights (9).

C osta Rica Requirem ents for a c c e s s inclu de te c h n o lo g y transfer and e quitable distribution of benefits, as agreed in perm its, a gree m en ts and c on c es sions (63).

In d ia National Biodiversity Authority a p proval of a c c e s s d e p e n d s on securing e quitable sharing of benefits arising from the use of biolo g ica l resources, their b y-p ro d ucts , innovations and p ra ctic e s associated with their use and ap p lic atio ns and k n o w le d g e related thereto (21). Required benefits may include: joint ow nership of IPRs with benefit claim ers; techn o lo gy transfer: location of p ro d uctio n, research and d e v e lo p m e n t units in such areas w hic h will facilitate better living sta nd a rd s to the benefit claimers: association of benefit claim ers and local people in biolo gical resources; venture capital funds to help benefit claimers: and p a y m e n t of monetary and non-m onetary benefits to benefit claim ers (21). ‘Benefit claim ers' inc lu d e s co n se rv ers of b io lo g ic a l resources, their b y -p ro d u c ts , creators and h olders of k n o w le d g e and information to use biolo gica l resources, innovations, and practice s a ss o ­ ciated with such use and ap p lic ation (21). If a p p ro ving co lle c to rs ’ ap p lic atio ns of IPRs, the National Biodiversity Authority may im pose a benefit-sharing fee or royalty or both or im pose conditions including the sharing of financial benefits arising from the co m m e rcia l use of such rights (6).

ACTING GLOBALLY: NATIONAL LAWS ON ACCESS TO AQUATIC RESOURCES

161

Box 5.4 co n tin u ed Peru Whoever gains a c c e s s to the collective k n o w le d g e of an in d ig enous peop le m u st destine at least 0.5 per ce n t of the value of sales resulting from the marketing of p ro d u cts d e v elope d from such k n o w led g e to the Fund for the D e ve lo p m e n t of In dig en o u s Peoples (7). The Fund will s u p p o rt projects and activities a p p ro v e d by an A d m inis trator C ommittee.

P h ilip p in e s C o m m e rcia l a gree m en ts betw een the a p p lic a n t and go v e rn m e n t must inclu de provision for p a y m e n t of royalties to the national go v ernm ent, local or in d ig enous cultural co m m u n ity (5).

biodiversity. T h i s is a n o t h e r reason w hy drafters o f access an d benefit-sharing laws will need to consider the implications o f legislative provisions n o t just for plant genetic resources b u t also for aquatic genetic resources a n d the c o m m u n i t i e s that pr ovi de t h e m . C h a p t e r 6 discusscs strategies for d e v e lo p i n g be nefits t h a t arc a p p ro p r ia te for fishing c o m m u n i t i e s and th at can help p r o m o t e conservation an d sustainable use.

M

a k in g b en efit s h a r in g w o r k

:

R esponsibilities o f in d u strial co u ntries T h e C B D states three objectives: the c o n s er v a tio n o f biological diversity, the sustainable use o f its c o m p o n e n t s a n d the equitable sharing o f benefits arising from the use o f genetic resources. A c hi ev ing the first two objectives logically d e p e n d s on m e e t in g the third: unless the biodiversity rich co untries a n d c o m m u ­ nities pr ovi di ng gcnctic rcsourccs benefit by d o i n g so, they will have ne ith er the incentive to m ake those resources readily available n o r the m o tiv at io n or mea ns to p r o m o t e their conservation. U n d e r Article 15(2) o f the C B D , each c o n tr a ct in g Party (ie the 188 countries t h a t have ratified the co nv en tio n) m u s t create the c o nd it io ns needed to facilitate access to genetic resources. T h a t ’s the c o m m i t m e n t deve lopin g co untries m a d e in return for i nte rn atio na l recognition o f their sovereignty over genetic resources. In a dd iti on , u n d e r 15(7), each Party is to take legislative, policy or administrative measures with the aim o f fairly sharing the results o f research a n d d e v e lo p m e n t a n d the benefits arising from the use o f ge netic resources w it h each c o u n t r y pr ovi di ng the rcsourccs. W h a t the C B D recognizes is that it will take a c on cer ted a n d cooperative effort by s ou th e r n and n o r t h e r n co untries (ie the p r im a ry providers a n d users o f genetic resources) to m a k e su stainable d e v e l o p m e n t work . D e v e l o p in g co unt ri es have m a d e goo d progress towards p u t t i n g access a n d be ne fit -s har in g laws in place; industrial countries, for their part, need to do wha tev er they can to m ak e sure that laws in provider co untries are effective. W h y ? It’s extremely challenging to enforce

162

BLUE GENES

access and be nef it-sh aring laws because o f the trans national, n o r t h - s o u t h flow o f genetic resources a n d because g o v e r n m e n ts in m a n y d evel op ing countries lack the financial a n d staff rcsourccs to do so. As a result, there’s a tre n d in sourcc countrie s to establish very restrictive access laws that often u n i n t e n tio n a ll y h i n d e r scientific research as well as d o m e stic a nd in tern a ti o n al d e v e l o p m e n t. Laird (20 02) suggests t h a t the m ajo r industrial natio ns have ab dicated their responsibility to institute measures to ensure eq uitable access a n d benef it-sharing ar rangem en ts . T h e y have been slow to develop legal measures to ensure t h a t the acquisition a n d use o f genetic material a n d associated knowle dg e by persons, insti­ tu t io n s a n d co r p o ratio n s in user cou ntr ies are carried o u t in co m p lia n c e with the laws in source co untrie s a n d w it h the provisions o f the C B D . For example, n o n e o f the IPRs systems o f the industrialized co untrie s requires th a t p a te n t applications for inven tion s based on gcnctic inven tions or associated k now le dge ac quired in a n o t h e r c o u n t r y p r o v e t h a t th e reso urces or k n o w l e d g e wer e a c q u i r e d in co m p li a n c e with the C B D or nation al law in the source country. As illustrated in o u r discussion o f biopiracy c o m p la in t s in C h a p t e r 3, this is an issue th a t has received considerable a t te n tio n in the p lan t w or ld a n d has largely been ignored in discussions a b o u t the co m m ercial use o f aqua tic resources outside o f collections for the ph a r m a c e u tic a l industry. T h i s will u n d o u b t e d l y ch ange with the global exp ansion o f co m m e r c ia l a q u acu ltu r e and , with it, an increased interest in inte rn a ti o n a l collection o f the b r o o d s to c k a n d germ pla sm th a t m i g h t p r o d u c e the best trains. Case S tu d y 4 describes I C L A R M ’s initiatives to collect tilapia b r o o d s to c k in several African coun tr ies in or de r to develop new strains in the Philippines tha t are now widely farmed t h r o u g h o u t S outhea st Asia. I C L A R M did so with th e per missio n o f the source co un tr ies a n d for an altruistic p u r p o s e e n s u r i n g the availability o f m o r e h a r d y a n d p r o d u c t i v e strains for rural fish farmers. At the tim e o f the initial collections, I C L A R M did n o t an ticipate t h a t p a t e n t i n g w o u l d be an issue, a lthough the ‘Super Tilapia’ was in fact p a t e n te d several years later by t h e G I F T F o u n d a t i o n . V ariati o ns o f I C L A R M s G I F T initiative —con sid ered highly innovative at the tim e it occ urre d - will likely ap pea r in the future for o th e r species a n d o th e r countries as the a q u acu lt u r e i ndustr y bec om es m o re diverse. It will be i m p o r t a n t n o t only for source co un tr ies to have workab le acccss laws in place b u t also for recipient cou ntries to s u p p o r t C B D p r i n ­ ciples by taking legal measures to ensure th a t collectors co m p ly w i th laws in c o u n ­ tries th a t pr ovide genetic resources, w h e t h e r in situ (in the wild) or ex situ (eg from gene banks). A s s u m i n g t h a t n o r th e r n c o u n tr ie s do b e c o m e m o re rigorous a b o u t le nding s u p p o r t to the C B D principles an d the access laws o f s o u th e r n co untries, a variety o f uncertainties specific to aquatic genetic resources will need to be addressed. For instance, Case S tudy 1 describes recent successes in br ee ding cardinal tetras in Florida. C a r d in a l tetras are collected by local fish ermen in Brazil a n d expo rted for di str ib u t io n to the a q u a r iu m hobb yists ’ trade - n o t for b ree ding b u t sim ply for live display. Aquarists w h o w a n t to breed o r n a m e n t a l fish m i g h t simply b u y th e m from th e e x p o r t t r a d e a n d search o u t fish w i t h th e m o s t des ir able c o l o r a t i o n s or patterns. D oes a fish c a u g h t for a q u a r iu m display (or for food) tra nsfo rm from a biological resource to a ‘genetic resource’ only at the in s ta n t s o m e o n e decides to

A C T IN G GLOBALLY: N A TIO N A L LAWS O N ACCESS T O AQ UATIC RESOURCES

163

use it f or r e p r o d u c t i o n ? Is it t he i n t e n t o f t h e u s e r r a t h e r t h a n t h e phy si c a l c h a r a c ­ teristic o f t he r es o u r ce t h a t u l t i m a t e l y ma t te r s ? T h i s is a n especiall y i m p o r t a n t q u e s t i o n , gi ve n t he d i v e r g e n t a p p r o a c h e s c o u n t r i e s h a v e t a k e n to d a t e in d e f i n i n g t h e s c o p e o f n e w access laws a n d w h e t h e r t h e y a p p l y to j us t b io lo gi c a l resour ce s, j u s t g e n e t i c r esour ce s, j u s t t r a d i t i o n a l k n o w l e d g e o f r esou r ce s, s o m e c o m b i n a t i o n o f t h e a b o v e or, as in t h e case o f Brazil, t h e w o n d e r f u l l y a m b i g u o u s ‘g e n e t i c h e r i t a g e ’. I f a n a q u a r i s t c o m e s to a U S p a t e n t office to a p p l y f or a p a t e n t o n a s t r a i n o f c a r d i n a l t et r a h e has ‘c r e a t e d ’, h o w c a n h e p r o v e t h e b r e e d i n g pai rs w e r e a c q u i r e d in c o m p l i a n c e w i t h t h e C B D a n d Br azili an law? T h e s i t u a t i o n is d o u b l y c o n f u s i n g in Brazil b e c a u s e b o t h t he n a t i o n a l a n d s o m e st at e (eg t h e st at e o f Acr e) g o v e r n ­ m e n t s h a v e i n d e p e n d e n t l y p u t f o r w a r d s e p a r a t e ve r si on s o f access a n d b en e f i t s h a r i n g laws. M o r e o v e r , t he n a t i o n a l g o v e r n m e n t s p ro v is i o n a l law is so n e w a n d l a ck i n g in cl ar ity t h a t i t s n o t a t all clear h o w w i d e its s c op e is. W h a t is a l m o s t c e r t a i n is t h a t it n e v e r cr osse d t h e m i n d s o f t h e dr a f t er s o f t h e law t h a t it m i g h t ha v e r el e v an c e for t h e Ri o N e g r o c a r d i n a l t et r a fishery. T h e r e are n o easy a n s w e r s to s u c h c o n u n d r u m s . T h e p o i n t is t h a t n o r t h e r n c o u n t r i e s , several o f w h i c h are slowly p r o c e e d i n g w i t h t h e i r o w n v e r si on s o f access a n d b e n e f i t - s h a r i n g laws, n e e d t o c o n s i d e r h o w be s t to s u p p o r t t h e effort s o f d e v e l ­ o p i n g c o u n t r i e s to c o n t r o l t h e use o f t h e i r b io l og i ca l r e s o ur ce s in a m a n n e r t h a t a i m s to c o n s e r v e g e n e t i c diversity. T o d o so, t h e y n e e d to d e v e l o p m e c h a n i s m s t h a t t a ke a c c o u n t o f i n h e r e n t d i s t i n c t i o n s b e t w e e n p l a n t a n d fish g e n e t i c resour ces; t h e y also n e e d to a n t i c i p a t e n e w d e v e l o p m e n t s in t he a q u a t i c g e n e t i c r esour ces tr ade , s o m e o f w h i c h are o n l y b e g i n n i n g to b e c o m e a p p a r e n t . F o r a start , t h e B o n n G u i d e l i n e s spell o u t several basic steps t h a t us e r c o u n t r i e s c a n a d o p t to e n c o u r a g e c o m p l i a n c e w i t h C B D p r i n c i p l e s f or p r i o r i n f o r m e d c o n s e n t a n d m u t u a l l y a g r ee d t e r m s . T h e m e a s u r e s s u g g e s t e d b y t h e g u id e l i n e s i n c l u d e: • •

I n f o r m i n g p o t e n t i a l users a b o u t t h e i r o b l i g a t i o n s r e g a r d i n g access. E n c o u r a g i n g t h e d is c l os ur e (eg in p a t e n t a p p l i c a t i o n s ) o f t h e c o u n t r y o f o r ig in o f g e n e t i c r eso ur ce s a n d t h e o r i g i n o f t r a d i t i o n a l k n o w l e d g e .

•

P r e v e n t i n g th e use o f g c n c tic rcso urccs o b t a i n e d w i t h o u t p r io r i n f o r m e d consent.

•

C o o p e r a t i n g w i t h p r o v i d e r c o u n t r i e s to i d e n t i f y i n f r i n g e m e n t s o f access a n d

•

benefit-sharing agreements. P r o m o t i n g ce r t if i ca t i on s c h e m e s f or c o l l e c t i n g i n s t i t u t i o n s .

U

s in g f is h e r ie s c e r t if ic a t io n t o s u p p o r t a c c e s s la w s

I t’s h a r d l y s u r p r i s i n g t h a t g o v e r n m e n t s in i n d u s t r i a l c o u n t r i e s are slow to m a k e r ules r e g a r d i n g s u s t a i n a b l e d e v e l o p m e n t if d o i n g so m a y affect t he b o t t o m l i n e o f i nf l u e n t i a l c o r p o r a t i o n s . Yet r ec en t l y t h e r e h as b e e n a t r e n d a m o n g s u c h g o v e r n ­ m e n t s to e m b r a c e f ore st c e r t if i ca t i on , t h e m a i n o b j e ct i v e o f w h i c h is s u s t a i n a b l e m a n a g e m e n t o f f ore st l a n d s a n d e c o s y s t e ms . Essentially, g o v e r n m e n t s a n d t he

164

BLUE GENES

forest in d u st r y have been p u s h e d into d o i n g so by c o n s u m e r d e m a n d sh ap ed by e n v i r o n m e n t a l campaig ns. C ertifica tion has a very l on g history as a m e c h a n i s m for ens uri ng high p r o d u c t standards; ad a p tin g it to address cons ervation a n d fair trade issues is a relatively recent d e v e lo p m e n t. In essence, it has b eco m e a tool by w hic h co n c e r n e d citizen gr ou ps can b o t h w o r k wit h g o v e r n m e n t an d in d u str y to secure s ta n d a rd s co n s is te n t w it h s ustain ab le d e v e l o p m e n t an d fair t r e a t m e n t - or, if considered strategically necessary, bypass g o v e r n m e n t a n d i n d u str y by targeting markets a n d creating c o n s u m e r d e m a n d for p r o d u c ts t h a t c o m e w ith an assurance th a t those high s tan da rd s have been met. N o w it appears t h a t the stage has been set for the certification m o v e m e n t to ex p an d its horiz ons to include the use o f genetic resources. T h e Panel o f Experts on access a n d benefit sharing, a p p o i n t e d by the C B D C O P , n o te d a need to consider multilateral m c c h a n is m s to p r o m o t e s u p p o r t for the prio r in f o r m e d c o n s c n t rights o f provider cou ntr ies and c o m m u n i t i e s . O n e possibility suggested by the Panel in its first rep or t was the a d o p t i o n o f certification systems w ith a focus on access an d b enefit sharing. T h i s is an o p t i o n t h a t co u ld prove relevant for s o m e aquatic genetic resources, a n d in fact is already u n d e r considera tion in the collection o f o r n a m e n t a l fish. C ertifica tio n m o s t c o m m o n l y refers to i n d e p e n d e n t , third party verification tha t an or ga niza tion co mplies w ith a set o f s tand ard s a n d principles based on best practices in the field. In the n a t u r a l resources field, forestry ce rtifi cation has rec ei ve d m u c h a t t e n t i o n in r e c e n t years. I n c r e a s i n g i n t e r e s t a m o n g forest c o m p a n i e s in a c h i e v i n g c e r t i f i c a t i o n , t h r o u g h b o d i e s s u c h as t h e F or es t Stewar dship C o u n c i l (FSC), has largely been driven by c o n s u m e r d e m a n d for ti m b e r p r o d u c ts from sustainably m a n a g e d forests and by scepticism a b o u t some c o u n t r i e s ’ g o v e r n m e n t r e g u l a t io n s . F o r est c e r t i f i c a t i o n p r o g r a m m e s e n s u r e sustainable m a n a g e m e n t by a u d i tin g forest c o m p a n i e s ’ on the g r o u n d ope rations or e n v i r o n m e n ta l m a n a g e m e n t systems, or bo th . In a ddition to p r ovid ing certifi­ cates s h o w i n g p r o o f o f c e r tifi cation, s o m e p r o g r a m m e s also p r o v id e p r o d u c t ‘ecolabels’ as an assurance to co n s u m e rs t h a t a t i m b e r p r o d u c t has m e t objective sta nda rd s for sustainability t h r o u g h o u t the ‘chain o f c u s to d y ’ from forest to store shelf. Generally, certifica tion s ta n d a r d s a n d pr inciples are de v e l o p e d t h r o u g h m u lti-s tak eh o ld er processes to ensure b o th credibility an d wides pread s u p p o r t . In 1997 the W o r ld W i d e F u n d for N a t u r e ( W W F ) , w h ic h had been i n s t r u ­ m ental in the f o u n d in g o f the F S C , engineered the creation o f a parallel b o d y for capture fisheries certification. T h e M S C seeks to achieve a balance be tween social, ecological a n d e c o n o m i c interests in fisheries by evaluating and accrediting certi­ fiers, e n c o u r a g i n g t h e d e v e l o p m e n t o f n a t i o n a l s t a n d a r d s for fisheries, a n d p r o m o t i n g trainin g a n d ed u cati o n. M S C ’s Principles a n d Criteria for Sustainable Fishing are based on the FA O C o d e o f C o n d u c t for Responsible Fisheries. In a d d i t i o n to c e r ti fy in g g r o u p s s u c h as fisheries o r g a n i z a t i o n s , pr oc es sors a n d go v e r n m e n t a l m a n a g e m e n t authorities , M S C provides ch ain - o f- cu sto d y certifi­ cation. T h e M S C still confines itself to cap tur e fisheries. Given the controversy th a t s u r r o u n d s so me sectors o f food fish aq u acu ltu r e, however, it m a y n o t be long before certification systems ex pan d to cover th a t i n d u str y as well. D e p e n d i n g on

A C T IN G GLOBALLY: N A TIO N A L LAWS O N ACCESS T O A QU ATIC RESOURCES

165

the level o f public awareness a n d interest, co n s u m e rs m ay also begin to d e m a n d ‘fair t r a d e ’ fish - t h a t is, fish f r o m s to c k s d e v e l o p e d f ro m fairly c o l le c t e d g c r m p la s m . T h e coffcc trade provides a g o o d illustration o f the r apidity w ith w h ic h c o n s u m e r d e m a n d can change. U n til a few years ago, coffee drinkers gave little t h o u g h t to the origin o f their beans. T h e n cam e the d e m a n d for ‘organic coffee’, g r o w n u n d e r ‘s u s t a i n a b l e ’ c o n d i t i o n s . M o r e recently, c h a i n s suc h as Starbucks have begun selling coffee labelled as ‘fair tra d e’ in response to c o n s u m e r d e m a n d . A similar trend could occ ur for f ar m ed fish or even pharm ac eu tica ls once p ublic awareness o f access a n d benefit-sharing issues increases - s o m e t h i n g that o nly takes the d e t e r m i n e d efforts o f a few N G O s . W h i l e it m a y be far m o re difficult to evaluate chains o f custody for c o n s u m e r p r o d u c t s c o n ta i n i n g m ultiple ingredients (foods c o n ta in in g soybean derivatives, for instance), the process w o u ld be m o re stra ig htforw ar d where there is a d e a r link be tw een the origin o f a gcnctic resource (fish ger m pla sm o b ta in e d from c o m m u n i t i e s either directly or th r o u g h collaborative gene banks) an d the tilapia or s alm on at the seafood counter. As we have already seen, b o t h species o f farmed fish have already benefited from locally collected ge rm pla sm . Existing models for sustainable fisheries certification coul d serve as a j u m p i n g o f f p o i n t for fair trade (or, m o re accurately, fair collection) certification. In 2001 a n o t h e r n o n - p r o f i t i n t e r n a ti o n a l org a n iz a ti o n , the M a r i n e A q u a r i u m C o u n c i l ( M A C ) , a n n o u n c e d its d e v e l o p m e n t o f an i n d e p e n d e n t third par ty p er fo r m an ce system to ensure quality a n d sustainability in the collection, cu lture a n d c o m m e r c e o f m a r in e o r n a m e n ta ls in coral reef systems. M A C wor ks w ith the entire i n d u st r y chain o f c u s to dy (‘reef to retail’) and the retailer can display a M A C logo after c e r t i f i c a t i o n . M A C c e r t i f i c a t i o n will be a reality o n c e t h e o r g a n i z a t i o n has pr ov ided accreditation to i n d e p e n d e n t certification compan ies. N e i t h e r M S C n o r M A C c u r r e n t l y address p r i o r i n f o r m e d c o n s e n t issues, a lth o u g h M A C has flagged b io p ro s p e c tin g as an issue in the d e v e l o p m e n t o f s ta n ­ dards. M S C ’s forestry c o u n t e r p a r t , the FS C, has be g u n to address b io p ro s pecting related issues t h r o u g h a w o r k in g g ro u p on n o n - t i m b e r forest prod ucts. T h e grou p has p r o p o se d that F S C Principle 3 (in digenous groups) be a d a p t e d to require a d e q u a t e c o n s u l t a t i o n w i t h i n d i g e n o u s c o m m u n i t i e s a n d r e m u n e r a t i o n to in dig enous a n d local c o m m u n i t i e s for the use o f traditional k now ledge (G lowk a, 2 0 0 1 ). G o v e r n m e n t s are i n c r e a s i n g l y r elying o n i n d e p e n d e n t c e r t i f i c a t i o n to s u p p l e m e n t e n v ir o n m e n ta l c o m p lia n ce laws, reflecting a general trend away from direct g o v e r n m e n t regulation towards collaborative appr oac hes to en v ir o n m e n ta l c o m p l i a n c e . In s o m e cases (for ex a m p le , P a n - E u r o p e a n Forest C e r tif ic a tio n ) , n a t i o n a l g o v e r n m e n t s w o r k t o g e t h e r to a c c r e d i t i n d e p e n d e n t c e r t i f i c a t i o n p r o g r a m m e s a n d participa te in s ta n d a rd setting. A similar a p p r o a c h to certifi­ cation for collection o f aquatic genetic resources, b o t h w it h i n a n d bet wee n c o u n ­ tries, could facilitate b o t h the m a k i n g a n d e n f o r c e m e n t o f effective policies for acccss a n d benefit s haring in c o m m u n itie s . G l o w k a ( 2 0 0 1 ) suggests several reasons w h y an i n d e p e n d e n t cer tificatio n system for b io pro s pecting m i g h t be a useful c o m p l e m e n t to access an d benefitsharing laws a n d policies. D iscoura ged by past experiences with biopirac y a n d the

166 BLUE GENES failure of some researchers to live up to promises made, provider countries have reason to be suspicious of the integrity of collectors. T he y may want legitimate transactions to be as fair as possible but may lack the capacity to ensure a fair result, determine what deals might be fair, or determine who might be a reliable long­ term pa rtner . Re gulat ory systems th a t are too c u m b e r s o m e may actually discourage genetic resources transactions, with potential users simply moving their op er ations to o th er countrie s, as in the case o f some mar ine bioprosp ecting projects. N o r do access and benefit-sharing policies necessarily increase the legal certainty o f transactions or certainty over the legal status o f materials transacted. Under these circumstances, certification systems applied to users of genetic resources could increase the confidence o f provider countries a bout potential partners; and certification of the legal and institutional systems of providing co u n ­ tries could increase the confidcncc o f potential users. In ad dition to helping governments ensure that the application of their own laws and policies meets best practices and n o t too cumber some, certification systems could provide useful guidance for countries that have yet to develop regulatory systems. At the local level, certification o f a collecting co m pan y or institution could facilitate benefit sharing by increasing the readiness o f a c o m m u n i t y to negotiate. In addition, communities mig ht feasibly apply for certification as an assurance to collectors of their suitability as negotiation partners. In short, certification systems could be adapted to deal with several types o f applicant. T h e primary downside of certification is the cost incurred by applicants for certification, costs which may in turn be passed on to consumers. In the forest industry, certification has taken off largely in response to consumer d em an d for lumber from sustainably managed forests, reflected in the decision of the largest N o rth American hom e lumber retailers to buy only certified wood. In Canada, after it became apparent that the British C o lu m b ia forest industry could only rem ain com p e tit iv e by achieving ce rtification, the g o v e r n m e n t started a p r ogra m m e encouraging it to do so (Brown and Greer, 2001). T h e issue was co m plica ted by co m p e tit io n a m o n g certification systems. As the cost to the consume r tends to increase with the rigour of certification requirements, certifi­ cation programmes need to take into account consumers’ willingness to pay for products that arc environmentally friendly’.

C a s e S t u d y 5. C o m m u n i t y r i g h t s

vs

research c h ill:

T h e P h i l i p p i n e experience w i t h access a n d b e n e f it- s h a r in g legislation T h e P h i l i p p i n e s b e c a m e t h e first c o u n t r y to e n a c t a n access a n d b e n e f i t - s h a r i n g law, f o l l o w i n g a c o o p e r a t i v e e f f o r t a m o n g c o m m u n i t y g r o u p s , civil s o c i e t y o r g a n i ­ z a t i o n s a n d t h e s c ie n t if ic c o m m u n i t y , s t r e n g t h e n e d b y s u p p o r t f r o m a p r e s i d e n t w h o w a n t e d t o m a k e his m a r k a t a t i m e w h e n b i o p i r a c y h a d b e c o m e a h o t t o p i c in his c o u n t r y . T h e c h a l l e n g e s t h e P h i l i p p i n e s h a s f ac e d d u r i n g t h e in it ia l yea rs o f t h e i m p l e m e n t a t i o n o f E x e c u t i v e O r d e r 2 4 7 h o l d u s e f u l le s s o n s f o r p o l i c y m a k e r s

A C T IN G GLOBALLY: N A TIO N A L LAWS O N ACCESS T O AQ UATIC RESOURCES

167

ge n e r a l l y a n d f or t h o s e d e a l i n g w i t h access to g e n e t i c r eso ur ce s in f i shi ng c o m m u ­ niti es in p a r ti cul a r .

Threats to aquatic biodiversity in the Philippines C o r a l reefs ar e a m o n g t h e m o s t b i o l o g i c a l l y d iv e rs e o f s h a l l o w - w a t e r m a r i n e e c o s y s t e m s b u t are b e i n g d e g r a d e d w o r l d w i d e b y h u m a n activities a n d c l i m a t e c h a n g e . T h e w a t e r s o f t h e P h i l i p p i n e s ’ m o r e t h a n 7 0 0 0 isl ands lie at t he g lobal c e n t r e o f r e e f b u i l d i n g co r al a n d fish diversity. A s u r v e y in t he late 1 9 7 0 s f o u n d t h a t 71 p e r c e n t o f t h e c o u n t r y ’s reefs w e r e e i t h e r in fair o r p o o r c o n d i t i o n a n d o n l y 5 p e r c e n t r e m a i n e d u n d i s t u r b e d ( G o m e z et al, 1 9 8 1 ) . R e e f d e g r a d a t i o n a n d o v e r ­ e x p l o i t a t i o n o f r ee f fish species h a v e c o n t i n u e d w i t h little a b a t e m e n t s ince t h a t t i me . In t he m i d - 1 9 9 0 s , f i s h e r m e n in t h e p r o f i t a b l e live fish t r a d e s p r a y e d a n esti­ m a t e d 10 to 15 m i l l i o n cor al h e a d s a n n u a l l y w i t h s o d i u m c y a n i d e ( B a r b e r a n d La V i n a , 1 9 9 5 ) . T h e 1 9 9 8 P h i l i p p i n e s Fisheries C o d e o f C o n d u c t p r o h i b i t s t h e use o f p o i s o n s a n d expl osives in f ishing. H o w e v e r , m a n y local f i s h e r m e n ha v e c o n t i n u e d t h e p rac t i ce s be c au s e t h e y say it ’s t h e o n l y w a y t h e y c a n feed t h e i r families. I n t he P h i l i p p i n e s , as in m a n y o t h e r c o u n t r i e s , f i shi ng c o m m u n i t i e s are o f t e n a m o n g t he p o o r e s t . E d u c a t i n g p e o p l e a b o u t t h e i m p o r t a n c e o f b i o d i v e r s i t y d o e s n ’t m e a n m u c h i f t h e y ’re t o o d e s p e r a t e to care. S h a r i n g t h e b en e fi t s f r o m t h e c o m m e r c i a l use o f a q u a t i c g e n e t i c r es our ce s c o u l d h e l p m a k e a d i f f e r en ce , b u t o n l y i f t h e r e ’s a s t r o n g p o l i c y f r a m e w o r k to e n s u r e t h a t t h e re are b e n e f it s , a n d t h a t t h e y are t he k i n d c o m m u n i t i e s w a n t a n d ne e d.

