生物多样性 ›› 2016, Vol. 24 ›› Issue (1): 108-.DOI: 10.17520/biods.2015155

• • 上一篇    下一篇

国家管辖范围外海域遗传资源获取和惠益分享机制构建建议

徐靖1, 郑苗壮2, 刘岩2, 刘文静1, 银森录1, 李俊生1,*   

  1. 1 (中国环境科学研究院生物多样性研究中心, 北京 100012)
    2 (国家海洋局海洋发展战略研究所, 北京 100860);
  • 收稿日期:2015-06-08 接受日期:2015-12-25 出版日期:2016-01-20 发布日期:2016-06-12
  • 通讯作者: 李俊生

Establishment of a mechanism on sharing the benefits arising from the utilization of marine genetic resources in areas beyond national jurisdiction

Jing Xu1, Miaozhuang Zheng2, Yan Liu2, Wenjing Liu1, Senlu Yin1, Junsheng Li1,*   

  1. 1 Biodiversity Research Center, Chinese Academy of Environmental Sciences, Beijing 100012
    2 Chinese Institute for Marine Affairs, State Oceanic Administration, Beijing 100860
  • Received:2015-06-08 Accepted:2015-12-25 Online:2016-01-20 Published:2016-06-12
  • Contact: Li Junsheng

摘要:

随着人类对海洋资源开发利用强度的增加, 海洋生物多样性的养护面临着更大挑战。《联合国海洋法公约》及其执行协定已不能较好地应对这些挑战。为此, 联合国大会决定成立工作组, 拟订新的国际协定, 以解决国家管辖范围外海域生物多样性的养护与可持续利用问题。建立国家管辖范围外海洋遗传资源的获取和惠益分享机制是该议题的焦点问题之一, 但是目前各国对新的国际执行协定应当包含哪些要素还缺乏共同理解。本文通过分析《生物多样性公约》、《名古屋议定书》及《粮食和农业植物遗传资源国际条约》等与遗传资源获取和惠益分享相关的国际条约在遗传资源的定义、管辖范围、获取条件及惠益分享要求等方面的异同, 提出对海洋遗传资源获取和惠益分享机制的构建建议: (1)国家管辖范围外的海洋遗传资源不可自由获取; (2)海洋遗传资源的定义应当涵盖海洋生物代谢生成的海洋天然产物; (3)惠益分享责任适用于在新执行协定生效前获取, 但在其生效后进行开发利用的遗传资源; (4)获取活动都应得到主管当局批准, 并签订材料转让协议或共同商定条件; (5)应为非商业化的获取活动制定简化程序, 在人类健康、粮食安全等受到重大威胁而急需获取海洋遗传资源时, 也应适用简化程序, 但后续商业化活动须分享惠益; (6)针对海洋遗传资源的不同研发环节, 设置惠益分享类型, 并就后续利用进行披露和监测, 确保惠益得到分享。

关键词: 生物多样性, 名古屋议定书, 海洋法, 海洋遗传资源, 生物勘探

Abstract

Along with the increase in the utilization of marine biodiversity, conservation is facing challenges. The United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea and its protocols cannot overcome these challenges. The United Nations General Assembly has mandated a working group with the aim to elaborate a new protocol, in order to address the conservation and sustainable use of biodiversity beyond national jurisdiction. Access to marine genetic resources in areas beyond national jurisdictions and sharing of benefits arising from their utilization is one of the core issues in discussion, but there is also a lack of common understanding among UN member states regarding the elements of this new protocol. In this paper, we analyze the differences and commonalities of definitions, scope, access, and benefit-sharing in the Convention on Biological Diversity, the Nagoya Protocol, and the International Treaty on Plant Genetic Resources for Food and Agriculture. Recommendations for the establishment of access and benefit-sharing mechanisms for marine genetic resources in areas beyond national jurisdictions were raised: (1) marine genetic resources in areas beyond national jurisdictions are not free to access; (2) the definition of marine genetic resources should cover marine natural products, which are derived from the metabolism of marine living organisms; (3) benefit-sharing obligation shall apply to the genetic resources are accessed before the entry into force of new protocol but are utilized after that; (4) access should be authorized by a competent authority to ensure an Material Transfer Agreement or mutually agreed terms are established; (5) simplified procedures should apply to access for noncommercial purpose, and to great threats on health and food safety, but benefits should also be shared if there is a follow-up commercialization plan; and (6) benefits should be clarified at different stages of the R&D chain, as disclosure of information and monitoring of follow-up utilization conducts are necessary to ensure benefits are shared.

Key words: biodiversity, the Nagoya Protocol, the law of the sea, marine genetic resources, bio-prospecting