News 6 of 433

Debate looms over rights to fish genetics

2002-07-26

Photo Caption: Coho Salmon (Photo courtesy of Fisheries and Oceans Canada)

The blending of agriculture with genetic engineering has long been controversial: some say it’s unsafe, others argue it’s the way to meet world demand for food. Now some experts say a new storm looms – this one is not about plants, but about fish.

The debate begins with the most basic question: just who owns the genetic makeup of fish?

Ask Fred Fortier, of the Shuswap First Nations in BC, and the answer seems straightforward. The salmon in the Shuswap territory of the BC interior belong to First Nations, and so does the right to take genetic samples, he says.

"The federal and provincial government might come in and say ‘we have ownership, we have jurisdiction’. We say, ‘bull’."

Who owns genetic resources?

While the Shuswap oppose genetic sampling of fish by outsiders, they are aware of the potential value of the fish’s genetic resources. Several Shuswap communities have even started cryogenically preserving sperm from coho, one of the five species of Pacific salmon.

The samples are already valuable for conservation, but their importance doesn ’t stop there. There’s a growing interest in fish genetic resources among fish farms and pharmaceutical companies.

Along with this demand comes controversy – not just about ownership, but over the question of who should benefit from the use of fish genes. Is it the organization that takes the sample, or the local community that has traditional fishing rights?

Even Fortier admits the issue of genetic resource ownership is not simple. "It’s been a big problem," he says, "and we haven’t been able to resolve the whole issue of genetic ownership, let alone management (of fish resources)."

Biopiracy of genetic samples

In Canada, it’s like a high-tech version of disputes over treaties and fishing rights. On a wider scale, the term ‘biopiracy’ was coined to describe the unauthorized taking of genetic samples. Fortier foresees a growing need for protocol over the sharing of genetic resources. And he is not alone.

The issue of fish genetics goes far beyond the borders of British Columbia. Ownership of aquatic genetic resources is a global issue. And it has a lot to do with the tremendous growth in aquaculture – another term for fish farming.

According to the United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO), about one-third of fish used for food now comes from aquaculture. It’s the fastest growing food production industry, spawning new interest in fish genetics.

Brian Harvey is the president of the World Fisheries Trust, a non-profit organization based in Victoria that promotes sustainable fisheries. He says fish farming, combined with declining wild fish stocks, is forcing people to consider the question of ownership of aquatic genetic resources.

"It’s perfectly clear that it’s going to be a major issue because the farming of aquatic animals is increasing extremely rapidly, whereas the harvesting of wild aquatic animals is tapering off. Fish farming creates a demand for genetic resources," says Harvey.

Wild fish stocks are key

Fish farming still relies on access to wild fish stocks – much like in agriculture, where wild relatives of crops are vital. But fish stocks are increasingly threatened by over-fishing, habitat destruction, and climate change. Genetic samples of wild fish are therefore sought after by fish farms.

Today, fish farming goes beyond old methods of selective breeding of fish – it is beginning to involve genetic manipulation. Genes from one species can be introduced into another making a more cold-resistant, or faster-growing fish, explains David Greer, a researcher and writer with World Fisheries Trust.

Genes can even be transferred from one species to another. One example involves the experimental use of a fish gene in a strawberry, in the attempt to make a more cold-resistant strawberry plant, says Greer. In other words, fish can be involved in both sides of a genetic transaction – another reason to develop policy on their genetic resources.

Aquaculture around the world

The history of fish farming is short – measured in decades as opposed to thousands of years of plant breeding – but it carries some big expectations. "Aquaculture is at the very early stage of learning what the possibilities are for practical uses of genetic modification, and these may become much more important as the industry develops," says Greer. "Aquaculture may become a key to food security, especially in developing countries."

In the past, questions about genetic sampling of fish were confined to developing countries where the variety of fish is richest. Local communities there rarely benefitted from providing genetic resources. The benefits went to scientists, researchers, and fish breeders in developed countries. Local communities could claim ownership of fish, but typically had no say in how that fish’s genetic sample was used.

