Access and Benefit Sharing Legislation for Marine Bioprospecting: Lessons From Australia for the Role of Marbank in Norway

• Author: G. Kristin Rosendal,Morten Walløe Tvedt,Anne Ingeborg Myhr
• Published date: 01 July 2016
• DOI: http://doi.org/10.1111/jwip.12058
• Date: 01 July 2016

Access and Benef‌it Sharing Legislation for Marine

Bioprospecting: Lessons From Australia for the Role

of Marbank in Norway

G. Kristin Rosendal

Fridtjof Nansen Institute

Anne Ingeborg Myhr

GenØk—Centre for Biosafety

Morten Walløe Tvedt

Fridtjof Nansen Institute

Marine bioprospecting offers possibilities for sustainable innovation based on marine genetic resources. How to

regulate the use of such marine genetic resources entails several challenges. The rationale for the introduction of

legislation on access and benef‌it sharing (ABS) from the use of genetic resources is elaborated using Norway as a case.

Similarities and differences from other initiatives are presented with Australia as the comparative case. Several lessons

are transferable to the Norwegian situation, and may also be of high relevance to other countries introducing ABS

legislation. In both Norway and Australia, there is an expressed need foran ABS system that can include a model that is

based on access permissions rather than mere registration. There are diff‌iculties involved in monitoring the genetic

material from access to actual commercial product, and in distinguishing between bioprospecting for scientif‌ic and

commercial use, which complicates a determination of when benef‌it sharing should be triggered. We suggest that the

idea of benef‌it-sharing could be supported by the principle of cost-sharing.

Keywords CBD; user-country legislation; marine bioprospecting; genetic resources

A number of countries have collections of marine organisms. Collections are found in museums, within

R&D institutions and private companies. Diverse groups of facilities have accumulated an increasing

variety of sample types, such as marine benthos, microalgae and bacteria, extending over a wide range of

biological species. As the collection and preservation initiatives have moved into inclusion of genetic

materials for both scientif‌ic and commercial purposes, the need of appropriate legislation and contracts has

become evident.

In this article, we start by clarifying the rationale behind the introduction of legislation on access and

benef‌it sharing (ABS) from use of genetic resources, using Norway and its Marbank collection as a case.

Marbank has a central role in Norwegian marine bioprospecting. Norway is in the process of establishing a

set of ABS regulations, an administrative order, in line with its Nature Diversity Act and following

obligations resting in the ABS regime of the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) and its Nagoya

Protocol. We look at the state of the administrative order and ask why it has been delayed and how the lack

of ABS regulations may affect the work of Marbank. Third, we compare the role and challenges facing

Marbank with those affecting similar institutions in Australia, where domestic ABS legislation is much

further developed. Finally, we discuss remaining barriers to ABS.

Before starting on the main subject of this article, a quick backdrop on the general state of ABS

legislation in Norway is in order. The Nature Diversity Act makes it illegal to import foreign genetic

resources if access has not followed ABS regulations in the provider country. Moreover, the Norwegian

86 ©2016 John Wiley & Sons Ltd

The Journal of World Intellectual Property (2016) Vol. 19, no. 3–4, pp. 86–98

doi: 10.1111/jwip.12058