Biological prospecting is taking place in the Antarctic. Antarctic life forms are being patented. The US Patent Office database contains hundreds of references to Antarctica, as does the European Patent Office. A number of countries have given or are considering patents. Examples include:
- In 2002 Spain granted a patent for a glycoprotein extracted from an Antarctic bacteria, for use as in wound healing and treating skin, hair and nails.
- In 2002 an extract from an Antarctic green algae was patented in Germany for use in cosmetic skin treatment.
- In 1997 a patent was granted by the Russian patent office for an extract of a strain of Antarctic black yeast to produce biologically active substances with anti-tumor properties.
- An application to the US Patent Office covers a process for producing anti-freeze chemicals discovered in Antarctic bacteria, to increase the shelf life of foods.
The United Nations University – Institute of Advanced Studies (UNU-IAS) has reported Actinobacteria belonging to a genus that elsewhere has produced pharmaceutically active compounds; research into a glycoprotein that may increase the tolerance of commercial plants to freezing, extend the shelf-life of frozen food, improve cryosurgery, or enhance the preservation of transplant tissues; and use of cold-active enzymes from bacteria, for better detergents and cleaning agents. According to their latest survey, more than one-third of the products and patents utilizing Antarctic organisms are krill-based.
The question of whether companies should be able to profit from species unique to the Antarctic is complicated. As Antarctica is set aside under the Environment Protocol to the Antarctic Treaty as a protected area dedicated to open science and environmental protection, allowing a free-for-all on bio-prospecting is inconsistent with those values. ASOC fears that allowing a commercial bio-prospecting industry to develop without a regulatory framework will tend to undermine one of the most important aspects of the Antarctic Treaty System - sharing all scientific information freely.
ASOC, UNEP and a number of governments have raised these concerns at the past few Antarctic Treaty Consultative Meetings, and a serious discussion of the issues has begun. At the 2007 ATCM an Intersessional Contact Group on bio-prospecting was created, which will report to the 2008 ATCM in Kiev.
ASOC submits that the creeping commercialization associated with the as yet unregulated bio-prospecting industry poses significant problems that must be dealt with by the Antarctic Treaty Parties. ASOC’s main concerns are about the consequences of commercial sensitivity for scientific cooperation, and the capacity of the Antarctic Treaty system to manage the industry. ASOC questions the legal basis upon which a state grants bio-prospecting rights (and any subsequent patents or other intellectual property rights) in an area of contested sovereignty, which in functional terms is a global commons.
ASOC’s position is that commercial bio-prospecting should not be accepted as a fait accompli, and that political choices are required by the governments to regulate this activity. In 2003 ASOC stated in its annual report to the governments:
We urge the Parties to employ the Precautionary Principle on this issue and establish a formal mechanism for dealing with potential commercial bio-prospecting issues before conflict arises, not after the fact.
At the 2005 ATCM ASOC urged that bio-prospecting not be allowed to emerge as the first resource issue where the ATS is not the prime regulator. ECO, the international NGO environmental newspaper, noted:
Currently, tourism and fisheries are the major commercial activities in Antarctica. Biological prospecting may become a significant activity as well. Historically, regulations of commercial activities in Antarctica have been slow to be agreed. But seeing the pillaging of the Southern Ocean fisheries by Illegal, Unregulated and Unreported (IUU) activities, AT Parties should be convinced by now of the need to regulate commercial activities through appropriate legally-based structures from an early stage. To this end, ECO urges delegates to take substantive steps during this ATCM, to establish adequate regulatory structures for the rapidly growing tourism industry, as well as the evolving commercial bio-prospecting industry.
Discussions at the ATCM have drawn distinctions between the impacts of large-scale harvesting of valuable organisms, and the negligible impacts of small samples that are removed from the Antarctic so that the biochemical properties can be identified and synthesized elsewhere. While ASOC believes this is an important distinction, there may be small populations of some organisms that could be adversely affected even by small-scale sampling.
SCAR, and in particular SCAR’s Working Group on Biology, have focused attention on Bio-prospecting in Antarctica in recent years. In an Information Paper for the XXIII ATCM (IP 123) SCAR reported on collections of micro-organisms in Antarctica for pharmaceutical purposes, noting that interest in bioprospecting in Antarctica is developing rapidly. SCAR has voiced its concern over the implications that the patenting of biological products may have for scientific research and conservation in Antarctica.
Resolution 7 adopted at the ATCM in 2005 recalls the provisions of information exchange under the Antarctic Treaty, reiterating verbatim Article III (1) from the Antarctic Treaty, and recommends that governments draw the attention of their research communities to these obligations, and that governments keep the question of biological prospecting under review. This was the first concrete outcome in relation to bio-prospecting to emerge from an ATCM, and it formalizes that bio-prospecting will be on the annual ATCM agenda in the future. However, since then the only country to report to the ATCM on developments at national level is Argentina.
For additional information, review these documents and websites:
Biological prospecting in Antarctica, Sam Johnston,July 3, 2006. http://www.ias.unu.edu/sub_page.aspx?catID=35&ddlID=20
Recent Trends in the Biological Prospecting, Sam Johnston, Sarah A. Laird, and Rachel Wynberg, presented at the 29th ATCM, 2006.
Bioprospecting in Antarctica (UNU-IAS report, May 2005)
United Nations University Report on Biological Prospecting in Antarctica (2004)
Industry Involvement in Antarctic Bioprospecting, UNEP Information Paper 106 (ATCM XXVII 2004)
Press Release for UNU Report (2004)
Bioprospecting in Antarctica, an Academic Workshop. Antarctic Bioprospecting" is edited by Dr. Alan Hemmings and Ms. Michelle Rogan-Finnemore, co-conveners of the Bioprospecting in Antarctica Workshop held in New Zealand in April 2003.
Bioprospecting News:
Antarctica's Resources "at risk" 2.14.04 BBC Online
Piramal Life May Develop TB Drug with Leads from Antarctica 9.8.08 Business Standard
For More Information on ASOC's Biological Prospecting work, please contact:
ASOC's leading expert on the subject: Alan Hemmings
In Europe: Jim Barnes or Ricardo Roura
For other questions or document requests, contact the ASOC Secretariat.