Medicine, biotechnology or cosmetics: why the wealth of the high seas is also its greatest liability

Medicine, biotechnology or cosmetics: why the wealth of the high seas is also its greatest liability

A carnivorous sponge (Cladorhiza) observed in 2016 during an exploration mission in the Mariana Trench, the deepest oceanic trench known to date and located off the Philippines. This US mission was supported by the Department of Commerce through the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA). Commercial issues related to marine biological resources are already attracting growing interest from various states.

(Okeanos Explorer Program/NOAA)

They are referred to as ‘marine genetic resources’. Organisms and micro-organisms that inhabit the ocean and have been studied for some 50 years, among other things, to create new medicines, improve cosmetics or develop biodegradable plastics in seawater. “We are talking about bioresources at the heart of living organisms. Going from the smallest to the largest, they include viruses or akaryotes, prokaryotes, which cover bacteria, as well as yeasts or moulds such as fungi, and everything that is multicellular, such as plants and animals,” Régis Baron, who heads the Food Health and Environment Microbiology Unit at the Ifremer research centre in Nantes, France, tells Equal Times.

The laboratory is working, for example, on polysaccharides, a complex form of sugar produced by a marine bacterium that could be used in regenerative medicine, such as the manufacture of dressings to help repair the skin of people with severe burns. Some starfish may be able to help fight diabetes, which affects 425 million people worldwide. As for jellyfish, significant scientific advances have been made, such as in 2008, when the Nobel Prize in Chemistry was awarded for work on the ability of some of these molluscs to glow in the dark, thanks to a protein. This fluorescence has subsequently been used in research on tumours and Alzheimer’s disease.

Marine organisms have led to at least 13 Nobel Prize awards and since the 1950s, nearly 34,000 marine species with potential commercial applications have been discovered.

Several drugs based on marine resources have been commercialised, such as ziconotide, derived from the venom of marine gastropod molluscs, which can be used to treat severe pain. More recently, remdesivir, the first approved treatment for Covid-19, was developed using marine genetic resources, as was Halaven, an anti-cancer drug derived from a Japanese sea sponge, which has annual sales of over US$300 million.

And these breakthroughs are just the beginning. According to scientists, at least 50 per cent and up to 90 per cent of marine biodiversity has yet to be discovered. This wealth of possibilities – and potential products that could be worth billions of dollars – is attracting the interest of major pharmaceutical laboratories, as well as companies in the wellbeing, chemical and cosmetics sectors, hoping to detect miraculous molecules. It is a goldmine that they have taken full advantage of in recent years: in 2017, the global marine biotechnology market was worth €3.8 billion.

The high seas conundrum

These resources are the subject of an intense battle in international waters, the vast spaces that make up nearly 60 per cent of the world’s seas and oceans and are located more than 200 nautical miles (370 kilometres) from the coast. Although the Convention on the Law of the Sea – the Montego Bay Convention signed in 1982 – already governs certain practices in these areas, it is struggling to deal with the new issues surrounding the oceans, with the development of new technologies, especially when it comes to the exploitation of mineral resources or the study of genetic resources. This is currently governed by Part VII of the Convention, on the freedom of the high seas for living resources, under which, insofar as reasonable account is taken of the interest these areas represent for others, each state enjoys various freedoms in terms of navigation, overflight, fishing or the laying of submarine cables and pipelines.

“The issue of the exploitation of genetic resources in the high seas came rather late in the discussions on international ocean governance. In the 1970s and 1980s, when the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea was being negotiated, states were more focused on mineral exploitation, such as polymetallic nodule mining. This was one of the main stumbling blocks to the ratification of the Convention,” says Valérie Wyssbrod, a doctor of law specialising in the law of the sea.

“In the 1990s, before the treaty came into force, the exploitation of marine genetic resources became a topic of discussion. But the decision was taken not to change the text of the Convention signed in 1982 so as not to further delay or even jeopardise its entry into force.”

It was not until the 2000s that the issue came back on the agenda of international discussions, when a number of states called for a clear legal framework on the conservation and sustainable use of biodiversity in the high seas. In 2004, the first discussions were held on the establishment of an international treaty to protect the high seas alongside the Montego Bay Convention. But it was not until 2015 that the UN member states decided to establish a new legally binding instrument. “The legal instrument, which is currently under discussion, covers four issues: the exploitation of marine genetic resources and the sharing of benefits and advantages resulting from their exploitation; area-based management tools, including marine protected areas that enable the preservation of certain ecosystems or species; environmental impact assessments when an actor wishes to undertake activities in the high seas; and, finally, capacity building and the transfer of marine technology, which is indirectly aimed at better protecting marine biodiversity and increasing humanity’s general knowledge of the oceans,” explains Wyssbrod.

The text, which was due to be published in spring 2020, has not yet been signed, and the last round of negotiations, in August 2022, failed to produce a consensus.

Clashes between developed and developing countries

Among the main points of contention are marine genetic resources and the distribution of the potential profits from the exploitation of these organisms in the high seas.

Historically, UN members such as the UK, the EU, the US and Japan, which have the technology, money and capacity to scour the deep sea for new products, have defended the right to patent marine genetic resources and profit exclusively from them. But developing countries fear that they will miss out on potential returns if they cannot conduct the costly research to discover and study the most inaccessible marine organisms, and so they are calling for financial compensation.

“The sharing of advantages and profits from the exploitation of marine genetic resources and the transfer of marine technology are demands made by developing countries and China. It is a sticking point because the share of the advantages and profits these states would like to have is mainly financial. Some of the industrialised countries, by contrast, are in favour of non-monetary sharing, such as access to sample collections or technology transfer. This issue is one of the difficulties encountered by the states involved in negotiating this legal instrument,” explains Wyssbrod.

Greenpeace has condemned the failure to reach an agreement.

“Countries in the Global South have rightly insisted that the treaty text must commit to equitable and fair sharing of future financial benefits from marine genetic resources. It’s on the Global North, and those countries that claim to be ‘Ocean Champions’, to compromise and find an agreement that can deliver a strong and equitable treaty,” Dr Laura Meller of the Greenpeace Protect the Oceans campaign tells Equal Times

.

Despite the hurdles, NGOs are still hopeful that an agreement can be reached to protect the high seas, a crucial part of the planet where living organisms play a vital role in regulating the climate, protecting coastlines from erosion and storing CO2. Although the – fifth – round of negotiations in August was supposed to be the last one before the treaty was signed, talks are now due to resume on 20 February, bringing fresh hope to many that this vital text will finally see the light of day.

“The Global North showed some flexibility late in the day at the last round of the Global Ocean Treaty negotiations. Unfortunately, it was too little too late. With a few weeks to go before the negotiations resume in February, the North must make credible concessions and put forward adequate financial contributions to ensure that the monetary benefits of marine genetic resources are shared fairly,” says Laura Meller.

Perhaps 2023 will be the year when the countries of the world finally agree to protect their international waters and the extraordinary biodiversity they contain.

This article has been translated from French by Louise Durkin