The world’s first access law: Executive Order 2 4 7 2 T w o years af ter t he C B D c a m e i n t o force in 1 9 9 2 , t h e P h i l i p p i n e s b e c a m e t h e first c o u n t r y to e n a c t access a n d b e n e f i t - s h a r i n g l e gi s l a ti on . P r e s i d e n t i a l E x e c u t i v e O r d e r 2 4 7 ( E 0 2 4 7 ) , iss ued by t h e R a m o s a d m i n i s t r a t i o n in 1 9 9 5 , c o n t a i n s g u i d e ­ lines a n d p r o c e d u r e s f or t h e p r o s p e c t i n g o f b i o l o gi ca l a n d g e n e t i c r es our ce s in t he p u b l i c d o m a i n . 3 E 0 2 4 7 is a d m i n i s t e r e d b y t h e D e p a r t m e n t o f E n v i r o n m e n t a n d N a t u r a l R e s o u r c e s , w h i c h in 1 9 9 6 iss ued r e g u l a t i o n s g o v e r n i n g its i m p l e m e n ­ t a t i o n 4 a n d e s t a b l i s h e d t h e I n t e r - A g e n c y C o m m i t t e e o n Bi ol ogi c al a n d G e n e t i c R e s o u r ce s ( I A C B G R ) to r eview r e q u es t s f or access to g e n e t i c r es o u r ce s . 5 Several c i r c u m s t a n c e s c r ea t e d a f a v o u r a b l e c l i ma t e f or t h e d r a f t i n g o f E 0 2 4 7 . T h e o v e r t h r o w o f t h e M a r c o s r e g i m e in 1 9 8 7 led to a d e m o c r a t i c pol i t ical s y s t e m, w i t h N G O s a n d c o m m u n i t y a d v o c a t e s p l a y i n g a n i n f l u e n t i a l role in p o l i c y d e v e l ­ o p m e n t . A n i ncrease in e x p l o r a t i o n b y r ese ar che rs f or p h a r m a c e u t i c a l c o m p a n i e s , especially in coa st a l w a t e rs , c u l m i n a t e d in a p u b l i c c on tr ove rs y, f uel l ed by m e d i a cove r age, a b o u t b i o p i r a c y b y fo r e i g n c o r p o r a t i o n s . M a n y p ol i c y m a k e r s felt t h a t it was i m p o r t a n t to es tabl ish a n init ial r e g u l a t o r y f r a m e w o r k t h r o u g h t h e exe cut ive o r d e r p r occ ss, g i ve n t h e pe r c e iv e d u r g e n c y o f t h e s i t u a t i o n a n d t h e slow p a c c o f c o n g r e s s i o n a l l egislation. E 0 2 4 7 w a s d e v e l o p e d in 1 9 9 4 t h r o u g h c o n s u l t a t i o n i n v o l v i n g v ar i o u s g o v e r n m e n t ag e nci es, scient ifi c a n d t e c h n i c a l e x p e r t s a n d i n s t i ­ t u t i o n s , a n d N G O s ( B a r b e r a n d La V i n a , 1 9 9 5 ) . T h e P h i l i p p i n e s is o n e o f t h e few

168

BI.UE GENES

c ountries to have u n d e rta k e n a broad co nsultation process in the d e v e lo p m e n t o f access regulations a n d tod ay rem ains the only c o u n tr y in So u thea st Asia with c o m prehensive acccss legislation. W h ile E 0 2 4 7 is com prehensive, efforts to im p le m e n t the law have been frus­ tra ting for researchers, c o m m u n i t y advocates an d g o v e r n m e n t agencies. T h e ir experience can provide useful lessons for policy makers e m b a rk in g on similar laws in o th e r countries, bearing in m in d th a t different cultural an d political c ir c u m ­ stances require different approaches. Every c o u n tr y will have to deal w ith the issues addressed by E 0 2 4 7 , in clu din g p rior in fo rm e d co n sen t, app ro p riate m e c h ­ anisms for benefit sharing, an d creating the institu tion al stru cture for i m p le m e n ­ tation a nd enforcem ent. T h e Ph ilip pin es’ experience clearly spells o u t the range o f challenges that face policy makers. T h e fram ew o rk for regulating biodiversity pro sp ecting u n d e r E 0 2 4 7 contains four basic elements: • A system o f m a n d a t o r y research agreem ents betw een collectors and the national g o v e rn m e n t w ith m i n im u m terms for provision o f in form a tion an d samples, tec hnology co op eratio n a nd benefit sharing. • M i n i m u m s ta n d a rd s for o b ta i n in g p rio r in f o rm e d c o n s e n t from local an d in digenous c o m m u n itie s where collection is carried out. • An in ter-agency co m m itte e to review applications and enforce co m pliance w ith research agreem ents and to co ordin ate fu rth er in stitutional, policy a nd t e c h n o ­ logical d evelo pm ent. • M i n i m u m requ irem en ts for c o n fo rm ity w ith e n v iro n m e n ta l protection laws and regulations.

C o m m e r c i a l a n d a c ad e m ic research a gr ee me nt s: A recipe for research chill? A ny on e p ro p o sin g to collect genetic resources m u s t operate u n d e r the term s o f a research agreem ent (com m ercial or academ ic) w ith a g o v e rn m e n t agency. ARAs apply to universities, o th e r academ ic institution s, g o v e rn m e n t agencies and in te r­ go ve rnm en tal agcncics prop o sin g scientific research w ith no in te n tio n o f profit. A ny collector w ith a co m m ercial objective m u s t o b tain a C R A . Foreign p r o p o ­ nents are required to ob tain the collaboration o f a Philippines research institution (such as the M SI o f the U niversity o f the Philippines) in the d e v e lo p m e n t o f C RA s. If researchers op erating u n d e r an ARA p ro d u ce results th at tu r n o u t to have com m ercial p oten tial or wish to transfer the collected materials to a third party, the a g reem ent m u s t be replaced w ith a C R A . ( E 0 2 4 7 , s 3) A n y o n e w ishing to ob tain either type o f agreem ent m u s t s u b m it an application to the IA C. T h e I A C B G R includes representatives from g o v e rn m e n t agencies as well as a rep resentative from a civil society o rg a n iz a tio n a n d a m e m b e r o f a 'people’s o rgan izatio n’ representing the interests o f ind igen ou s c o m m u n itie s . T h e application m u s t include a research proposal stating the purp oses, source o f funds, d u ra tio n , an d a list o f biological and genetic materials and a m o u n t s to be taken.

ACTING GLOBALLY: NATIONAL LAWS ON ACCESS TO AQUATIC RESOURCES

169

ARA proposals can be broader and m ore general th an C R A s (s 4), and a single ARA can cover all scientists an d researchers from an institutio n (eg the University o f the Philippines) (s 5), allowing a greater degree o f sclf-rcgulation for academ ic research. T h e p u r p o s e o f d is ti n g u is h i n g b e tw e e n c o m m e r c i a l a n d a c a d e m ic research was to m in im iz e bureaucratic hurdles for academ ic researchers and to give the IA C B G R m o re tim e to m o n i t o r private co m m erc ial parties. S h ortly after E 0 2 4 7 c a m e in to force, B a rb e r a n d La V in a ( 1 9 9 5 ) n o te d th a t , as foreign com m ercial collectors o f genetic resources often rely heavily on local academ ic in stitutio ns as suppliers, the application o f different requ irem ents to com m ercial an d academ ic research m ig h t prove c o u n te r-p ro d u c tiv e and w o uld need to be closely m o n ito re d . Since the n, suspicions ab o u t academ ic and com m ercial links have been on e o f several factors c o n tr ib u tin g to delays in approvals o f applications for research agreements. M i n i m u m terms o f the ag reem ents include: • •

Lim its on th e type and a m o u n t o f sam ples collected. D ep o sit o f a co m plete set o f all specim ens with th e N a tion al M u se u m or o ther designated g o v e rn m e n t entity. • Access by P h il ip p i n e s citizen s a n d g o v e r n m e n t e n titie s to all s p e c i m e n s deposited abroad, an d to relevant data. • In fo rm a tio n a b o u t all discoveries th at lead to d ev elo p m en t o f a com m ercial prod u ct. • Regular status reports to the IA C o f the research a nd o f the ecological state o f the area co n cerned a n d /o r species collected. • For e n d e m ic species, transfer to a P hilipp ine institutio n o f tec hnology enabling com m ercial and local use w ith o u t royalty paym ents. • P a y m e n t o f royalties to th e n a tio n a l g o v e r n m e n t a n d local o r in d ig e n o u s c o m m u n i t y w h e n a research activity leads to d ev e lo p m e n t o f a com m ercial prod uct, (s 5) Far from facilitating access to genetic resources, E 0 2 4 7 appears to have p u t a d a m p e r on research. M ore th an 30 applications (prim arily for ARAs) have been m ade, b u t several o f these have been w ith d r a w n . By m i d - 2 0 0 2 , the I A C B G R had approved only two ARAs, o ne covering several cam puses o f the University o f the Philippines and the o th e r for the In ternation al Rice Research Institute (IRRI). T h e on ly C R A to be a p p ro v e d was a jo i n t u n d e r t a k i n g b e tw e e n th e P h ilip p in e s D e p a r t m e n t o f A griculture, the University o f th e Philippines and the University o f U tah , u n d e r a research p ro g r a m m e fu n d ed by the US N a tio n al C a n cer Institute and US N atio n al Institutes o f H ealth. Its research objectives are: •

•

To collect a pp ro xim ate ly 2 0 0 m arin e o rgan ism s (ascidians, m arin e in verte­ brates, m arine m icro -o rg an ism s a nd sponges) annually from different habitats in the Philippines archipelago, in a m o u n ts ranging from 50 to 500 grams To isolate active m e t a b o li te s u sin g b io a s s a y -g u id e d f r a c t i o n a t i o n a n d to d e te rm in e the structures o f active metabolites

170

•

BI.UE GENES

To perform systematic inventories o f biodiversity o f various habitats in the Philipp ine m arine ecosystem.

T h e initial draft o f E 0 2 4 7 was prepared by a grou p o f chemists at the University o f the Philippines and aim ed to regulate the collection and use o f biodiversity by foreigners b u t n o t by Philippines scientists. 1'he later expansion o f its scope to include academ ic research, in p a rt to co m p ly w ith the C B D , has been a c o n tin u in g source o f frustration to the academ ic c o m m u n ity . Som e academ ic an d applied scientists, as well as conservation N G O s , have argued th at E 0 2 4 7 hinders scien­ tific progress an d im pedes stu d e n ts from o b ta in in g academ ic qualifications. Some scientists feel particularly disillusioned because they originally pro po sed the regu­ lation to co ntrol the activities o f foreign scientists an d protect their ow n interests (D a n o , 2 0 0 1 ). T h e N a tio n al M u s e u m o f the Philippines co n tin u es to take the position that its legal charter authorizes it to c o n d u c t biop rospecting activities w ith o u t co m p ly in g w ith the E 0 2 4 7 re q u ire m e n t to obtain a research agreem ent (Peria, 2 0 0 2 ). T h is has been a subject o f c o n tin u in g controversy, especially a m o n g N G O s th a t suspect th a t com m ercial users o f genetic resources may m ake arran g e­ m ents w ith the m u s e u m to c o n d u c t collections on their behalf.

Prior i n fo r m e d consent: I n s u r m o u n t a b l e hu rd le or far too easy? O n e o f the prerequisites for approval o f an application for a research agreem ent is p r o o f o f prior in fo rm ed co nsent by local co m m u n itie s , w h e th e r or n o t traditional know ledge o f uses o f those resources is evident. U n d e r a separate provision, collec­ tions w ith in ancestral lands and d o m a i n s o f in d ig e n o u s c o m m u n it ie s require co n se n t to be in accordance w ith custo m a ry c o m m u n i t y laws (s 7). T h e regulations im p le m e n tin g E 0 2 4 7 ( D e p a r t m e n t A d m inistrative O r d e r N o 9 6 - 2 0 ) define prior in fo rm ed c on sent as ‘co n sen t o b ta in ed ... after disclosing fully the in te n t an d scope o f the b io prospecting activity, in a language an d process u n d e r s ta n d a b l e to th e c o m m u n it y , a n d b efore any b io p r o s p e c ti n g activity is u n d e rta k e n ’ (D A O , s 2). To o btain the Prior In fo rm ed C o n s e n t (PIC) Certificate needed for approval o f a collection p e rm it (s 7), an ap plicant needs to take the following steps: •

Provide a s u m m a ry o f the research proposal to the c o m m u n it y m ayo r or head o f an in dig eno us people. • Inform the c o m m u n it y o f its in ten tion to c o n d u c t bio p ro sp ecting , th ro u g h media advertisem ents or direct c o m m u n ic a tio n . • Advertise an d organize a c o m m u n it y assembly to discuss the proposal. • Provide to the local m a y o r or recognized h ead o f an in d ig e n o u s p eop le a s u m m a ry o f the research proposal, in a language or dialect un d ers tan d a b le to th e m , stating (a) the purpose, m eth o d o lo g y an d d u ra tio n o f the project, as well as the n u m b e r o f spccics/spccim cns to be used a n d /o r collected, (b) equitable a n d recip ro cal ben efits to p arties c o n c e r n e d b efo re, d u r i n g a n d after the d u ratio n o f the biop ro sp ecting activity, an d (c) a categorical sta te m e n t th a t the activity will n o t in any way affect th e trad itio nal use o f the resources.

ACTING GLOBALLY: NATIONAL LAWS O N ACCESS TO AQUATIC RESOURCES

• Su bmit the people, to Biological compliance

171

PIC certificate, if issued by the mayor or head of an indigenous the Technical Secretariat o f the I n te r- A gency C o m m i t t e e on and G c n c t i c Rcsourccs ( I A C B G R ) , to g eth er w ith p r o o f of with legal procedures.

Researchers have complained that the requirements for prior informed consent are too onerous, while co m m u n it y advocates say they d o n ’t go nearly far enough. As straightforward as the steps appear, there are many potential complications. In some cases it may be difficult to identify the recognized head of a co m m u n it y or even to precisely define the identity of a community. Local people may question the authority o f a mayor to speak on their behalf, and it may be difficult for the I A C B G R to d e t e r m in e w h e th e r c o n s e n t is a p p a r e n t w h e n c o m m u n i t i e s are strongly divided. Researchers planning projects in indigenous communities may need considerable time and effort to understand and adhere to customary laws of collective decision-making. Translating research proposals into local languages may present a formidable task given the n u m b e r o f languages in the Philippines, b ut even that may not be enough. O n e N G O suggests that pictures may be needed to describe the species to be collected and the am ounts to be collected. Are the prior informed consent requirements too de m andin g or not de m anding enough? Both N G O s and academics support the process, b ut their concerns are very different. Some N G O s point out that the implications of bioprospecting for genetic resources may be virtually incomprehensible in some communities, and that applicants for research agreements need to go far beyond a basic description of a research proposal to ensure that communities have sufficient information and under standing to make decisions about prior informed consent. T h e sample PIC certificate contained in the regulations simply states that the signer (ie the mayor or head of an indigenous people) has reviewed the research proposal, has u n d e r ­ stood the implications o f the proposed research activity, and has consulted with constituents, who have voiced no objection. O n e interviewee expressed concern that mayors and fishing organizations are likely to provide consent w ithout suffi­ ciently understanding the consequences. A researcher studying the toxic properties of cone snails used to simply buy them from fishermen who caught them only for the commercial value o f their decorative shells and threw the venom duct away; now she can only obtain the material und er the authorization o f a CR A with all its lengthy delays and co m pli­ cations. Some researchers worry that publicity about biopiracy and the possibility o f large royalties and other substantial rewards has raised c o m m u n ity expectations too far, increasing the difficulty of obtaining consent. C o m m u n it ie s may have difficulty u n d e r s t a n d i n g the difference betwee n ac adem ic a n d c o m m er cial research and may expect economic results that simply d o n ’t exist. C o m m o n suspi­ cions that commercial research may be cloaked under the guise o f academic research add to the confusion. O n e researcher noted that leaders of indigenous co mmunities are reluctant to sign forms because experience has taught them that signing docu men ts means giving up rights. Scientists are not very good at explaining their work to local people (this is hardly unique to scientists in the Philippines). T he y just want to get on with their

172

BLUE GENES

research, and may lack the funding to develop complicated PIC procedures that may need to be a d a p te d to different c o m m u n i t y cultures. In r e m o te areas, obtaining prior informed conscnt from communities may take months. W ith the assistance o f social scientists, the University of the Philippines has developed guidelines to help its researchers meet prior informed consent requirements. T h e perception am on g many scientists that obtaining co m m u n ity permission is just too difficult has short circuited several proposed research projects. However, as one civil society organization notes, most of those who oppose prior informed consent have not actually tried it (Dano, 2001). Stronger prior informed consent provisions could act as a further disincentive to researchers who find even the existing administrative requirements too great a burden. M a n y o f the Philippines’ marine species can also be readily found in nearby Malaysia and Indonesia, and Philippine enforcement agencies are too weak in most parts o f the country to stop commercial researchers from simply collecting in secret. However, advocates for co m m u n ity and indigenous rights are quick to point out that giving com munities a chance for greater control over their own destinies is not only a matter o f justice b ut also may be just what is needed for achieving m ore responsible m a n a g e m e n t o f biological diversity. E 0 2 4 7 has opened a Pandoras box that will not easily be shut.

W h o speaks for c o m m u n i ti e s ? P r o p o s i n g a voice for fisheries co operatives T h e D e p a r tm e n t o f Agriculture is responsible for fisheries m an ag em en t and policy d e v e l o p m e n t in the Philippines. T h e 1998 Fisheries C o d e pro vid ed for the a p p o i n t m e n t of an undersecretary o f fisheries in the d epartm ent to oversee fish­ eries regulation, research and policy development. T h e C o d e promotes public participation in policy d e v e lo p m e n t t h rough the a p p o i n t m e n t o f a Na tional Fisheries and Aquatic Resources M an ag em en t Council comprising a cross-section o f interest groups including government, small fishermen, commercial fishermen, fish processors, academics, and civil society organizations. At the local level, the Code provides precedence to municipal fishermen and their cooperatives within 15 km of municipal shorelines. It also provides for the crcation of local Fisheries and Aquatic Resource M anagem ent Councils (FARMCs), with small fishermen making up three-quarters of the membership, in every municipality with fishing activities. T h e m ai n role o f local F A R M C s is to help in the p r ep aratio n o f municipal fisheries development plans, reco mmen d the en ac tm en t of ordinances, and assist in enforcement o f fisheries laws. T h e T a m bu yog F o undation, a civil society organization that promotes the rights o f fishing communities, suggests that requests for prior informed consent should be directed not to mayors but to FARM Cs , which, it argues, more legiti­ mately represent the interests of fishing communities and are the keepers of tradi­ tional knowledge. W h o has the legitimate authority to speak for communities? Although E 0 2 4 7 delegates that authority to heads of municipalities (for local communities), other national access laws have yet to address an issue that will be crucial to the implementation of effective consent arrangements.

A C T IN G GLOBALLY: N A T IO N A L LAWS O N A C C E SS T O A Q U A T IC R E S O U R C E S

173

Royalties and other benefits - An im probable dream? A b ro ch u re describing the M S I-U n iv ersity o f U ta h b io p ro sp ectin g enterprise a n d a i m e d a t t a r g e t c o m m u n i t i e s , n o t e d its m e d i c a l , e c o l o g i c a l a n d s c i e n t i f i c b e n e f i t s and added

th at the in stitu tio n s w o u ld share an y royalty or p rofit w ith the

P h i l i p p i n e g o v e r n m e n t in th e e v e n t t h a t a p r o d u c t c a p a b l e o f b e i n g p a t e n t e d s h o u l d b e d e v e l o p e d . T h e b r o c h u r e a d d r e s s e d t h e q u e s t i o n o f b e n e f i t s t o t h e l o c al c o m m u n i t y as f o l l o w s :

A t the early stage, the study w ill f in d ou t w h a t is the state o f the en vi­ ron m ent in the study site. The d a ta can help to pla n ways o f taking care o f a n d preserving the ecology o f the place. We c a n t prom ise th a t any drug w ill come o u t o f the study. But, i f there should be any, every effort w ill be m ade so th a t the local com m u n ity w ill share in the fin a n c ia l benefits. H ow exactly w ill be d eterm in ed later on. O n e o f the key benefits o f the a g r e e m e n t has b een tra in in g for U niversity o f the P h ilip p in e s researchers in p u r ifi c a tio n processes. F o r c o m m u n i t i e s a n d n a t i o n a l g o v e r n m e n t a l i k e , t h e p r o m i s e o f r o y a l t i e s is t h e p o t o f gold th a t e n c o u rag es prior in f o r m e d c o n s e n t for c o m m e r c ia l collections. A n t i - c a n c e r d r u g s a r e a t t h e t o p o f t h e list a n d , i n t h e e v e n t t h a t t h e i d e n t i f i c a t i o n o f a n a n t i- c a n c e r a g e n t leads to the d e v e l o p m e n t o f a m a r k e t a b l e d r u g , n o d o u b t th e r e t u r n s w o u l d b e c o n s i d e r a b l e . H o w e v e r , t h e o d d s o f c o l l e c t i o n s in a n y p a r ti c u la r c o m m u n i t y le a d in g to c o m m e r c i a l p r o fit are e x t r e m e l y slim . In th e e v e n t t h a t r o y a l t i e s d o m a t e r i a l i z e , it w i l l b e u p t o p a r t i e s t o r e s e a r c h a g r e e m e n t s t o d e t e r m i n e h o w t o d i s t r i b u t e t h e m . T h e l e g i s l a t i o n h a s c o m e u n d e r c r i t i c i s m in s o m e q u a r t e r s f o r n o t p r e c i s e l y d e f i n i n g a r o y a l t y s p l i t (say, 5 0 - 5 0 ) b e t w e e n t h e go v ern m e n t and provider com m unities. Section

5(e) o f E 0 2 4 7

provides th a t form s o f c o m p e n sa tio n o th er than

royalties m a y be n e g o t ia t e d w h e r e a p p r o p r ia t e . As c o m m u n i t i e s are n o t p arties to re se arch a g r e e m e n t s , t h e y h a v e n o d i r e c t role in n e g o t i a t i n g be n e f its . H o w e v e r , u n d e r se ction 8 o f th e reg u la tio n s, parties to research a g r e e m e n t s m u s t e n s u re th a t n e g o t i a t e d b e n e f i t s also a c c r u e to local c o m m u n i t i e s a n d i n d i g e n o u s p e o p l e s a n d are a l l o c a t e d fo r c o n s e r v a t i o n m e a s u r e s . T h e l a tt e r r e q u i r e m e n t h a s b e e n a sore p o i n t for critics o f th e legislation w h o m a i n t a i n th a t c r e a tin g an o b lig a tio n to aim c o m m u n i t y benefits in th e d ir e c tio n o f c o n s e r v a ti o n u n d e r m i n e s th e so ve re ig nty t h a t t h e c o n c e p t o f p r i o r i n f o r m e d c o n s e n t is i n t e n d e d t o c o n f e r . T h i s i l l u s t r a t e s a d i l e m m a likely to face policy m a k e r s d r a f tin g effective access a n d b e n e f it- s h a r in g l e g i s l a t i o n i n o t h e r c o u n t r i e s . T o b e f a i t h f u l t o t h e o b j e c t i v e s o f t h e C B D , is it e n o u g h sim p ly to require eq u itab le s h a rin g o f benefits w ith c o m m u n itie s , or s h o u ld th e re be strings a tta c h e d to p r o m o t e the c o n s e rv a tio n o f biological d i v e r s i t y ? T o c r e a t e a n i n c e n t i v e , is it a l s o n e c e s s a r y t o c r e a t e a n o b l i g a t i o n ? I n t h e Philip p in es, m u c h d e p e n d s o n h o w the r e q u i r e m e n t for allocation for c o n s e r ­ v a t i o n m e a s u r e s is i n t e r p r e t e d . F o r e x a m p l e , b e n e f i t s t h a t h a v e n o a p p a r e n t d i r e c t l i n k t o c o n s e r v a t i o n , s u c h as i m p r o v e d h e a l t h a n d e d u c a t i o n p r o g r a m m e s , m a y

174 BLUE GENES still make a significant long-term co ntribution to conservation o f ecosystems by helping a c o m m u n it y improve its economic health. As Batungbacal (2000) points out, economic benefits from bioprospecting do not have to be enor mou s to create significant environmental, social and economic results in coastal communities, provided they are captured at a local level and are at least partially dedicated to conservation: One hundred thousand dollars in the hands o f an N G O , a small business or a local community can go a long way:providing medicines, supporting a nature reserve or an inventory o f biodiversity, funding a clinic or processing facilities, and creating employment. These direct benefits can be felt in­ directly in other sectors o f the economy - for example, in tourism or through pro vid in g transferable skills such as inform ation technology - thus contributing to a country's broader sustainable development. Various organizations in the Philippines have been actively pr omoting alternative livelihoods in sustainable fisheries and aquaculture. For example, the S E A FD E C has helped com m un ities on the island of Bohol start up sustainable m u d crab fish­ eries with low-technology support and has worked with other communities to demonstrate the long-term effects o f no fish areas in increasing catches (Primavera and Agbayani, 1997). T h e H a r i b o n F o undation, in cooperation with Project Seahorse, has co or dina ted the developm ent o f seahorse sanctuaries in poorer fishing communities, again with the result of rebuilding populations and catches (Project Seahorse, 2000). And ICLA RM s G I F T project has provided improved broodstock and training to rural po nd farmers (Pullin et al, 1991). Each of these projects, discussed in the following chapter, illustrates the potential for improving economic conditions in com m un ities in ways that increase awareness of ecological issues. Biosprospecting for marine organisms in the Philippines often takes place in fishing com munities where economic conditions create little incentive for careful m an ag em en t of fisheries resources. For example, the Fisheries Code prohibits the use o f explosives and poisons in coral reef fisheries, but local fishermen may flout the law out of desperation to feed their families. Assistance with the crcation of sustainable fisheries livelihoods could be one o f the most useful forms of benefits to com munities providing aquatic genetic resources in the Philippines.

I m p l e m e n t i n g Executive O r d e r 2 4 7 - A b u re a u c ra tic nigntm are T h e magnitude o f the difficulties involved in im plementing E 0 2 4 7 is illustrated by the fact that only two out of 37 applications for research agreements had been approved five years after the presidential order was issued in 1995. T h e great majority of these applications for ARAs. It appears that m an y would-be applicants for CRAs have moved their research activities to more ‘friendly' countries or, in some cases, have simply bypassed the legislation by m ak in g una uthoriz ed collections.

A C T IN G GLOBALLY: N A TIO N A L LAWS O N ACCESS T O AQ UATIC RESOURCES

175

O n e of t h e m a i n r ea so n s f or del ays in a p p r o v a l a p p e a r s to ha v e b e e n a lack o f f i n an ci a l a n d b u r e a u c r a t i c s u p p o r t for t h e I A C B G R c h a r g e d w i t h r ev i e w i n g a n d a p p r o v i n g a p p l i c a t i o n s a n d f or t he T e c h n i c a l Se c r et ar i a t to s u p p o r t its w o r k . O n e m e m b e r o f t h e I A C B G R n o t e s t h a t , a l t h o u g h t h e C o m m i t t e e w a s i n t e n d e d to c o n v e n e m o n t h l y , its m e e t i n g s are i r re g ul a r be c au s e o f t h e d if fi cul t y o f f o r m i n g a q u o r u m . S h e a t t r i b u t e d thi s to t h e fact t h a t t h e d ea l in g s o f t h e I A C B G R ha ve b e e n a l ow p r i o r i t y f o r o v e r w o r k e d g o v e r n m e n t a g e n c i e s a n d t o a g e n e r a l la ck o f a wa re ne s s in g o v e r n m e n t b u r e a u c r a c i e s o f t h e s i g n i f ic an ce o f its m a n d a t e . A n o t h e r i n t e r v i e w e e n o t e d t h a t t h e I A C B G R h a d d i f fi cul t y p r e p a r i n g effective p r o c e d u r e s a n d g u i d e l i n e s b e c a u s e g o v e r n m e n t r ep r es e n ta t i ve s w e r e t o o b u s y to de a l w i t h t he issue. A n u n e a s y r e l a t i o n s h i p b e t w e e n N G O s a n d s c i en t i st s also a p p e a r s to ha v e c o n t r i b u t e d to a r o c k y s t a r t f or E 0 2 4 7 . S o m e N G O s r e m a i n c o n c c r n c d t h a t t he r e is n o t a clear e n o u g h d i s t i n c t i o n b e t w e e n a c a d e m i c a n d c o m m e r c i a l resear ch a n d t h a t E 0 2 4 7 p r o v i d e s i n su f f i c i en t a u t h o r i t y a n d i n f o r m a t i o n to c o m m u n i t i e s to se cu r e a d e q u a t e b e n ef i t s f r o m c o l l ec t i ons . O n e s c i en t ist c o m m e n t e d t h a t s o m e N G O s s e em to t a ke sa t i sf ac t i on in f r u s t r a t i n g t h e effort s o f scient ists to e n g a g e in b o t h c o m m e r c i a l a n d a c a d e m i c r esear ch. S h e a d d e d t h a t t h e a n t i - b i o p i r a c y f ocus o f N G O s d is t r a ct s t h e a t t e n t i o n o f t h e c o u n t r y f r o m i n c re a si n g its c a p a c i t y for c o m m e r c i a l d e v e l o p m e n t o f g e n e t i c r e s o ur ce s in a m a n n e r c o n s i s t e n t w i t h b i o ­ di v e r si ty c o n s e r v a t i o n . H o w c a n t h e p r o c e s s i n g o f r e s e a r c h a p p l i c a t i o n s be m a d e m o r e e ff ic i en t? S uggestions p u t forw ard by representatives fro m

N G O s a n d the research

c o m m u n i t y i n c l u d e d t he n ee d for: •

I n c r e a s ed g o v e r n m e n t f u n d i n g for t h e I A C B G R a n d to m a k e its w o r k a p r i o ri t y f or h e a d s o f g o v e r n m e n t age nci es

•

A ‘o n e - s t o p s h o p p i n g ’ s ys t em to e x p e d i t e t he a p p l i c a t i o n pr occ ss w i t h a single a g e n c y b e i n g r e s p o n s i b l e for r ev i e w i n g a n d a p p r o v i n g a p p l i c a t i o n s , m o n i t o r i n g a n d p r o v i d i n g g u i d a n c e for p r i o r i n f o r m e d c o n s e n t p r o c e d u r e s , m o n i t o r i n g c o m p l i a n c e w i t h a g r e e m e n t r e q u i r e m e n t s , a n d e n f o r c i n g t h e law

•

I nc r ea se d p u b l i c a n d b u r e a u c r a t i c a w ar en e s s o f b i o p r o s p e c t i n g a n d b io d iv er s it y c o n s e r v a t i o n issues

•

A c e n t r a l b io d iv e r s i t y office to p r o m o t e b o t h t h e c o m m e r c i a l use a n d c o n s e r ­ v a t i o n o f b io lo g i c a l diversity.

