238

The main problem in terms of understanding the UNCLOS provisions on marine scientific research (which term is not actually defined in the convention) in terms of the acquisition of marine genetic resources lies in the distinction between pure research and applied research. Although article 251 of UNCLOS calls on States, acting through competent international organisations, to establish general criteria and guidelines to assist States to ascertain the nature and implications of scientific research this task has yet to be completed. More specifically the research cruises that yield marine genetic resources may have a mix of ‘pure’ and ‘applied’ research objectives. It follows, therefore, that in terms of its marine genetic resources each EU coastal Member State has the right to regulate access to its marine genetic resources within its territorial sea, EEZ and on its continental shelf and to regulate marine scientific research within those maritime zones in accordance with its own legislation. However, EU Member States that have yet to claim an EEZ, and several have not272, cannot regulate the acquisition of marine genetic resources from the water column above the continental shelf. In the case of access by EU Nationals and vessels to the marine genetic resources of third countries, this is to be regulated by the coastal State concerned in accordance with its own legislation on PIC, environmental impact assessment and, if any, and benefit sharing. The issue of benefit sharing is considered in more detail below. Two further comments can be made. First of all the ability to identify the scope of areas under national jurisdiction in terms of EEZ and continental shelf implies that the boundaries of such zones are clearly identified. This may not always be the case, particularly in places where contiguous or opposite maritime zone claims have yet to be delineated between the coastal States concerned and as regards outer continental shelf claims. The second point is that as regards areas that are subject to outer continental shelf claims, the rights of the coastal State apply only as regards the marine genetic resources of ‘sedentary species’. Some of the species that inhabit hydrothermal vent communities, seep communities and deep sea sediment such as nematodes and molluscs may fulfill the definition of sedentary species and therefore fall under coastal State jurisdiction. However others, such as the micro-organisms which abound in hydrothermal plumes, do not and access to them will be subject to the regime of the high seas.273 How this distinction in terms of marine genetic resources is to be made is not entirely clear although extended continental shelf claims cannot, by their nature, include the sea mounts that are particular hotspots of marine genetic diversity. Areas beyond national jurisdiction As regards areas beyond national jurisdiction (ABNJ), namely the Area and the high seas, the question of access to marine genetic resources, let alone benefit sharing is not at present effectively addressed under either UNCLOS or the CBD. Put another way, the CBD does not directly apply to genetic resources within such areas (although it does apply to activities under the jurisdiction or control of contracting parties in ABNJ) and the rather broad wording of the provisions in UNCLOS on the freedom of the high seas, tempered only by the rather general provisions on marine scientific research in Part XIII and on the protection and preservation of the marine environment in Part XII provide little guidance on the topic. 272 See Costs and benefits arising from the establishment of maritime zones in the Mediterranean Sea Study published 11/07/2013 at sea_en.htm 273 Warner op cit. http://ec.europa.eu/maritimeaffairs/documentation/studies/study-maritime-zones-in-mediterraneanStudy in support of Impact Assessment work on Blue Biotechnology 199

239 Publizr Home