Communities in developing countries also led the early charge for rights over aquatic genetic resources. "That will undoubtedly be changing," says Greer. Questions about ownership and consent to the collection of fish genetic resources will become much more relevant in Canada, he says.

Fish genetics policies needed

The case of the Shuswap First Nations may be proof of a growing interest in fish genetics in Canada. But it also reveals a lack of policy over ownership of fish genetics.

The Department of Fisheries and Oceans, while involved in genetic sampling of fish, has no clear policy on ownership or collection of fish genetic resources. Iola Price, the director of the aquaculture science branch, says she’s unaware of any policy on ownership of fish genetic resources in Canada.

Ownership questions have been addressed only in the context of treaty disputes with native groups. Where no land claim agreements are in place, there’s no law requiring fish farms to consult local communities before taking samples, says Greer.

Provincial and federal regulations do cover the business of removing fish or biological samples from fish, as well as the movement of fish from one watershed to another, but they don’t deal with the question of ownership. "It’s that very difficult question of who owns the resources and then, regardless of who owns the resources, who should be included in the consultation process."

The Convention on Biological Diversity

At the heart of any discussion over ownership is the Convention on Biological Diversity. Created in 1992, it is the world’s largest international agreement, with 180 members – Canada being the first to ratify the agreement. The Convention puts control of genetic resources in the hands of each member nation.

It evokes some strong reactions. The Convention has been referred to as a ‘free trade agreement on biologic resources by some. Fred Fortier calls it an example of "institutional racism." "We’re not signatories of the Biodiversity Convention – Canada is. And Canada doesn’t have a treaty with a lot of First Nations in BC," says Fortier.

The Convention doesn’t solve the ownership question, agrees Harvey. "It’s pretty clear if you are talking about a nation as a unit, administratively. But if you have nations within nations – as we do here – then it becomes a little bit less clear."

The Shuswap have refused to allow the Department of Fisheries and Oceans to take genetic samples in their territory, along the Thompson River. "We’re saying ‘if you’re going to come in here and give away genetics, you must have our consent’... They agreed and they don’t give out permits any more," says Fortier.

Local communities have key role

Harvey and Greer may play an important role in easing these types of conflicts. The World Fisheries Trust along with Canada’s International Development Research Centre (IDRC) have pushed to develop model policy that considers the role of local communities in the use of aquatic genetic resources.

The World Fisheries Trust did a three-year study on ownership of aquatic genetic resources. The project, which was funded by IDRC, surveyed existing and proposed national policies from around the world – places like Brazil, the Philippines, Columbia, Russia, and the United States. They also consulted local communities, aboriginal organizations, and national governments. The results of the project are due to soon be published in a book called Blue Gold, being written by Greer.

Harvey expected the book to be published some time ago, but ironically, the popularity of its subject is what has kept the book from making it to the shelves.

"The field has exploded in the past two years," says Harvey. "We've basically been inundated with information . . .it's difficult to stop (writing)."

"Aquatic issues always seemed to be behind land genetics. But I guess its time is coming."

Model policy may be important in helping governments that are unprepared to deal with the rising tide of conflict over aquatic genetic resources.

But in the end, Fortier argues, fish and genetic resources should not be about ownership – a concept foreign to many First Nations groups. "We can’t say we actually own the fish, but we are sort of caretakers for future generations. You can argue about ownership all you want," he adds, "but if you don’t manage them right now no one’s gonna’ own them."

However, as both Harvey and Greer say, for a lot of Indigenous communities around the world the question of control and ownership may be unavoidable.

For more information:

Brian Harvey, World Fisheries Trust, #204 1208 Wharf Street Victoria, British Columbia, Canada V8W 3B9; Phone: (250) 380-7585; Fax: (250) 380-2621; Email: bharvey@worldfish.org

Return to article: The Canadian Connection

Top of Page

News 6 of 433