Executive Order 247 and aquaculture E 0 2 4 7 w a s m o t i v a t e d b y n a t i o n a l c o n c e r n s a b o u t t h e c o l l e c ti o n o f b o t h sea a n d p l a n t life w h o s e c h e m i c a l c o m p o n e n t s m i g h t e n a b l e t h e d e v e l o p m e n t o f n e w d r u g s a n d o t h e r p h a r m a c e u t i c a l p r o d u c t s . T h e l a w ’s d e f i n i t i o n o f ‘p r o s p e c t i n g ’ as

the research, collection and utilization o f biological and genetic resources fo r purposes o f applying the knowledge derived to scientific and/or commercial purposes c o u l d be i n t e r p r e t e d to i n c l u d e t h e c o l l e c ti o n o f w i l d b r o o d s t o c k f or f o o d fish or o r n a m e n t a l s a q u a c u l t u r e . In t he or y , t h e p r o v i s i o n s m i g h t even ha v e a p p l i e d to t he

176

BI.UE GENES

I C L A R M ’s collection o f germ plasm from locally cultured tilapia u n d e r the G I F T project. However, there is no in dic atio n th at E 0 2 4 7 was in te n d e d to deal to collections for aqu acultu re, a nd its application to such collections rem ains a grey area. T h e n o rm a l practice (by S E A F D E C , for example) is sim ply to p urchase b ro o d s to c k from local fisherm en, w h o ap p e ar to be c o n te n t w ith the c u rre n t a rran ge m en t. W o u ld fisherm en get a b etter deal th ro u g h formal access agreem ents betw een c o m m u n itie s an d collectors? Perhaps so, if a collection led to the d e v e lo p m e n t o f a valuable strain w ith in ternatio n al markets - or perhaps there w o uld simply be an e x p an sio n o f th e ‘research chill’ t h a t c u rr e n tly app ears to in h i b it c ollections t h r o u g h o u t the Philippines. O n c e again, it is im p o r t a n t to consider som e fu n d a ­ m en tal distinctions betw een different uses o f genetic resources. Article 8 (j) o f the C B D was driven by conccrns a b o u t the a p p ro p riatio n w ith o u t c o m p en s atio n o f tr aditional know ledge o f crop breeding an d m edicinal uses o f plants, and it was initially a n tic ip a te d th a t access an d b e n e fit- sh a rin g legislation im p le m e n ti n g Article 8 (j) w ould tie access agreem ents to the provision o f traditio nal know ledge enab lin g the effective use o f genetic resources. E 0 2 4 7 m oved b ey on d th e expecta­ tions o f Article 8(j) by requiring the c o nsen t o f co m m u n itie s w ith or w ith o u t tra d i­ tional know ledge, an d som e o th e r natio nal laws have followed suit. To the drafters o f E 0 2 4 7 , there was a clear logic in requiring the ag reem ent o f c o m m u n i t i e s for collectio n o f m a r in e o rg a n ism s th a t m i g h t ev entu a lly yield e n o rm o u s profits in th e event o f the discovery of, say, an anti-cancer drug. Shou ld the same logic require a collector o f b ro od stoc k to m ak e an agreem ent w ith a c o m m u n it y rather than sim ply buy in g from a fisher w h o sells his catch for a living? If so, how? D rafters o f access and benefit-sharing policies in o th e r countries face m a ny tou gh questions, and this is o ne o f the toughest.

Lessons for other countries As o ther countries in the A SEA N region develop their own legislation based on the A S E A N F ram ew ork guidelines, there m ay be an o p p o r t u n it y for s m o o th e r im p le ­ m e n ta tio n o f E 0 2 4 7 simply because collectors o f genetic resources c a n n o t just m o ve th e i r o p e r a t i o n s to a m o r e a c c o m m o d a t i n g n a ti o n . N e v e rth e le ss, the P hilipp ine experience deserves careful consideration by oth er countries. Executive O r d e r 247 was carefully prepared, w ith p articipation by a broad range o f stake­ holders, and at first glance appears to be a logical and straightforw ard ap p ro ach to facilitating access to genetic resources. As so often with the im p le m e n ta tio n o f legislation th at represents a m a jo r change to the status q uo , the devil has been in the details, a n d the details here are many. At the very least, the difficulties experi­ enced in im p le m e n tin g E 0 2 4 7 suggest th a t to be effective, access an d benefitsharing laws need to: • •

Provide for an efficient process w ith o u t unreasonable delays. E nsure the availability o f a d eq uate g o v e rn m e n t resources to im p le m e n t and enforce enabling regulations and to process applications expeditiously.

ACTING GLOBALLY: NATIONAL LAWS ON ACCESS TO AQUATIC RESOURCES

177

Ensure that distinctions betw een academ ic an d com m ercial research are clear a n d th a t ac a d e m ic research ap p lic a tio n s can p ro ce ed w i t h o u t un necessary obstacles. Provide ad equ ate su p p o r t for the n ego tiatio n o f prior in fo rm e d con sent at the c o m m u n it y level. Clearly define the scope o f the legislation w ith regard to the genetic resources to w hich it applies.

Chapter 6

Results that Count: M eaningful Benefits for Fishing Com m unities

F ish in g f a m i l y w it h t r a d it i o n a l fis h tr a p , M a r i tu b a w e tla n d s , B r a z il (P h o to b y B r ia n H a r v e y )

180

BLUE GENES

O n e o f the three objectives o f the C B D , the equitable sharing of benefits from the use o f genetic resources, is intended to prom ote the other two: conservation and sustainable use of gcnetic rcsourccs. Ten years after the C B D camc into forcc, there are few publicized examples of benefits to developing countries from the use of plant genetic resources, and virtually none for aquatic genetic resources. T h e most obvious explanation is the slow progress in the development of access laws and the regulations that define how they’ll work in practice. In the meantime, uncertainty ab ou t legal requirements for access has had a chilling effect on commercial and academic research and has left many indigenous and local communities uncertain ab ou t whether they have any rights to negotiate with collectors and, if so, how to go about it. Some corporations and research institutions have negotiated agreements with national governments, and occasionally directly with communities, in countries where legislation has yet to be enacted. O n e of the reasons there has been little public information ab ou t such agreements is that m an y have been negotiated secretly, especially in cases where sensitive commercial information is involved. Martinez (2002) points to the growth o f a new profession o f ‘biotrade brokers’ whose job it is to negotiate little-publicized deals between northern organizations and southern biodiversity rich countries, which may share some or many species a n d c o m p e t e a m o n g themselves for a share o f the action. G R A I N (2002a) concludes that the trend towards such bilateral contracts has rarely favoured provider countries. Its study o f a n u m b e r o f completed agreements concluded that, in most cases, more than 95 per cent of the benefits derived from biodiversity continue to be captured by industrial interests. O t h e r analysts might use different measuring sticks and come up with different results, but there’s no d o u b t that there is a gap and that it needs to be narrowed. At the co m m u n it y level, receiving a fair share of benefits will start with legal recognition of the right of informed consent to the collection of genetic resources. However, m u c h more will de pend on the types o f benefits up for discussion (royalties may have zero value), the support of a sound negotiation framework and the c o m m i t m e n t of both com m unities and collectors to negotiate a workable agreement.

BLUE GOLD OR FOOLS’ GOLD? Prospects for ben efit sharing P lant biodiversity has been called ‘green g o l d ’ because o f the p o te n tia l for bioprospecting agreements to provide lucrative export markets for plants and plant products from southern countries. T h e high expectations that the C B D created haven’t been met so far. Are the prospects for ‘blue gold’ any better? C ha pter 1 details the potential value o f different types o f aquatic genetic resources. Benefit-sharing agreements will likely vary considerably in nature an d scope depen ding on the types of resource and collcction requirements involved.

RESULTS T H A T C O U N T : M E A N I N G F U L B E N E FIT S F O R F I S H I N G C O M M U N I T I E S

181

M a rin e bio p ro sp ectin g B ioprosp ec tin g for m a r in e organ ism s is like p a n n i n g for gold. It m a y onl y take one m a j o r find in o n e location to p r o d u c e riches. But, just as in pr osp ec ting for gold, the d i s a p p o i n t m e n t s far o u t n u m b e r the successes. T h e o dd s against p rovider c o m m u n i t i e s receiving a share o f royalties from p h a r ­ m a c e u t i c a l c o m p a n i e s are e x t r a o r d i n a r i l y h i g h , given t h e rar ity w i t h w h i c h samples lead to th e d e v e l o p m e n t o f a m ar ke tab le p r o d u c t . Moreover, p h a r m a c e u ­ tical a n d o t h e r c o m p a n i e s are incr ea sing ly m a n a g i n g to r ed u ce the nee d for collection o f samples: th ey synthesize c o m p o u n d s , chemically alter them to make th e m distinct from the originals a n d therefore eligible for p a t e n t p r o te ctio n , or grow m edicinal plants on plantations. By o n e estimate, the global trade in genetic resources run s to several billion dollars annu al ly (ten Kate a n d Laird, 1999), b u t such large figures bear little relationship to a m o u n t s received by pr ovider c o u n ­ tries. T h e total profits in w o r l d w i d e trade in p l a n t seeds in 1993 were a b o u t U S $ 7 0 0 million. As Pullin and Casal ( 1 996) note, if 10 per cen t o f that a m o u n t c am e from materials collected u n d e r the C B D , there w o u l d have been a b o u t U S $ 7 0 million a year in profits to be shared and pe rhap s U S $ 7 million in royalties to be shared a m o n g source cou ntr ies - an a m o u n t t h a t m i g h t be exceeded by the cost o f es tim atin g and distr ib u ti n g such benefits. P lant biopr os pec tors s o m e tim e s a t t e m p t to negotiate agree men ts w ith national g o v e r n m e n t s to o b ta in samples from parks a n d o th e r p rote cte d areas, either to avoid the nee d to deal with c o m m u n i t i e s or private lan d o w n er s or because the rules for n e g o t i a t i o n are s i m p l y m o r e s t r a i g h t f o r w a r d . O n e o f th e few b i o p r o s p e c t i n g a g r e e m e n t s o n a q u a t i c g c n e t i c rcso urccs p r o v i d e d fo r the collection o f t h e r m o p h i lic or ganism s u n i q u e to the h o t springs o f Yellowstone N a tio n a l Park. T h e US Parks Service itself initiated the process with the express i n t e n t o f discovering applications for p r o d u c ts derived t h r o u g h research on t h e r ­ m o p h ili c organ ism s (so p r io r in f o r m e d c o n s e n t was n o t an issue), a n d was to receive U S $ 1 0 0 , 0 0 0 a n n u a l l y from the Diversa C o r p o r a t i o n for five years o f s am p le collectio n as well as i n - k i n d services a n d royalties fro m any p r o d u c t s develope d ( C o l u m b i a University, 1999). However , m o s t b io pro s pecting for aquatic or ganism s will c o n t i n u e to focus on ocean waters, where m a r in e equivalents o f parks are so few t h a t collectors d o n ’t have the o p t i o n o f o b t a i n i n g spccimcn s from p rote cted areas even if allowed to do so. A s su m i n g th a t co n ti n u e s to be the case, w h a t say are c o m m u n i t i e s likely to h av e in c o l le c t io n s o f f n a t i o n a l coastlines? M o s t b i o p r o s p e c t i n g for m a r i n e organism s is c o n d u c t e d on the seabed o f th e c o n ti n e n t a l shelf, w h ic h falls w ithin n a t i o n a l j u r i s d i c t i o n u n d e r th e U N C L O S . In Fiji, i n d i g e n o u s c o m m u n i t i e s already have certain rights to the seabed. However, this is the exception rather t ha n the rule, a n d w h e t h e r c o m m u n i t i e s have a right to benefits from offshore resources is likely to remain a controversial issue th a t bec om es even m o r e c o m p l e x as scien­ tific k now ledg e o f ocean life expands. Will c o m m u n i t i e s be able to d e m a n d a say if m icro -organism s f o u n d recently in h y d r o th e r m a l vents on the seabed h o ld the p ros pec t o f c o m m er cial devel opm en t? It s ounds unlikely, b u t territorial claims o f

182

BI.UE GENES

som e in dig eno us peoples (like the H a id a in C a n a d a ’s Q u e e n C h a rlo tte Islands, close to som e o f the vent discoveries) m ay extend far b eyond the coastline. T raditional know ledge o f or uses for seabed o rganism s is likely to be virtually n on-ex isten t in areas w here b iop ro sp ecting takes place, b u t this m ay n o t be a barrier to c o m m u n i t y rights in c ountries th a t follow the B onn G uidelines, and appears n o t to have been an obstacle u n d e r the P h ilip pin e access law. F u ture access policies (and land claims ag reem ents w ith ind igenous c o m m u n ities ) will need to clearly c o n sid er an d describe the rights o f c o m m u n it ie s over offshore aq uatic genetic resources if co n te n tio u s disputes are to be avoided.

Food fish aquaculture C ollections o f b ro o d s to c k for d ev elo p m e n t o f new food fish strains arc m o re likely to lead to returns, th o u g h n o t o f a similar m a g n itu d e , to source c o m m u n itie s , sim ply because the odds o f creating a successful co m m ercial p ro d u c t are higher. In add itio n , the research and d e v e lo p m e n t phase is likely to be far sh orter tha n the ten to 20 years for p h a rm a c e u tic a l p ro d u c ts . C o n s e q u e n tly , benefits such as royalties th at d e p e n d on com m ercially valuable results are likely to be distrib uted m ore quickly. C ollectors o f aquatic genetic resources d o n ’t have the op p o rtu n ity , frequently p u rs u e d by p la n t b io p ro sp e c to rs, o f d ra w in g u p o n th e extensive h o ld in g s o f publicly available ex situ collections. T h e need for wild bro o d s to c k could dim inish over tim e as g en etically diverse ex situ c o lle c tio n s b e c o m e well estab lished ; however, the gradual expansion in the farm ing o f food fish species or po pu latio ns th at have never before been cultured will lead to o n g o in g d e m a n d s for wild genetic material. Universities and o th e r national institu tion s are currently the p rim ary actors in this field and will generally have to m ee t the same req uirem en ts as foreign collectors if cu rre n t trends in the d e v e lo p m e n t o f access law co ntinu e. O n e o f th e key distinctions betw een bio prosp ecting and aq u acultu re is th a t the d e v e lo p m e n t o f pro m isin g new strains for farm ing may require collection from m any dispersed locations, so that several c o m m u n itie s and in som e cases several nations could be involved in the negotiation o f agreem ents. T h is w o u ld have been the case, for instance, if n atio nal acccss and benefit-sharing laws had applied to I C L A R M ’s collections o f wild tilapia b roo dsto ck in four African countries in the late 1980s (see Case Study 4). Such a diversity o f c o m m u n itie s c o n tr ib u tin g to d e v e lo p m e n t o f a p ro d u c t is unlikely to occur in the pla n t w orld, and it raises the question o f how benefits can m o s t effectively be shared and how the process o f n e g o tia tin g b enefits can m o s t efficiently be carried o u t in a w ay th a t is cost effective for a fish breeder a nd fair to p articipating c o m m u n ities . T h o se access laws th at already exist appear to operate on the a ssu m p tio n th at agreem ents will be bilateral (that is, betw een a national institu tio n and a foreign collector or betw een a n ational institu tio n a n d an individual c o m m u n ity ). For the collection o f aq uacu ltu re broo dstock , multilateral agreem ents m ay be m o re cost effective, efficient and realistic, especially for the sharing o f n o n -m o n e ta r y benefits (such as assistance in the d ev e lo p m e n t o f sustainable livelihoods) th a t m ay be useful in similar ways to the variety o f c o m m u n itie s pro vid in g broodstock.

RESULTS THAT COUNT: MEANINGFUL BENEFITS FOR FISHING COMMUNITIES

183

Breeding o f ornam entals R egulation o f the collection o f bro o d s to ck for the o rn am en tals in d u stry presents altogether different challenges. For som e species, breeders can simply tap into the well established live trade in orn am en ta ls to obtain b roo dsto ck w ith o u t ever going near the c o m m u n i t y o f origin. A b o u t 90 per cen t o f freshw ater o rn a m e n ta ls already co m e from breeders, an d cultu red p o p u latio n s o f p o p u la r species like the neo n tetra are so diverse th at th e need for wild bro o d s to ck has virtually been elim ­ inated. By co ntrast, on ly a h a n d fu l o f m a rin e o rn a m e n ta l species are bred in captivity. Sophisticated aqu aculture technologies are increasingly m ak in g it possible to culture species never before bred in captivity, creating new d e m a n d s for wild b r o o d s to c k w ith desirable co lo ra tio n an d m arking s. H ow ever, it m ay be very difficult for regulatory agencies to m ak e effective distinctions betw een collections for sale to hobbyists a n d those th at will be used by breeders. Breeders w h o buy b ro od stock th r o u g h existing im p o r t and exp ort channels do n o t necessarily need to m ak e their in te n t kn o w n . Moreover, fisherm en already involved in the live trade may be q uite h app y to m eet collectors’ needs for a small inform al pay m en t. A n o th e r d istinction betw een the o rn a m e n ta l and food fish industries is w o rth y o f note. Paradoxically, N G O s th at o ppose food fish a qu aculture because o f its e n v iro n m e n ta l im pacts m ay su p p o r t the culture o f o rn a m e n ta l fish because they assume it will reduce the pressure on wild fish po pulation s. However, c o m p etitio n from breeders m ay have a grave im p act on c o m m u n itie s w here the capture fishery n o t only provides a p rim ary way o f life b u t also provides the incentive n eeded to p ro te ct ecosystems from m o re d a m a g in g resource uses. Case S tu d y 1, on the cardinal tetra fishery in Brazil, describes just such a situation. In th at instance, as Project Piaba m ig h t argue, to s u p p o r t the no tio n o f c o m m u n it y benefit-sharing negotiations w ith Florida fish breeders w ould be to s u p p o r t the destru ction o f a local c o m m u n it y d e p e n d e n t on capture fisheries. In short, there m ay be a great d ang er in focusing obsessively on the rights o f c o m m u n itie s to negotiate benefits from the use o f aquatic genetic resources w h en w h at they really need is practical assistance - from any source willing an d able to provide it - in p rotecting existing livelihoods a nd local ecosystems against the threat o f d e v e lo p m en t pressures.

S h a r in g

b e n e f i t s fairly w i t h c o m m u n i t i e s

In tern ation al legal in s tru m e n ts include two c o m m o n ly used m eanings for ‘eq u i­ tab le s h a r in g o f b e n e fits ’. O n e refers to e q u it a b le s h a r in g a m o n g c o u n tr ie s regarding the use o f natural resources; the second calls for a fair e co n o m ic return to all state an d n o n -s ta te actors from w h ic h resources are o b ta i n e d (Lynch an d M aggio, 1997). A genda 21, negotiated at the 1992 E arth S u m m it, provides th at g o v e r n m e n t s s h o u l d ‘reco g n ize a n d foste r th e t r a d i t i o n a l m e t h o d s a n d the know ledge o f ind igenous people an d their c o m m u n itie s ... and ensure the o p p o r ­ tu n ity for the p a rticip a tio n o f those gro ups in the e c o n o m ic an d co m m e rcial benefits derived from the use o f such tr aditional m e th o d s a nd k n o w l e d g e . .. ’. In

184 BLUE GENES 1994, the Desertification Conven tion went further, expressly requiring equitable sharing with local communities. W h a t docs equitable sharing’ really mean, and what types of benefits arc likely to be practical? As discussed in the previous chapter, while some access laws make specific reference to royalties, others make no effort to define the nature of benefits.

N a t i o n a l responsibilities T h e C B D calls on m em ber nations to encourage the equitable sharing of benefits arising from the use of com m unities ’ knowledge, innovations and practices. As the nam e of the C onvention implies, the primary rationale for Article 8(j) is the recog­ nition that benefits to communities can provide a positive stimulus for the conser­ vation and sustainable use o f biodiversity. Under the framework set o ut by the C B D , each country has the right to prior informed consent to the collection of genetic resources and to negotiate the mutually agreed terms under which collec­ tions may occur. C o m m u n it ie s are not specifically recognized as parties to these agreements, even by access laws th at provide for c o m m u n i t y prior informed consent. Ordinarily, states an d designated national institutions negotiate the benefits they wish to receive and make separate arrangements for distributing a portion of benefits to communities. In addition to calling for equitable benefit sharing between parties to agree­ ments, the C B D outlines the responsibilities of Parties to the Co nv en ti on , espe­ cially northern countries, for sharing specific types of benefits with developing countries. These include: •

•

• •

•

Ensuring access to and transfer o f technologies that are relevant to the conser­ vation and sustainable use o f biological diversity or m ak e use o f genetic resources and do not cause significant damage to the environment (Article 16). O f particular interest to developing countries are technologies that enable them catch up with no rth ern countries in the study and uses o f genetic resources in order to advance their own economic development. Ex c h an g in g publicly available in f o r m a t i o n relevant to co n s erv ati o n and sustainable use, including the results o f technical, scientific and socio-economic research (Article 17). P r o m o t i n g technical and scientific co o p er ati o n , with special a tte n ti o n to strengthening the national capabilities of developing countries (Article 18). Taking legislative, administrative or policy measures to provide for effective participation in biotechnological research activities, especially by developing countries, and p rom oting access by developing countries to the results and benefits arising from biotechnologies based upon genetic resources provided by those countries (Article 19). Providing financial resources to enable developing countries to im plem en t the Conven ti on and benefit from its provisions (Article 20).

R E SU LTSTHA T C O U N T : M E A N IN G F U L BENEFITS F O R FISHIN G C O M M U N I T I E S

185

Negotiated benefits typically focus on technology transfer (eg training o f scien­ tists) and capacity building at the national level, in addition to the standard nego­ tiation of royalties and other financial rewards. W h a t hasn’t been addressed in any comprehensive way - either in international agreements or in most national laws is how to share these benefits equitably with c o m m u n iti e s providing genetic resources, and what types of benefits will prove most useful and acceptable to those communities. Governments were quick to accept the principle that incentives to conserve resources d epend on adequate benefits from their use, b ut generally haven’t embraced its logical extension - that the same principle m ust govern rela­ tionships with local communities. Neither the Bonn Guidelines nor most national laws appear to take for granted that prior informed consent by com m u nit ies includes direct negotiation o f benefits.

C o m m u n i t y ex p e c ta tio n s In the case o f the Philippines, one o f the few countries where prior informed consent by com munities has been p ut into practice, it appears to have been treated primarily as an exercise for sharing information ab out the purposes o f proposed collections. T h e inter-agency co mmittee charged with ensuring the protection of c o m m u n ity rights regarding prior informed consent has been hampered by a lack of government co m m it m e n t, inadequate resources, and agency conflicts (see Case Study 5). Thanks in large part to the strong network of civil society organizations, the Philippines has been am ong the most progressive of countries in its legislative su pport of co m m u n it y rights; it is reasonable to assume that other countries with a less impressive record will have more trouble translating rhetoric into action. N o t surprisingly, one of the main criticisms levelled at the C B D by advocates for indigenous and local com m un ities is its failure to provide substantive guidance for the sharing o f benefits with local people - that it ‘talks the talk’ b ut doesn’t ‘walk the walk’. Needless to say, achieving consensus am ong most o f the w orld’s countries ab ou t specific mechanisms for addressing co m m u n ity rights, even if tha t’s ultimately the key to conservation and sustainable use of global biodiversity, would have been a near impossible task. Access laws that do provide for c o m p e n ­ sation to com mun ities generally d o n ’t specify an effective mechanism for doing so - the Philippine legislation again being a good example. Dissatisfaction with mechanisms for distributing benefits and the types of benefits themselves has fuelled d e m a n d s for direct c o m m u n i t y co ntrol over genetic resources rather than simply having a right to prior informed consent. Wit h few exceptions (such as the OA U model law, c o m m u n it y rights legislation in the Philippines and Bangladesh, and a few land claims negotiations in C an ada and Australia), national governments have shown little appetite for devolving signif­ icant authority to co m m unities. Some indigenous organizations have already made clear their categorical opposition to the collection of genetic resources in their territories. W h i le this o p p o s iti o n m ay be based in par t on pr incipled concerns about genetic modification of wild creatures or plants, usually it has far more to do with wanting to be treated fairly and with respect.

186

BLUE GENES

It d o es n ’t sit well w ith in d ig en o u s gr ou ps th a t the C B D s a t te n tio n to rights o f tra dit ional c o m m u n i t i e s appears to have m o re to do with biodiversity co n s er ­ vation a n d c o rpora te desires for access to their rcsourccs than with a sense o f fair play. For the m o s t part, n ational g o v e r n m e n ts c o n t i n u e to pay little a t t e n t i o n to intern a tional h u m a n rights c o n v e n t io n s that recognize the right o f indigenou s peoples to se lf-de term in ation. It is n o t surprising, therefore, th a t m a n y i ndigenous groups balk at th e suggestion (implied or explicit in m o s t national access laws to date) th a t benefits negotiated with c o m m u n i t i e s s hou ld be designe d to p r o m o t e biodiversity cons erva tion a n d sustainable use objectives. A n d it is no small irony tha t in d ig en o u s peoples w ith the longest tra ditio ns o f practising sustainable use o f ecosystems have largely been deprived, t h r o u g h erosion o f their cultures a n d loss o f co ntrol over their territories, o f the ability to c o n t i n u e to do so. Any effort to develop practical f ra m ew orks for the n egotiation o f benefits with c o m m u n i t i e s will need to keep this reality in m in d .

A HANDOUT OR A HAND UP? R oy alties vs n o n - m o n e t a r y b en efits As discussed in C h a p t e r 5, national access an d be ne fit-sharing laws can set the stage for neg otiations w ith c o m m u n i t i e s by r equiring their prior i n f o r m e d cons en t access, b u t the types o f benefits t h a t result will d e p e n d on the n atu r e o f the n e goti­ a tio n s . F r o m t h e p o i n t o f view o f a c o m p a n y c o l l e c t i n g g e n e t i c re sources, m o n e t a r y benefits such as royalties m a y m a k e m o st sense, b u t c o m m u n i t y n e g o ­ tiators will be well aware tha t royalties rarely materialize - at least in the case o f p h a r m a c e u t i c a l b i o p r o s p e c t i n g . C o m m u n i t i e s t h a t h o p e to ac hieve t a n g ib le benefits o f a lasting n atur e m a y do better by exploring o p p o r tu n i t i e s for n o n ­ m o n e t a r y benefits. Fishing c o m m u n i t i e s tend to be over represented a m o n g the poor es t c o m m u ­ nities o f the w or ld because their tra ditiona l sources o f sustena nce a n d in c o m e have been devastated by the im pa cts o f industrial activities such as com m e r c ia l trawling, p o l l u t i o n o f fish h a b i t a t by r u n o f f f r o m m i n i n g o r a g r i c u l t u r a l activities, des tr u ctio n o f h abita t by i ndustrial logging, d is r u p t io n o f fish m igra tion routes by d a m building, a n d loss o f physical c ontr ol over tr a ditiona l territories. W h a t can tru ly b e n e f i t s uc h c o m m u n i t i e s in th e lo n g t e r m is the m e a n s to regain an e c o n o m i c f ootin g based o n local enterprises w i th links to a quatic resources, a chance to apply traditional as well as new skills, feasible m a r k e tin g o p p o r tu n i tie s , a n d a cooperative approach. As S c h u m a c h e r (197 3) p o in te d o u t m o re t h a n 30 years ago, long-term prosperity in c o m m u n i t i e s m ea ns looking at th e real needs o f local people, using a p p r o p riate low or in t e rm e d ia te technological solutions tha t are in t u n e w ith local resources, m ea ns a n d culture. Creative be nef it-sh aring agree­ m en ts are one way o f pr oviding a catalyst for such solutions.

RESULTS T H A T C O U N T : M E A N I N G F U L B E N E FIT S F O R F I S H I N G C O M M U N I T I E S

187

R o y a ltie s Royalties are the m o s t c o m m o n cur re ncy o f access negotiations a n d the benefit m o s t likely to be r e q u i r e d u n d e r n a t i o n a l laws. F r o m th e p o i n t o f view o f collecting institu tion s, th e y ’re the m o s t s tr aigh tfor war d a n d fair m ean s o f c o m p e n ­ sation for the right to collect. Being forced to ‘share benefits' before ther e’s any g uarantee o f benefits to the collector makes no sense from a business p o i n t o f view a nd sim ply p u ts a d a m p e r on research t h a t m a y b en ef it b o t h a c o m p a n y and society at large - provide d s o m e t h i n g comes o u t o f it. W h y give s o m e t h i n g for nothing? D ividing up benefits before ther e’s an y p r o o f o f the value o f a genetic resource, such inst itutions say, will sim ply be the th in e n d o f the wedge leading to greater a n d greater d e m a n d s from c o m m u n i t i e s c a u g h t up in the ‘p o t o f gold' sy n d ro m e . T h e p r o b le m wit h this a r g u m e n t is t h a t it treats genetic resources purely in e c o n o m i c terms - c o m m o d i t i e s to be b o u g h t a n d sold, w i t h o u t value until they p r o d u c e a profit. A p a r t from the fact th a t it doe sn’t take into a c c o u n t o th e r values to c o m m u n i t i e s , the a r g u m e n t ignores a basic premise o f the C B D - th a t genetic r e so u r c e s t h a t w e r e o n c e c o m m o n p r o p e r t y are n o w s u b je c t to n a t i o n a l sovereignty, a nd collectors from n o r t h e r n countries have an obligation to negotiate the right to access. W h a t prim arily m otivated dev elo ping countries to b u y into the C B D was the prom is e o f p u t t i n g an e n d to the exp loitation o f biodiversity by industrial cou ntr ies w i t h o u t a d equate c o m p e n s a t io n . D e v e lo p in g co untries also s o u g h t to p u t an e n d to the a s s u m p ti o n that it is their responsibility to conserve the richest areas o f biodiversity for the benefit o f n o r th e r n countries. T h a t ’s wh y acccss to te chnolo gy for the use o f gcnctic resources has been such an i m p o r t a n t b argaining chip for dev elo ping countries. To arrive at m u t u a l ly agreed terms with provide r countries, c o m m er cial collectors m a y need to be pre pared to negotiate the full range o f m o n e t a r y a nd n o n - m o n e t a r y benefits o utlined in the C B D .

