EXPLOITATION OF DEEP-SEA IMPLICATIONS FOR BENTHIC BIODIVERSITY INTERNATIONAL LAW:

S H O R T P A P E R

INTERNATIONAL LAW:

EXPLOITATION OF DEEP-SEA

IMPLICATIONS FOR

BENTHIC BIODIVERSITY

By Patricia Kraniotis and Roger B, Griffis

T H E P , E IS INCREASING INTEREST

in the profusion of living resources dwelling on and in the ocean floor, from scientific in- terest in what is there and why life is so diverse, to interest in the potential for commercial exploitation. Although recent estimates of the number of species on the deep ocean floor (10-100 million) remain the subject o f intense debate, even the lower estimates are hundreds of times higher than older projections and reflect clear recognition that the deep-sea ben- thos is far more diverse than expected (Grassle and Maciolek, 1992; May, 1992;

Poore and Wilson, 1993; National Re- search Council, 1995). These findings have challenged current perceptions and theories about how species diversity is p r o d u c e d and maintained, because the deep sea was perceived as having rela- tively few environmental barriers, usually considered important for the evolution of new species. The genetic and chemical diversity of these organisms also means that they have great potential commercial value. For example, bacteria living near thermal vents on the ocean floor have yielded the second generation of heat-sta- ble enzymes for use in amplifying small quantities of DNA from clinical, environ- mental and lbrensic samples, with poten- tially great economic value (National Sci- ence and Technology Council, 1995). In the ocean, these vents are found primarily in the deep sea-bed areas beyond the ju- risdiction of coastal states (Glowka, 1995).

P. Kraniotis. Office of General Counsel Ilnter- national Law), National Oceamc and Atmospheric Admini,',tration, Rm. 7837. 14th and Constitution NW, Washington, DC 20230, USA. R.B. Griffis, Office of Policy and Strategic Phmnmg, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, Rm.

6117, 14th and Constitution NW, Wa,,dfington, DC 2O23O, USA.

Both research and commercial inter- ests in ocean biodiversity have raised concerns, particularly among developing nations, about access to genetic re- sources, profits from exploitation, and cf- flwts to conserve these resources. Two in- ternational c o n v e n t i o n s , the United Nations C o n v e n t i o n on the Law of the Sea ( U N C L O S ) and the C o n v e n t i o n on Biological Diversity (CBD), are relevant and may have differing implications for research and exploitation of these re- sources. In fact, the Second Conference of Parties to the CBD, held in Jakarta in N o v e m b e r 1995, called for consultation with the United Nations Office of Ocean Affairs and the Law of the Sea to exam- ine the relationship between these two in- ternational conventions regarding conser- vation and sustainable use of genetic resources of the deep sea-bed. The CBD parties viewed this as a n e c e s s a r y first step in gaining an understanding of the various scientific, technical, and techno- logical issues associated with valuable genetic and biochemical resources of the deep sea-bed. This essay briefly discusses both conventions and their possible im- plications for future research and bio- prospecting.

United Nations C o n v e n t i o n on the Law of the Sea, which entered into lk~rce on 16 November, 1994, is a comprehen- sive f r a m e w o r k a g r e e m e n t g o v e r n i n g uses of the ocean. The United States, al- though not yet a party, recognizes much of U N C L O S as reflecting customary in- ternational law. In July 1994 the United States signed and is provisionally apply- ing an a g r e e m e n t m o d i f y i n g the U N C - LOS" deep sea-bed mining provisions.

Both documents are before the U.S. Sen- ate for its advice and consent. A m o n g other matters, U N C L O S g o v e r n s both marine scientific research and exploita- tion of marine resources in areas within

and beyond national jurisdiction. It estab- lishes the 200-mile exclusive e c o n o m i c zone (EEZ) within which a coastal state has s o v e r e i g n rights over its r e s o u r c e s (both living and nonliving). For living re- sources that dwell on and in the sea-bed, the phrase -areas of national jurisdiction"

includes the territorial sea, EEZ, and con- tinental shelf. In the ocean area b e y o n d the areas of national jurisdiction, UNC- LOS provides to all states the freedom to exploit the living marine resources of the ocean and sea-bed and prohibits any state from claiming sovereignty or sovereign rights over these resources. U N C L O S also embodies the principle of freedom of marine scientific research both within the EEZ and b e y o n d it. Although scientific research within the E E Z is subject to coastal state regulation, beyond the EEZ it is not.

