Expressions of Intent for IPY 2007-2008 Activities

Expression of Interest Details

PROPOSAL INFORMATION

Antarctic Cooperation and exchange of information  (ACEI)

Outline
The Antarctic Treaty is an example of cooperation. Annual exchange information on Antarctic activities is required. A mutual mechanism of inspection produces a dissuasive result and creates reputation effects. The exchange of information constitutes an environmental and legal obligation; it involves conciliation with intellectual property rights.As Member States implement Antarctic treaties, they develop their own regulations. The risk of opportunist behaviours is notable. Antarctic projects can be addressed to a State known for having less stringent authorization procedures. The permanent improvement of the exchange of information is constructive for interpreting the treaties. This supposes confidence relationships. Due to the heterogeneity of the actors, a risk of opportunism carries out to a non-cooperative play. How can we assure a cooperative play? The Antarctic Treaty promotes international scientific cooperation including the exchange of research plans and personnel, and requires that results of research be made freely available. The rights on inventions arising out of bioprospection, for example, can offer a considerable financial interest. Can we deposit a patent without contravening the free exchange of information and, in the affirmative, up to what point the intellectual property rights can be acquired on the results of research?The property rights can limit the publication and diffusion of the research activities results. Is the Antarctic Treaty contrary to the acquisition of intellectual property rights on inventions? The Convention on the Law of the Sea offers a legal framework to marine scientific research. The subjacent problem is the recurring polemic on the distinction between fundamental and applied research. Both can be observed within a scientific campaign without being clearly differentiated. The Convention on Biological Diversity establishes a mechanism of benefit sharing distribution built on sovereign rights on natural resources. The sovereignty issue raises the question of its applicability to Antarctica. States denying Antarctic appropriation could dispute its implementation by claimant States. The question is essential as a fair and equitable sharing of the benefits arising out of the utilization of genetic resources is encouraged.When a State exchanges information and accepts a handicap in the international economic competition, it is likely to be outdistancing. The requirement of confidentiality can destruct the spirit of the Antarctic Treaty regarding appropriation. Insofar, States must maintain confidence relationships.How can we incite the actors to exchange information and reconcile this requirement to other economic or legal obligations in particular intellectual property rights?

What significant advance(s) in relation to the IPY themes and targets can be anticipated from this project?
Information exchange shows the contradictions between the Antarctic Treaty and the Convention on Biological Diversity. Their conciliation should lead to the modification of one of them. It appears extremely difficult because the modification would concern an essential element of these conventions. If the Antarctic Treaty is selected, it would be necessary to reactive the sovereignty issue. If the Convention on Biological Diversity is modified, the system of access to the genetic resources and the sharing of benefits should be redefined. A legal instrument specific to Antarctic bioprospection should be prepared.

What international collaboration is involved in this project?
To be clarified

FIELD ACTIVITY DETAILS

Geographical location(s) for the proposed field activities:
No field activities

Approximate timeframe(s) for proposed field activities:
Arctic: n/a
Antarctic: n/a

Significant facilities will be required for this project:
No field activities

Will the project leave a legacy of infrastructure?
no field activities

How is it envisaged that the required logistic support will be secured?

Has the project been "endorsed" at a national or international level?
Support of the French Committee for the International Polar Year, placed under the aegis of the French Academy of Sciences

PROJECT MANAGEMENT AND STRUCTURE

Is the project a short-term expansion (over the IPY 2007-2008 timeframe) of an existing plan, programme or initiative or is it a new autonomous proposal?

The project is a new autonomous proposal

How will the project be organised and managed?
The project will be organised and managed by the Centre of marine law and economics (European University Institute for the Sea (IUEM), University of Western Brittany)

What are the initial plans of the project for addressing the education, outreach and communication issues outlined in the Framework document?
Organisation of an international and interdisciplinary colloquiumPublication of the proceedings of the colloquium

What are the initial plans of the project to address data management issues (as outlined in the Framework document)?
Study of international and national regulations

How is it proposed to fund the project?
Primarily obtained through local communities and the University of Western Brittany, entities particularly sensitive to polar affairs

Is there additional information you wish to provide?
None

PROPOSER DETAILS

Dr Anne CHOQUET
Centre of marine law and economics (CEDEM), European University Institute for the Sea (IUEM), University of Western Brittany
12 rue de Kergoat, BP 816
29285 Brest cedex
France

Tel: 02 98 03 08 61
Mobile:
Fax: 02 98 01 69 35
Email:

Other project members and their affiliation

Other Information