N o n - m o n e t a r y benefits Typically, collectors will be n e g o ti a ti n g w i t h n a ti o n a l in s t itu ti o n s r ath er th a n directly with c o m m u n i t i e s , at least in cou ntr ies t h a t d o n ’t provide full negotiation rights to c o m m u n i t i e s . T h e types o f n o n - m o n e t a r y benefits th a t m a y be m o st valuable at the n ational level (such as technologies for gcnctic research an d m o d i ­ fication and tra ining o f scientists to use th em ) m a y be irrelevant to the needs o f indigenous a n d local c o m m u n i t i e s . If the prior in fo r m e d c o n s e n t process is to w o r k smoothly, c o m m u n i t i e s will need assurance th a t any benefits they receive will be meaningf ul. Royalties m ay seem attractive at first glance, b u t they can also tu rn o u t to be an e m p t y p rom is e t h a t d o es n ’t pay the rent. M o n e t a r y alternatives to royalties m ay include fees per sample collected, milestone p a y m e n ts at each stage d u r in g the d ev elo p m en t o f a pro d u ct, and short- and long-term e m p lo y m e n t with a collection project. However, the m o s t valuable benefits to c o m m u n i t i e s are often n o n - m o n c t a r y ones th a t s tr e n g t h e n local e c o n o m i c s a n d cu lture s b a tte r e d by decades o f fisheries de pletion, erosion o f tradition al ways o f m a k i n g a living, and

188

BLUE GENES

the m a r c h o f in d u s tr ia l d e v e l o p m e n t i n t o o n c e r e m o t e i n d i g e n o u s a n d local c o m m u n itie s . T h e case studies in clude d in this bo o k , while they do n o t all focus on benefitsharing agr eements, illustrate how a wid e range o f n o n - m o n e t a r y benefits m a y be relevant to fishing c o m m u n iti e s : Case S tu d y 1 - Project Piaba provides trainin g and technologies to help fishing c o m m u n i t i e s along the Rio N eg r o m a i n ta i n a sustainable o r n a m e n t a l fishery (eg c o n s t r u c t i o n o f a m u n i c ip a l a q u a r i u m to increase p u blic awareness o f h abitat n e e d s o f fish p o p u l a t i o n s ; t e a c h i n g f i s h e r m e n h o w to r e d u c e m o r t a l i t i e s in ca p t u r e d fish; h e lping fishermen to develop m a r k e t in g strategies). Case Stu d y 2 - A s alm o n farmer offers to help build a fish h atchery in return for access to wild br ood stoc k. Case S tu d y 3 - A C a n a d ia n a q u a c u ltu r e c o n s o r t iu m offers in d ig en o u s groups pa r t o w nership in a fish far m ing enterprise in return for access to ch ar r b r o o d ­ stock. Case S tu d y 4 - A fisheries research institute in the Philippines, after developing im pr ov ed tilapia strains from wild b r o o d s to c k in four African countries, transfers the br ee ding tech n o lo g y to African research institutes w ith a view to help ing rural c o m m u n i t y p o n d farmers increase fish p r o d u c t io n . Case S tudy 5 - A scientific institute in the P hilippines promises c o m m u n i t i e s th a t (in a d d i t i o n to possible royalties) research associated w i t h collections o f m ar in e or ganism s will facilitate conservation o f aq uat ic ecosystems. Case S tu d y 6 - A b i o pro s pecti ng agr e e m e n t w it h Fijian c o m m u n i t i e s provides for assistance w ith the d e v e l o p m e n t and m a n a g e m e n t o f village-based enterprises as well as the e s ta blis hm ent o f a m a r in e conservation area to allow fish p o p u la t io n s to recover a n d poten tial fisheries stocks to increase. Obviously, a c o m p a n y or research institute m a y find it far easier to negotiate royalties or o th er p a y m e n ts directly w ith a c o m m u n i t y t h a n to e m b a r k on a range o f o th e r o p t io n s outside its i m m e d ia te expertise. H o w agree m en ts with fishing c o m m u n i t i e s t u r n o u t will p robably d e p e n d to a large extent on the availability o f alternative ben ef it-sh arin g models, the skill o f negotiators, a n d s u p p o r t for alter­ native be ne fit-sharing a r ra n g e m e n ts from g o v e r n m e n t or n o n - g o v e r n m e n t a l insti­ tutions. In m a n y cases, n o n - m o n c t a r y benefits acceptable to a c o m m u n i t y m i g h t be as simple as e m p l o y in g local people to collect aquatic genetic resources. In o th er i n s ta n c e s , n e g o t i a t i o n s m i g h t c o n s i d e r o p t i o n s for c r e a t i n g l o n g e r la stin g e m p l o y m e n t or o t h e r b e n e f i ts s u c h as s u p p o r t fo r e d u c a t i o n a l or h e a lth p r o g ra m m e s . T h e agr e e m e n t described in Case S tu dy 6 resulted from an effort by the W W F a n d the University o f the S o u th Pacific to d e m o n s t r a t e best practices u n d e r the C B D . W h i l e th e case s t u d y i llu str ates s o m e o f t h e m a n y b e n e f i t s t h a t can c o n t r i b u t e to a c o m m u n i t y ’s well-being a n d p r o m o t e con se rvation, it is unlikely tha t such co m p r eh en siv e a gr ee m en ts will b e c o m e c o m m o n p l a c e in the near future w i t h o u t significant g u i d a n c e a n d s u p p o r t from g o v e r n m e n ts , N G O s or o t h e r bodies w ith an interest in p r o m o t i n g benef it-sharing agr ee m en ts a n d the resources to do so. T h e r e are three key reasons for this:

RESULTS THAT COUNT: MEANINGFUL BENEFITS FOR FISHING COMMUNITIES

• •

•

189

A greem ents require a co m prehensive fram ew o rk to su p p o r t negotiations with c o m m u n itie s th a t may have no experience dealing w ith interested collectors. C ollectors m u s t have the incentive (w hich usually includes the o p tio n o f pate nt p ro tec tio n for any discoveries) to c o n d u c t laborious n ego tiatio ns directly w ith a c o m m u n ity . From the p o in t o f view o f institu tio n al or c orp orate collectors, it generally makes goo d business sense to limit benefits to the prom ise o f a share o f future royalties rather than b e c o m in g involved in the expensive an d messy business o f n e g o tia tin g n o n - m o n e t a r y be nefits (p rim arily capacity b u il d in g a n d te c h ­ nology transfer) th a t may be o f m ore im m e d ia te use to co m m u n itie s .

G o v e rn m e n ts th a t are serious a b o u t fu rthering the objectives o f the C B D an d w ho recognizc the im p o rta n c e o f m a n a g e m e n t o f biodiversity at the c o m m u n i t y level will need to d e te rm in e how to deliver m ean in gfu l benefits to fishing c o m m u n itie s w ith o u t m ak in g it im possible for collectors to reach a deal. T h is applies equally to bio prospe ctin g an d to collections for aquaculture.

Lin k in g

su sta in able l iv e l ih o o d s t o c o n se r v a t io n

C on servation and sustainable use o f aquatic genetic resources aren't going to be achieved simply by beefing up g ov ern m en tal policies on harvesting and ecosystem m a n a g e m e n t. Ultimately, m eetin g those objectives will d e p e n d on g o v e rn m e n ts’ success in developing strategies for the invo lv em ent o f c o m m u n itie s located in areas o f rich biodiversity. T h e C B D and o th e r in te rn a tio n a l a g reem en ts have recognized the im p o rta n c e o f en co ura gin g a greater role for tr aditional c o m m u ­ nities, b u t it’s a long road from rhetoric to reality. S o m e g o v e r n m e n t s have ta k e n te n t a ti v e steps to w a rd s d e v e lo p i n g c o ­ m a n a g e m e n t ag reem ents w ith co m m u n itie s , b u t sharing a u th o rity do esn’t always address a m ore fu n d a m e n ta l barrier to conservation: w idespread poverty am o n g c ou ntle ss c o m m u n i t i e s t h a t p ro s p e re d before th e erosion o f th eir trad itio n a l cultures a nd ecosystem m a n a g e m e n t practices. A qu atic p ro d u c ts are the main source o f anim al protein for m ost o f the world's p o o r an d ind igenous peoples, and fishing villages are over represented a m o n g the poorest co m m u n itie s in the world. T h e cause m ay be industrial d ev e lo p m e n t or overfishing or loss o f c o m m u n it y co ntrol over natural resources or any c o m b in a tio n o f these. T h e p o in t is th at governm ents need to develop im aginative and practical ways to enable fishing c o m m u n itie s to be m ore self-sufficient, w h e th er th ro u g h increased local co ntrol, health an d ed u c atio n p ro g ra m m e s, or assistance w ith the devel­ o p m e n t o f s u s ta in a b le li v eliho od s. O b v io u sly , n e g o ti a ti o n o f n o n - m o n e t a r y benefits such as sustainable livelihoods initiatives is likely to be m ore com plex than simply m aking a deal for royalties or u p-fro n t paym ents. However, if such benefits are likely to be m o re effective in achieving C B D objectives, it may be w orthw hile for national governm ents, ind ustry and in ternational organizations to cooperate in developing the su p p o r t systems needed to p ro m o te sustainable livelihoods th a t ulti­ mately create benefits far beyond the local c o m m u n itie s th a t initially receive them .

190

BLUE GENES

W here overfishing or habitat destruction have contributed to the loss o f tradi­ tional fishing practices, the m ost useful benefits may be building capacity to manage fish stocks more effectively or develop new types o f sustainable fishing livelihoods. C o m m u n it y programmes in the Philippines and Fiji have d e m o n ­ strated th a t the e sta b lish m e n t o f no-fish zones, w ith th e a g re e m e n t o f all c o m m u n ity interests, can restore fish populations while dramatically increasing catch num bers and sizes in adjacent areas (Aalbersberg et al, 1997; Agbayani et al, 2000). A little bit o f training and application o f low-technology techniques can go a long way to developing alternative fishing livelihoods that benefit entire c o m m u ­ nities. Examples include a S E A F D E C initiative to provide training and tech ­ nology to develop sustainable m u d crab fisheries, Project Seahorse’s cooperation with the H arib on F oundation in the Philippines to help co m m u nities develop sustainable seahorse fisheries, and ICLARM 's programmes to help p o n d farmers in Africa and Southeast Asia raise fast m a turing tilapia (see Case Study 6 at the end o f this chapter). Innovative projects such as these can have the double benefit of helping to build co m m u n ity stability and conserving aquatic biodiversity. T h e two Philippine projects described below, while n o t the result o f access agreements, exemplify how benefit-sharing initiatives that are well planned can be used to pro m o te conservation and sustainable use in fishing comm unities. They also illustrate several key c o m p on ents to ensuring the success o f sustainable liveli­ hoods projects. These include: • A close link between sustainable livelihoods and traditional fishing o ccupa­ tions. • Low-technology solutions. • C o m m u n i t y p artic ip a tio n in d e ve lop ing and i m p le m e n ti n g resource m anagem ent plans. • I n f o r m a t io n an d e d u c a tio n a b o u t ecosystem relatio nsh ips and effective m anagem ent systems.

Seahorse culture in H an d u m o n , Philippines For aquaculture to contribute to conservation, it m ust serve as an alter­ native to fishing, transform ing seahorse fishers into seahorse farm ers. A quaculture that does not include seahorse fishers w ill not reduce pressure on w ild populations, because seahorse dem and is considered limitless. For seahorse aquaculture to be accessible to seahorse fishers, it m ust be low tech­ nology and low risk to avoid impoverishing them further. P r o j e c t S e a h o r s e , 1998.

T h e Philippines is one o f more than 50 countries involved in the trading o f more than 20 million dried and live seahorses a year for use in traditional medicine (including aphrodisiacs) and as aquarium specimens and curiosities. D em an d far exceeds the supply, yet catches are steadily decreasing because o f overfishing, habitat loss (including the destruction o f mangrove forests) and unsustainable

RESULTS THAT COUNT: MEANINGFUL BENEFITS FOR FISHING COMMUNITIES

191

collection m e th o d s such as taking p re g n a n t a nd im m a tu re fish. T h e d e p e n d en ce o f tho u san d s o f rural fisherm en on seahorses creates an u n fo r tu n a te pattern c o m m o n to m a n y o th er small-scale fisheries: as village p o p u la tio n s increase, fishing in t e n ­ sifies, c o n tr ib u t in g to a decline in seahorse p o p u latio n s . T h is in tu r n leads to d eclin in g catches an d a greater pressure o n fish erm e n to collect sm aller and im m a tu re seahorses, w hich are bo th less valuable, and vital to sustain seahorse p op ulation s. Too often the result is increased poverty for villagers to g ether with the loss o f o ne o f their m o s t valuable resources, forcing people to look for alternative livelihoods th a t may worsen the initial problem . T h e village o f H a n d u m o n on the island o f Bohol in the Philippines was one o f m a n y c o m m u n itie s that experienced the vicious cycle described above. Twenty per cent o f hou seh old s in the c o m m u n it y d e p e n d on seahorses for 40 per cent o f their in com e, and betw een 1985 and 1995 the catch had declined by 70 per cent. In 1995 Project Seahorse, u n d e r the direction o f A m a n d a V in cen t o f the University o f British C o lu m b ia , p artn ered w ith the Philippines-based H a rib o n F o u n d a tio n , d ev elop e d a p ro p o s a l for a c o n serv atio n p ro je c t to p ro te c t a nd rebuild local seahorse po pu latio ns. T h e two groups w o rk ed w ith th e villagers to establish a 33 hectare seahorse sanctuary. P re gn ant males caug ht in o th e r locations were placed in m eshed u n d e rw a te r cages. Juveniles escaping th r o u g h the mesh were then held in u n d e rw a te r corrals to grow to m atu rity before being sold or released to replenish wild stocks. T h e project trained villagers in the m a n a g e m e n t o f seahorse stocks a n d also e n c o u ra g e d the d e v e lo p m e n t o f o th e r liv elih oo ds, such as seaw eed farm in g a nd ec otourism (seahorse w atch in g), to help reduce local d e p e n d en ce on the seahorse trade. In a d d itio n , villagers p articipated in the plan tin g o f 15,000 mangroves to reforest the shore o f the sanctuary. T h e end result was stabilization o f s e ah o rse p o p u l a t i o n s a n d in creased o p p o r t u n i t i e s for e n h a n c e m e n t o f a conservation-based c o m m u n i t y economy. In add ition to establishing the m arin e reserve, the project provided training in su rveying m a rin e ecosystems a nd rec ordin g fisheries data, a p u b lic awareness p r o g r a m m e , assistance t o w a rd s th e d e v e l o p m e n t o f a n a tu r a l reso urces m a n a g e m e n t plan a n d id e n tif ic a tio n o f altern ative li v eliho od o p tio n s , a n d a g end er analysis to exam ine issues such as w o m e n ’s c o n tr ib u tio n to in co m e g ener­ a tion in fishing villages. Plans were also m a d e to transfer m a n a g e m e n t o f the reserve to a new p eop le’s organization, K a n a g m a lu h a n . T h e project also plays an advocacy role w ith the local and national g ov ern m ents to p ro m o te e n fo rc e m e n t o f fishery laws, develop effective fisheries m a n a g e m e n t policies a nd build awareness o f m a r in e c o n s e r v a ti o n issues (P r o je c t S e ah o rse, 19 9 8 a n d 2 0 0 0 ; A m a n d a V in cen t, M cG ill University, personal c o m m u n ic a tio n ) .

C o m m u n i t y fisheries m a n a g e m e n t , M a la lis o n Island, P h ilip p in e s A d e v e lo p m e n t project organized by S E A F D E C in the Philippines illustrates the types o f challenges th a t poverty stricken fishing c o m m u n itie s may face and the m ultifaceted ap p ro ach needed to p ro m o te sustainable livelihoods and e co no m ic stability. T h e M ala liso n e x a m p le u n d e rs c o re s th e i m p o r t a n c e o f d e s ig n in g

192

BI.UE GENES

solutions to m eet specific local needs an d o f c o m m u n it y ow nersh ip o f the design process. A lm ost three-quarters o f the ho useholds on tiny Malalison Island (55 hectares) in the central Philippines m a k e at least part o f their in com e from fishing, an d 75 per cent live below the poverty level (Agbayani et al, 2 0 0 0 ). Serious dep letio n o f local fish stocks began w ith the in tro d u c tio n o f d y n a m ite fishing after th e Second W orld W ar and has since accelerated as a result o f a succession o f o th e r factors leading to intensified fishing: the use o f sodium cyanide in the cap ture o f o r n a ­ m entals (a ban on b oth d y n a m itin g an d cyanide in 1976 proved ineffective); the intru sio n o f co m m ercial vessels using purse seine a nd bag nets in the 1970s; and local a d o p tio n o f n o n -tra d itio n a l fishing technologies (com pressor assisted spear guns an d the m u r o -a m i, a type o f gill net using w eighted ‘scare lines’) in the 1980s. By the late 1980s, live coral cover was d o w n to 35 per ccnt and the c o m m u n it y catch had sh r u n k to a small fraction o f w h a t it once had been (Baticados and A gbayani, 2 0 0 0 ). As in m a n y o th e r rural Philippines fishing co m m u n itie s , the prospect for e co n o m ic diversification and the alleviation o f poverty was h am p ered by low levels o f ed u catio n , an absence o f skills for developing alternative liveli­ hoods, an d lack o f effective c o m m u n i t y organization. In 1991, w ith fu n d in g assistance from the Inte rna tion al D e v e lo p m e n t Research C e n tre ( I D R C ), the A q ua cultu re D e p a r t m e n t o f the S E A F D E C began a pilot project in c o m m u n ity -b a s e d fisheries m a n a g e m e n t ( C F R M ) at M alalison Island. Its objectives were to develop the c o m m u n it y into a strong organization th at could be granted territorial use rights to stren gth en fisheries m a n a g e m e n t, encourage s u p p lem en tal livelihoods, regenerate fish habitats, and increase fish stocks. After S E A F D E C a n d its N G O p a rtn e r, P R O C E S S F o u n d a t i o n , c o n d u c te d initial biological a nd so c io -e c o n o m ic research in th e c o m m u n it y , the newly created F isherm en’s Association o f Malalison Island (FAM I) acted as a formal link betw een the project an d the c o m m u n ity . T h e project then provided FAM I m em b ers with t r a in in g in le adership an d c o m m u n i c a t i o n skills d e v e lo p m e n t, o rga niz atio nal s tr e n g th e n i n g , co op erativ es m a n a g e m e n t , g e n d e r sensitivity, legal an d policy issues an d values form atio n. T h e training also in clu ded discussions o f m e th o d s for conserving fisheries resources a n d im proving fisheries in co m e as a result (Agbayani et al, 20 00 ). W it h the su p p o r t o f FA M I, the village council approved the establish m en t o f a reef conservation area in w hich fishing w ould be b a n n e d , w ith FAM I m em bers h e lp i n g to m o n i t o r th e area. F A M I w ere also able to s u b s ta n ti a ll y re d u c e d estru ctiv e an d illegal fishing practices, a lth o u g h m a n y local fish erm e n were am b iv alent a b o u t p ro h ib itio n s o f practices th a t they saw as the only way to obtain e n o u g h fish to feed their families. T h e objective o f p r o m o t i n g territorial use fishing rights was based on the premise that c o m m u n itie s are m o s t likely to b eco m e protective a nd judicious users o f aquatic resources if they feel a sense o f o w nership an d responsibility and have an o p p o r t u n i t y for self-regulation based on s o u n d e m p irical k n o w led g e o f local fishery ecosystems. T h e op en access regime established in the 1970s was charac­ terized by gear conflicts a m o n g Malalison fisherm en as well as conflicts betw een local and c om m ercial fisherm en, w ith no w orkable m ech anism for conflict reso-

RESU LTSTH A T C O U N T : M E A N IN G FU L BENEFITS FO R FIS H IN G C O M M U N IT IE S

193

l u t i o n o r effective fisheries m a n a g e m e n t . H o w e v e r , t he d e v o l u t i o n o f a d m i n i s ­ t r a t i v e f u n c t i o n s f r o m t h e n a t i o n a l t o l oc al g o v e r n m e n t s u n d e r t h e L o c a l G o v e r n m e n t C o d e o f 1991 p r o v i d e d a n i m p o r t a n t step t o w a r d s t he e s t a b l i s h m e n t o f c o m m u n i t y fisheries m a n a g e m e n t r ights. T h e c o d e p r o v i d e d m u n i c i p a l i t i e s t he exclusi ve r i g h t to g r a n t f is he r y pr i vi l eges to o r g a n i z a t i o n s a n d c o o p e r a t i v e s o f m a r g i n a l fisheries. W h a t w a s n e e d e d in M a l a l i s o n f or t hi s to o c c u r w e r e t h e m o t i ­ v a t i o n a n d c a p a c i t y to o r g a n i z e a n d a full a p p r e c i a t i o n o f t h e e c o n o m i c a n d c o n s e r v a t i o n b e n e f i t s o f d o i n g so. F ollow ing discussions w ith S E A F D E C researchers, the C ulasi m u n ic ip a l c o u n c i l d e c i d e d to g r a n t F A M I t er r it or ia l fisheries r i ght s to a 1 k m 2 area b e t w e e n M a laliso n Island a n d the m a i n l a n d , b u t d id n o t c o n s u lt th e fish e rm e n o f M a l a l i s o n a n d o t h e r coa st a l villages o n t h e c h o i c e a n d size o f t h e area. I n 1 9 9 5 , E x e c u t i v e O r d e r 2 4 0 c r e a t e d a Fi s h er ie s a n d A q u a t i c R c s o u r c c s M a n a g e m e n t C o u n c i l ( F A R M C ) in ev e r y coastal b a r a n g a y (village) a n d m u n i c i p a l i t y , s e t t i n g t he s t a g e f o r f i s h e r i e s c o - m a n a g e m e n t a t t h e v i l l ag e level, a n d F A M I f o r m e d a F A R M C f o r t h e v i l l age o f M a l a l i s o n . U n d e r t h i s a r r a n g e m e n t t h e b a r a n g a y c o u n c i l e n a ct s a n d i m p l e m e n t s f i she r y- re la t ed r e g u l a t i o n s w i t h t h e advi ce o f t he F A R M C a n d w i t h c o n s u l t a t i o n as n ec es sa r y w i t h t h e n a t i o n a l B u r e a u o f Fisheries a n d A q u a t i c R e s o u r ce s to d e t e r m i n e w h e t h e r a r e g u l a t i o n is w i t h i n t he p u r v i e w o f local g o v e r n m e n t . F A R M C m e m b e r s h a v e b e e n t r a i n e d a n d d e p u t i z e d as fish w a r d e n s to assist w i t h t h e e n f o r c e m e n t o f r e g u l a t i o n ( Ba t ic a d o s a n d A g b a y a n i ,

2 0 0 0 ). A s u b s e q u e n t s u r v e y s h o w e d t h a t t h e m a j o r i t y o f local f i s h i ng f ami lies r e p o r t e d h i g h e r i n c o m e s f o l l o w i n g t h e c o m p l e t i o n o f t h e p r o j e c t as a r e s u l t o f c a t c h increases a n d o p p o r t u n i t i e s f or a l t e r n a t i v e e m p l o y m e n t in areas s u c h as f a r m i n g a n d livestock raising. T h e s u r v e y also s h o w e d an i ncrease in t h e a b u n d a n c e o f f i s h a n d a p e r c e p t i o n t h a t t h e r e was n o w g r e a t e r fairness in t h e c o n t r o l over f isher y r e s o u r c e s , a l l o c a t i o n o f ac c e ss r i g h t s a n d i n f l u e n c e in f i s h e r y m a n a g e m e n t . C o l l e c ti v e d e c i s i o n - m a k i n g was easier a n d c o n f l i c t r e s o l u t i o n qui c ker .

Using marine protected areas to improve fishing livelihoods T h e w o r l d w i d e d e p l e t i o n o f c o m m c r c i a l fisheries has be e n d u e in large p a r t to the pr actice o f heavily f ishing o n e species u n t i l its p o p u l a t i o n s start to disappear, t h e n m o v i n g o n to a n o t h e r species o r area a n d d o i n g t he s a me. In t he past, t he p o p u l a ­ ti ons o f m a n y species w e r e able to r e bui l d to s o m e e x t e n t in n at u r al refuges t h a t were e i ther t oo d e e p or r e m o t e o r d a n g e r o u s to allow intensive fishing, b u t s uc h areas have b e c o m e increasi ngly accessible w i t h n e w fishing te chno l o gi es. Es t a b li sh i n g no-fish areas to e n a b l e t h e r es t or at i o n o f v u ln e ra b l e p o p u l a t i o n s a n d ec o s y s t e ms has b e c o m e an increasi ngly p o p u l a r fisheries m a n a g e m e n t t e c h n i q u e in t he past de c ad e . Because no - fi s h zo ne s c a n c o n t r i b u t e to fairly r a p i d p o p u l a t i o n recoveries a n d h e n c e to direct e c o n o m i c bene f i t s to f i s h e r m e n a n d t heir c o m m u n i t i e s , t h e y m a y be a n i m p o r t a n t t o o l to p r o m o t e s u s t a i n a b l e l i v e l i h o o d s f or f i s h i n g c o m m u n i t i e s , e s pe c ia l l y in s o u t h e r n c o un t ri es . L oca l f i s h e r m e n o f t e n o p p o s e t h e e s t a b l i s h m e n t o f m a r i n e reserves be c au s e t h e y a s s u m e it m e a n s a n i m m e d i a t e r e d u c t i o n in areas available f or f ishing. W h i l e this

194 BLUE GENES may be true in the short term, there is increasing evidence that protecting a rela­ tively small but well-chosen area can produce a ‘spillover effect’ that can fairly quickly result in fish populat ion increases, and more productive fishing than before, in sur rounding areas. Some recent studies suggest that fish in protected areas live longer and grow larger (Roberts and Hawkins, 2001). Larger fish not only produce more eggs b ut may also spawn more frequently. After a coral reef protected area was established as part of a cooperative co m m u n i ty development project in the Philippines, a fish census four years later found that the abundance o f surgeon fishes and fusiliers (the main species fished locally) was ten times higher t h a n in n o n - p r o t e c t e d areas, a n d th a t their biom ass was 40 times greater (Agbayani et al, 2000). By increasing both population densities and the size o f fish, reserves can greatly increase the n u m b e r o f young spawned, and the drifting of eggs and larvae into fishing grounds can help restock local fisheries. In addition, as the growth o f protected fish populations produces crowding, migration of fish to outside areas also benefits fisheries. O t h e r scientists remain to be convinced of the effectiveness o f protected areas as a fisheries m an ag em en t strategy and express concern that they may be little more than a scientific fad that has become a bandwagon o f the ecological community. Yet another point o f view is that fisheries d o n ’t fail because o f the inability o f local fishermen to manage catches but because of political pressures to prolong nonsustainable fisheries.1 Consequently, what is chiefly needed is better c o m m u n i ­ cation to decision-making authorities about how protected areas work and how they can increase rather than decrease catches if given time. Clearly, protected areas s h o u ld n o t be viewed as an alternative to catch restrictions for large-scale commercial fishing. Creation o f protected areas may produce less dramatic results in areas where fish move over a wide range or where biodiversity is low than in coral reef chains or in tropical river systems, b ut the latter are likely to be the primary focus of agreements between indigenous and local communities. Already there are several promising examples of the use o f protected areas to conserve fish populations and enhance local fisheries in such communities. O n the Caribbean island of St Lucia, life for fishermen had become increasingly difficult by the late 1980s. Catches had dwindled after decades of population growth led to an intensification of fishing along coral reefs. An initial attem pt by the government to establish a country-wide system of 19 marine reserves failed because of inadequate funding and consultation with local fishermen. In the early 1990s, after catches had further deteriorated and fishermen were complaining ab ou t conflicts with tourists, the Fisheries D e p a r tm e n t set up a process o f partici­ patory co m m u n i ty man ag em en t around the town of Soufriere. T h e result was that local stakeholders, including fishermen, diving operators, hoteliers and boaters, agreed on a zoned m an ag em en t plan for 1 1 km of coastline. At the heart o f the plan were four no-take zones, interspersed between fishing areas, to pro mote the build up o f fish stocks while providing an attraction for divers. T h e scepticism of local fishermen about the establishment o f the protected areas disappeared five years later when it was found that not only had protected reef fish stocks tripled in n u m b e r b ut also fish stocks in surrounding unprotected waters had doub led, resulting in a catch increase o f close to 50 per cent. Moreover,

R E SU LTSTHA T C O U N T : M E A N IN G F U L BENEFITS F O R FISHIN G C O M M U N I T I E S

195

biomass in one protected area where some trap fishing was later allowed was still higher than in sites with no protection, dem onstrating that even partial protection can p roduce benefits (Roberts and Haw kins, 2 001). W h ile successes o f this mag nitude may not be expected in regions such as the N o r t h Atlantic, they can be very significant in coral reef ecosystems and in biodiversity rich river systems, provided that care is taken to involve all who have a direct stake in the local fishery.