United Nations C o n v e n t i o n on the Law of the Sea treats living and nonliv- ing (i.e., mineral) marine resources dif- ferently. Both living and n o n l i v i n g re- sources are subject to coastal state jurisdiction in areas of national jurisdic- tion. For the sea-bed that lies beyond na- tional jurisdiction, referred to as "'the Area," U N C L O S establishes a regime governed by a "'Sea-bed Authority," that applies to mineral resources. U N C L O S declares the mineral resources o f the Area to be the " ' c o m m o n heritage o f m a n k i n d " and establishes a c o m p l e x m e c h a n i s m w h e r e b y the c o m m u n i t y o f nations may have some share in any benefits reaped from sea-bed mining.

By contrast, the living marine re- sources that lie beyond areas of national jurisdiction may be exploited freely by any nation, a l t h o u g h there is a duty to practice conservation. No equivalent sys- tem is established for any sharing of benefits reaped from the living resources of the areas beyond national jurisdiction,

I O0 O('I.A\O(;R,\PIIY'VoI, t). No, 1ol996

i n c l u d i n g r e s o u r c e s o f the A r e a . U N C -

d o e s not s i n g l e out g e n e t i c re- sources for differing treatment. As such, g e n e t i c r e s o u r c e s w o u l d fall w i t h i n the g e n e r a l c a t e g o r y o f l i v i n g m a r i n e re- sources and treated a c c o r d i n g l y (Burke, 1994 ).

A l t h o u g h g e n e t i c r e s o u r c e s o f the A r e a are not i n c l u d e d w i t h i n the c a t e - gory of resources that U N C L O S refers to as the " ' c o m m o n h e r i t a g e o f mankind,"

s o m e h a v e r a i s e d the p o s s i b i l i t y o f ex- p l o r i n g the pros and cons o f d e v e l o p i n g a l e g a l r e g i m e that a f f o r d s g e n e t i c re- s o u r c e s s i t n i l a r t r e a t m e n t ( G l o w k a , 1995). This, in turn, raises the question o f the a p p l i c a b i l i t y o f the C B D b e c a u s e it a d d r e s s e s a c c e s s to g e n e t i c r e s o u r c e s and sharing o f the benefits d e r i v e d from them.

T h e C B D e n t e r e d i n t o f o r c e on 23 December, 1993. Its basic objectives are the c o n s e r v a t i o n o f b i o l o g i c a l d i v e r s i t y , s u s t a i n a b l e use o f its c o m p o n e n t s , and f a i r and e q u i t a b l e s h a r i n g o f b e n e f i t s a r i s i n g out o f the u t i l i z a t i o n o f g e n e t i c resources. The o b l i g a t i o n s o f C B D par- ties with r e s p e c t to the c o m p o n e n t s o f b i o d i v e r s i t y , i n c l u d i n g o b l i g a t i o n s c o n - c e r n i n g a c c e s s to g e n e t i c r e s o u r c e s and the s h a r i n g o f b e n e f i t s f r o m t h o s e re- s o u r c e s , a p p l y w i t h i n the l i m i t s o f na- tional jurisdiction (i.e., the territorial wa- ters, E E Z , and c o n t i n e n t a l s h e l f ) o f a c o a s t a l s t a t e , but not b e y o n d . F o r this reason, the relevance o f the C B D to bio- prospecting lies p r i m a r i l y w i t h i n - - r a t h e r than b e y o n d - - a r e a s national j u r i s d i c t i o n ( B u r k e , 1994). W i t h r e s p e c t to the ma- fine environment, the C B D requires par- ties to i m p l e m e n t its o b l i g a t i o n s consis- tently with U N C L O S . In that sense, the two c o n v e n t i o n s may be read as in har- m o n y with each other in their t r e a t m e n t of marine resources.

Under both conventions a coastal state might impose conditions

those nations desiring access to the resources within its national jurisdiction. For e x a m p l e , under the CBD a party might allow access to its

genetic resources in exchange for sharing benefits derived fi'om their use (for addi- tional information on this topic see W R I , 1993). U n d e r U N C L O S a c o a s t a l state may restrict or even preclude exploitation o f the resources found in its EEZ and on its continental shell'. By contrast, neither convention restricts access to genetic re- s o u r c e s b e y o n d z o n e s o f n a t i o n a l j u r i s - diction. A n o t h e r important similarity be- t w e e n the two c o n v e n t i o n s is that b o t h call for nations to cooperate with respect to conservation in areas b e y o n d national .jurisdiction.

W i t h r e s p e c t to m a r i n e s c i e n t i f i c re- search, the two conventions are also com- patible. The C B D calls for international t e c h n i c a l and scientific c o o p e r a t i o n and information sharing. As to the marine en- vironment, it calls for parties to c o o p e r - ate, directly and through international or- g a n i z a t i o n s , r e g a r d i n g a r e a s b e y o n d national jurisdiction.