S e t t i n g t h e stage f o r effective n e g o t i a t i o n s In anticipation that benefit-sharing arrangements with communities are likely to become the no rm in the future, and in keeping with the spirit of the C B D , some companies have already made it a practice to negotiate benefits whether or not the law requires it. Shaman Pharmaceuticals, for instance, developed the practice of not only making agreements with several S outh American countries b u t also arranging for any benefits to be shared with all communities in which it had been active. T h e co m pan y was praised by some for its innovative approach and criti­ cized by others for presuming to decide what benefits were best for the c o m m u ­ nities it dealt with. T h e volatility o f the pharmaceuticals market later forced the co m pan y to restructure and focus on botanicals, but its initiative set a precedent wor thy o f consideration. Countries that already provide for co m m u n i ty consent for access to genetic resources are discovering, perhaps to no ones great surprise, that legal require­ ments aren’t worth m uc h w itho ut an effective framework to support negotiations with and by communities. Case Study 5 describes the problems the Philippines has experienced in trying to ensure its Executive O r d e r 247 facilitates rather than impedes access in communities. Case Study 3 describes the failure o f negotiations for access to Arctic charr in In uit c o m m u n i tie s o f the C an a d ia n north . T h e breakdown was a costly disapp ointm en t to a consortium that had spent consid­ erable time and effort attem pting to convince widely scattered communities. The failure was attributed to indigenous com m unities’ concerns about interference with their spiritual connection with the fish, the proposed patenting of a genetic mapping process, and the potential for competition from the farming industry despite the promise of joint ownership in the business. Everyone involved was breaking new ground - this was the first significant attem pt in the country to develop an agreement with communities for access to aquatic genetic resources. As illustrated by Case Study 6, two o f the key differences between the Fijian and Canadian negotiations lay in the level o f support for a negotiation framework and the variety of benefits on the table. There is no easy answer for wh at works and what doesn’t in negotiations, but what the case studies do make clear is that access a nd be nefit-s hari ng laws need to be s u p p le m e n t e d by efforts - w h e t h e r by government or by other organizations - to build sound negotiation frameworks. Key co m ponents o f effective multiparty negotiations arc likely to include ensuring that: • C o m m u n it ie s have the support they need to negotiate effectively.

196

BI.UE GENES

• All stakeholders likely to be directly or indirectly affected by the ou tcom e are included in the design and im plem entation o f the negotiation agreement. • Skilled facilitators or m ed iato rs arc available to help identify stak eho lder interests and explore options, including conditions for access and potential benefits. • Sufficient relevant in fo rm atio n is available to facilitate in form ed decision­ making. Obviously, the complexity o f negotiations will depend very m uch on a variety o f factors, including the m agnitude o f the stakes. N egotiations with a pharm aceutical com pany ho ping to develop a pro du ct with significant commercial value are likely to be far more protracted than a deal with a fish farmer who wants to collect a few pairs o f broodstock. T h e key p oint is that for prior informed conscnt to be m e a n ­ ingful, a co m m u n ity needs to have full information abo ut the im plications of providing consent before it decides w hether and how to negotiate.

C ase S t u d y 6. S haping

negotia tion t o o l s :

A marine bioprospecting agreement in Fiji O n e o f the features distinguishing the British colonization o f Fiji was the decision to reserve a large proportion o f the land for indigenous Fijians, with the provision that the land no t be sold or otherwise perm anently alienated. Today, 83 per cent of the land in Fiji is com m unally owned by indigenous Fijians. O w nership o f marine areas, including traditional fishing grounds, is governed by both national and cu sto m a ry law. T h e 1990 c o n stitu tio n recognizes in d ig en o u s rights over all resources located in fishing grounds, including the seabed; the state retains the right to collect royalties on resources extracted from the seabed. Family groups continue to manage lands in their territories, and often that control extends as far into th e sea as local b oats can go. T ra d itio n a l a u th o r it y is respected, an d governm ent is perceived as protecting traditional rights. It consults with chiefs on fishing licences and other resource use permits, and outsiders pay compensation to m ataq ali (land o w n in g family groups) for local uses. T h e intensification o f resource use by industries such as coral m ining, logging and m ining, and by a growing h u m a n population, has posed an increasing threat to both marine and forest biodiversity. Since its fou nding in 1968, the chemistry d ep artm ent at the University o f the South Pacific (USP) has been doing research on the isolation o f natural products from plants used for medicinal purposes in Fiji. In the early 1990s, the d ep artm ent decided to expand into the marine area and to upgrade its facilities to add value to local sam ples. In 199 5, U S P reached ag re e m e n t w ith the Biodiversity Conservation N etw ork o f the W orld Wildlife F un d (now the W W F ) for funding o f a bioprospecting research project with the understanding that the project would not only advance scientific knowledge bu t also pro m o te c o m m u n ity development an d c o m m u n it y - b a s e d c o n se rv a tio n , a d h e rin g to C B D prin ciples an d

RESULTS TH A T C O U N T : M E A N IN G FU L BENEFITS FO R FIS H IN G C O M M U N IT IE S

197

e m p h a s i z i n g bes t p r a c t i c e s f or b e n e f i t s h a r i n g w i t h c o m m u n i t i e s . T h e p r o j e c t w o u l d i n c l u d e c o l l e c t i o n o f b o t h m a r i n e o r g a n i s m s a n d p l a nt s. O n e o f th e se le c te d s o u r c e areas w as th e coasta l c o m m u n i t y o f V crata c o m p r i s i n g e i g h t villages w i t h a b o u t 1 6 0 0 p e o p l e , w h o s e t r a d i t i o n a l leaders h a d expr e ssed c o n c e r n a b o u t o v e r f i s h i n g a n d cor al m i n i n g . U S P s o u g h t t h e s u p p o r t o f Ver at a at an early stage o f t h e p r o j e c t , h o l d i n g c o m m u n i t y m e e t i n g s to d es c r i be its p u r p o s e s , e n c o u r a g e c o m m u n i t y p a r t i c i p a t i o n in p r o j e c t activities, a n d m a k e t he l i n k b e t w e e n c o n s e r v a t i o n a n d c o m m u n i t y b ene f it s . O n e o f t h e o bj e ct i ves o f t he p r o j e c t was to e s t a bl is h p r o t e c t e d areas w h e r e g a t h e r i n g w o u l d b e p r o h i b i t e d , r ai s i ng q u e s t i o n s in t h e c o m m u n i t y a b o u t w h e t h e r b e n e fi t s f r o m b i o p r o s p e c t i n g w o u l d a d e q u a t e l y c o m p e n s a t e f or t h e loss o f r e t u r n s f r o m tabu sites, a n d h o w l o n g it w o u l d t a ke to r e g e n er a t e ke y species. T h e p r o m i s e o f b en e fi t s in a d d i t i o n to royal t ies w a s a k e y f a c t o r in w i n n i n g o ve r a c o m m u n i t y t h a t in t h e p a s t h a d received little o r n o r e t u r n f r o m b i o p r o s p e c t i n g b y o u t si d e r s. U S P t h e n a p p r o a c h e d S m i t h K l i n e B e e c h a m (SB), a p h a r m a c e u t i c a l c o m p a n y co l l ec t i ng m a r i n e s a m p l e s , w h i c h r e s p o n d e d posi t ivel y to t h e r e q u e s t to e x t e n d its w o r k to Fiji. A l t h o u g h t h e Fiji g o v e r n m e n t h a d n o p ol i c y o n b i o p r o s p e c t i n g , a f o r w a r d l o o k i n g official f r o m t h e D e p a r t m e n t o f E n v i r o n m e n t ( c r ea te d s pe ci f i­ cally to de a l w i t h t he i m p l e m e n t a t i o n o f t h e C B D a n d A g e n d a 2 1 ) f o r m e d a w o r k i n g g r o u p f r o m r el e va nt g o v e r n m e n t m i n i s t r i e s to set t h e p a r a m e t e r s f or t he p r o j e c t a n d f or b i o p r o s p e c t i n g in g e ne r al . T h e g o v e r n m e n t e v e n t u a l l y d e c i d e d to t a ke a r e g u l a t o r y role to d e f i n e t h e a p p r o v a l pr oc e s s a n d to e n s u r e t h a t t he r igh t s o f c o m m u n i t i e s were protected. F o l l o w i n g n a t i o n a l g o v e r n m e n t a p p r o v a l o f t h e p r o j e c t , U S P a n d its N G O partner,

the

South

P ac i f i c A c t i o n

Com m ittee

for

Human

Ecology

and

E n v ir o n m e n t ( S P A C H E E ) , obta in ed project approval from the provincial d e p a r t m e n t for n at ive affairs w i t h j u r i s d i c t i o n o ve r Ver at a. T h e n e x t s t e p was to d e c i d e w h e t h e r t h e r e s h o u l d b e a t h r e e - w a y a g r e e m e n t b e t w e e n SB, U S P a n d Ve r at a o r s e pa r a t e c o n t r a c t s b e t w e e n SB a n d U S P a n d b e t w e e n U S P a n d Verata. T h o s e in f a v o u r o f a t h r e e - w a y a g r e e m e n t a r g u e d t h a t V e r at a s h o u l d be a n e q u a l p a r t n e r in vi ew o f t he role o f t he c o m m u n i t i e s in c o n s e r v a t i o n a n d as h o l d e r s o f t r a d i t i o n a l k n o w l e d g e . H o w e v e r , legal c o n s t r a i n t s o n l y a l l o w e d SB to m a k e p a y m e n t s to legally c o n s t i t u t e d b od i e s . W h e n SB cl osed d o w n its n a t u r a l p r o d u c t s d i s c o v e r y di vi s i on , U S P f o u n d a n e w p a r t n e r , G l a s g o w s S t r a t h c l y d e I n s t i t u t e o f D r u g Re se a rc h ( S I D R ) . Separate ag reem ents were m a d e bet ween U S P and S I D R and be tw een U S P and t h e c o m m u n i t y o f Ver at a, in p a r t be c a us e o f S I D R ’s r e l u c t a n c e to c o n t r a c t d i r ec t l y w i t h a c o m m u n i t y t h a t was n o t a legal entity. W h i l e t h e U S P —S I D R a g r e e m e n t r e c o g n i z e d o n l y t h e t w o par ti es as s t a k e h o l d e r s , t h e d r a f t a g r e e m e n t was p u t o u t f or p u b l i c d i s c us s i on a n d s u g g e s t i o n s for i m p r o v e m e n t , w h i c h w e r e u se d w h e r e possi bl e. I n a d d i t i o n , t h e a g r e e m e n t i m p l i c i t l y a c k n o w l e d g e d o t h e r s t a k e h o l d e r s by r e q u i r i n g U S P to o b t a i n p r i o r i n f o r m e d c o n s e n t f r o m r es o u r ce o w n e r s for e x t r a c t i o n a n d e x p o r t o f bi ol ogi ca l s a m p l e s , a n d b y n o t i n g t hat:

one o f the purposes o f the agreement is to promote the conservation o f bio­ diversity in Fiji by creating incentives for species conservation an d to

198

BLUE GENES

p ro vid e an equita ble share o f p ro fits to the people o f Fiji. In collecting extracts, cu ltu ra l a n d ecological values w ill be respected. T h e a g re e m e n t b e tw ee n U S P a n d Verata c o n ta i n e d d etailed p ro c e d u r e s for p rio r in f o rm e d c o n s e n t by th e c o m m u n i t y for a n y research activity. A p p lic a n ts w o u ld be required to p ro vid e in f o r m a t io n o n : all parties p a rtic ip a tin g in th e research a n d f u n d i n g sources; th e k in d a n d a m o u n t o f m aterials to be ta k e n ; th e type a n d p u r p o s e o f research; a n d th e c o n se r v a tio n statu s o f species to be collected. In a d d it io n , U S P agreed to involve the c o m m u n i t y in all phases o f c o n tr a c t n e g o tia ­ tio ns a n d s u b s e q u e n t activity, a n d to ensure t h a t all d ra ft a g re e m e n ts w o u ld be tr a n s la t e d in t o th e Fijian la n g u a g e a n d d i s t r i b u t e d to t h e c o m m u n i t y for its c o n sid e ra tio n . A n y n ew p o te n tia l c o m m e rc ia l activity from an extract was to be fully discusscd w ith th e c o m m u n i t y at th e b e g in n i n g o f research activities. A n y s u b s e q u e n t d i s p u t e s a ri s in g f r o m t h e a g r e e m e n t w e re to be s e t tl e d by t h e P e r m a n e n t A rb it r a to r in Suva. T h e re q u i r e m e n t for app ro va l by the P a r a m o u n t C h i e f o f Verata a n d th e tik in a co u n c il was expected to redu ce th e lik elih oo d o f d ispu te. T h e U S P - S I D R an d U S P - V e r a t a co n tr a c ts d id n o t address th e issue o f IPRs a tta c h e d to e th n o b io lo g ic a l k n o w le d g e because there was no reliance o n tr a d i­ tio n al k n o w le d g e o f m a r in e species. Benefits to th e c o m m u n i t y covered by th e a g re e m e n t in clu ded : •

• • • •

100 p e r c en t o f the p o r t i o n o f extract licensing fees received by U S P d u r i n g the pe rio d o f f u n d i n g o f th e pro jec t, less th e costs o f extractio n a n d tr a n s p o r t a ti o n , to be held in a c o m m u n i t y tru st (estim ated at U S $ 1 0 5 ,0 0 0 ) . E q u ita b le s h a rin g o f an y f u r th e r financial ben efits b etw ee n USP, Verata a n d th e Fijian g o v e rn m e n t. T ra in in g for c o m m u n i t y m e m b e r s in collection a n d p re p a r a tio n o f sam ples a n d m e t h o d s o f biod iv ersity a n d so c io -e c o n o m ic m o n i to r in g . Assistance w ith th e d e v e lo p m e n t an d th e m a n a g e m e n t o f small, village-based enterprises. C o m m u n i t y w o r k s h o p s in r e s o u r c e m a n a g e m e n t a n d c o m m u n i t y d e v e l ­ o pm ent.

O t h e r p o te n tia l b enefits n o t in th e a g re e m e n t in c lu d e d e sta b lis h m e n t o f a m a r in e c o n s e r v a ti o n area a n d sc r e e n in g of bio lo g ical c o m p o u n d s for a c tiv ity a g a in st Pacific region diseases. B oth th e U S P - S I D R a n d U S P - V e r a t a c o n tr a c ts s tip u la te d t h a t th e co llection o f sam p les m u s t n o t adversely affect the n a tu ra l e n v ir o n m e n t . In a d d i t i o n , th e U S P - V e r a t a c o n t r a c t p r o v id e d for c o m m u n i t y - b a s e d c o n s e r ­ v ation projects to preserve species a n d h ab itats. O n e o f these was for p ro te c te d areas w h ere e x tractio n was b a n n e d to allow the recovery o f species o f c o m m e rc ia l value. P re lim in a ry biological m o n i t o r i n g in d ic a te d a s u b s ta n tia l increase in th e p o p u la t io n o f the kaikoso clam . The c o m p r e h e n s iv e w o rk s h o p s s u b s e q u e n tly org an ized in Verata by U S P a nd S P A C H E E led to th e d e v e l o p m e n t o f c o m m u n i t y a c ti o n p la n s a n d res o u rc e m a n a g e m e n t plans designed to ensure th e susta inab le c o m m e rc ia l an d subsistence

RESULTS THAT COUNT: MEANINGFUL BENEFITS FOR FISHING COMMUNITIES

199

use o f renewable natural resources, in clu din g their pro tection and rehabilitation. A d d i t i o n a l w o r k s h o p s p r o v i d e d tr a i n i n g in b io lo g ic al m o n i t o r i n g , sa m p le c o llc c tio n a n d p r e p a r a t i o n , a n d d e v e l o p m e n t o f a c o m m u n i t y reg ister o f i m p o r t a n t p la n ts (A a lb e rsb erg , 1 9 9 7 ; A a lb e rs b c rg et al, 1 9 9 7 ; C o l u m b i a University, 1999; W illiam Aalbersberg, personal c o m m u n ic a tio n ) . T h e Fijian ag reem ent illustrates several p oin ts th a t m ay be useful in plan n in g future negotiations for access to aquatic genetic resources: •

•

•

A greem ents w ith c o m m u n itie s can c o n tr ib u te to the s u b s e q u e n t d ev elo p m e n t o f access policies by p rov id ing an o p p o r t u n i t y to test the re q u irem en ts for successful n e g o tia tio n processes. A l th o u g h th e Fijian g o v e r n m e n t was n o t directly involved in the n egotiations, these were u n d e rta k e n w ith proactive con sultation w ith several g o v ern m en t in stitutions, in clu din g the D e p a r tm e n t o f E n v iro n m e n t, w hich was created specifically to address the im p le m e n ta tio n o f th e C B D a n d A g e n d a 2 1 . T h i s c o n s u l t a t i o n a n d th e b io p r o s p e c t i n g agreem en t helped in the fo rm u latio n o f Fiji’s Sustainable D e v e lo p m e n t Bill, w hich deals w ith access to genetic resources b u t hasn’t been enacted. F u n d in g a n d o p e ra tio n a l s u p p o r t from in s titu tio n s or g o v e r n m e n t greatly e n h a n c e the o p p o r t u n i t y for successful nego tiation s. W h il e this m ay seem obvious, the fact is th at m o s t small c o m m u n itie s have ne ithe r the financial resources n o r the skills n eeded to c o n d u c t p rotracted and com p licated access an d benefit-sharing negotiations. T h e ag reem ent m ig h t be criticized because o f U S P ’s self-interest as a p o te n t ia l ben eficia ry o f c o m m e rc ia l ben efits from discoveries m ad e from collections. However, the agreem ent w o u ld n o t have occurred w ith o u t N G O fu n d in g an d the in volvem ent o f U S P as an in te rm e ­ diary betw een the c o m m u n it y and p h arm aceutical organizations. N o r m ig h t it have o ccu rred had the p ro je ct team n o t p rov id ed a professional facilitator. Naturally, som e c o m m u n itie s may prefer to negotiate directly w ith collectors w ith o u t interm ediaries, a nd g ov ern m en ts (or ind igen ou s organizations) could develop p ro g ram m e s to train c o m m u n itie s n o t only to c o n d u c t negotiations b u t also to negotiate a wide range o f benefits acceptable to all parties. However, the general tren d o f em erg ing access laws is to require foreign collectors to collaborate w ith provider co u n tr y universities or o the r institutio ns in n ego tia­ tions involving c o m m u n ities . D irect negotiations w ith c o m m u n itie s m ay be less com plicated for collections o f b roo dsto ck for aquaculture; however, the po tential e c o n o m ic value o f collections may also be less, lim iting the ability o f the collector to offer substantial or w id e-ran ging benefits. G o v e r n m e n t p o lic y s u p p o r t for n e g o ti a ti o n s is cru cial. In th e Fiji case, g o v e rn m e n t n o t only w elcom ed the project b u t saw it as an o p p o rt u n it y to advance its ow n efforts to develop workable access and b enefit-sharing policies. T h is contrasts sharply w ith the situation described in Case Study 2, in w h ic h a C a n a d ia n salm on farmer was th w a rte d from collecting salm on b roo d stock in sp aw n in g streams or neg otiatin g w ith in dig en ou s c o m m u n it ie s because the fisheries d e p a r t m e n t h a d n o t d e v e lo p e d policies on c o m m u n i t y rig hts to con su ltatio n or on b ro o d s to c k collection. Both types o f policies are fu n d a ­ m en tal to the successful negotiation o f agreem ents by co m m u n itie s .

200

•

•

•

BI.UE GENES

T h e legal status o f a c o m m u n it y may in h ib it negotiations even w h en it has co ntrol over resources. In the Fiji project, the c o m m u n i t y d id n o t have an o p p o rt u n it y to negotiate prior in fo rm ed con scnt for co m m crcial dev elo p m e n t by d ru g c om pan ies because it was n o t party to the agreem ent betw een U S P and S ID R . C o m p a n ie s may balk at m ak in g ag reem ents w ith c o m m u n itie s th at are no t legal entities - th a t is, u n o rg a n iz e d ’ villages as op posed to incorporated municipalities. Conversely, c o m m u n itie s th a t are n o t treated as equal partners in negotiations are likely to have less incentive to c o nsen t to access. W h ile som e villages m ay be c o n te n t to have their interests represented by m u n icip a l gov ern ­ m ents, others m ay be o pp osed to such an a rra n g e m e n t because it is in consistent w ith tradition al form s o f g o v e rn m e n t or simply because o f distrust betw een g o v e rn m e n t recognized municipalities and tr aditional co m m u n ities . Broad stakeh old er su p p o r t for neg otiation s is critical. T h e Fiji project took great care n o t only to consult w ith c o m m u n i t y leaders b u t also to hold w o rk ­ shops, o pen to all m em bers o f the c o m m u n ity , to define the n atu re and scope o f negotiations. T ranslation o f d o c u m e n t s into the local language also helped to ensure the full in volvem ent and u n d e rs ta n d in g o f local people. Especially when benefits are tied to conservation objectives, it is im p o r t a n t th a t all c o m m u n it y sectors (or stakeholders) are ‘on side’ to m ake agreem ents work. T ra d it io n a l k n o w le d g e a n d IP R s are n o t necessarily vital c o m p o n e n t s o f successful agreem ents for access a nd benefit sharing. W h ile this m ay seem like goo d news for fishing c o m m u n it ie s w ith o u t a histo ry o f m edicina l uses o f aquatic genetic resources, pro blem s are b o u n d to arise. In the first place, the ag reem en t w ith Verata was only possible because the n ational g o v e rn m e n t had reco g n ized in d i g e n o u s o w n e r s h i p over la n d s a n d m a r in e resources. C o m m u n i t i e s t h a t have n e it h e r o w n e rs h i p righ ts n o r relevan t tr a d itio n a l know ledge m ay n o t have the o p p o r t u n it y to negotiate benefits unless national legislation perm its it.

Chapter 7

Putting Principles into Practice

A r tis a n a l fis h e r m a n a n d h is fa m ily , S ao Francisco R iver, B r a z il (P h o to by B ria n H a rvey )

202

BI.UE GENES

A ccess a n d benefit - sh ar in g A w ork in slow progress

laws :

We have spent a considerable portion o f this book examining the issue of access to aquatic genetic resources and the sharing o f benefits derived from their use. T h e question o f access and benefit sharing has been front and centre in international discussions about the trade in biological resources ever since the C B D acknowl­ edged national sovereignty over biological diversity in 1992. C o m m u n i t y rights have entered into the debate insofar as the C B D recognizes the importance of com pensating com munities for the contribution their traditional knowledge and practices may make to both the use o f genetic resources and conservation of biological diversity. Efforts to attain the lofty ideals o f the C B D have hit a wide variety of stumbling blocks. Progress in the development o f access and benefit-sharing laws has been slow. No developed countries have passed access and benefit-sharing laws (the US has pointedly declined to ratify the C B D ) , and developing countries are taking their time working out the details. Th is means not only learning from the experi­ ences of early actors such as the Philippines b ut also deter mining how to address the impacts o f the TR IP S agreement, which appears to have diminished the rele­ vance o f national sovereignty over genetic resources by strengthening the hand of genetic resources users - notably the corporations that hold the patents on inven­ tions. Meanwhile, there arc virtually no examples of actual benefits received by communities providing genetic resources. Is access and benefit-sharing theory an emperor with no clothes? T h e frustration faced by researchers and the absence of benefits received by com munities since the C B D came into force certainly raise questions ab out how access policies might work effectively in the future. T h e emper or may have very little on at the m o m e n t, b u t perhaps it’s simply a question o f taking the time and patience to find the clothes with the right fit. N o t everyone agrees tha t access and benefit-sharing laws are good things. Participants in the Crucible Group, a policy group representing a broad crosssection of interests, expressed very divided opinions: some co m m e n te d that such laws create unrealistic expectations of economic rewards that arc at best a long shot; others argued that well-constructed national access laws can ensure signif­ icant benefit sharing where none existed before and that, even if benefits are smaller than originally expected, it is still w or thwhi le to have them in place (Crucible Group, 2001). Indigenous groups appear to have mixed feelings about such laws. Some welcome the chance for a greater share o f the pie, no matter how small. Others view access laws as merely a way o f avoiding what they see as the real issue, namely ownership of lands and resources. Whatever their merits, access laws will increase in n u m b e r as more and more countries move to meet their c o m m i t ­ ments under the C B D . As this study has shown, the implem en tation o f the C B D to date has been char­ acterized by a preoccupation with plant genetic resources issues. As demands for access to aquatic genetic resources increase, especially in the field of food fish aqua­ culture, it will also become more im p o rta n t to take account of differences between

P U T T I N G PRINCIPLES IN T O PRACTICE

203

plants and fish in the development of access laws. Most importantly, as discussed in C h a p t e r 2, it will first be necessary to fill significant policy gaps in the management of aquatic gcnctic rcsourccs and aquatic biodiversity generally.

A quatic

biodiversity m a n a g e m e n t :

F illing p o lic y gaps T h e preceding chapters have illustrated several key points about the m an ag em en t o f aquatic biodiversity: • T h e world is in the midst of a ‘blue revolution’ in which aquaculture is grad­ ually catching up to capture fisheries as the primary source of the worlds food fish supplies. T h e blue revolution is being fuelled by rapid progress in the scicncc of gcnctics, with constant new developments in selective breeding and molecular biology. T h e blue revolution also includes bioprospec ting for a marine organism th a ts genetic and chemical make-up hold clues for p h a r m a ­ ceutical and industrial applications. • T h e genetic diversity o f the wo rld’s aquatic life is the natural capital on which the blue revolution depends. An extraordinary range of aquatic species and subspecies have evolved to adapt to specific and localized habitat requirements. Scientific u n d e r s t a n d i n g o f species a d a p t a t i o n s will b eco m e increasingly import an t as the use of aquatic genetic resources expands and is refined. For example, a fish scientist wanting to develop a farmed salmon strain that is tolerant of warmer water conditions resulting from climate change might be able simply to select b r o odsto ck from a naturally occ urring p o p u la ti o n providing that the stock still exists and its special characteristics have been iden­ tified. • T h e biological diversity o f aquatic life and the genetic diversity within species continue to diminish at an alarming rate as a result of h u m a n activities. It is reasonable to assume that many aquatic species become extinct before science is even aware of their existence (an estimated 95 per cent o f oceanic life forms remain unexplored). F u n d i n g for molec ular biology is generally far more readily available than funding for the basic taxonomy that needs to be done in order to categorize aquatic species and populations. Ironically, the corporate (and hence academic) incentive to develop new techniques for using genetic resources far exceeds governmental incentives to pro mote the discovery and conservation of new species. T h e natural capital of the ocean, river, lake and wetland genetic resources is disappearing even before its magnitude is known. • Most national aquatic resources policies remain fixated on the maintenance of current commercial fisheries or development of new ones. National policies on aquaculture tend to react to public concerns a bout env ironmenta l impacts rather than adopting a comprehensive and far-sighted approach to protecting ecosystems while at the same time exploring future opportunities, conserving the gcnetic diversity needed for productive and efficient aquaculture, and

204

•

BLUE GENES

ensu ring th a t access to aquatic genetic resources, w h en required, will be facili­ tated a nd appropriately regulated. Parties to the C B D have acknow ledged th at in digen ou s and local c o m m u n itie s have rights to fair tre a tm e n t in n egotiations for access to genetic resources a nd can play an im p o rta n t role in the conservation o f aquatic biodiversity. W h ile a few countries have taken steps to recognize certain rights o f in digen ou s and local c o m m u n itie s to negotiate access, m o s t have been reluctant to address the issue, especially in ligh t o f c o n c e rn s a b o u t i m p e d i m e n t s to ac a d e m ic a n d co m m ercial research.

N atio n a l policies on access a nd benefit sharing c a n n o t be developed in a vacuum . As illustrated in Figure 7 .1 , effective policies for th e m a n a g e m e n t o f aq uatic gcnctic resources a n d th e su sta in ab le m a n a g e m e n t o f a q u a tic ccosystcm s arc prerequisites for w orkable policies on access and benefit sharing. T h ese secondary policy levels are far m o re developed for the p la n t tha n for the aq uatic w orld. Moreover, pla n t genetic resources are generally collected from ex situ collections, while aquatic genetic resources are alm ost w ith o u t exception collected from the wild. Effective policies for the m a n a g e m e n t o f aquatic biological a nd genetic diversity de p e n d in tu r n on a fo u n d a tio n o f in fo rm a tio n (w hich again lags b e h in d w hat is k n o w n a b o u t plants) an d co o p eratio n a m o n g policy m akers and stakeholders. Each o f the following c o m p o n e n ts will be i m p o r t a n t in filling the policy gaps: •

• • •

• •

Increasing scientific kn ow le dg e o f the o ccurrence, d istrib u tio n a nd genetic m a ke-u p o f aquatic species; aquatic ecosystem relationships; and the h u m a n im pacts on aquatic resources. Integrating tr aditional ecological know ledge w ith scientific research. P ro m o tin g effective systems for gathering, organizing, an d sharing info rm atio n a b o u t aquatic genetic resources. Increasing public an d agency awareness a b o u t the im p o rta n c e o f biological and g e n e tic diversity, in c l u d i n g a q u a ti c g e n e tic diversity, a n d o f po licies for sustainable use. Clearly defining and co o rd in atin g the responsibilities o f g o v e rn m e n t agencies involved in the m a n a g e m e n t o f aquatic resources. E n su rin g th e effective p articipation o f stakeholders, in clu ding in dig eno us and local co m m u n itie s , in policy making.

Bu ilding inform ation and understanding Scientific knowledge W i t h o u t scientific u n d e rs ta n d in g o f biodiversity and ecosystem relationships, the d e v e lo p m e n t o f aquatic resource m a n a g e m e n t policies is likely to be shaped by the m o s t in f lu en tial stak eh o ld ers. In the past, the results have been overfishing, d estruction o f habitat, and loss o f the biological a nd genetic diversity needed to sustain h u m a n uses o f aquatic resources. R ecognition o f aquatic ecosystems as

PUTTING PRINCIPLES INTO PRACTICE

205

m a n a g e m e n t u n i t s is v er y r ec en t, a n d a h i g h level o f sc i enc e is n e e d e d to s u p p o r t this m a n a g e m e n t a p p r o a c h . T h e i m p o r t a n c e o f e x p a n d i n g s c i ent ifi c k n o w l e d g e to s u p p o r t p o l i c y m a k i n g is still u n d c r - a p p r c c i a t c d . T h e vast m a j o r i t y o f a q u a t i c spe ci e s, b o t h o c e a n a n d f r e s h w a t e r , h a v e n ’t e v e n b e e n i d e n t i f i e d ye t , a n d t he i m p a c t s o f h u m a n i n t e r v e n t i o n s ( a n d d i s r u p t i o n s s u c h as g l o b a l w a r m i n g ) o n a q u a t i c e c o s y s t e m s a r e n ’t well u n d e r s t o o d . T h e f low o f scient ifi c i n f o r m a t i o n is a n y t h i n g b u t g u a r a n t e e d . R e se a rc h i n s t i t u ­ t i o n s ar e s t r u g g l i n g f or g o v e r n m e n t f u n d i n g a n d i n c r e a s i n g l y m u s t r el y o n c o r p o r a t e s u p p o r t . A q u a t i c r eso ur ce s policies m u s t n o t o n l y be g u i d e d b y o bj e ct i ve s c i e n t i f i c k n o w l e d g e , t h e y al so n e e d t o s u p p o r t its e x p a n s i o n . I n p a r t i c u l a r , d r af t er s o f policies f or access to a q u a t i c g en e t i c re s o ur ce s n e e d to e n s u r e t h a t s c i e n ­ tific r esear ch is e n c o u r a g e d r a t h e r t h a n d i s c o u r a g e d b y r e g u l a t o r y r e q u i r e m e n t s . G o v e r n m e n t s c a n ’t al wa ys w a i t f or s c i ent ifi c c e r t a i n t y b ef o r e m a k i n g policy, b u t t h e y n e e d to b e p r e p a r e d to a m e n d p o l i c y i f r esear ch result s clearly u n d e r m i n e o u t d a t e d a s s u m p t i o n s o n w h i c h p o li c y has b e e n bas ed.

Traditional ecological knowledge T r a d i t i o n a l k n o w l e d g e n e e d s to b e c o n s i d e r e d a n d i n c o r p o r a t e d at t h e o u t s e t o f p ol i c y m a k i n g r a t h e r t h a n b e i n g pe r c e iv e d s i m p l y as a r es o u r ce t h a t is t r a d e d for compensation. D e s p i t e t h e i r c o n t r a d i c t o r y a p p r o a c h e s to l e a r n i n g , s c i en c e a n d t r a d i t i o n a l k n o w l e d g e c a n c o m p l e m e n t o n e a n o t h e r as a f o u n d a t i o n f or p o l i c y m a k i n g . S c i e nc e asks o n l y t h o s e q u e s t i o n s t h a t c a n be a n s w e r e d a n d d e m a n d s o bj ect i ve, verifiable p r o o f , n o t belief. It a t t e m p t s to r e d u c e c o m p l e x s y s t ems to t he i r basic e l e m e n t s . T r a d i t i o n a l k n o w l e d g e t akes t h e o p p o s i t e a p p r o a c h . It sees n a t u r e as an i n t e g r a t e d w h o l e a n d i n c o r p o r a t e s t h a t vi ew i n t o s pi r it ua l belief. Its lessons c o m e f r o m c x p c r i c n c c a n d a n e c d o t e , n o t analysis. T h e t w o s ys t e m s ca n c o m p l e m e n t o n e a n o t h e r if m u t u a l d i s t r u s t c a n b e o v e r c o m e . I n d i g e n o u s p e o p l e s h a v e b e c o m e i n c r e a s i n g l y r e l u c t a n t to s h a r e t r a d i t i o n a l k n o w l e d g e , h a v i n g seen it so o f t e n e x p l o i t e d a n d m i s u s e d . G o v e r n m e n t s n e e d to w o r k w i t h c o m m u n i t i e s to b u i l d t h e t r u s t n e e d e d to i n c l u d e t r a d i t i o n a l k n o w l e d g e in p o li c y m a k i n g . A v e n u e s f or d o i n g so m a y i n c l u d e s t r e n g t h e n i n g u n d e r s t a n d i n g o f c u l t u r a l di f fe r ence s, e n s u r i n g legal p r o t e c t i o n a g a i n s t t h e u n a u t h o r i z e d m i s u s e o f traditional knowledge, building c o -m a n a g e m e n t agreements with indigenous c o m m u n i t i e s , a n d f u r t h e r e x p a n d i n g c o m m u n i t y r ig ht s over t r a d i t i o n a l l a n d s a n d r esour ces.

Gathering an d collating information T h e i n f o r m a t i o n n e e d e d f or p ol i c y m a k i n g goes far b e y o n d t h e s i m p l e a c c u m u ­ l a ti on o f scient ifi c a n d t r a d i t i o n a l k n o w l e d g e . Policy m a k e r s n e e d to h a v e access to t h a t k n o w l e d g e in o r d e r to i d e n t i f y w h a t i n f o r m a t i o n t h e y n e e d a n d e n s u r e t h a t it is r e a di l y a v ai l a bl e at t h e local, n a t i o n a l a n d i n t e r n a t i o n a l levels. I n f o r m a t i o n s y s t e m s f o r a q u a t i c g e n e t i c r e s o u r c e s ar e p o o r l y d e v e l o p e d . S i g n i f i c a n t g a ps i n c l u d e a s s e s s m e n t s o f fish s t o c k d i s t r i b u t i o n a n d a b u n d a n c e ; t a b u l a t i o n s o f l a n d i n g s f or all b u t t he largest c o m m e r c i a l fisheries; a n d s e ar c h a b l e registers o f

206

BLUE GENES

g e n e t i c d i v e r s i t y i n f o r m a t i o n . T h e m o v e m e n t o f fish b e t w e e n c o u n t r i e s a n d t h r o u g h i n t e r n a t i o n a l w a t e r s increases t h e n e e d for i n t e r n a t i o n a l c o l l a b o r a t i o n in d a t a c o l l e c ti o n a n d o r g a n i z a t i o n . R c c c n t e x a m p l e s o f s u c h c o l l a b o r a t i o n i n c l u d e t h e W o r l d Fi sh C e n t e r s F i s h B a s e d a t a b a s e a n d t h e A q u a t i c A n i m a l D i v e r s i t y I n f o r m a t i o n S y st e m ( A A D I S ) b e i n g d e v e l o p e d b y F A O a n d W o r l d Fisheries T rus t. S u c h registries n e e d to i n c l u d e t r a d i t i o n a l k n o w l e d g e w h e r e c o m m u n i t i e s agr ee to p r o v i d e it.

Public an d professional awareness Policies f or a q u a t i c r e s o u rc e s m a n a g e m e n t are u n l i k e l y to s u c c e ed w i t h o u t p u b l i c a w a r e n es s a n d s u p p o r t . P eop l e n ee d to u n d e r s t a n d t h e r ea s ons f or d e v e l o p i n g a policy, its likely i m p a c t , a n d t he c o n s e q u e n c e s o f d o i n g n o t h i n g . A t a m o r e basic level, p e o p l e n e e d to u n d e r s t a n d t h e i m p o r t a n c e o f s u s t a i n i n g b i o l o g i c a l a n d g e n e t i c div e r si ty a n d t h e a d v a n t a g e s a n d d i s a d v a n t a g e s o f a l t e r n at i v e m a n a g e m e n t o p t i o n s . T h i s is especiall y t r u e f or a q u a t i c life b e c a u s e o f t h e l i m i t a t i o n s o f c u r r e n t scient ifi c k n o w l e d g e a n d b e c a u s e o f u n c e r t a i n t i e s a n d p o t e n t i a l c onf li ct s a b o u t n e w uses o f a q u a t i c g e n e t i c r esour ces. T oo l s s u c h as t h e i n t e r n e t p r o v i d e pol i c y m a k e r s w i t h a n o p p o r t u n i t y to i nc r e ase p u b l i c awa r e nes s . In a d d i t i o n , c o m m u n i ­ c a t i o n s l i nk s e n a b l e a n i n c re a se d role f or i n t e r n a t i o n a l a n d i n t e r g o v e r n m e n t a l a g enci es to r u n p u b l i c a w a re n e s s p r o g r a m m e s t h a t c a n ease t h e w a y f or n a t i o n a l a n d local p o l i c y ma k e r s . C o m m u n i c a t i o n s w i t h t h e p u b l i c n ee d to b e clear, c o nc i s e a n d free o f j a r g o n . As m u c h as po ssi bl e, it s h o u l d also h a ve t h e a p p e a r a n c e o f o b je c ti v i t y in o r d e r to b u i l d p u b l i c t r u s t in p ol i c y m a k i n g , especiall y at a t i m e o f p u b l i c s c e p ti c i sm a b o u t g o v e r ­ n a n c e . F o r this r e a s o n t oo , p u b l i c a wa re ne s s s h o u l d f o cu s o n i n f o r m i n g r a t h e r t h a n ‘e d u c a t i n g ’ t h e p u b l i c , especiall y w h e n d e a l i n g w i t h c o nt r o v e rs i a l issues. It s h o u l d also i n c l u d c a n i n t e r ac t i v e c o m p o n e n t , e n s u r i n g r e a d y acccss to i n f o r ­ m a t i o n p r o v i d e r s f or ci tizens w i s h i n g to clarify issues. Finally, t he s c o p e o f p u b l i c a w a r e n es s p r o g r a m m e s s h o u l d b e b r o a d e n o u g h to i n c l u d e c o m m e r c i a l i nter ests (eg sma l l a n d large fisheries a n d o t h e r i n d u s t r ie s ) a n d g o v e r n m e n t a g e n ci es t h a t m a y be d ir ec tl y o r p e r i p h e r a l l y i nv o lv e d in p o l i c y m a k i n g . P rof ess i onal s w i t h i n age nci es, i n c l u d i n g t h o s e c h a r g e d w i t h d e v e l o p i n g policy, are f r e q u e n t l y p o o r l y i n f o r m e d o n a q u a t i c issues p e r i p h e r a l to t he i r o w n r e s p o n s i ­ bility. B e c a u s e o f t h e i n t e r c o n n e c t e d n e s s o f t h e s e issues, s u c h a s i t u a t i o n c a n c r i p p l e a t t e m p t s at policy, a n d n e e d s to be a d d r e s s e d t h r o u g h b r i e f i n gs w i t h i n a n d b e t w e e n a g enci es a n d t h r o u g h g r ea t e r c o n t a c t w i t h s t a k eh o l d e r s .

Cooperative approaches to policy making Agency coordination Hi stor icall y, g o v e r n m e n t a g enci es h a v e b e e n d e f i n e d b y t h e i r r e s p o n s i b i l i t y for s e p a r a t e r cs ou r cc s ( a g r i c u l t ur e , m i n i n g , forestry, fisheries), e a ch o p e r a t i n g in an i n s u l a r m a n n e r . B o t h fisheries a n d a q u a c u l t u r e are o f t e n s u b s u m e d u n d e r larger d e p a r t m e n t s s u c h as a g r i c u l t u r e , a n d a g e n c i e s c o m b i n e d w i t h i n a f i s h e r i e s d e p a r t m e n t m a y w o r k a t cross p u r p o s e s o r w i t h o u t i n t e g r a t e d s t r at egic p l a ns . T h e

PUTTING PRINCIPLES INTO PRACTICE

207

need to address sustaina ble d e v e lo p m e n t issues has created com p lex ities th at re q u ire g re ater c o o p e r a t io n a m o n g ex istin g resou rce ag encies as well as th e in v olv em ent o f o th e r agencies such as those that oversee m u n icip al an d in digenous affairs, e n v iro n m e n ta l pro tec tion an d m arine protected areas, agriculture, forestry, w ater resources, and e co n o m ic dev elo pm ent. T h e effectiveness o f aquatic resources policies has too frequently been u n d e r ­ m in ed by t u r f wars, lack o f com m u n ic a tio n , and indecision over resource conflicts (eg betw een aq uacu ltu re and co m m ercial fisheries, fisheries an d fo restry /m in ing , c o m m u n i t y a n d c o m m e rc ia l fisheries). G o v e r n m e n t s n eed to take a stro n g er a p p ro a c h to p r o m o ti n g co o p eratio n a m o n g all relevant agencies in the devel­ o p m e n t , i m p l e m e n t a t i o n an d e n f o r c e m e n t o f a q u a tic resource policies, w ith clearly defined agency responsibilities at each level.

Stakeholder p a rticip a tio n T h e stability o f policies is directly related to the extent o f public ‘buy in’. Clear and c o m p l e t e i n f o r m a t i o n is th e first step to w a rd s b u i l d i n g p u b li c s u p p o r t . In add itio n , policy makers need to anticipate and address the interests o f the m ultiple stakeholders likely to be affected. In d em o cratic societies, g ov ern m e n ts delegate d e c is io n -m a k in g a u th o r it y to policy m akers, a n d policies need to reflect the direction taken by g o v ern m en t. However, ‘public i n p u t ’ is n o t a token exercise. It n o t only provides a pool o f in fo rm atio n needed for s o u n d decision -m akin g b u t can also e n s u r e to th e g re a te st e x te n t po ssib le th e f u l f il m e n t o f a p p a r e n t ly c o m p e tin g needs. Sustainable m a n a g e m e n t policies based on in adeq uate co n su l­ ta tio n or heavily fav ou rin g in d iv id u al sectors are u nlikely to have lo n g -te rm success. M o r e o v e r, as m a n y g o v e r n m e n t s are in th e pro cess of d ev o lv in g m a n a g e m e n t resp on sib ilities to s t a k e h o ld e r p a r t n e rs h i p s (p u b lic a n d private sectors, N G O s , c o m m u n i t y fisheries o rg anizatio ns), intensive p a rtic ip a tio n is required n o t only to shape g o v e rn m e n t policies b u t also to w o rk o u t the details o f cooperative m a n a g e m e n t. T h e very real risks o f dev olu tio n , inclu din g a lowering o f technical com p ete n ce , loss o f co rp orate m em ory, and loss o f lo ng-term fu n d in g need also to be recognized. T h e list o f stakeholders m ay include ind igenous a nd local c o m m u n it y fisheries, c o m m ercial fish farm ing and cap tu re industries, sp ort fisheries, to urism , oth er industries such as forestry an d agriculture, m u nicipa l gov ernm ents, N G O s , and affected g o v e rn m e n t agencies. Policy makers should, as m u c h as possible, involve stakeh old ers directly in the policy m a k in g process th r o u g h a co op erative an d inclusive a pp roa ch. T h e degree o f in v olv em en t o f ind igen o us a nd local c o m m u ­ nities should reflect the extent to w hich policies are likely to affect th em . T h e benefits o f stable an d w ell-inform ed policies will alm ost certainly o utw eigh the costs o f m a nag in g p articip ation , and these costs are likely to d im in ish as effective participatio n m ec ha nism s (including m ed ia tio n w here necessary) are fine-tuned. Effective s tak e h o ld er p a rtic ip a tio n is equally i m p o r t a n t at all policy levels, w h e th e r they relate to the m a n a g e m e n t o f aquatic biodiversity, uses o f aquatic genetic resources, or access to gen etic resources a n d the e q u itab le sh aring o f benefits derived from their uses.

208

BLUE GENES

T h e f o u r 'p o lic y p i l l a r s ’ o f

ABS

le g isla tio n

T h e p r e v i o u s s e c t i on de s cr ibe s t h e n e e d f or g r ea t e r e m p h a s i s o n t h e basic c o m p o ­ n e n t s n e e d e d f or t h e d e v e l o p m e n t o f a q u a t i c r e s o u r c e s pol i c i e s. T h i s s e c t i o n p r o v i d e s an o ve r v i e w o f t h e p o l i c y levels n e e d e d to s u p p o r t access a n d b en e f i ts h a r i n g legislation t h a t w o r k s for a q u a t i c r esour ce s, i l l us t r at e d b y F i g u r e 7. 1.

Figu re 7.1 T he policy fo u n d a tio n fo r access a n d b enefit-sharing legislation

Pillar One: Management at the ecosystem level Life w as s i m p l e r f or p o l i c y m a k e r s w h e n f isheries m a n a g e m e n t largely m e a n t s e t t i n g q u o t a s a n d size l i m i t s . T o d a y , pol i c i e s f or s u s t a i n a b l e m a n a g e m e n t o f a q u a t i c e c o s y s t e ms n e e d to follow a c o n t i n u u m o f c o n s e r v a t i o n a n d s u s t a i n a b l e use, a n d p o l i c y m a k e r s ’ d ec i s i o n s are m i g h t i l y c o m p l i c a t e d b y c h a n g i n g scient ifi c in f o rm ati o n , uncertainties a b o u t w h a t makes ecosystems w o rk a n d h o w h u m a n uses a n d n a t u r a l e ve n t s affect t h e m , d e m a n d s c r e a t e d b y n e w uses o f b io lo g i c a l a n d g e n e ti c resou rce s, in c re as i n g s t a k e h o l d e r con flicts, l i m i t e d b u d g e t s a n d even climate change.

PUTTING PRINCIPLES INTO PRACTICE

209

A co o rd in a ted ap p roach to aquatic biodiversity m a n a g e m e n t policies needs to take into consideration m a n y factors th a t m ay n o t have been considered relevant to the d e v e lo p m e n t o f earlier fisheries policies. T h e following arc examples: •

C o m p leten ess o f reliable in fo rm a tio n (science, tr aditional know ledge, stake­ holder inp ut). • Integration o f strategies for the conservation o f aquatic biodiversity and wild fish p o p u latio n s (eg fish quotas, m arine pro tected areas, h abitat protectio n and restoration). • Ecosystem relationships su p p o r tin g n o t only com m ercially valuable fisheries b u t also those w ith p otential com m ercial value, a nd the species in the food chain they d e p e n d on. • A dhcrcncc to the precau tio nary principle o f ecosystem m a n a g e m e n t. • C o o rd in a tio n o f captu re fishery and food fish aq ua cu ltu re policies, addressing e n v iro n m e n ta l an d so cio-econ om ic im pacts o f each. • E n v i r o n m e n t a l effects o f tr a n s g e n ic o r g a n i s m s , a n d i n t r o d u c t i o n s an d transfers. • C lim a te change a nd its effects on aquatic species. • L an d a n d access rights o f in d ig e n o u s peoples a n d their roles in ecosystem m an ag e m e n t. • P r o m o t i o n o f c o m m u n it y , sm all-scale fisheries, li n k in g rights to use w ith responsibilities for conservation. • S u p p o rt for in d e p e n d e n t fish certification systems (such as M S C an d M arin e A q u a riu m C o u n c il) th a t ap ply objective sta n d a rd s to local o p e ra tio n s and follow the chain o f custod y from original provider to end consum er. • Inte rn atio n al coo peratio n in policy d e v e lo p m e n t and com plia nce w ith in te rn a ­ tional agreem ents p ro m o ti n g conservation an d sustainable use.

Pillar Two: M a n a g e m e n t o f aquatic resources at the genetic level All biological resources c on tain th e functional units o f heredity in every cell. T h e p ractical difference betw ee n a q u a tic biological rcsourccs an d a q u a tic gcnctic resources lies in the m a n n e r in w hic h they’re used. N ew uses are proliferating in e n h a n c e m e n t o f farmed fish, the d e v e lo p m en t o f drugs and industrial products, and transfer o f genes betw een unrelated species. C o m m e rc ia l uses for microbes from m arin e h y d ro th e rm a l vents m ay be next. Uses o f aquatic genetic resources raise fo rm id able social and en v iro n m e n ta l issues th a t need to be addressed. W h a t are th e im plications o f ap proving trans­ plants o f fish genes into a straw berry or o f insect genes into a fish? W h o ow ns or co ntrols or even k now s a b o u t m aterial in a fish gene bank, an d shou ld there be any lim itations on its use? If Florida o rn a m e n ta l fish breeders learn to culture new strains o f cardinal tctra, w h a t are the social an d policy im plications in the US and Brazil if the m arke t for Rio N egro cap ture fisheries is w iped out? A few years ago, these applications o f aquatic genetic resources w ould have been considered barely w ith in the b o u n d s o f possibility; now each is a reality.

210

BLUE GENES

G o v e r n m e n t s need a set o f policies specific to the m a n a g e m e n t o f aq uatic genetic resources. Such species-specific policies are already well developed in the plant w orld. Policy makers on the aquatic side c a n n o t afford to lag b eh in d , because genetic uses are e x p an d in g quickly and bring w ith th em com plex social and envi­ ro n m e n ta l issues. Too often, go vern m en ts have been too slow to act (eg policies on gene b an kin g) or have ju m p e d the gun (eg policies s u p p o r tin g net pen aq uacu ltu re w ith o u t sufficient scientific in fo rm atio n ). A measured app roach to policy m aking is needed n o t just for uses o f aquatic genetic resources b u t also for their m o v e m e n t and h an dlin g. U n d e r w h a t co n d itio n s sh ould transfers betw een w atersheds and i n t r o d u c t i o n s o f exo tic species be p e r m it te d ? W h e r e s h o u l d c o llecto rs be p e rm itte d to collect b ro o d s to ck or o ther genetic material, a nd in w h a t am ounts? Finally, g o v e rn m e n ts need to address the th o r n y q u e stio n o f IPR s such as patents on fish genes. W h o s e p rop erty is a Super S alm o n or Super Tilapia, and w h a t rights does the o w n er have to prote ct it?

P illar T h r e e : Access a n d b e n e fit s h a rin g Access an d benefit-sharing policies c a n n o t fun ctio n in a v acu u m . C ollectors o f aquatic genetic resources need clarity a b o u t w h eth er the uses they propose will be p e r m i t t e d or can p ro c e e d w i t h o u t u n d u e delay. O n e use o f a q u a tic ge n etic resources m ig h t c o n trib u te positively to the sustainable m a n a g e m e n t o f aquatic biodiversity, a n o th e r m ig h t have negative im pacts - b u t the g ro un d-ru les need to be k n o w n . C ollectors also need to k no w the rules for the h a n d lin g and m o v e m e n t o f g enetic materials. P rovider co u n trie s an d c o m m u n it ie s have an interest in ensuring th at benefits arising from access agreem ents co n tr ib u te to sustainable ecosystem m a n a g e m e n t a nd stable c o m m u n i t y econom ies. S o u n d policies for the m a n a g e m e n t o f aquatic biodiversity can be an i m p o r t a n t tool in the creation o f sustainable fishing livelihoods and in decisions a b o u t ap pro p riate transfer o f te c h ­ nologies. In a d d i t i o n to its access a n d b e n e f i t- s h a r i n g p ro v isio n s , C B D lays the g r o u n d w o r k for n a ti o n a l a c tio n in th e d e v e l o p m e n t o f p olicies o n th e m a n a g e m e n t o f aquatic biological diversity at the ecosystem an d genetic levels. W h ile b o th these levels o f policy provide a fo u n d a tio n for acccss an d benefitsharing policy, all three levels are in te rd e p e n d e n t. For example, a p rim ary pu rpose o f access and ben efit-sharin g legislation is to c o n tr ib u te to so u n d biodiversity m a n a g e m e n t and use o f genetic resources. U nfortunately, national reports from C B D Parties, in sections dealing w ith aquatics, do n o t give a high priority to the d e v e lo p m e n t o f access and b enefit-sharing legislation.

P illar Four: E n f o r c e m e n t Access a n d b e n e fit-sh a rin g legislation is on ly as effective as the e n f o r c e m e n t measures that a c c o m p a n y it, an d the vast geographic scopc o f aquatic biodiversity means th a t en fo rc e m e n t is no easy matter. A variety o f agencies m ay be involved in the a d m in is tratio n o f access and benefit-sharing legislation, and their efforts need

PUTTING PRINCIPLES INTO PRACTICE

211

to be clearly c o o rd in a te d . Agencies’ resources m ay be stretch ed by c o m p e tin g priorities. G o v e r n m e n t needs to express its c o m m i t m e n t to the cffcctivc fu n c tio n in g o f access an d b enefit-sharing legislation. It needs to ensure that a cco m p an y in g regu­ lations are in place, clearly designate lead agencies a nd their responsibilities, and ensure th a t they have ad equ ate resources to do the job. Efforts need to be m a d e to ensure effective c o ord in atio n n o t just a m o n g national agencies (or betw een th em , w he n aquatic biodiversity crosses internation al bou nd aries) b u t also w ith their regional subsidiaries an d with public sector groups th a t m ay be able to c o n trib u te to e n fo rcem en t m echa nism s. In ad d itio n , som e countries may need to take steps to discourage bribery o f local officials.

A C h e c k list

fo r d e s ig n in g access a n d

b e n e f i t - s h a r i n g p o l ic ie s

N a tion al level Access a n d betiefit-sh aringpolicies • • • • • • • • •

E nsure effective p articipation o f stakeholders, in clu din g ind ig eno us and local co m m u n itie s , in the d e v e lo p m e n t o f ABS laws and policies. Clearly define aquatic genetic resources. Clearly define circum stances in w h ich c o m m u n itie s have the right to prior info rm ed consent. W h e re relevant, clearly define the m e a n in g o f trad itio nal know ledge associated w ith the use o f genetic resources. Provide su p p o r t for d o c u m e n t a ti o n o f traditional fisheries knowledge. Clearly distinguish betw een requ irem en ts for c o m m ercial an d academ ic users. Provide institutio nal s u p p o r t to build the capacity o f co m m u n itie s to negotiate access agreements. Provide in stitu tion al su p p o r t for b enefit-sharing agreem ents, w ith a focus on sustainable livelihoods. S u p p o rt d e v e lo p m e n t o f intern atio nal conflict resolution m echa nism to resolve issues o f equity in co ntractu al agreements.

C o m m u n ity rights • •

D e v e lo p su i generis policies for th e p r o t e c t i o n o f in d i g e n o u s a n d local c o m m u n it y rights. Address the question o f in d igenous rights to lands, waters, a nd control over aquatic genetic resources.

212

BLUE GENES

Uses o f aqu atic genetic resources • • •

Develop biosafety and transfer policies specific to aquatic genetic resources. Develop policies governing ex situ collections (gene banks). Develop policies governing food fish aquaculture, ornamental aquaculture and bioprospecting.

C o m m unity level •

• • • • • • • •

Develop policies on ownership and control of aquatic genetic resources, co­ managem ent, a n d/or sui generis systems for protection of c o m m u n ity resource and knowledge rights. Develop practical strategies and capabilities for c o - m an ag em en t o f aquatic genetic resources. D o c u m e n t traditional knowledge o f aquatic genetic resources. Build capacity for participating in development o f national/regional policies for biodiversity management, sustainable uses, and access and benefit sharing. Build capacity for negotiation o f acccss agreements. Deter mine und er what conditions and for what purposes consent for access to aquatic genetic resources will be provided. D etermin e information required from researchers regarding funding sources and their obligations to those sources. Analyse options for monetary and non-m on e ta ry benefits and their usefulness to fishing communities. Develop networks with other communities (including fisheries councils) and civil society organizations for development of consistent co m m u n ity policies.

C o u n t r i e s receiving g en e tic resources •

Direct a portion o f foreign aid to building co m m u n ity capacity for negotiation o f access agreements and for crafting o f practical non-m one ta ry benefits (eg low-tech sustainable fisheries livelihoods); s u p p o r t efforts o f international development organizations to do the same. • Promote industry and public awareness of in dep en den t certification systems applicable to access to aquatic genetic resources (eg M S C , MAC). • En sure th a t p a t e n t laws require declarati on o f origin o f a q u ati c genetic resources and associated knowledge leading to inventions. • Ensure that policies for aquaculture o f exotic species take into account equi­ table sharing o f benefits with source countries and communities and impacts on their capture fisheries, co m m u n i ty cultures, and protection of fish habitat in source communities.

Notes

C h a p ter 1 1 K D a v e n p o r t , O r n a m e n t a l A q u atic Trade Association (OATA), U K , personal com m unication, 2000. 2 L C r u z , M a r i n e S cience I n s t i t u t e , U n iv e r s it y o f the P h i l i p p i n e s , p e r so n a l com m unication, 2000. 3 S D o w d , N e w E n g la nd A q u a r i u m , personal c o m m u n i c a t i o n , 20 0 2 . 4 N L C h a o , Project Piaba, Univer sid ad e do A m azonia, personal c o m m u n i c a t i o n , 1999. 5 Provisional Act N o 2, 1 8 6 - 1 6 (2001 ).

1 D r David Narver, British C o l u m b i a D e p a r t m e n t o f Fish and Wildlife, personal c o m m u n i c a t i o n , 1993. 2 S a n d y J o h n s o n , D e p a r t m e n t o f Fisheries a n d O c e a n s ( D F O ) , W h i t e h o r s e , Yukon, personal c o m m u n i c a t i o n , 1999. 3 Bill V er non , President, Creative S alm o n Ltd, per sonal c o m m u n i c a t i o n , 1999. 4 S a n d y J o h n s o n , D e p a r t m e n t o f Fisheries a n d O c e a n s ( D F O ) , W h i t e h o r s e , per sonal c o m m u n i c a t i o n , 1999. 5 C a r l Sidney, C h a ir , Y u k o n S a l m o n C o m m i t t e e , p e r s o n a l c o m m u n i c a t i o n , 1999.

C h a p ter 3 1 D r L ourdes C ruz, M a r i n e Science I ns titute, Q u e z o n City, Philippines, personal com m unication, 2000. 2 D r N L C h a o , Univer sid ad e dos A m az on as , personal c o m m u n i c a t i o n , 1999. 3 T i m o t h y Flem ing, Icy Waters Ltd, personal c o m m u n i c a t i o n , 20 0 1 . 4 T i m o t h y Flem ing, Icy Waters Ltd, pe rsonal c o m m u n i c a t i o n , 20 0 1 .