U N C L O S establishes a comprehensive and detailed legal f r a m e w o r k for marine s c i e n t i f i c r e s e a r c h b o t h w i t h i n and b e - yond areas of national .jurisdiction. It rec- ognizes the right to conduct research and e m p h a s i z e s i n t e r n a t i o n a l c o o p e r a t i o n , s h a r i n g data, and s t r e n g t h e n i n g the re- search c a p a b i l i t i e s o f d e v e l o p i n g states.

O f the two, U N C L O S provides the more specific and d e t a i l e d r e g i m e for m a r i n e s c i e n t i f i c r e s e a r c h , i n c l u d i n g the d e e p s e a - b e d a r e a s b e y o n d n a t i o n a l j u r i s d i c - tion. As such, there is a strong case that U N C L O S is the appropriate legal frame- w o r k for fostering such research and, at the s a m e time, t a k i n g steps to c o n s e r v e t h e s e l i t t l e u n d e r s t o o d and p o t e n t i a l l y valuable resources.

R e l a t i v e l y little is known today about the l i v i n g m a r i n e r e s o u r c e s o f the d e e p sea-bed. S c i e n t i l i c research in this area, although in its incipient stages, is clearly important for its own sake. Any c o m m e r - cial d e v e l o p m e n t o f these resources (ge- netic and other) will take time and reso- lution of questions concerning collection techniques, ecological impacts, legal ira-

p l i c a t i o n s , c o n ] p o u n d i s o l a t i o n , and product d e v e l o p m e n t , given the e x t r e m e conditions encountered during the collec- tion p r o c e s s and the lengthy process in- v o l v e d in c o m m e r c i a l d e v e l o p n l e n t o f b i o p r o d u c t s ( s e e F e n i c a l , 1996, this issue). W h e t h e r or not this science may, at some point in the future, lead to c o n >

m e r c i a l e x p l o i t a t i o n , r e s e a r c h on d e e p - sea b e n t h i c b i o d i v e r s i t y will m a k e im- p o r t a n t c o n t r i b u t i o n s to our k n o w l e d g e o f the planet.

References

Burke, W.T., 1994: State t'ract~cc, New Ocean U,s'~'.~ ond Oceon GoYertl~lttc~" Utldcr UN("

LOS 13. Paper presented to the 28th meeting of the Law of the Sea Instmite, Honolulu, HL I 1-14 July. 1994.

Fenical, W., 1906: Marine biodlversity and the medicine cabinet tile status of new drugs fFoIII marine

organislnS. (.)t'C~IIIOI~F~IlJ[I)',

Glo~ka. L., It)95: The l)eepesl ~/ homc~w (;~'H¢'lic Re~',mrcc~, Marim" Scic/Itiltc Re,~earch ~md the l/tl~'r/loliotlal Dc~7~ Sea-Bed Area. Paper distributed for comment and discussion at the First Meeting of the Subsidiary Body on Scientific. Technical and Technological Ad-

\ice of the Convention on Biodiversity.

Paris, 4 September. 1995.

Grassle, J.F. and N.J. Maciolek, 1992: Deep-sea species richness: regional and local diversi O estimates from quantitative bottom samples.

,4meJ: Nat., 139. 313-341.

May, R.M.. 1992: Bottoms up lk)r the oceans. Na- ture, 357, 27g 279.

National Research Council (NRCL 1995: Under standing blarine Biodiversity: A Research Agenda lbr the Nation. National Academy Press, Washington, DC.

National Science and Technology Council tNSTCI, 1995: Opportunities in marine biotcchnology and aquaculture. In: Biote<'hm)loq, y .fi~r lhe 21.st Cemurv: New Horizona. Reporl frollq the Biotechnology Research Subcommittee, Committee on Fundamental Science. U.S.

Government Printing Office. Washington.

DC.

Poore. G.C.B. and G.D.F. Wilson, 1993: Marine species richness. Nature, 3(H, 597 599.

World Resources Institute (WRII. 1993: Biodiver- ,~i0" Pro,v~ecting: Guidelim',~' /or Usin,t~ Gc- 1l~'ti¢' ~ltI~l B i o c h e m i c a l Rt',SOllVt'~',s ,S'll,Slgllll- ably am/ l'Sqtdtahly. Contribution to the WRI/UCN/UNEP Global Biodiversity Smlt egy. Washington, DC. --]

()t'l. \>a)(;R,\Plt'~ *Vol. 9. No. I ° 1996 l 01