1 Carol Cross, Fisheries a n d O c e a n s C a n a d a , personal c o m m u n i c a t i o n , 20 0 2 .

214

BLUE GENES

2 M o d ad u g u G upta, World Fish Center, Penang, Malaysia, personal c o m m u n i ­ cation, 2003. 3 R em cd io s Bolivar, Freshwater A q u a c u l t u r e Cen te r, C e n t r a l State Luzon University, Philippines, personal com m unica tion, 2002. 4 Jiji Rodriguez, Executive Director, G I F T F o u n d a ti o n , personal c o m m u n i ­ cation, 2002. 5 www.genomar.com/tilapia.php

C h ap ter 5 1 Brazil: Provisional Act No. 2, 1 8 6 - 1 6 (2001); Costa Rica: Biodiversity Law (1998); India: Biological Diversity Bill (2000); Peru: Proposal of Regime of Protection o f the Collective Knowledge o f the Indigenous Peoples (1999); Philippines: Executive O rder No. 247 (1995). 2 Sources include interviews with the following: Professor Gisela Concepcion; Professor Lourdes C ruz; Gil J ac into, Director, M a r in e Science In st itute, University of the Philippines; Neth Dano, Executive Director, Southeast Asia Regional I n stitute for C o m m u n i t y E d u c a t io n ; Am elia G uev ar a, ViceC ha n c ello r for Academic Affairs, University o f the Philippines; Satu rn in o Halos, N a tu r a l Sciences Research Institute, University o f the Philippines; Clarissa M a rte , H e a d o f Research Division, A q u a c u l t u r e D e p a r t m e n t , Southeast Asian Fisheries Developm ent Center; Mudjekeewis Santos, fishery biologist, Bureau o f Fisheries and A q u a tic Resources, D e p a r t m e n t o f Agriculture; and Julita U n g s o n , Technical C o n s u l t a n t for Fisheries, D e p a r t m e n t o f Agriculture; E p h r aim B atungba cal, C o o r d i n a t o r , AntiBiopiracy Program, Tambuyog Dev elopmen t Center. 3 T h e full title o f E 0 2 4 7 is: ‘Prescribing G uid e l in e s a n d Establish in g a Re gulat ory F r a m e w o r k for the Prosp ecting o f Biological an d G e n e tic Resources, T h e ir By-Products and Derivatives, for Scientific and Commercial Purposes and for O t h e r Purposes’. 4 D e p a r t m e n t o f E n v i r o n m e n t a n d N a t u r a l Resources, D e p a r t m e n t Administrative O rder No. 9 6 - 2 0 : ‘Imp lemen ting Rules and Regulations on the Prospecting of Biological and Genetic Resources’, 1996. 5 In 1999, Senator Teresa A quino-O reta introduced for congressional approval a bill that was essentially a duplicate o f E 0 2 4 7 . However, Senate Bill 1645 did not proceed further. N G O s in particular criticized it for failing to improve on E 0 2 4 7 and for its omission o f any m en tion o f prior informed consent by nonindigenous communities.

C h ap ter 6 1 Ray H i l b o r n , School o f Fisheries an d A quatic Sciences, Univer sity o f W a s h i n g to n , br o ad cast radio interview, ‘Q u i r k s and Q u a r k s ’, C a n a d ia n Broadcasting Corporation, 1 9 January 2002.

References

Aalbersberg, W (1997) ‘B ioprospecting a nd its regulation by g o v e rn m e n t in Fiji’, B io d iv ersity C o n serv atio n N etw o rk , W orld W il d li fe Fund, w w w .b cnet.org/w hatsnew /fijigov.htm Aalbersberg, W, Korovulavula, I, Parks, J and Russell, D (1 9 97 ) ‘T h e role o f a Fijian c o m m u n it y in a bio prosp ecting project’, Acccss to G cn ctic Rcsourccs an d Benefit-sharing Case Studies, Case Study 20, C o n v e n tio n on Biological Diversity, w ww .biodiv.org/doc/case-studies/cs-abs-fj.pdf A b b an , E (1 9 9 9 ) ‘C o n s id e r a tio n s for the co nservation o f African fish genetic reso urces for t h e i r su s ta in a b le e x p l o i t a t i o n ’ in R P u llin , Bartley, D an d K o o im a n , J (eds) Towards Policies fo r C onservation a n d S u sta in a b le Use o f A q u a tic Genetic Resources, IC L A R M C on feren ce Proceedings 59, 14—18 April 1998, M anila A bram ovitz, J (1995) ‘Freshwater failures: the crises on five c o n tin e n ts ’, World Watch, S e p te m b e r / O c t o b e r 1995, pp 2 7 - 3 5 A gbayani, R, B aticados, D an d Siar, S (2 0 0 0 ) ‘C o m m u n i t y fishery rcsourccs m a n a g e m e n t on Malalison Island, Philippines: R & D fram ew ork, in te rv e n ­ tions, and policy im plicatio n s’, Coastal M anagem ent, vol 28, p p l 9 - 2 7 A pp leto n , C (2001) ‘An African leech for use in m icrosurgery in Africa!’, Science in Africa: Africa’s First O n - li n e Science M agazine, Archives page, Index to S ep tem b er 2001 issue, w w w .scien cein africa.co.za/20 01 /sep tem b er/leech2 .htm A SEA N (Association o f S ou th East Asian N atio ns) (2000) ‘A S E A N fram ew ork ag reem en t on access to biological a n d genetic resources (draft text)’, A S E A N , h t t p : / / 2 16.1 5 .2 0 2 /d o c s /a se a n -a c c e ss-2 0 0 0 /e n .p d f Axelrod, H (2001) ‘Discovery o f the cardinal tetra an d bey on d' in N C h a o , Petry, P, Prang, G , Sonnicschien, L and Tlusty, M (cds) Conservation a n d M an a g em en t o f O rn a m en ta l Fish Resources o f the Rio Negro Basin, A m a zo n ia , Brasil - Project P iaba, U n iv e r s id a d e d o A m a z o n a s a n d B io -A m a z o n ia C o n s e r v a t io n In ternation al, M an au s, p p 3 0 2 Baquero, J (1999) ‘M arin e o rn am en tals trade: quality a nd sustainability for the Pacific Region’, M a rin e A q uariu m C o u n c il, So uth Pacific F o ru m Secretariat an d M arin e A q u a riu m C o u n cil, w w w .aq ua rium co un cil.o rg Barber, V a n d La V in a, A ( 1 9 9 5 ) R egulating Access to G enetic Resources: The P hilippine Experience, Presentation to the G lo bal Biodiversity F o ru m , Jakarta, 4 -5 November Bardach, J, Ryther, J an d McLarney, W (1972) A quaculture - The F arm ing a n d H usbandry o f Freshwater a n d M a rin e O rganisms, Jo h n W iley and Sons, N ew York, p868

216

BI.UE GENES

Bartley, D (1997) ‘Biodiversity a nd genetics' in R eview o f the State o f World A quaculture, FAO Fisheries Circular N o. 886, FAO Fisheries D ep a rtm e n t, Rome, p 163 Bartley, D (2000) ‘Responsible o rnam ental fisheries’, FAO Aquaculture Newsletter, vol 24, p i 0 -1 4 Bartley, D and Pullin, R (1999) ‘Towards policies for aquatic genetic resources’ in R Pullin, Bartley, D and Kooim an, J (eds) Towards Policies fo r Conservation a n d Sustainable Use o f A quatic Genetic Resources, IC LAR M Conference Proceedings 59, 14 -1 8 April 1998, Manila, p p l - 1 6 Barton, J (1991) Relating Scientific a n d the Commercial Worlds in Genetic Resource N egotiation, Paper p rese n te d at the S y m p o s iu m on P roperty, R ights, Biotechnology, and G enetic Resources, African C entre for Technology Studies and World Rcsourccs Institute, Nairobi, Kenya Baticados, D and Agbayani, R (2000) ‘C o -m an ag e m en t in marine fisheries on M alalison Island, central P hilip p in es’, In tern a tio n a l Jo u rn a l o f Sustainable D evelopm ent a n d World Ecology, vol 7, p p l - 1 3 B atun gb aca l, E (2 0 0 0 ) M a rin e Bioprospecting in the P hilippines, T a m b u y o g D evelopm ent C en ter and Southeast Asia Regional Institute for C o m m u n ity Education, Q uezon City, Philippines, p33 Bengwayan, M (2001) ‘C o m p anies rush to patent wildlife in the Philippines’, Earth Times, 15 January 2001 Bensky, D and G am ble, A (compilers and translators) (1993) M ateria Medica: Chinese H erbal M edicine, Eastland Press, Seattle, W ashington D C Berlin, S (1997) Ways We Live: Exploring C om m unity, New Society Publishers, Gabriola Island, Canada, p p l 7 0 Bierer, D, Carlson, T and King S (1996) ‘Shaman Pharmaceuticals: integrating indigenous knowledge, tropical medicinal plants, medicine, m odern science and reciprocity into a novel dru g discovery approach , T h e Science C enter Special T opics, N e tw o rk Science, w w w .n etsci.o rg /S cien ce /S p ecial/ featurel 1 .html Blench, R (1998) ‘Biodiversity conservation and its o p p o n e n ts’, N a tu ra l Resource Perspectives, vol 32 (July), pp9 Brown, D and Greer, D (2001) Forest Industry Certification in British Columbia: Issues a n d Options fo r Government Action, BC M inistry o f Forests, Victoria, Canada B r u m m e tt , R (ed) (1 9 9 4 ) A q u a cu ltu re Policy O ptions fo r Integrated Resource M anagem ent in Subsaharan Africa, International C e n te r for Living Aquatic Resources M a n a g e m e n t, M anila and D eutsche Gesellschaft fur Technische Z usam m enarbeit, Eschborn, Germany, pp38 Brush, S and Stabinsky, D (eds) (1996) Valuing Local Knowledge: Indigenous People a n d Intellectual Property Rights, Island Press, W ashington D C Bruton, M (1995) ‘Have fishes had their chips? T h e d ilem m a o f threatened fishes’, Environm ental Biology o f Fishes, vol 43, no 1, p p l - 2 7 C B D (C o n v e n ti o n on Biological D iversity) (2 0 0 2 ) ‘D ecision V I/2 4 : B onn Guidelines on access to genetic resources and fair and equitable sharing o f the

REFERENCES

217

benefits arising from their utilization’, C O P Decisions - C O P 6 - Decision V I/24 , C B D , www.biodiv.org/decisions/ default.asp?lg=0&m = co p-0 6 & d = 2 4 C en teno , J (2000) 'Pirates p lun der the tropics’, Protecting Knowledge: Articles o f Interest, 17 March 20 00 , w ww .m em bers.hom e.nl/aeissing/00715.htm l C G F R A (C om m ission on G enetic Resources for Food and Agriculture) (2002) ‘International undertaking on plant genetic resources for food and agriculture’, C G F R A A g ricu lture Sectio n, U n ite d N a tio n s Food a nd A gricu ltu re O rganization (FAO), http://w ww .fao.org/ag/cgrfa/IU.htm C G I A R (C on su ltative G ro u p on In tern atio n al A gricultural Research) S G R P (System-wide G e netic Resources P ro gram m e) (2001) B ooklet o f C G I A R centre policy in stru m en ts, guidelines and statem ents on genetic resources, b io te c h n o lo g y a n d in tellectu al p r o p e r ty rights, version 1’, S ystem -w ide I n f o r m a t io n N e tw o rk for G c n c tic Rcsourccs w ebsite, R o m e, http:/singer. cgiar.org/booklet.p d f C hao, N (1998) ‘A draft o f Brazilian freshwater fishes for the hobby - a proposal to IBAMA’, O rnam ental Fish International Journal, vol 23, pp 1 1 -1 9 C h a o , N , Prang, G an d Petry, P (2 0 0 1 ) ‘Project Piaba - m a i n te n a n c e and sustainable d e v e lo p m e n t o f o rn a m e n ta l fisheries in the Rio N eg ro basin, Amazonas, Brazil’ in N C hao, Petry, P, Prang, G, Sonnieschien, L and Tlusty, M (eds) (2002) Conservation a n d M anagem ent o f O rnam ental Fish Resources o f the Rio Negro Basin, A m azonia, Brasil — Project Piaba, Universidade do Amazonas and Bio-Amazonia Conservation International, Manaus, p p302 C olu m b ia University, School o f International and Public Affairs (1999) Access to Genetic Resources: A n Evaluation o f the D evelopm ent a n d Im plem entation o f Recent Regulation a n d Access A greem ents, E n v ir o n m e n ta l Policy Studies, W o rk i n g Paper #4, T h e T id es C e n te r - B iodiversity A ction N e tw o rk , W ashington, D C , p i 01 Correa, C (1999) ‘Intellectual property rights and aquatic genetic resources’ in R Pullin, Bartley, D and Kooim an, J (eds) Towards Policies fo r Conservation a n d Sustainable use o f A quatic Genetic Resources, IC L A R M Conference Proceedings 59, 1 4 -1 8 April 1998, Manila C rucib le G ro u p (1994) People, Plants a n d Patents: The Im pact o f Intellectual Property on Trade, P lant Biodiversity, a n d Rural Society, International Research D evelopm ent C entre, O ttaw a, p i 16 Crucible G ro u p (2000) Seeding Solutions, Volume I: Policy Options fo r Genetic Resources, ID R C , IP G R I and the Dag H am m arskjö ld Fo un dation , O ttaw a, p i 20 Crucible G rou p (2001) Seeding Solutions, Volume 2: Options fo r N a tional Laws Governing Control Over Genetic Resources a n d Biological Innovations, ID R C , IP G R I and the Dag H am m arskjöld F oundation, O ttaw a, p243 D alton, R (2002) ‘Bioprospectors turn their gaze to C anad a’, N ature, vol 419, p768 D ano, E (2001) ‘Participation in the formulation o f the Philippines Executive O rd e r 247 on access to genetic resources, and priorities for im plem entation' in K Swiderska (ed) (2001) Stakeholder Participation in Policy on Access to Genetic

2 18

BI.UE GENES

Resources, Traditional Knowledge a n d Benefit-sharing, International Institute for E n viron m en t and D evelopm ent, L o ndon, p32 Delgado, C, Wada, M , Rosegrant, N , Meijer, S and M ahfu zud din , A (2003) Fish to 2020: Supply a n d D em a n d in Changing Local M arkets, International Food Policy Research Institute, Washington, D C , and World Fish Center, Penang, Malaysia Dey, M (2000) ‘T h e impact o f genetically improved farmed Nile tilapia in Asia’, Aquaculture Economics a n dM anagem ent, vol 4 (1 12), pp 10 9 - 2 6 Diversa C o rp oratio n (2000) ‘Diversa signs first agreement granting legal access to biodiversity in Africa’, www.diversa.com/presrele/2000/view_release.asp?id= 20001207 D owd, S (2001) ‘A n aquarist’s experience o f Amazon River ecotour expeditions and hobbyist involvement in conservation’ in N C h a o , Petry, P, Prang, G, Sonnieschien, L and Tlusty, M (eds) (2002) Conservation a n d M anagem ent o f O rnam ental Fish Resources o f the Rio Negro Basin, A m azonia, Brasil - Project P iaba, U n iversida de do A m az on as and B io -A m azo nia C o n se rv a tio n International, Manaus, p 302 Dutfield, G (1999) ‘T h e public and private domains: intellectual property rights in tra d itio n a l ecological k n o w le d g e ’, W P 0 3 / 9 9 , O I P R C E -Jo urna l o f Intellectual Property Rights, O xford Intellectual Property Research Centre, w w w .oiprc.ox.ac.uk/E JW P0399.htm l Dutfield, G (n.d.) ‘Biopiracy: the slavery o f the new millennium? Surely n o t’, http://users.ox.ac.uk/ wgtrr/slavery.htm Ecotrust C an ada (1997) Seeing the Ocean Through the Trees: A Conservation-based D evelopm ent Strategy fo r Clayoquot Sound, Ecotrust Canada, Vancouver, p i 05 Edwards, P, Hiep, D, Anh P and Mair G (2000) ‘Traditional culture o f indigenous c o m m o n carp in rice fields in n orth ern V ietnam : does it have a future in poverty reduction?’ World Aquaculture, December, p p 3 4 - 4 0 . E knath, A, Macaranas, J, Agustin, L, Velasco, R, Ablan, C, Pante, J and Pullin, R (1991) 'Biochemical and m o r p h o m e tric approaches to characterize farmed tilapias’, Naga, vol 14(2) p p 3 - 6 E knath, A, Tayamen, M , Palada-de Vera, M , D anting, J, Reyes, R, Dionisio, E, Capili, J, Bolivar, H , Abclla, T, Circa, A, Bentscn, H , Gjerdc, B, G jcdrcm , T and Pullin, R (1993) ‘G enetic im p ro vem ent o f farmed tilapias: the growth performance o f eight strains o f Oreochromis niloticus tested in farmed environ­ m ents’, Aquaculture, vol 111, p p l 7 1 —88 E nvironm ental News N etw ork (2001) ‘Restaurants and grocers asked to avoid transgenic fish.’ 22 O cto b er 2001. w w w .en n.com /n ew s/en n-sto ries/2 00 1/1 0/ 1022200 l/fish_45316.asp FAO (F ood an d A g ricu ltu re O rg a n iz a t io n o f the U n ite d N atio n s ) (19 97 ) Aquaculture Development, FAO, Rome, pp40 FAO (1998) Aquaculture Newsletter, D ecem ber 1998, FAO, Rome FAO (1999) ‘O rn a m e n ta l aquatic life: w h a t’s FAO got to do with it?, News & H igh lig hts, 2 S ep tem be r 1999, FAO, w w w .fa o .o r g / N E W S /1 9 9 9 / 9 9 0 9 0 1 e.htm FAO (2000) The State ofW orld Fisheries a n d Aquaculture 2 0 0 0 , FAO, Rome

REFERENCES

219

FAO (2001) Understanding the Cultures o f Fishing Comm unities: A Key to Fishery M anagem ent a n d Food Security, FAO Fisheries Technical Paper No. 401, FAO, Rome, pp304 Fletcher, G , G od dard, S and Wu, Y (1999) ‘Antifreeze proteins and their genes: from basic research to business o p p o rtu n ity ’, Chemtech, vol 30(6), pp 1 7 -2 8 Froese, R and Torres, A (1999) ‘Fishes un d er threat: an analysis o f the fishes in the 1996 I U C N red list’ in R Pullin, Batley, D and Kooim an, J (eds) Towards Policies fo r Conservation a n d Sustainable use o f A q u a tic G enetic Resources, IC L A R M Conference Proceedings 59, 14 -1 8 April 1998, Manila Gardner, J and Peterson, D (2003) M a kin g Sense o f the Salmon Aquaculture Debate: Analysis o f Issues Related to Netcage Salm on Farm ing a n d W ild Salmon in British C o lu m b ia , Pacific Fisheries R esource C o n s e rv a tio n C o u n c il, Vancouver, Canada Gjedrem, T (1997) ‘Selective breeding to improve aquaculture p ro du ctio n’, World A quaculture, vol 28, pp 12—15 Glowka, L (1998a) The Deepest o f Ironies: Genetic Resources, M a rin e Scientific Research and the International Deep Sea-bed Area, International U nion for the Conservation o f N ature, B onn, pp22 Glowka, L (1998b) A Guide to Designing Legal Frameworks to D eterm ine Access to Genetic Resources, IU C N (International U n ion for the Conservation o f Nature), G land, Switzerland, and Cam bridge, pp97 Glow ka, L (2001) Towards a C ertification System fo r Bioprospecting Activities, Switzerland State Secretariat for E conom ic Affairs, Bern, pp 119 Glowka, L, Plan, T and Stoll, P (1998) Best Practices fo r Access to Genetic Resources, Information paper for D G XI, European C om m ission and the G erm an Federal Ministry o f the E nvironm ent, N ature Conservation and N uclear Safety, pp63 Gomez, E, Alcala, A and San Diego, A (1981) Status o f Philippine Coral Reefs, Proceedings o f the Fourth International Coral Reef Symposium , Manila G ong, Z, W an, H , Tay, T, W ang, H , C hen, M a n d Y a n ,T (2003) D evelopm ent o f transgenic fish for o rn am en tal and bioreactor by strong expression o f fluo­ rescent proteins in the skeletal muscle’, Biochemical a n d Biophysical Research C om m unications 308, p p 5 8 - 6 3 . G R A IN (2002a) ‘Overview o f the BRL’, Biodiversity Rights Legislation, G R A IN , www.grain.org/brl/overview-brl.cfm Grajal, A (1999) Biodiversity and the nation state: regulating access to genetic resources limits biodiversity research in developing countries’, Conservation Biology, vol 13(1), p p 6 - 1 0 Grenier, L (1998) Working w ith Indigenous Knowledge: A Guide fo r Researchers, International D evelopm ent Research Centre, O ttaw a, p p l 15 G up ta, M , Acosta, B, E knath, A and Dey, M (2000) ‘Breakthrough in genetic im provem ent o f tropical finfish through partnership between IC L A R M , ASI an d d ev elo pin g c o u n tr y N A R S ’, Pools o f K n ow led ge and D o c u m e n t Repository, G lobal F o rum on A gricultural Research, w ww .cgfar.org/docum ents/4_lines/R esearch_Partnerships/G enetic_Resources_M anagem ent/G R M _cases/3_ 8.P D F

2 20

BLUE GENES

H alew ood, M (1999) ‘Indigenous and local knowledge in international law: a preface to sui generis intellectual property protection’, M cG ill Law Journal, vol 44(4), p p 9 5 3 - 9 6

Harvey, B (1996) ‘Banking fish genetic resources: the art o f the possible’, in F di Castri and Younes, T (eds) Biodiversity, Science a n d Development: Towards a N ew Partnership, CAB International, Wallingford Harvey, B (1999) ‘Fish genetic conservation in C anada and Brazil: field programs and policy developm ent’ in R Pullin, Bartley, D and K ooim an, J (eds) Towards Policies fo r Conservation a n d Sustainable use o f A q u a tic G enetic Resources, IC LAR M Conference Proceedings 59, 1 4-1 8 April 1998, Manila, p p l 7 - 2 2 Harvey, B and Carolsfeld, J (1993) Induced Breeding in Tropical Fish Culture, International D evelopm ent Research C entre, O ttaw a, pp 144 Harvey, B and Hoar, WS (1 9 7 9 ) The Theory a n d Practice o f Induced Breeding in Tropical Fish C ulture, International D ev elo pm e nt Research C entre, O ttaw a, pp48 Harvey, B and Macduffee, M (2002) Ghost Runs: The Future o f W ild Salmon on the North and Central Coasts o f British Colum bia, Raincoast Conservation Society, Victoria, C anada Harvey, B, Ross, C, Greer, D and Carolsfeld, J (1998) ‘Action Before Extinction: An In te rn atio n al C o nfe renc e on C o nservation o f Fish G e netic D iversity’, World Fisheries Trust, 1 6 -1 8 February 1998, Victoria, C anada, pp259 H errin, A and Racelis, R (1992) M onitoring the Coverage o f Public Programs on Low -incom e Families: P hilippines 1 9 9 2 , Integrated D e v e lo p m e n t P lan nin g Project, N ational Economic D evelopm ent Authority, Manila Hew, C and Fletcher, D (1997) ‘Transgenic fish for aquaculture’, Chemistry & Industry, vol 21 (April), p p 3 1 1 -14 H e y w o o d , V H (ed) (1 9 9 5 ) G lobal B iodiversity Assessment, U n ite d N a tio n s E n viron m en t Programme, C am bridge University Press, C am bridge H o b b e lin k , H (1991) Biotechnology a n d the Future o f World Agriculture, Zed Books, L ondon H o dg kin, T and O u edraogo, A (1996) ‘Forestry, fish and crop genetic resources: c o m m o n a litie s a n d differences for effective c o n se rv a tio n , su stain able m ana ge m en t and use’, In R Pullin and Casal, C (cds) Consultation on Fish Genetic Resources, International C en ter for Living Aquatic Resources, Makati City, Philippines H o lm a n H u n te rs and Trappers, Fisheries Join t M a n a g e m e n t C o m m itte e , and C an ada D e p a rtm e n t o f Fisheries and Oceans (1994) Plan fo r Recovery o f the K uujjua River Charr Stock, Brochure IC L A R M (In te rn atio n al C e n te r for Living A quatic Resources M an a g e m e n t) (1992) Recommendations o f the M eeting on International Concerns in the use o f A quatic Germplasm, 1-5 June 1992, IC L A R M , Manila IC L A R M (19 96 ) D ra ft Policy fo r In tellectual Property Rights on Fish Genetic Resources, IC L A R M , Manila IC LAR M (1999) Operational Plan, Biodiversity and G enetic Resources Program, IC L A R M , Manila

REFERENCES

221

IC L A R M (2002) M edium Term Plan 2 0 0 2 - 2 0 0 4 , IC L A R M , Penang, Malaysia, pp 102

IFPR I (In ternatio nal Food Policy Research Institute) and W orld Fish C ente r (2003) Outlook fo r Fish to 20 2 0 : M eeting Global D em a n d, IFPRI and W F C , pp36 IIFB (Intern ational Indigenous Forum on Biodiversity) (2001) ‘S tate m e nt o f international indigenous forum on biodiversity to the C B D ad-hoc openended working group on access and benefit-sharing’, C onv ention on Biological Diversity, 2 2 - 2 6 O c t o b e r 2 0 0 1 , B o n n , w w w .n c iv .n e t/e n g e ls/IIF B / statem entengels.h tm Illo, J and Polo, J (1990) Fishers, Traders, Farmers, Wives: The Life Stories o f Ten Women in a Fishing Village, Institute o f Philippine Culture, Ateneo de Manila University, Q u ezon City, Philippines IRRI (International Rice Research Institute) (2004) ‘International rice genebank: Sharing the seeds’, www.irri.org/GR C /irg/biodiv-genebank.htm I U C N (International U nion for the Conservation o f N ature) (2001) ‘Achieving th e ben efit-sh arin g objective o f the C o n v e n ti o n on Biological Diversity’, Prelim inary re co m m e n d atio n s to the C B D A d -H o c O p e n -e n d e d W o rk ing G roup on Access an d B en efit-sh a ring , O ctober 2001, pp 7, w w w .iucn.org/them es/pm ns/topics/absm aria.htm l Jain, H (1 9 9 4 ) ' T h e biodiversity c o n v e n tio n : m o re losers th a n w in n e rs ’, Biotechnology a n d Development M onitor, vol 21 (December) Johannes, R and Ruddle, K (1993) ‘H u m a n interactions in tropical coastal and marine areas: lessons from traditional resource use’ in A Price and H um phrey, S (eds) A pplication o f the Biosphere Reserve Concept to Coastal M a rin e Areas, I U C N , G land, Switzerland, p p 2 1 - 7 Khalil, M (1995) ‘Biodiversity and the conservation o f medicinal plants: issues from the perspective o f the developing world in T Swanson, (ed) Intellectual Property Rights a n d Biodiversity Conservation: A n Interdisciplinary Analysis o f the Values o f M edicinal Plants, C am bridge University Press, C am bridge Kneen, B (1999) Farmageddon: Food a n d the Culture o f Biotechnology, N ew Society Publishers, Gabriola Island, BC, C anada Laird, S (ed) (2002) Biodiversity a n d Traditional Knowledge: Equitable Partnerships in Practice, Earthscan Publications, L o n do n, pp504 Lewis, D , W o o d , G a nd Gregory, R (1 9 9 6 ) Trading the Silver Seed: Local Knowledge a n d M arket Moralities in A quacultural Development, Intermediate Technology Publications, London Lynch, O and Maggio, G (1997) ‘H u m a n rights, en v iro n m en t and economic development: existing and emerging standards in international law and global society’, B a ck g ro u n d - Relevant D o c u m e n ts , I n t e rn a t io n a l O m b u d s m a n C e n tre for the E n v iro n m e n t and D ev e lo p m e n t, w w w .o m c e d .o rg /w r i/o m _ w ri.htm Madeley, J (2000) ‘Trade and hunger', Seedling: The Quarterly Newsletter o f Genetic Resources Action International, D ecem ber 2000, G R A IN publications, Seedling in 2000, w ww .grain.org/publications/dec002-en.cfm

2 22

BLUE GENES

M a n n , H (1997) Indigenous Peoples a n d the Use o f Intellectual Property Rights in Canada: Case Studies Relating to Intellectual Property Rights a n d the Protection o f Biodiversity, Industry C anada, O ttaw a M arin e A q u a riu m C o u n c il (2001) ‘Fast Facts, N o 1, 22 M a y 2 0 0 1 , M arine A quarium C ouncil, w ww .aquariumcouncil.org Martinez, A (2002) The Im pact o f TR IP S a n d the CBD on Coastal Comm unities, International Collective in S upport o f Fishworkers, Barcelona May, R (1988) 'H o w m any species are there on earth?’, Science, vol 241, pp 1441 - 9 McAllister, D, H am ilto n , A and Harvey, B (1 997) ‘Global freshwater biodiversity: striving for the integrity o f freshwater systems’, Sea W ind: Bulletin o f Ocean Voice International, vol 11(3), Ocean Voice International Inc, O ttaw a, p p l 4 0 McChesney, J (1992) Biological Diversity, Chemical Diversity a n d the Search fo r N ew Pharmaceuticals, Paper presented at the Symposium on Tropical Forest M ed ical Resources and the C o n s e rv a tio n o f Biodiversity, J a n u a r y 1992, Rainforest Alliance, New York Moore, R (2000) ‘T h e spawning o f a new era: G M super salmon and the wisdom o f tinkering with fish’, University o f M innesota Kiosk Newspaper, D ecem ber 20 00 , A bout U o f M — News and Publications — University Newsletters Kiosk, U niversity o f M in n e so ta , w w w l . u m n .e d u / u r e l a t e / k i o s k / 1 2 .0 0 t e x t / salm on.htm l Nelson, J (1994) Fishes o f the World, 3 rJ E dition, John Wiley and Sons Inc, New York, p p600 Norse, E (1993) Global M arine Biological Biodiversity, Island Press, Washington, DC N u n a v u t Wildlife M ana gem en t Board (1998) M inutes: M eeting No. 18, 12 -1 4 M ay 1998, Broughton Island, N u n a v u t Territory, C anada O rganization o f African U nity (2000) ‘African model legislation for the protection o f the rights o f local com m unities, farmers and breeders, and for the regulation o f access to biological resources’, G eneva, h ttp ://r O .u n c ta d .o rg /tra d e _ e n v / docs/oaulaw.pdf Pauly, D (2003) ‘T h e future for fisheries’, Science, vol 241, pp 1359—61 P enman, D (1999) ‘Biotechnology and aquatic genetic resources: genes and genet­ ically modified organisms’ in R Pullin, Bartley, D and K ooim an, J (cds) Towards Policies fo r Conservation a n d Sustainable Use o f A q u a tic G enetic Resources, IC LAR M Conference Proceedings 59, 1 4 -1 8 April 1998, Manila Peria, E (2002) The Way We Were, as We Are Now: Access a n d Benefit-sharing in the P hilippines, S o u th East Asia R egional Initiatives for C o m m u n i t y E m p o w e rm e n t (SEARICE), Q uezon City, Philippines Plotkin, M (2000) M edicine Quest, Penguin Books, H a rm o n d s w o rth , Middlesex Posey, D (1993) 'Indigenous knowledge in the conservation and use o f world forests’ in K R amakrishna and Woodwell, G (eds) World Forests fo r the Future: Their Use an d Conservation, Yale University Press, New Haven, p p 5 9 - 7 7 Posey, D (1999) 'Developing sui generis options for the p rotection o f living aquatic resources o f indigenous and local com m u n ities’ in R Pullin, Bartley, D and K o o im an , J (eds) Towards Policies fo r Conservation a n d Sustainable Use o f

REFERENCES

223

A quatic Genetic Resources, IC LAR M Conference Proceedings 59, 1 4 -1 8 April 1998, Manila Posey, D and Dutfield, G (1996) Beyond Intellectual Property: Toward Traditional Resource Rights fo r Indigenous Peoples a n d Local C om m unities, In tern ation al D evelopm ent Research C entre, O ttaw a Prang, G (2001) ‘Aviamento and the o rnam ental fishery o f the Rio Negro, Brazil: im plications for sustainable resource use’ In N C h ao , Petry, P, Prang, G, Sonnieschien, L and Tlusty, M (eds) (2002) Conservation a n d M anagem ent o f O rnam ental Fish Resources o f the Rio Negro Basin, A m azonia, Brasil — Project P iaba, U n iversidad e do A m azo n as and B io-A m azo nia C o n se rv a tio n International, Manaus, p p302 Primavera, J and Agbayani, R (1997) 'C o m parative strategies in comm unity-based mangrove rehabilitation programmes in the Philippines’, in P H ong, Ishwaran, N , San, H , Tri, N and Tuan, M (eds), Proceedings o f Ecotone V, C om m unity Participation in Conservation, Sustainable Use a n d Rehabilitation o f Mangroves in Southeast Asia. U N E S C O , Japanese M a n and the Biosphere N a tio n a l C o m m itte e and Mangrove Ecosystem Research Centre, V ietnam , p p 2 2 9 - 4 3 Project Seahorse (1998) 'M anaging fisheries and adjusting supply’, A bout the P roject - P rog ram s, Seahorse Project: A d v an cin g M a r in e C o n s e rv a tio n , http://seahorse.fisheries.ubc.ca/programs.htm l P roject Seahorse (20 00 ) 'Seahorse co nservatio n an d m a n a g e m e n t in B ohol, P h ilip p in e s’, A b o u t the Project - Program s, Seahorse Project: A d van cin g M arine Conservation, http://seahorse.fisheries.ubc.ca/programs.htm l Pullin, R (1993) ‘Ex-situ conservation o f the germplasm o f aquatic organisms’, Naga, July, 1 5 -1 7 Pullin, R, Bartley, D and Kooim an, J (eds) (1999) Towards Policies fo r Conservation a n d Sustainable Use o f A q u a tic G enetic Resources, IC L A R M C o n fe re n c e Proceedings 59, Manila Pullin, R an d Casal, C (eds) (1 9 9 6 ) C onsultation on Fish G enetic Resources, International C enter for Living Aquatic Resources, Makati City, Philippines Pullin, R, E knath, A, Gjedrem T, Tayamen, M , Macaranas, J and Abella, T (1991) ‘T h e genetic im provem ent o f farmed tilapias (G IF T ) project: the story so far’, Naga, vol 14(2), p p 3 - 6 Rajapakse, M (1998) ‘T h e ornam ental aquatic industry in Sri Lanka’, O FIJournal, 24 August Raym ond, R (1999) ‘Agricultural research and the art o f public awareness’ in R. Pullin, Bartley, D and Kooim an, J (eds) Towards Policies fo r Conservation a n d Sustainable Use o f A quatic Genetic Resources, IC L A R M Conference Proceedings 59, 1 4 -1 8 April 1998, Manila Reid, W, Laird, S, Meyer, C, Gamez, R, Sittenfeld, A, Janzen, D, Gollin, M and Jum a, C (1993) Biodiversity Prospecting: Using Genetic Resources fo r Sustainable Development, World Resources Institute, pp341 Rcvenga, C, Brunner, J, Hcnningcr, N , Kasscm, K and Payne, R (2000) Pilot Analysis o f Global Ecosystems: Freshwater Ecosystems, W orld Resources Institute, Washington, D C , 83pp

224

BLUE GENES

Ricciardi, A and R asmussen, J (1999) ‘E x tinctio n rates o f N o r th A m erican fresh­ water fa u n a , Conservation Biology, vol 13(5), pp 1 2 2 0 - 2 Rifkin, J (1998) The Biotech C entury, Penguin P u tn a m Inc, N ew York, pp271 Roberts, C an d H aw kins, J (2001) ‘Fully protected m arine reserves’, W orldw id e F u n d for N a tu re , w w w .p a n d a .o rg /r e s o u rc e s /p u b lic a tio n s /w a te r/m p re s e r v e s / m a r_ in d e x .h tm Rohter, L (2001) 'A collector’s item costs Brazilian divers dearly’, N ew York Times, 5 N ov em ber, ppA 4 Rosendal, K (1992) ‘Blue revolution could avoid failures o f green predecessor’, Biotechnology a n d D evelopm ent M o n ito r, vol 12 (Septem ber), p p lO Ruiz, M (1 99 8) ‘W h e n science, law a nd politics collide: the inevitable suffering o f basic s c ie n c e ’, E N V I S ( E n v i r o n m e n t a l I n f o r m a t i o n System C e n t r e B iodiversity, I n d i a n I n s t i t u t e o f S cicn ce C e n t e r for E c o lo g ic al Science s, w w w .ce s.iisc.e rn et.in /h p g /en v is/d o c9 8 h tm l/b io d sc9 5 .h tm l S chu m acher, E (1973) S m a ll Is B eautiful: Economics as i f People M attered, H arp er an d Row, N ew York S E D A ( D e p a r t m e n t o f E c o n o m ic a nd Social Affairs), U n ite d N a tio n s (2 00 0) W orld Population Prospects: The 2 0 0 0 Revision, U n ite d N a tio n s , N e w York, w w w .u n .o rg /e s a /p o p u la tio n /p u b lic a tio n s /w p p 2 0 0 0 /h ig h lig h ts .p d f Seiler, A a n d D u t f i e l d , G ( 2 0 0 2 ) ‘R e g u la t in g access a n d b e n e f i t - s h a r i n g ’, Biotechnology a n d D evelopm ent M o n ito r, vol 49, p p 3 - 7 Shiva, V (1997) Biopiracy: The P lunder o f N a tu re a n d Knowledge, Between T h e Lines, T o ro n to , C a n a d a , p p l 4 8 Shiva, V (1999) ‘W h o pays the price? T h e sh rim p industry, rich consum ers, and p o o r coastal c o m m u n it ie s ’ In N Svennevig, Reinertsen, H and New, M (eds) Sustainable Aquaculture: Food fo r the Future?, AA Balkema, R otterdam Shiva, V (2 00 0) Poverty a n d Globalisation, British Broadcasting C o rp o ra tio n Reith L ectu res 2 0 0 0 , h t t p : / / n e w s . b b c . c o . u k / h i / e n g l i s h / s t a t i c / e v e n t s / r e i t h _ 2 0 0 0 / Iecture5.stm Singh, S (2000a) 'In d ig en o u s c o m m u n it y bans T N C researchers’, So u th -N o rth D evelopm ent M onitor, 24 February, w w w .tw nside.org.sg/title/ban s.h tm S in g h , S ( 2 0 0 0 b ) ‘R a m p a n t b io p i ra c y o f S o u t h ’s b io d i v e r s i ty ’, T h ir d W orld N etw ork, 20 July, w w w .tw n sid c.o rg .sg /titlc/ram p a n t.h tm S in g h N ijar, G ( 1 9 9 8 ) ‘C o m m u n i t y in te lle c tu a l p r o p e r t y rig h ts p r o t e c t in d i g e n o u s k n o w l e d g e ’. B iotechnology a n d D ev e lo p m en t M o n ito r, no 3 6 , p p l 1-12 Specter, M ( 2 0 0 0 ) ‘T h e P h a r m a g e d d o n r i d d le ’, T h e N ew Yorker, 10 A pril, p p 5 8 - 7 1 , w w w .m ichaelspecter.com/ n y / 2 0 0 0 / 2 0 0 0 _ 0 4 _ l 0 _ m o n s a n to .h t m l . S w id ersk a, K ( 2 0 0 1 ) Sta keh o ld er P a rtic ip a tio n in Policy on Access to G enetic Resources, Traditional Knowledge a n d Benefit-sharing, Intern atio n al In stitu te for E n v ir o n m e n t an d D e v e lo p m e n t, L o n d o n , pp 3 2 T a u l i - C o r p u z , V ( 1 9 9 9 ) Im p a cts o f W T O on the E n v iro n m e n t, C ultures a n d Indigenous Peoples, Presentation to w o rksh op on H u m a n Facc o fT rad c: H ealth an d E n v iro n m e n t, 27 N ovem ber, T ebteb ba F o u n d a tio n (Indigenous Peoples’ I n t e r n a t i o n a l C e n t r e for Policy R esearch an d E d u c a t i o n ) , S eattle, w ww.ratical.org/co-globalize/im p a c ts o f W T O .h t m l

REFERENCES

225

ten Kate, K and Laird, S (1999) The Commercial Use o f Biodiversity, Earthscan Publications, London, pp398 Tlusty, M (2002) ‘T h e benefits and risks o f aquacultural pro duction for the aquarium trade’, Aquaculture, vol 205, p p 2 0 3 -1 9 Toledo, V (1991) ‘Patzcuaro’s lesson: nature, p ro d u ctio n and culture in an indigenous region o f Mexico’ in M Oldfield and Alcorn, J (eds) Biodiversity: Culture, Conservation and Ecodevelopment, Westview Press, Boulder, Colorado Touch, C and Griffiths, D (2001) ‘Small-scale fish production - a success in C a m b o d ia ’, Catch an d Culture: Fisheries Research a n d D evelopm ent in the M ekong Region, vol 7:2 (D ecem ber), M e ko ng River C o m m issio n , www.mrcmekong.org Townsend, P (1998j Social Issues in Fisheries, FAO Fisheries Technical Paper 375, FAO, Rome, pp93 Turner, N (1975) Food Plants o f British Columbia Indians: Part 1/Coastal Peoples, British Columbia Provincial Museum, Victoria, Canada, pp264 Turner, N (2000) Coastal Peoples a n d M arine Plants on the N orthw est Coast, Presentation to 26th A nnual International Association o f M arine Science Information Specialists and Librarians Conference Turner, N (2002) The Forest a n d the Seaweed: G itg a a t Seaweed, Traditional Ecological Knowledge and C omm unity Survival, Presentation to workshop on Local Knowledge, Natural Resources and C o m m u n ity Survival: C harting a Way Forward, 1-2 February, Prince Rupert, BC, Canada U N C T A D (United Nations Conference on Trade and Development) Secretariat (2000) Systems and N ational Experiences fo r Protecting Traditional, Knowledge, Innovations and Practices, U N C T A D , Geneva US D epartm ent of State (2002) Fact Sheet: Guidelines for Collecting Genetic Materials Abroad, 6 May, US Departm ent of State, Washington, D C Veash, N (2000) ‘Biopiracy —a new threat to Amazon rainforest’s treasures’, The Independent, 16 October, London Virchow, D (1999) ‘Economic value of genetic resources: an agenda for research’, AgBiotechNet, vol 1 (February), www.agbiotechnet.com W arren, D, Slikkerveer, L and Brokenshaw, D (eds) (1995) The C ultural D im ension o f D evelopm ent: Indigenous Knoivledge Systems, In term ediate Technology Publications, London Watson, 1 (2000) The Role o f the O rnamental Fish Industry in Poverty Alleviation, Natural Resources Institute, Kent, UK, Project No V 0 120, pp66 W C E D (World Commission on Environm ent and Development) (1987) Our Common Future [The Brundtland Report], Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp383 Welcomme, R (1999) in stitu tio nal factors relating to aquatic genetic resources' in R Pullen, Bartley, D and Kooiman, J (eds), Towards Policies fo r Conservation and Sustainable Use o f Aquatic Genetic Resources, ICLARM Conference Proceedings 59, Manila, Philippines, p p 2 0 7 -1 6 White, S (1992) Arguing with the Crocodile: Gender and Class in Bangladesh, The University Press Ltd, Dhaka Wilson, F, (1988) Biodiversity, National Academy Press, Washington, D C

226

BI.UE GENES

W ilson, E (1999) The Diversity o f Life, W W N o rto n , New York, pp42 4 W iser, G (1 99 9) P T O Rejection o f the 'Atahuasca P atent C la im ’, C e n te r for International E nvironm ental Law, W ashington, D C World Fisheries Trust (2002a) Integration o f Biodiversity into N ational Fishery Sectors. U N E P - B P S P T h e m a t i c Studies, w w w .u n e p .o r g /b p s p / H T M L % 20files/TS-Fisheries.html W orld Fisheries Trust (2002b) Progress in Im plem enting the Programme ofW ork on Inland Waters, C on ven tion on Biological Diversity Secretariat, Montreal W W F (World W ide Fund for N ature) (2000) Indigenous a n d Traditional Peoples o f the World a n d Ecoregion Conservation: A n Integrated Approach to Conserving the W orld’s Biological a n d C ultural Diversity, W W F International - People and Conservation U nit and Terralingua: partnerships for linguistic and biological diversity, D iscussion D o c u m e n t , D raft, July 2 0 0 0 , w w w .tc rra lin g u a .o rg / W W F E xecS u m m ary.htm l Yaakob, W a nd Ali, A (1 9 9 2 ) ‘S im ple M e t h o d for backyard p r o d u c t io n o f snakehead fry’, Naga, April, p p 2 2 - 3

Index

acccss to aquatic gcnctic rcsourccs 7 1 - 5

policies 7 5 - 8 1

C B D provisions 9 3 - 4

spread th ro u g h fish culture 3 5 - 6

ind ig eno us views 1 2 5 - 6

uses 2 - 3 , 3 2 - 5 2 see also collection o f aquatic genetic resources; gene b a n k in g

laws 8 - 1 0 , 107, 1 4 4 - 7 7 policy r e c o m m e n d a tio n s 2 0 8 - 1 2 see also collection o f aquatic genetic

aquatic plants 52

resources; prior in fo rm ed co nsent A /F Protein Ltd 42

Arctic charr 1 7 - 8 , 100, 1 1 0 - 1 2 A rgentina 36, 100

agency co o rd in a tio n 2 0 6 - 7

Association o f So uth East Asian

A g reem en t on Trade-related Aspects o f Intellectual P roperty Rights

N atio n s (ASEAN) 8, 51, 150

see also T R I P S A K V A F O R S K 136

bacteria 25, 47, 48, 49 B ahamas 107

A n d ean Pact m od el law 1 5 0 - 6 0

Bangladesh 1 19, 132, 137, 155, 185

anti-cancer agents 4 7 , 49, 50, 173 A qua B o u n ty Farms 42, 78

Basmati rice 98, 106 benefit-sharing 1 0 - 1 2 , 1 17, 126, 130,

aqu aculture e n v iro n m en tal im pacts 3 9 - 4 0

1 3 3 ,1 3 8 - 9 ,1 4 1 ,1 4 8 , 158-63, 1 7 2 -4 ,1 8 0 -2 0 0

o rn a m e n ta l 4 3 —5, 5 5 —6, 1 3 0 - 1 ,

c o m m u n itie s 1 5 8 -6 1 negotiation tools 195—6, 199—200

183 Philippines Executive O r d e r 24 7

n o n - m o n e ta r y benefits 1 8 7 - 9 policy re c o m m e n d a tio n s 2 0 8 - 1 2

175 see also p o n d farm ing

responsibilities o f industrial

food fish 3 2 - 4 3 , 1 3 1 - 2 , 182

A q uatic A nim al Diversity In fo rm atio n System 206 see also F I N G E R 7 0 - 1 aquatic biological diversity 4 - 5 , 8 2 - 4 see also genetic diversity aquatic genetic resources access 7 1 - 5 , 8 4 - 7

countries 1 6 1 - 3 , 212 royalties 51, 158, 173, 1 8 6 - 7 see also sustainable fisheries livelihoods biopiracy 55, 1 0 5 - 1 0 , 167 biop ro spectin g 38, 4 6 - 5 1, 107, 1 8 1 - 2 bio technology defined 41

biopiracy 1 0 6 - 7

blue revolution 2 9 - 3 2 , 203

definition 31, 52, 151, 162 ind ig eno us perspectives 1 2 1 - 6

B o n n G uidelines 134, 1 4 7 - 9 , 185

o w nership 5 - 6 , 9 0 - 1 1 2 in tern atio na l system 6 9 —71

Brazil 8, 15, 5 4 - 5 9 , 73, 81, 100, 1 0 7 - 9 , 1 1 8 , 134 bio prospectin g law 57, 1 4 9 - 6 0

2 28

BLUE GENES

British C olu m b ia Aboriginal Fisheries C om m ission 124 broodstock collection 3 6 - 8 , 4 4 - 5 B run dtlan d report 31, 63 B urundi 84 C am b o d ia 35 C am ero on 84 C anad a 1 6 - 8 , 6 4 , 7 2 - 3 , 8 4 - 5 , 1 1 0 - 1 3 , 1 2 1 - 6 , 149, 193 cardinal tetra 1 5 -6 , 5 4 - 9 , 162 certification 10, 56, 83, 1 6 3 -4 , 209 Chile 36 C h in a 36, 131, 135, 137 collection o f aquatic genetic resources 3 6 - 8 , 4 4 - 5 , 5 0 - 1 , 8 4 - 7 , 1 3 0 -2 , 1 7 7 -8 ,1 8 1 -3 academic vs commercial collection 1 4 0 - 1 , 1 5 7 - 8 , 1 6 8 -7 0 cone snail 26, 48, 1 0 6 -7 C ode o f C o n d u c t for responsible Fisheries 5, 34, 82 C om m ission on G enetic Resources for Food and Agriculture 97 co m m u n ity rights 6 - 8 , 93 —5, 1 1 4 -4 2, 1 4 9 , 1 7 2 , 1 8 5 - 6 , 211 d e f i n i n g ‘c o m m u n ity ’ 153 c o m m u n ity intellectual property rights 105, 155 see also indigenous rights consent see prior inform ed consent conservation 2 - 3 , 6 2 - 3 role o f com m un ities 1 14, 128, 173, 1 8 9 -9 0 see also genetic diversity Consultative G ro up for International Agricultural Research 36, 67, 71 C onv entio n on Biological Diversity (C B D ) 5, 8, 30, 56, 1 14, 1 4 4 -9 , 184-5 access to genetic resources 9 3 - 4

Article 8(j) 7, 95, 106, 1 2 1 -3 , 127, 1 3 4 - 5 , 1 4 7 , 176 Article 15 72, 161 Articles 1 6 -2 0 , 184 objectives 5 C on ven tion on International Trade in Endangered Spccics (C IT E S) 54 Costa Rica 134 Biodiversity Law 8, 1 4 9 -6 0 Creative Salmon Ltd. 16, 8 4 - 8 7 Crucible G rou p 106, 202 cryopreservation 6 7 - 8 , 73 C ultures o f fishing com m unities 1 1 -1 2 ,1 1 8 -1 9 Cultus Lake sockeye 72 Desertification C onv entio n 184 Diversa C o rpo ration 49, 181 D N A fingerprinting 26, 63, 73, 1 1 5, 126 Domestic Animal Diversity Information System (D A D IS ) 70 Draft United N ations Declaration on the Rights o f Indigenous Peoples 8, 96 Egypt 1 3 6 , 1 3 7 , 1 3 8 eleutherobin 47 enforcement o f laws 2 1 0-11 Estee Lauder 107 Exclusive Economic Zones 92 fair trade 16 4 -5 farmers’ rights 97 Fiji 2 0 - 1 , 1 9 6 -2 0 0 Finland 67 First N ations (Canada) 1 6 -8 , 52, 6 9 . 7 4 . 8 4 - 7 , 1 1 0 -1 2 , 1 2 0 -6 , 149 FishBase 48, 206 Fisheries and Oceans C anad a 16, 64, 6 9 . 7 4 . 8 5 - 6 , 111, 121

INDEX

Fisheries In fo rm a tio n N e tw o rk on G en etic Resources (F I N G E R )

22 9

H a rib o n F o u n d a tio n 174, 191 h y d ro th e rm a l vents 25, 29

70-1 fisheries m a n a g e m e n t c o m m u n it y co -m a n a g e m e n t 191-2

IB A M A 5 6 - 7 , 71, 108 IC L A R M ite W o rld Fish C e n te r

conservation 6 2 - 6

Icy Waters Ltd 1 7 - 8 , 1 1 1 - 1 2

ecosystem app roach 129

India 8, 67, 100, 120, 149, 160

Florida Tropical Fish Farms Association 554 Food and A griculture O rg an izatio n o f the U n ited N atio n s 20 6 Forest Stewardship C o u n c il 164, 165

In d ig eno us Peoples Rights Act (Philippines) 96 ind igen ou s rights 6 - 8 , 9 0 - 1 , 9 6 - 7 , 1 0 9 - 1 0 , 1 2 8 - 9 , 196 see also c o m m u n it y rights Indonesia 67

G e n B a n k 48 gen d er roles in fisheries 1 1 7 - 1 8 gene b a n k in g 28, 3 7 - 8 , 64, 6 6 - 7 1 , 8 5 -7 ,1 0 5 ,1 2 3 genetic databases 48 genetic diversity 3 - 4 , 2 4 - 9 , 6 2 - 6 , 203 aqu acu ltu re 33 genetic engineering 29, 42, 48 defined 4 1 genetic m odification 3 3 - 6 , 38, 4 0 - 3 p ate n tin g 100 public concerns 7 9 - 8 1 genetic resources de finition 31 f is h -p la n t distinctions 96, 99, 1 2 7 -8 ,1 3 0 -1 ,1 8 1 -2

industrial uses o f m arine organisms 49 intellectual p ro perty rights 9 8 - 1 0 5 , 156-7 traditional know ledge 1 0 3 - 5 , 155 see also p a te n t law; T R I P S In tern atio na l In dig eno us Forum on Biodiversity 8, 97 In tern atio na l N etw o rk on G enetics in A qu acu lture (I N G A ) 138 In tern atio na l P lant G en etic Resources In stitu te 80 In tern a tio n a l Rice G e n e b a n k 66 In tern a tio n a l Rice Research In stitu te 36, 66, 169 In tern atio na l Treaty on P lant G enetic

national inte rd ep en d en ce 7 1 - 5

Resources for F ood and

see also aquatic genetic resources

Agriculture 9 7 - 8

genetics 26

In tern atio na l U n d e rta k in g (FAO)

G e n o M a r ASA 138 G h a n a 136, 139

94-5 In u it people 1 7 - 8 , 1 1 0 - 1 2

G I F T F o u n d a tio n In tern atio n al 138

invertebrates 38

G I F T project 19, 1 3 5 - 4 2 , 174 global fish c o n s u m p ti o n 94

Jakarta M a n d a t e 82

G lobal T ax o n o m y Initiative (C B D ) 8 1

Japan 36

G loFish 2

Kenya 1 3 6 - 7 Kyoto D eclaration 82

green revolution 3 8 - 9

230

BLUE GENES

Law o f the Sea see U N C o n v e n tio n on the Law o f the Sea leech 52

traditio n al know ledge 104 see also intellectual p ro pe rty rights; T R IP S Peru 1 3 4 , 1 5 0 , 1 5 3 , 1 5 4 , 1 5 9 , 1 6 1 p harm aceutical in d u stry 2, 4 6 - 5 2 ,

M arin e A q u a riu m C o u n c il 56, 164,

9 8 - 9 , 1 0 5 - 1 0 , 130, 1 8 1 - 2 ,

165 m arine pro tected areas 129, 1 9 2 - 5 , 197-8

Philippines 8, 20, 48, 94, 104, 1 0 6 - 7 ,

M arin e Science In stitu te 107, 168 M arin e Stew ardship C o u n c il 83, 164 m edicinal uses o f plants an d anim als 52 m icro -o rg anism s 25, 29, 181 N a tion al Biodiversity Strategies (C B D ) 83-4 N a tion al C an ce r Institu te 109, 169

196-200 1 1 6 ,1 3 4 ,1 3 5 ,1 3 6 ,1 3 7 ,1 3 8 , 1 4 9 -5 1 ,1 8 5 ,1 9 0 -5 Executive O r d e r 2 4 7 48, 107, 149-61, 166-76 Plan o f W o r k o n Inland Waters (C B D ) 82 Plant Breeders' Rights 97, 100 -1 policy gaps m an ag in g aquatic biodiversity 2 - 3 , 7 5 -8 1 ,2 0 3 -1 0

N a tion al M u s e u m o f th e Philippines

access and b enefit-sharing 87,

169,170 n ational sovereignty 91

policy checklist 211

n ego tiatio n fram ew o rk 1 9 5 - 6 N e tw o rk o f A q uacu ltu re C en ters in Asia 71

208-11 p o n d f a r m i n g 39, 1 16, 1 19, 135, 142 poverty in fishing c o m m u n itie s 6, 1 1 5 - 7 , 1 6 7 , 184, 190

N eurex Inc 1 06

p recautio nary principle 3, 39, 209

N ew Z ealand 36 N o r th A m erican Free Trade A g ree m en t

prior info rm ed c on sent 9, 107, 134, 1 4 1 , 1 4 8 , 1 5 3 - 4 , 1 7 0 - 2 , 176,

100

N o rth w e s t Territories Scientists Act 110

184 n ego tiatio n tools 195—6, 1 9 9 - 2 0 0 P R O C E S S F o u n d a tio n 192

N o rw a y 67

Project Piaba 11, 15, 5 9 - 6 0

N u n a v u t L and C laim s A gre em en t 1 10 N u u - c h a h - n u l th First N a tio n 52, 115

Project Seahorse 11, 174, 190-1 p rotected areas

ocean w a rm in g 28

public and professional awareness

see m arin e protected areas O rg an izatio n o f African U n ity m odel law 101, 140, 1 4 9 - 6 0 , 185

206 R am sar C o n v e n tio n on W etlan ds 82

o rn a m e n ta l fishery 1 5 - 1 6 , 4 3 - 6 , 5 4 - 9 , 1 3 0 - 1 , 162, 183

research academ ic vs c om m ercial research 9,

p a ten t law 162 his tory 10 0 -1

1 4 0 - 1 ,1 5 7 - 8 , 168-70 Law o f the Sea 92

INDEX

research needs 9, 7 8 - 9 , 2 0 3 -6 Russia 67 St Lucia 194-5 salmon broodstock collcction 16-7, 8 4 -7 gcnctic variability 28, 64 ‘Super Salmon’ 41, 42, 106 scientific knowledge 4, 7 6 -9 , 79, 204 -5 sea sponge 47 seahorse 43, 52, 174, 190-1 Senegal 136-7 Shaman Pharmaceuticals 51, 159, 195 Smith Kline Beecham 197 South Pacific Action C omm ittee for H u m an Ecology and Environment 197 Southeast Asian Fisheries Development Center (SEAFDEC) 11, 174, 1 7 5 ,1 9 0 ,1 9 2 Sri Lanka 55 stakeholder participation in policy­ making 207 Strathclyde Institute of Drug Research 197 sui generis laws 101, 103-5, 155-6 Suvaaq Inc 11 1 sustainable fisheries livelihoods 1 1, 5 8 - 9 , 1 1 9 - 2 0 , 1 5 9 , 1 7 4 , 182, 189-95 Taiwan 36 Tambuyog Foundation 172 technology transfer 11 Thailand 135, 137 tilapia 18-9, 30, 135 -4 2, 162 traditional knowledge 9 - 1 0 , 28, 50, 1 2 4 - 5 ,1 8 2

231

and access to aquatic genetic resources 127-34 limitations 77 ownership 102-4 protection in access laws 155 -6 traditional resource rights 105 transgenic research 2 , 4 1 , 42, 100 TRIPS 6, 100-3, 146, 157, 202 UN Agreement on Straddling Stocks 82 UN Convention on the Law o f the Sea (U N C L O S ) 5 , 8 2 , 9 2 - 3 UN Food and Agriculture Organization 97 University o f the South Pacific 20, 194-5 US Departm ent of State guidelines 11, 144 US Patent and Trademark Office 100 Vietnam 137 Wapishana 103 women in fisheries 117-8, 191 World Fish Center (ICLARM) 12, 1 8 - 9 , 4 0 , 7 0 , 1 35-42, 162, 175, 19 0 ,2 0 6 World Fisheries Trust 70, 83, 122, 206 World Intellectual Property Organization (W IP O ) 103 World Trade Organization 101 World Wide Fund for Nature (W WF) 2 0 ,1 6 4 , 197 Yellowstone National Park 49, 181 Yukon Salmon Com m ittee 85